Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Xiden Approval Index: This Sure Doesn’t...

Biden Approval Index: This Sure Doesn't Look Like the Mandate Democrats Think They Have

Stacey Lennox for PJMedia Feb 02, 2021 10:26 AM ET

President Joe Biden got 80 million votes in the 2020 election. Both candidates exceeded the maximum number ever achieved by an elected president, but Biden got the most. There should be unbridled enthusiasm for his agenda with that popular vote haul. His team believes it’s so and has decided to bypass Congress and govern with a pen. As of January 29th, Biden had signed 42 executive actions, including 24 executive orders.

He has signed more than half the number of executive orders most modern presidents averaged in a year in just nine days and reports say several more are coming today:

Trump — 55
Obama — 35
Bush — 36
Clinton — 46
Bush — 42
Reagan — 48

And some of the remaining 18 executive actions have far-reaching consequences that rival an executive order. He rejoined the Paris Climate Accords, effectively entering a treaty without Senate approval, just like his old boss did. This treaty will have devastating effects on the energy industry as well as the industrial base. He also reinstituted the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, a federal power grab to remake the suburbs by mandating zoning and other actions to diversify communities, something a majority of Americans disapprove of.

But he got 80 million votes. So, all of this must be extremely popular with likely voters, right? Not according to Rasmussen, a polling firm that has conducted the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll since Gallup stopped doing it when Barack Obama was elected. The pollster has used a consistent methodology since 2008, and polls likely voters who have demonstrated they participate in elections.

As of day seven, how is President Biden doing?

Biden has not been above water a single time in the Approval Index rating. This index is the difference between how many likely voters strongly approve and how many strongly disapprove. Total approval has hit 50% once so far. How does this compare with President Trump’s first seven days (headings are the same)?

(Rasmussen)

This result is astonishing when you think about it. President Biden has the full weight of nearly every corporate media outlet, tech company, and cultural institution behind him. They have been drooling all over themselves to convince us this is a return to unifying normalcy. After all, his favorite ice cream is chocolate chip, and his two German Shepherds just love their new digs. So normal. So unifying.

President Trump had the specter of Russian collusion hanging over his head; Democrats already talking about impeaching him; the p*ssy hat brigade protesting in the streets; and a never-ending media onslaught. He was “literally Hitler” and just dying to let his dictatorial freak flag fly. The day before Biden’s Inauguration, Trump’s Approval Index was the name as Biden’s yesterday, and his approval rating was 51%.

Trump’s 55 executive orders per year drastically reduced government interference in people’s lives and the economy. His administration committed that for every order that promulgated a new rule, they’d rescinded at least two. So, roughly 17 executive orders per year directed the agencies to do something new, rather than telling them to stop doing something they had been doing.

You may be old enough to remember President Obama’s first two years in office with much larger Democrat majorities. The administration shoved through a wildly unpopular bailout and the stimulus bill. Then they rammed Obamacare through. Like Biden, Obama had the full support of our cultural institutions and a fawning media. Despite the unpopular policies, he did not see his first negative Approval Index rating until June 21, 2009. He didn’t fall under 50% approval until July 24th of the same year.

Perhaps this is what happens when you relax voting rules to encourage people who don’t usually vote to participate. Activists opened up the floodgates with drop boxes, massive mail-in voting participation, and even the collecting of those ballots in some states. Or you get a billionaire to invest in a get-out-the-vote initiative in Democrat strongholds. These tactics might get you the W, but it doesn’t get you buy-in for your candidate’s agenda.

And in general, the exercise of pure political power based on the thinnest possible majority in government does not go well. Yet, Democrats seem intent on destroying our institutions, solely to ram through a radical agenda that is already unpopular. If history is any guide, assuming a mandate you don’t have is not a smart move, and 2022 will not go well for them.

Trump’s Response To The Article Of Impeachment Leaves No Doubt The Senate Should Acquit

Jordan Davidson reporting for The Federalist

Former President Donald Trump formally responded to his impeachment on Tuesday, arguing that the Senate has no constitutional grounds to try him and should, as a result, acquit him.

