Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio pioneer, dead at 70





Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk
radio pioneer, dead at 70




By Brian Flood


Rush Limbaugh, the monumentally influential media icon who transformed talk radio and politics in his decades behind the microphone, helping shape the modern-day Republican Party, died Wednesday morning at the age of 70 after a battle with lung cancer, his family announced.

Limbaugh's wife, Kathryn, made the announcement on his radio show. "Losing a loved one is terribly difficult, even more so when that loved one is larger than life," she said. "Rush will forever be the greatest of all time."

The radio icon learned he had Stage IV lung cancer in January 2020 and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Trump at the State of the Union address days later. First lady Melania Trump then presented America’s highest civilian honor to Limbaugh in an emotional moment on the heels of his devastating cancer diagnosis. "Rush Limbaugh: Thank you for your decades of tireless devotion to our country," President Trump said during the address.




Limbaugh is considered one of the most influential media figures in American history and has played a consequential role in conservative politics since "The Rush Limbaugh Show" began in 1988. Perched behind his Golden EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) Microphone, Limbaugh spent over three decades as arguably both the most beloved and polarizing person in American media.

The program that began 33 years ago on national syndication with only 56 radio stations grew to be the most listened-to radio show in the United States, airing on more than 600 stations, according to the show’s website. Up to 27 million people tuned in on a weekly basis and Limbaugh has lovingly referred to his passionate fan base as "Dittoheads," as they would often say "ditto" when agreeing with the iconic radio host.

In his final radio broadcast of 2020, Limbaugh thanked his listeners and supporters, revealing at the time that he had outlived his prognosis.

"I wasn't expected to be alive today," he said. "I wasn't expected to make it to October, and then to November, and then to December. And yet, here I am, and today, got some problems, but I'm feeling pretty good today."


Rush Limbaugh in his studio in an undated photo.


"The last thing that the audience of my show cares about is farm news. If farm news came on, bam! They pushed the button and go somewhere else. So, we had to figure out, ‘Okay, how do we do this and protect the license?’ So I turned the farm news every day into a funny bit with farm sound effects and the roosters crowing and so forth, and I’d make fun of the stockyard feed prices or whatever it was, so that we could say, ‘We’re doing barn news,’ agriculture news. There was all kinds of things like that," Limbaugh told listeners.

The tidbit offered a glimpse into Limbaugh’s early days, proving that he was a master of keeping audiences engaged from a young age. Limbaugh has said he realized America was the "greatest country ever" when taking trips to Europe and Asia in his late 20s and early 30s, an experience that helped shape his political views.

"I’m aware that the United States is young compared to countries in Europe and Asia that have been around for hundreds of years. They’re thousand-year-old civilizations," he told listeners in 2013. "So, I go to Europe and say, ‘Wait a minute. Why is this bedroom so damned old-fashioned and doesn’t work? What the hell is this? They call this a toilet?’ So I started asking myself, ‘How is it that we, who have only been around 200 years, are light-years ahead of people that have been alive a thousand?’ So, I started thinking this. It was a matter of genuine curiosity to me, and not from a braggadocios standpoint."

Limbaugh continued the trip down memory lane: "I was literally interested in how that happened, and then I started to think about all the other things that we led the world in: Manufacturing, technology, innovation, invention, creation, and it all led back to liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness and dreams coming true and working hard for whatever you want and being able to do what you love, not just have to dream about it."

From that point forward, Limbaugh believed that "American exceptionalism" shouldn’t be frowned upon, and his conservative views became more prominent.

"We stood for the concepts that are in our Declaration of Independence: Right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We stood for that, and we were the beacon for it, and to this day that is why the oppressed of the world still seek to come into this country," he said.

Limbaugh also credited National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. for teaching him how to articulate conservative views.

"He single-handedly is responsible for my learning to form and frame my beliefs and express them verbally in a concise and understandable way," Limbaugh once said.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that had been in place since 1949 and mandated that both sides of controversial political issues receive equal time on radio programs. The decision by the FCC paved the way for Limbaugh to broadcast his conservative views without fear of being punished by the government, quickly leading to the now-prominent talk radio format that he pioneered.


Rush Limbaugh speaking in San Jose, Calif., in 2005.