In the 14-page response, Trump’s legal team, consisting of Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, assert that the article of impeachment, which charges Trump with inciting the deadly mob riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6., should be considered null and void because the Republican is “no longer President.” The charge, they said, is based on legal principles that “run patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution,” and since Trump cannot be removed from an office he no longer holds, the impeachment is “irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.”

While the response acknowledges that rioters “unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, that people were injured and killed, and that law enforcement is currently investigating and prosecuting those who were responsible,” Trump’s team denied that he incited violence. The response also claims Trump did not try to stifle the electoral vote count and did not make “any effort to subvert the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” on his phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Trump’s attorneys also argued that along with the Senate not having the constitutional grounds to hold an impeachment trial for a former president, the House of Representatives’ rushed and scattered process was not only “facially and substantively flawed,” but also fraught with administrative inconsistencies that prevented him from receiving due process.

“The House had no reason to rush its proceedings, disregard its own precedents and procedures, engage in zero committee or other investigation, and fail to grant the accused his ‘opportunity to be heard’ in person or through counsel — all basic tenets of due process of law,” the legal team wrote. “There was no exigency, as evidenced by the fact that the House waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did.”

The impeachment, the response continued, is purely political and attempts to target the former U.S. leader for exercising his First Amendment rights to speak to a crowd at the Capitol on that fatal day as well as “express his opinion that the election results were suspect, as is contained in the full recording of the speech.”

“Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in America, especially in the Congress of the United States,” the response concluded.

In mid-January, the House impeached Trump, but the Senate isn’t expected to begin its impeachment procedures until next Tuesday.

The Biggest and Nastiest White House Liar - EVER

The Biggest and Nastiest White House Liar – Ever

He’s our president now.

Tue Feb 2, 2021

Yes, Joe Biden – and it isn’t even close. Of course, Biden is widely regarded as an endangered species, a status that serves to protect him from criticism that would be directed at a younger, more mentally stable individual. Even his political opponents are somewhat wary of saying what a catastrophe and menace Biden and his presidency represent. Meanwhile, the whoring intellectual left at the Times and the Washington Post fawn all over this empty suit almost to the same degree that they have slandered Donald Trump for four years as an unrivaled serial liar.

Fortunately, these smears persuade only dedicated Trump haters, who pretend to be horrified because he exaggerated the size of his inaugural crowd. To those not afflicted with Trump-phobia, a politician who can draw 50,000 people on a winter’s night to Butler Pennsylvania (Pop. 1357) is actually insulated from this kind of slander because the reality is clear enough. Trump has the largest and most devoted following of any politician in our lifetimes. His crowd was as large as Joe Bidens are small.

In any case, how is this exaggeration unique to Trump, not to mention sinister?What politician does not inflate their crowd sizes? Trump’s problem was not that he exaggerated. Like any successful salesman, he did. His problem was that he was a businessman new to politics and had not mastered the art of spinning and getting away with it. During the 1960 presidential election, for example, John F. Kennedy was also accused by the press of inflating the size of his campaign crowds. When they asked him how he arrived at his numbers, which didn’t square with theirs, he answered: “Porky [which was Kennedy’s nickname for his aide Pierre Salinger] counts the number of nuns and multiplies by 10.” Situation defused.

The fact this storm of false accusations and cover-ups obscures is that no presidential candidate - no president ever – has been so brazen and malicious at telling political lies as Joe Biden. Before an audience of 70 or 80 million viewers of the final presidential debate, for example, Biden accused Trump of being a mass murderer, of killing hundreds of thousands of coronavirus patients because he “did nothing” to fight the virus. Vote for me, Biden appealed to his audience, because if elected, I will rescue you from the clutches of a villain who doesn’t have a “plan” and doesn’t care how many innocent people die. As president I will change that. I have a “plan.”

This was Biden’s opening salvo in the presidential debate - the “one thing” he wanted voters to remember and take to heart. It was also a monstrous lie. Biden had no plan that would affect the course of the pandemic. He conceded this after the election when one of the first announcements he made as president was: “There is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” No apologies to Trump. No apologies to the people he deceived into voting for him. No apologies at all.