After local radio gigs in Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Sacramento, Limbaugh landed at WABC in New York shortly after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. It was there that he changed talk radio forever when "The Rush Limbaugh Show" became a cultural phenomenon for both the message and the way it was delivered.

"Unlike most radio talkers, who affect a casual, intimate style, Limbaugh sounds like he's on a soapbox. He is intoxicated by words, especially those flowing from his own lips. His vocabulary is extensive; his diction tends to the grandiosely formal, though overblown to the point of self-parody. His nervous energy plays out through hands that never stop moving. They rattle the papers, slap the desk, punch the console. Whap! Whap! Whump! This muted percussion is often heard on the air, a rhythmic accompaniment to Limbaugh's voice," author Lewis Grossberger wrote in New York Times Magazine in 1990.

At one point after early struggles to find success in the radio business, Limbaugh temporarily left the industry and worked for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. Lucky for conservatives and "Dittoheads," he eventually returned to radio.

"Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our country," President Ronald Reagan once wrote in a letter to Limbaughthat was published by National Review in 2003.

"I know the liberals call you ‘the most dangerous man in America,’ but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be," Reagan continued.

Limbaugh was eventually enshrined in the Radio Hall of Fame and the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame. He was a five-time winner of the National Association of Broadcasters Marconi Award for "Excellence in Syndicated and Network Broadcasting," a No. 1 New York Times bestselling author and was named one of Barbara Walters’ 10 Most Fascinating People in 2008 and one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009.

While Limbaugh made his career on radio, a speech he delivered at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2009 is widely considered one of the most important moments of his career -- an explanation of "who conservatives are" that caused the crowd to erupt with chants of "USA! USA!"

"We love people. When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government," Limbaugh told the crowd.

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," he continued. "We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, Freedom and the pursuit of happiness."

In 2001, Limbaugh was diagnosed with an autoimmune inner-ear disease that drastically affected his hearing.

In 2003, Limbaugh checked himself into a treatment facility after becoming addicted to pain medication that he was prescribed following back surgery. Also in 2003, Limbaugh resigned from a brief role as ESPN’s "Sunday NFL Countdown" after making controversial comments about then-Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who the broadcasting legend said was overrated by media members who wanted to see a Black quarterback thrive.

Limbaugh is survived by his wife.





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


U.S. forces in Iraq hit by rockets, contractor killed

 

February 16, 2021

By John Davison and Ahmed Rasheed

ERBIL, Iraq (Reuters) – A rocket attack on U.S.-led forces in northern Iraq killed a civilian contractor on Monday and injured a U.S. service member, the U.S. coalition in Iraq said, in the deadliest such attack in almost a year.

The rockets landed in and around a military air base operated by the coalition at Erbil International Airport.

The attack, claimed by a little-known group that some Iraqi officials say has links with Iran, raises tensions as Washington explores some degree of detente with Tehran.

The coalition spokesman tweeted on Tuesday that the dead contractor was not American, but did not elaborate. He said three 107 mm rockets had landed inside the base.

Of the nine other people hurt, eight were civilian contractors and one a U.S. service member, a coalition spokesman said. A U.S. official who declined to be named said the U.S. serviceman had concussion.

In Washington, the White House said the United States was still working to determine who was responsible for the attack.

 

 

 

When pressed on possible retaliation against those found responsible, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the president “reserves the right to respond in the time and the manner of our choosing.”

“But we’ll wait for the attribution to be concluded first before we take any additional steps… I will convey to you that diplomacy is a priority with this administration,” Psaki added.

The attack comes just three weeks before a March 5-8 visit to Iraq by Pope Francis, which is due to include Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous region.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States was “outraged” by the attack.

In a statement, Blinken said he had contacted Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Masrour Barzani to “pledge our support for all efforts to investigate and hold accountable those responsible”. Blinken spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi on Tuesday.

In a call with his Iraqi counterpart, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin condemned the attack, the Pentagon said.

“The Iraqi people deserve a secure and stable Iraq, and the United States remains committed to supporting our Iraqi partners in their efforts to defend Iraq’s sovereignty,” a Pentagon readout of the call said.