Actually, Biden’s accusation that “Trump did nothing” to fight the epidemic was multiple monstrous lies in one. From the outset, and throughout the pandemic, Trump did not control a single health care policy that would affect infection rates in the fifty states. We are governed by a federal system in which those policies, whether it is mask mandates or business shutdowns, or who gets put in nursing homes, are formulated and executed by the respective governors of those states.

Trump supplied those governors – Democrats and Republicans equally – with record numbers of ventilators, masks, testing kits, swabs and other medical equipment, held daily briefings alongside officials of the Centers for Disease Control, and produced two vaccines in record time which are saving millions of lives. No apologies, let alone thank yous, from President Biden. Just more of the oblivion in which he is allowed to forget he had ever called Trump a mass murderer in order to deceive people into voting Democrat.

While this may have set a new low for dirty political tricks, it probably was not the worst transgression committed by Biden in terms of its impact on the nation’s crisis – the deepening political division between the two parties and the alarming progress towards a First Amendment-free, one-party state in which questioning Democrat orthodoxy is regarded as “domestic terrorism.”

This honor belonged to the central theme, and in that sense, the biggest lie of the Biden campaign: the assurances by the candidate and his enablers that Joe was a “moderate,” whose mission was to “heal and unify” the nation. All of it summed up in his personal “heartfelt” pledge to be a president “for all Americans, whether you voted for me or not.”

Biden fulfilled these promises by using the first week of his presidency to issue 40 Executive Orders that were radically left and whose only unifying theme was that they were each designed to obliterate a policy of Donald Trump – because it was a policy of Donald Trump, whether the policy was beneficial or not.

Biden began with a series of new orders to open America’s southern border – suspending deportations, stopping the border wall, and ending the Mexican quarantine of people trying to get into the country illegally. Biden’s new order was to just let them in. What could possibly be the rationale for making this a priority in the midst of a pandemic, with new mutations of the virus springing up globally? Why encourage an influx of potentially millions of unvetted illegal aliens (a descriptive phrase, by the way, he also ordered banned as part of his party’s campaign to outlaw politically incorrect thought)?

These executive orders had no rationale other than as sticks poked in the eyes of every American who had voted for Trump – all 75 million - and every American whose life these, and a host of other destructive policies, endangered. The fact that these were Executive Orders, and not appeals to a bi-partisan Congress, was a brazenly calculated warning that there was not going to be a healing or unity, as Biden had promised. Instead, Biden himself intended to lead an assault on half the nation, dividing the country for another generation. It was another brazen Biden lie - this time aimed at America’s heart.

That this was no accident was evident by lies he told during the campaign pretending to oppose Executive Orders because only “dictators” like Trump resorted to them. During an infamous campaign interview Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I have this strange notion, we are a democracy … if you can’t get the votes … you can’t [legislate] by Executive Order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus.” Apparently not. That was only another lie I told to fool you into voting for me.

It’s not difficult to imagine how a rapidly deteriorating human being – and lifetime politician – would sign on to Biden’s Executive Orders and expose himself as a despicable, untrustworthy, dangerous leader in his first week in office. But how did his handlers collude in this? How did the entire Democrat Party contrive to orchestrate the selection and protection and election of this empty shell of a man already burdened with a 47-year history of lying and corruption in public office? This surely amounts to the gravest crime the Democrat Party has committed since the Civil War: to inflict such a devious and damaged human relic onto Americans as their commander-in-chief.

Welcome to the American Gulag

https://www.frontpagemag.com/

Welcome to the American Gulag

Our new leftist wardens are here.

Tue Feb 2, 2021

Reagan’s demand that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall imprisoning millions of East Berliners, was actually a metaphor for dismantling the “walls” around political, cultural and religious expression that held millions captive in satellite states obedient to the Soviet Empire.

So too with the gulag. Apart from the brick-and-mortar archipelago of gulags for political prisoners exposed by Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet Empire itself was a massive prison for millions who never knew the freedoms many Americans take for granted.

The wall, the gulag, and the empire were inescapable physical reminders that the mind, body and soul of the individual were irrelevant. Free will to create and think for oneself was squelched by the State. Morality was dictated by the State. Independent thought challenging Soviet dogma was subversive and duly punished.

In contemporary America, where the walls are closing in on the individual—obliterating traditional notions of freedom—we find ourselves crossing the threshold into an American-style gulag, where the fortifications that have shored up a centuries-long quest for a more perfect union, are beginning to buckle.

Although the constriction of our liberties on the road to socialism accelerated at warp speed with COVID, the George Floyd riots, and now the election of Biden-Harris, it didn’t happen overnight. America’s political journey has been riddled with progressive inroads: Wilson’s expansion of the administrative state, Roosevelt’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, ObamaCare, onerous taxes and regulations, judicial activism, and Democrat legislation increasing the power of the federal government.

The ‘60s Hippies begat seismic cultural revolution and domestic terrorist groups. After sobering up and landing corporate and government jobs, their Yuppie “political correctness” nipped away at civil society and the status quo for decades. PC infractions garnered scorn and ostracization, mitigated only by injecting euphemism and PC language into our vocabulary.

In 2011, Occupy Wall Street pitted the 1 percent against the 99 percent, with squatters “eating the rich” and rioting for decolonization and against free markets.

But it was the 2014 Ferguson riots that ushered in a more virulent strain of BLM-inspired PC called “wokeness,” focused primarily on race and gender. Punishment was personalized with protests outside private residences, and pressure on private and public institutions for mandatory diversity training and Critical Race Theory indoctrination.

In 2016, #metoo targeted and canceled (mostly white) men for sexual assault and harassment. Without an iota of proof, due process, or a trial, scores of fathers, brothers, husbands and sons were felled by mere accusation.

Then BLM radicals, LGBTQ+ activists, and black bloc/Occupy/Antifa anarchists conspired to dismantle the criminal justice system—by any means necessary. Their endgame? Eradicating the nuclear family, destroying capitalism, and obliterating whiteness with “peaceful” protests wrapped in violent riots, swaddled in Marxist revolution.

“By any means” is, by no means, constrained to riotous action. The BLM-Antifa-Democrat-Media Axis of Radicals dictates permissible “woke” thought while wielding superhuman “cancellation” powers—bullying and doxing alleged racists and transphobes; erasing them from society for thoughts they didn’t think; blacking out facts from social and legacy media; and coercing millions into re-education and submission lest they be canceled.

For eleven months, politically motivated state and local responses to COVID have continued to trample on our civil rights—lockdowns that are quarantines qua imprisonment.

The Axis reacted swiftly and perniciously to election fraud claims, using language reminiscent of Soviet Commissars—disinformation, purge, re-education, social isolation, deprogramming, deradicalization, and cleansing. Contradict the narrative that the election was fair and you will be deleted.

With summer of 2020 polls revealing that 77 percent of conservatives and 62 percent of the general public are afraid to express political views, the Axis has successfully fettered our First Amendment freedoms.

And so it is: No thought or utterance challenging woke orthodoxy will be tolerated. Claiming “all lives matter” is heresy. Ignoring “preferred pronouns” is criminal. Questioning transgender participation in the military, is bigotry. Contemplating federal action to protect besieged city dwellers, is fascist. Questioning the election’s integrity, is pogrom worthy.

Meanwhile, we must suffer the glaring hypocrisies of this self-righteous movement with its purity laws regarding speech, thought, and behavior. Deplorables cannot assemble, travel, attend church or a funeral or send their kids to school; but the Privileged Left riot and travel at will, patronize fancy restaurants, and ignore mask mandates on federal property.

This is no different than Soviet athletes and Politburo members enjoying the perks of unrestricted travel, food and drink their comrades could only dream about, and plush summer dachas, while the rest had to “sacrifice for the State.”