Powerful paramilitary groups aligned with Iran in Iraq and Yemen have launched attacks against the United States and its Arab allies in recent weeks, including a drone attack on a Saudi airport and a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

 

 

Iraq’s government under al-Kadhimi has sided with the United States but has found it hard to bring the groups under control.

Most of the incidents have caused no casualties, but they have kept up pressure on U.S. troops and U.S. allies in the early days of Joe Biden’s presidency.

Biden’s administration is weighing a return to the 2015 big power nuclear deal that aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, which his predecessor Donald Trump abandoned in 2018.

Iran says it will only resume compliance with the deal if Washington lifts crippling sanctions.

U.S.-Iran tension has often played out on Iraqi soil.

A U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s military mastermind Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in January 2020 sent the region to the brink of a full-scale confrontation.


A rocket attack on a base in northern Iraq last March killed three military personnel – one Briton and two Americans.

A group calling itself Saraya Awliya al-Dam claimed responsibility for the Erbil attack, saying it was aimed at the “American occupation” in Iraq, but provided no evidence.

 

https://www.oann.com/mortar-shells-land-near-erbil-airport-iraqi-kurdish-security-sources-say/ 

 

 

 

 

Is There a Reason U.S. Media Pushing Weird “Biden Plays Mario Kart” Story?


If you closely follow the way leftists engineer narratives, specifically when they choose to push a particularly innocuous aspect, you can usually spot an ulterior motive.

In this example several media outlets are really pushing a story about Joe Biden playing the Mario Kart video game with his granddaughter.

It’s just weird…

NEWSWEEK – How did Joe Biden relax during his first Presidents Day weekend as president? By playing MarioKart with his family.

During his weekend retreat at Camp David, Biden and his granddaughter Naomi played the racing video game, and he won. Naomi shared a video to Instagram that showed Biden competing against her on the Arcade GP DX machines, complete with chairs and steering wheels.

Biden sat on the right as Luigi, and Naomi is Princess Peach on the left, GameRant noted. Despite not being at the same gaming level as his granddaughter, the commander-in-chief came out victorious.(READ MORE)

However, if one accepts there’s always a reason for this kind of stuff deep in the details, you might wonder if this isn’t part of an *anti-dementia* effort of narrative building from the WH press office.  Sound crazy?  Actually there’s a reason for that question…

According to scientists the specific Super Mario game could help prevent dementia in patients with symptoms.  Specifically playing Super Mario video games for two months “can improve brain function and help forestall dementia symptoms.” (LINK)

Given that everything around Joe Biden is a Potemkin village, it would not be surprising for the White House to attempt to cover Biden’s cognitive declines and ask the friendly media to report on the video-game issue in a friendly manner…. as a way to water-down the troublesome part of a President losing his marbles.

Biden may not have lost all his marbles, but there’s definitely a hole in the bag.


‘Equity’: Reparations by Another Name


Article by Nicholas J. Kaster in The American Thinker
 

‘Equity’: Reparations by Another Name

Reparations for slavery, though largely disliked by the general public, garnered significant support among Democratic presidential candidates in 2020. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris openly supported the policy, as the New York Times noted in a feature piece that ran on February 21, 2020, headlined “2020 Democrats Embrace Race-Conscious Policies, Including Reparations.”

Reparations, however, never polled well. In a Reuter-Ipsos survey released in June, for example, only 20% of Americans supported the idea. What’s more, only a third of Democrats supported it. Biden can read polls, so he waffled on reparations, promising instead to “study” the issue (a tactic he also employed in sidestepping the issue of court packing).

But the Left, always adept at verbal gymnastics, has merely responded by giving us reparations by another name: “Equity.” And Biden is fully on board. One of his first acts as president was to sign an “Executive Order Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” “Underserved communities” encompass not only blacks, but Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LBGTQ+) persons.” Thus equity is far more expansive than reparations and would provide rewards to scores of accredited victim groups.

Biden said that the actions “were part of an effort to infuse a focus on equity into everything the federal government does.” Everything.

“Equity” sounds like “equality,” a concept that is part of our founding documents, so it will appeal to many ordinary Americans. At the same time it is designed, as writer Steve Sailer put it, to be a “dog whistle term used to alert the Woke that you intend to deliver to them the equality of outcome they desire rather than the equality of opportunity they deserve.”