With Biden’s election and a Democrat-controlled Senate, the malignant “Woke-Cancel Culture” has fully metastasized into our body politic. Talk of purges and persecution are commonplace. Journalists, politicians, activists and rank-and-file Democrats demand the country be cleansed of all things Trump. Those who served in his administration or supported him must be blacklisted from future employment. The children of Trump voters must be deprogrammed. Conservatives must be put in re-education camps and deradicalized. Wannabees of Pavlik Morozov, the child hero who betrayed his family to Soviet authorities, scan social media for anti-woke transgressions to use against family, neighbor, and classmate.

There are uncomfortable echoes here of a “Final Solution” to the “Trump Question.” That these sentiments are brazenly expressed without blowback or regard for their meaning or history, is a testament to our one-sided First Amendment and the unbridled fervor that can lead history to repeat itself. We cannot turn a blind eye to these harsh realities.

From Biden-Harris to BLM’s Patrisse Cullors; from Pelosi to Fauci; from leftwing journalists to radical teachers; from those running our unions to those running our government; from corporations bullied into submission to the multitudes forced to kowtow; from rioting mobs to the brainwashed Pavlik Morozovs—deprogrammed by the State to reject their upbringings; re-programmed to hate Trump, whitey, and their families; and newly programmed to be loyal foot soldiers of the State--

These are our wardens. Welcome to the American Gulag.

Sally has a degree in Economics and German from Washington University in St. Louis, a J.D. from Northwestern, and an LL.M. in International, EC and Comparative Law from Columbia University.

It Was The Supreme Court’s Liberals Who Established Protests Are Not ‘Sedition’

The ever-praised ‘demonstration’ has always contained in its inner logic the premise—and the threat—that force rules.

by Hadley Arkes for The Federalist

Justice Hugo Black was the most emphatic “absolutist” in his defense of the First Amendment on speech and publication—he opposed even the laws on libel. He also mounted the most strenuous defense of people’s freedom to take their cries of protest into the public street.

Unless it was a demonstration outside the private home of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. That apparently went too far, even for Black, who thought that even as a public figure, Daley has a certain claim to his private home as a “sacred retreat.”

Or, as Black had put it just a few years earlier, shading the moral issue, the First and Fourteenth Amendments took away from governments at all levels the power “to restrict freedom of speech, press and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes” (italics added). For Black, in the street outside Daley’s home was one of those places they did not have a right to be.

Black offered his hedging comment in dissent as his colleagues decided that a square outside a courthouse was another of those places people had no right to stage demonstrations when a trial was underway (Cox v. Louisiana, 1965). For there was a powerful need to avoid the impression than any verdict arrived at in the courthouse might be affected by the brute success of bringing a massive crowd into the street.

Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote for the court, but thought he could make distinction between demonstrations outside a courtroom and the demonstrators who sought to “protest the actions of the mayor” or some other figure in political office. Yet why was that the case?

As James Madison put it in the Federalist No. 10, “What are important acts of legislation but so many judicial determinations?” Aren’t legislators in the business of deliberating with their colleagues in order to treat the interests before them in a just and judicious way? If that’s the case, why would it have been any less subversive of the political order if the impression took hold that the decisions made in the legislative chamber would be tilted and determined by a massing of crowds in the streets?

The truth that dare not speak its name these days is that, with one or two notable exceptions, the ever-praised “demonstration” has always contained in its inner logic the premise—and the threat—that force rules. That curmudgeon of a philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), saw that inner meaning at once.

“It may be lawful,” he wrote, “for a thousand men to join to a petition to be delivered to a judge or magistrate; yet if a thousand men come to present it, it is a tumultuous assembly; because there needs but one or two for that purpose.”

A mass gathering in the street does not provide a format for discussion, nor is it a medium for conveying a substantive argument. The very point of it is make an impression on the authorities through the sheer force of numbers, to suggest wide support for the movement and perhaps political costs for resisting it.

The demonstration bids to carry the decisions of the day, in the halls of government, by its brute strength of numbers. It was just a covert or stylish way of saying “the Rule of the Strong.” Or, “Might makes right.”

If there are any notable exceptions, they would surely include the March for Life, which has taken place quite peacefully in Washington for 47 years on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This gathering has never conveyed an anger ready to break into violence. Nor does anger build as the march continues down Constitution Avenue and finds it terminus at the Supreme Court, the site from which this new right to abortion emanated as part of the law of the land.

The marchers have always carried a sense of despair about the taking of innocent life, as other demonstrators in the past carried a despair about the lives lost in Vietnam. But as one sees the joyousness of the youngsters who come with parents, the dominant mood is one of hope—that the practice of abortion may be scaled down and brought to an end. There has never been any menace in that gathering of marchers.

Yet Justice Antonin Scalia sounded a note of caution about the crowds of protestors, on either side, massing outside the Supreme Court. He deeply shared the understanding of the pro-life marchers, but could not put out of mind the meaning that must always attach to demonstrations: the hope that the decisions made by legislators and judges may be changed for the good by the massing of large numbers of earnest people with a burning concern.

Media commentators brought back some old language to suggest that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital was an act of “sedition.” In that case the heated remarks of President Trump in stirring the crowd with hostility to some of the men contained in that building had to be an offense of “seditious libel.”

But 57 years ago, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of seditious libel and intimated that the Sedition Act of 1798 had really been unconstitutional. As one sage commentator remarked, the court put the First Amendment on a new footing: the government may not freely use the laws of libel to silence its citizen-critics. And those critics should not be held to a strict standard of truth, because political speech is often heated, mistaken speech, and it needs “breathing space.”

Before he was chief justice, John Marshall defended the constitutionality, if not the prudence, of the Sedition Act; but he understood sedition to run beyond attacks on public officials. It could include, he thought, the effort to incite hatred against religious minorities and destroy the bonds that make for civic peace.

In the curious world of the media, it didn’t count as sedition when the federal courthouse was attacked in Portland, Ore. But even worse, they saw no trace of sedition or civic destruction when “protestors” in Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Kenosha focused their assaults on small private businesses, destroying the livelihoods and savings of ordinary people.

Apparently the thugs in the cities were lesser offenders than the thugs at the Capitol, for they were clever enough to visit their assaults on people who bore no responsibility for the wrongs they were protesting.

NYT ‘Experts’ Urge Biden To Establish Orwellian ‘Reality Czar’ To Dictate Truth

Jordan Davidson reporting for The Federalist

Experts are calling for President Joe Biden and his administration to appoint a task force led by a “reality czar” focused on dictating and mitigating the dissemination of certain types of information, and the New York Times is eating it up.

In an article published on Tuesday, one Times author made it his goal to seek out experts who could “help fix our truth-challenged information ecosystem” filled with “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions” created by people such as QAnon supporters, One America News watchers, and YouTube conspiracy theorists.

One of the solutions proposed by the professors and employees at anti-extremist activist organizations is for the Biden administration to take action following the deadly Jan. 6 mob riot at the U.S. Capitol to establish a “truth commission” to investigate the siege. Other experts, the author wrote, took it further, proposing that Biden and his team appoint a “reality czar,” a term that some pointed out is very similar to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, to oversee a committee on the quest for general truth instead of just focusing on the riot.

“Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar,’” the New York Times author wrote. “It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant. But let’s hear them out.”

This ultimate-truth official who would work for the government, the author suggested, would be responsible for dictating and mitigating the spread of information in the United States and could engage with the ever-truth-wielding Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google to implement new policies and evaluate which information should be disseminated.

“This task force could also meet regularly with tech platforms, and push for structural changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation problems,” the author suggested, completely ignoring the fact that these same Big Tech overlords already coordinated to censor and deplatform certain people, groups, and companies that they deemed “dangerous,” such as former President Donald Trump.

Involving these internet oligarchs in a government-led crackdown on “disinformation,” the author excitedly suggests, “could become the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis.”

Collusion with Big Tech or the establishment of a government-controlled veritas, however, “could not bring back the millions of already radicalized Americans” by themselves, the Times writer warned. A federal intervention that spurs people to “community-based activities that could keep them engaged and occupied” and the creation of ads “targeting high-risk potential violent extremists with empathetic messages about mental health and mindfulness” might do the trick, though.