The term has been floating about for some time. Like many other bad ideas, the concept of “equity” had its start in the universities before moving to corporate HR departments as part of the mantra of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (the acronym, fittingly, is DIE).

Jordan Peterson explains that:

“‘Equity’ is a term designed to signal ‘equality,’ in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Equality before the law means that each citizen will be treated fairly by the criminal justice and judicial systems regardless of their status -- and that the state recognizes that each individual has an intrinsic value which serves as a limit to state power, and which the polity must respect. There is likely no more fundamental presumption grounding our culture.”

“Equity” is entirely different, Peterson notes. “It is based on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality” is outcome -- educational, social, and occupational. The equity-pushers axiomatically assume that if all positions at every level of hierarchy in every organization are not occupied by a proportion of the population that is precisely equivalent to that proportion in the general population that systematic prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) must be at play.”

Stated another way, “equity” is to “equality” what “social justice” is to “justice.”

In his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Thomas Sowell contrasted justice and social justice:

“‘[A] level playing field’ usually means that everyone plays by the same rules and is judged by the same standards… [I]f the process itself meets that standard, then ‘you had your chance.’ But this is not what is meant by the people who speak of ‘social justice’… The two concepts are mutually incompatible. [p. 9]

The same can be said of equity. It is incompatible with “equality” as the term was understood by the Founders.

Like reparations and social justice, equity is a form of identity socialism, in which the State or collective is empowered to reorganize society to achieve a certain pre-ordained outcome. “Identity socialism” is a term coined by writer and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza to refer the marriage of classic socialism and identity politics, which now represents mainstream thinking in the Democratic Party. This newer kind of socialist thinking, D’Souza argues, “rests on identity politics as constructed around race, gender, and sexual orientation variations in the population, producing groups of victims whom socialists insist have systematically been denied mainstream prosperity.”

And like the State under the old-style socialism, a regime of “equity” will never wither away. As long as individuals are unequal in talent, ability, and drive, there will always be inequality, and thus always the need for an overarching State to intervene on behalf of the accredited victim groups.

The socialists, notes D’Souza, “insist that society is in need of a neutral administrative class. Someone to run things fairly, to iron out the inequities, to take care of the needy, to check and penalize the bad guys, to regulate ‘hate’ and ‘intolerance,’ to always keep the public good in mind. Then they anoint themselves to carry out this necessary task.”

And like the nomenklatura in the old USSR, we can be sure that those in charge of administering the new equity-state will become infinitely more powerful. That, ultimately, is the point.

 
 
 




Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The Wages of Trump Hatred

Hating Donald Trump in the hater’s eyes makes one moral. 
But in the real world, such pathological fixations 
usually result in abject immorality and moral decline.


Over the last five years, the pathology of Trump Derangement Syndrome has been widely described. It was more than a chronic disease and was often characterized by an array of rapidly advancing symptoms of deterioration in reasoning, emotional stability, and personal ethics. 

More practically, often the deranged Trump hater found in his odium a cover for all sorts of prior personal intemperance and careerist dissipation. Loudly hating Trump became a passport for excess, private and public, and a sort of preemptive insurance that excused or rather greenlighted smears, slander, and personal misdeeds.

The Anti-Lincoln Project

For over a year, the theme of the NeverTrump Lincoln Project was the organizers’ professed superior morality. They had it; most others on the Right did not. Only a select heroic few of the Republican Party would dare to break ranks to end the danger to the country posed by a supposedly morally inferior Donald Trump. 

Forget Trump’s economic, domestic, cultural, and foreign policy record that had belied critics by its successes—despite historic opposition, investigation, denigration, and obstruction. No matter. Character was king. Again, the Lincoln Project had it; Trump followers did not. 

The Lincoln Project’s Band of Brothers—initially four financially strapped, embittered middle-aged white male Washington insiders—lectured the country that those few, those happy few, that band of brothers would fight for us. If only they were adequately funded, they could save us from the moral turpitude of four more years of Trump. 

Their ostensible promise to the Left was that they would hold down their end of the bargain by maintaining the 10-12 percent of Republicans who did not vote for Trump in 2016. In truth, they may have had nothing to do with preserving a bare six percent of Republicans who would again vote against Trump. That was a modest aim, but apparently, every bit of Trump derangement was fundable. Or as the departing, now mansion-buying Steve Schmidt put it“I really didn’t give a sh-t how many Republicans were voting for Trump or not.”