“Enact a ‘social stimulus,’ and fix people’s problems,” the Times subhead reads.

Newsmax Host Walks-Off Set During Segment With Mike Lindell

Mike Lindell (MyPillow guy) was being interviewed by Newsmax about Big Tech targeting and the suspension of his Twitter account. As soon as Lindell remarked about why he was targeted, Newsmax host Bob Sellers interrupts to deliver a legal message from the broadcaster.

After Lindell refuses to be blocked by the transparent efforts of Sellers, the host asks the producers for help and promptly walks-off the set.

credit: The Conservative Treehouse

Mike Lindell, an openly Christian seeker of truth, is being targeted by just about every leftist organization in the U.S for his public inquiries about the 2020 election result.

Now would be a great time to buy some pillows, blankets, sheets, towels and/or dog beds to give as valentines day gifts. Mike Lindell needs our full support.

VISIT MYPILLOW HERE

The Show Trials and Purges....

The Show Trials and Purges Are Just Getting Started

The new age of masterful constitutional scholars such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

Tue Feb 2, 2021

This article first appeared in PJMedia.com.

The renowned historian H. G. Wells once said of Joseph Stalin, “I like Uncle Joe very much. He’s a great man.” That would be a terrific motto to replace the outmoded slogan of slavery and white supremacy, “In God We Trust,” that is currently emblazoned behind the podium of the Speaker of the House. Now that Stalinist show trials have come to Congress, we all like Uncle Joe very much. Or else. And you have to give them credit: this impeach-a-private-citizen-because-we-hate-him business opens up a whole universe of sparkling new possibilities. Yesterday I offered a list of five presidents who must be impeached now, but that’s just the beginning.

As fifty-five senators are now on record saying that the impeachment of a former president is perfectly constitutional, there is no reason not to extend wokeness back to 1789 and cleanse the ugly blot Leftists think of as our history. Washington? Jefferson? Slaveowners! Impeach them! Andrew Jackson? Trail of Tears. He clearly has to go, too. James K. Polk? Started a war with Mexico when he should have just opened our borders and given all non-citizens the right to vote, free housing, and a COVID-19 vaccine. As Rashida Tlaib would say, Impeach the motherf***er! Theodore Roosevelt? Imperialist! Woodrow Wilson! Racist! Impeach them all! In fact, we must impeach all previous presidents, even Saint Barack the Hussein, for none of them, none at all, were woke enough. Remember Obama’s opposition to gay marriage? They all must go, every one, or Ilhan Omar’s moral superiority will be affronted. That must not be.

Nor do we have to stop with former presidents. Trump is, remember, not president anymore. He is a private individual who holds no office, just like you and me. He is being impeached for being a dictator, telling protestors to proceed peacefully and having them disregard his words and disobey his instruction, which is how people always respond to dictators. So it’s clear that impeachment in today’s woke America is just a tool to get back at those who threaten the hegemony of those in power. We know who the threats are today, and now it’s time to stop them. Impeach Rush Limbaugh! Impeach Tucker Carlson! Impeach Thomas Sowell! Impeach Tom Paine! Impeach your Ma! Impeach your Pa! Don’t have anything on them? Make it up! It worked for Stalin. It worked for Pelosi. It will keep working.

Like the potato peeler in the old commercials that slices, dices, purees, bakes, fries, and washes your car, this new impeachment tool has a marvelous variety of uses. Imagine that you’re a Democrat facing a tough Senate race against a Trump-supporting opponent who is wildly popular with the voters, drawing massive and enthusiastic crowds just as Trump did before losing resoundingly to the old man muttering through his mask to a half-dozen supporters carefully social distanced from one another in little chalk circles. Suppose you’re rattled and think this racist, redneck yahoo you’re facing has a chance to eke out a victory even after all the 4 a.m. ballot deliveries and boarding up of windows at the places where the votes are counted.

The solution is so simple that it’s a wonder that no corrupt politicians thought of it before: impeach your opponent. Yes, he (or she, or xe) is just a candidate, not an officeholder, and not president of the United States, but hey, neither is Mr. Donald J. Trump of Mar-a-Lago. Impeach your Trumpist foe, and the populist boomlet will be nipped in the bud, courtesy of the “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” that impeachment and conviction bring. The same thing would work in presidential races: if you’re a Democrat who is running for president and starting to lose a little gas in the run-up to Super Tuesday, no problem! Your opponent can become an impeached president before he (or she, or ey, or ve) leaves Iowa.

We are truly blessed to live in the age of masterful constitutional scholars such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who have taken a magnificently wrought system for guaranteeing both stable government and personal freedom and turned it into a sick joke and a cruel instrument of partisan vengeance. And those blessings from our moral superiors on high bring me to the last figure who must be impeached in order to ensure that justice flows in our unhappy, systemically racist land like a river: God.

Yes. God must be impeached. It is He (not She or Xe), after all, who is responsible for the ever-vexing fact that while all human beings are created equal in dignity, they are not remotely equal in accomplishment, ability, intelligence, strength, vigor, or anything else. It is that unfortunate reality of the human experience that Democrats are endlessly trying to obliterate with their increasing array of programs designed to ensure not just equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. Their quarrel, ultimately, is not with Donald Trump, but with a much higher power. Impeach Him now!

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Biden Promised to Immediately Release Kids Being Held at the Border - He's Definitely Broken That One

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

So I have to admit some reporters, like Josh Wingrove of Bloomberg are actually trying to ask Jen Psaki real, substantive questions. I wrote on how he asked her about the Space Force, however, she mocked it and didn’t give him an answer. She’s not giving him answers, but he is trying.

Wingrove also asked about Joe Biden’s promise to immediately release children from ICE detention.

There’s apparently a reason that Psaki isn’t giving him an answer on that question about releasing the children as Biden promised to “immediately.” Because Biden isn’t releasing them immediately, breaking that promise.

Not only isn’t Bidden releasing the children immediately, he’s actually reopening up an “overflow facility” to hold the crush of people that he likely caused with his promise not to deport illegal aliens for the first 100 days.

So you mean he’s still keeping the kids in those evil cages that he and Barack Obama built before the Trump Administration but that he blamed President Donald Trump for? Sure sounds like it and even reopening another facility? I’d say that qualifies as a “broken promise.”

Most of MSM didn’t discover the “cages” (big fenced in holding areas where people were initially brought for a few days before the kids were sent to homes/facilities run by HHS until guardians can be found for them). Of course, under Trump, Democrats and media painted the areas as evil and it was covered 24/7 as such.

So are they still evil now that Biden has a hold over them again? Will the MSM be covering all the illnesses from the virus and blasting Biden for it?

Funny how that all works, right?

HT: Twitchy

Lindsey Graham Supports Liz Cheney

h/t - Sundance at CTH

The framework of Liz Cheney’s DeceptiCon perspective is actually turning out to be a valuable asset. By watching who steps out to defend Ms. Cheney we get a more clarified picture of who the DeceptiCons are. Liz Cheney is a walking ‘TOUCHSTONE“, a test or criteria for determining the genuine ideology of corrupt political alignment.

Last night Mitch McConnell stood up on Cheney’s behalf. Today Lindsey Graham does the same. These republican names reflect politicians who are aligned with Globalism, Wall Street, and the leftist agenda of Big Government; these are the DeceptiCons.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Confronts Big Tech

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced yesterday his administration will start confronting the manipulation of Big Tech and their control over speech. In addition to outlining the bias now brutally obvious, DeSantis outlined measures including a ban on the censorship of political candidates, and mandatory opt-outs of content filters for citizens of the Sunshine State.

“What began as a group of upstart companies from the west coast has since transformed into an industry of monopoly communications platforms that monitor, influence, and control the flow of information in our country and among our citizens, and they do this to an extent hitherto unimaginable.”

DeSantis also outlines the sales of consumer data by Big Tech providers and the absence of any control over privacy. This is a great presentation and press conference.