If one were to believe all the sermonizing of these latter-day Elmer Gantrys, then their inherent paradoxes, hypocrisies, and selfish agendas might magically disappear. 

For example, it was quickly evident that the Lincoln Project luminaries were not just fixated on destroying Trump and derailing the most conservative presidential agenda since Ronald Reagan’s, but also on refuting their own supposedly lifelong commitment to conservative causes by abetting the Biden campaign and the hard-Left interests that drove it. 

When Republicans hired them, they were conservative; when they did not, these buskins were liberal. To ensure their own continued largess, they were not just to be Romneyite rejectionists, not just Bidenites, but abettors of the neo-socialist cause of Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and the squad.

Money was the prime impetus to the project. Again, we were supposed to forget that some of the Lincoln Project luminaries were flat broke. Who cared that others owed huge sums in back taxes, with no apparent way of repayment—given their own reputations for failed campaigns and expensive, but otherwise mediocre consultancy?

Almost all were eager to set up shadow service companies to siphon off the expected huge sums from rich leftists. The project’s directors eagerly assumed their roles of useful idiocy, their donors that of cynical manipulators. Both conspired to destroy their shared bogeyman, Donald Trump, and with him all obstacles to the new hard progressive future. 

Before November 3, the media was not so much interested in the backgrounds or details of these handy moral preeners. Then suddenly Trump lost the election. Biden was inaugurated. And, again mysteriously, a recalibrated media found the grifters of the Lincoln Project expendable, although not so idiotic—given that they had diverted millions of dollars into their own private coffers in the form of “consulting fees.” 

After November 3, we also learned that co-founder John Weaver was a sexual bird of prey. He had leveraged his newfound Lincoln largess and influence as quid pro quos for his own sexual predations—with little apparent regard for the age of his targeted young male victims. 

This sordid fact was apparently known to many of the pre-election sermonizers at the Lincoln Project. But again, disclosure of that fact, in a cost-to-benefit analysis, was considered secondary to preserving the growing revenue stream from the Left. 

So these moralists lied about their ignorance of their own pederast, and apparently on one occasion at least would-be pedophile, in their midst. 

Only after the election, we learned that Rick Wilson and Weaver in particular were raking in and largely disguising exorbitant fees, in part to pay huge back tax bills. After the election, the project’s legal consultants suddenly were “shocked” by such disclosures, and began leaving the now-discredited project—at precisely the time when it was in dire need of a legal autopsy and full disclosure. 

Rarely has the abyss between the pretense and the lie been so vast: a group subsidized on purported conservative moral principles, and aimed at stopping the cultural damage to the cause by Donald Trump, was funded by left-wingers eager to buy off a few financially imperiled has-beens, who exaggerated their vestigial consulting clout among the Washington swamp. But then again, beggars cannot be choosers.

In turn, the Lincoln Project spent much of its near $100 million on themselves. And the grift sort of worked, as they puffed themselves up about the Biden win, rescued themselves from the IRS, splurged on opulent vacation homes and appurtenances—and declared that ending Trump was the only the lucrative beginning, as they made lists to hound and denigrate his former appointees.

But the con sputtered out, as they ended up accusing each other of improprieties. Rodent-like they scrambled overboard from the now rotting, putrid, and sinking ship. 

The loudest of the moralists, Steven Schmidt, epitomized the absurdity of the project when he contextualized his silence about the free-wheeling Weaver. Schmidt, you see, was a victim himself, as he related a long ago purported childhood abuse trauma. And in racialist and chauvinist fashion, as Schmidt left he announced that he wanted a non-white male to replace him in the almost all-white male partnership. 

Think of the condescending absurdity: Mostly all-white male swamp creatures were happy to rake in millions. But when their own moral lapses and depravities destroyed their grift, they quit—and only then invited in more women or people of color to sort out the mess they left in their wake. 

The only mystery in this entire moral putridity was who deserved the most censure: the cynical rich leftists who funded the charade hoping to manipulate pseudo-conservatives to serve their hard-Left needs—or these two-timing, born-again charlatans who masqueraded as conservatives to shake down millions from those who could afford to so indulge themselves. 

The common denominator, again, was Trump hatred. And so that noble aim excused every sordid means to enhance it. 


Spencer Pla

Gubernatorial Lethality

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo should have become a political pariah by summer 2020. His handling of the COVID-19 virus was all in all the worst in the country. At first, like most politicians, Cuomo had downplayed the chance of a pandemic. Then, like most politicians, he blamed other politicians for downplaying it as he had, once the coronavirus swept his state. 

Where were the ventilators, the hospitals, and the beds, once the virus struck? 

For a brief moment, Cuomo praised Trump, who had sent a hospital ship to Manhattan that went unused, who gave him a plethora of ventilators that were stockpiled, and who sent an entire tent hospital to the Javits Center that mostly stayed empty. But as the death toll mounted, and as the 2020 election heated up, and as Trump’s popularity dipped in the polls, Cuomo pivoted.

Abruptly, he now blasted Trump as negligent, derelict, a veritable killer of the innocent. He appeared on his brother’s CNN show, as they yucked it up to showcase his pandemic competency—and always the federal government’s purported sudden laxity. 

His self-serving daily press conferences amplified his bombast and snark. And ostensibly they won Cuomo an Emmy for his televised theatrics. Hollywood’s subtext was that by weaponizing the epidemic against the now candidate Trump, the useful idiot Cuomo at least deserved some sort of acting award.

As with the grifters of the Lincoln Project, as long as Donald Trump was on the ballot, Cuomo was deified. He wrote his own hagiography about the arts of dealing with a pandemic. He, not COVID-19 and its victims, was the story. He bantered, strutted, and cajoled on national television—always eying either the 2020 vice-presidential nomination or at least the attorney generalship in the Biden Administration. 

Cuomo may have had the second-worst record of any governor in the United States, in terms of deaths per million from the virus (currently 2,361 per million New York residents, second to next-door New Jersey). He may have shut down his state, drove out millions to seek refuge elsewhere, ruined New York’s economy, and yet suffered more deaths and inflicted more damage on his own than a similarly sized, open, and economically rebounding Florida and Texas. Still, Cuomo had one advantage those red-state governors lacked: a large left-wing media platform to blast the hated Trump. 

Now, again mysteriously, after the inauguration of Joe Biden, we learn the sordid details about Cuomo, in the fashion revelations appear daily and simultaneously about the Lincoln Project. It was known long ago that Cuomo, in a panic about the epidemic, had shuttled infected patients into the state’s extended care homes—and by executive fiat—where they proved mobile Petri dishes, infecting vulnerable residents, who began dying en masse

Cuomo might have stopped the awful practice. He might have announced the accurate number of the dead to highlight the need to end immediately the lunatic diversions. Instead, we now learn he ordered his aides to hide the lethality figures. If he was blasted for 8,000 rest home deaths, then what, he feared, would be the public reaction at the true figure of 15,000 dead?

Would the president whom he demagogued now demagogue him? So Cuomo lied. He hid the grim data from a media all too eager before November 3 to comply. He lied to the New York state legislature. He lied to the U.S. Department of Justice. He lied to the public. And he assumed these were all “noble lies”—necessary for the good cause of ending Donald Trump. 

Clipping His Twitter Wings

Before November 3, Silicon Valley—especially the $4 trillion quartet of Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter—had become unhinged by Donald Trump. They had no idea what to do with his 70 million Twitter followers, the legions of his Facebook fans, and the Gmail millions who adored him.

The Left became irate at Big Tech. What good did it do for the obsequious traditional media to slant the news, to offer 90 percent negative television and print coverage of Trump, to smother the achievements of his presidency, when he circumvented the putdowns through Twitter and Facebook?

Who cared whether they check marked, or temporarily deplatformed or for a while canceled or shut down Trump and thousands of his Trumper followers—when he still stirred up millions through the technological gadgetry and hard-won capital of Silicon Valley’s progressive anointed? After all, when the Obamas go public in their demand to expel Trump from social media, who can resist their speaking truth to power?

The January 6 Capitol riot at last gave Big Tech the long-awaited and long-planned opportunity. And they seized it in night-of-the-long-knives fashion.  Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, again mysteriously in concert, banned the president from its collective platforms of communication—for life. 

For the first time in his own political life, Donald Trump went silent, inert, mute. The media continued its nonstop invective, but now Trump had no detours around them. 

Trump, they alleged, had used their product to incite violence, perhaps in the very manner Antifa and Black Lives Matter had used their platforms to plan demonstrations that characteristically ended in rioting, arson, and looting. 

But could not Trump reroute to the conservative alternative, the upstart non-Silicon Valley Parler?

Big Tech had considered that, too. So on January 11, 2021, in the same manner of the collisional nocturnal action of Twitter and Facebook, so too Apple, Amazon, and Google, again mysteriously, in the wee hours eliminated everyone’s access to Parler, a sort of neutron bombing of a rising competitor. 

In hours, it was clear that they had effectively strangled Parler in its crib to preempt a Trump and MAGA mass exodus from Twitter and Facebook, and thus inadvertently transmogrify the ban into a Parler bonanza. 

In the old days, these leftists of the Stanford-Silicon Valley corridor might have called such collusion market “rigging,” “fixing,” and “scheming.” Their lopsided market shares might have earned the muckraking ire of independent journalists aghast at such open monopolies, boastful cartels, and unapologetic trusts. 

But the masters of the universe now owned the news media and the means of most Americans both to access information and to communicate over email and social media. Besides, Trump was widely hated by Big Tech, Wall Street, the media, academia, entertainment, professional sports, foundations, and the corporate boardrooms. So who would object to their roles as our 21st-century versions of Jay Gould and Diamond Jim Fiske?

Hatred of Donald Trump became the wealthy agnostic’s version of medieval indulgence. One’s collective sins can be washed away and a once marred soul can still make its way to tech heaven—if the offender can purchase a contracted exemption. 

Hating Donald Trump and doing something about that venom are just those indulgences. And they can excuse past, present, and future sin. Bar, cancel, and end a social-media Trump, and all the wrongs of monopoly, market fixing, cartelizing, and trust creation are washed away, in the eyes of the progressive supreme deity Reason.

So our cartels are beloved for colluding and fixing their markets to ban not just Trump but any future access to their competitors. 

Trump is free to tweet and post whenever and wherever he wants, but there will be nowhere else to tweet and post. So spoke the liberal descendants of the old Jim Crow racists who insisted they were free to deny service to anyone they wished, even when there were no alternative motels or lunch counters to be found.

Hating Donald Trump in the hater’s eyes makes one moral. But in the real world, such pathological fixations usually result in abject immorality and moral decline, as the hater becomes far worse than what he hates.


Wanting a strong American culture is not racist

 

Article by Robert Arvay in The American Thinker
 

Wanting a strong American culture is not racist

A few years ago, I engaged in conversation with a nice elderly lady.  Her opinions included the full panoply of leftist thought, including approval of redefining marriage and of abortion, both of which I abhor, but I listened.  Then came the shocker: she expressed racist views.  She told me that black people used to be okay as long as they kept to their neighborhoods, "but now they go everywhere."

I term it a shocker because the left is heavy on racial preferences for everyone except Caucasians.  It seemed incongruous that a person on the far left would be racially intolerant, but as I reflect, I can recall other conversations with leftists who hinted at segregationist attitudes.

I mention this because a standard insult from the left is to accuse conservatives of racism.  Indeed, to them, the two are one and the same:  conservatism and racism.  Moreover, the bar for being a racist is so low as to include anyone who decries open borders.  Failing to give the BLM salute when it is demanded is another way of attracting that accusation.

On contemplating this, I think some people, both left and right, conflate race with culture.  A certain degree of "xenophobia" — a better term is aversion to alien intrusion — may actually be necessary to preserve order in any society.

It has been pointed out, quite accurately, that racially homogenous societies tend to be more stable than multicultural societies.  True, but the point is often missed that a society can be multiracial without being multicultural, and vice versa.  The Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by blacks against blacks, but two different tribes and cultures were involved, one as persecutor, the other as victim.

It is ironic that in the United States, Asian people are more victimized by racist policies of the left than what they imagine coming from the right, yet Asian-Americans tend to be more leftist than conservative.  When college admissions policies first began to diverge from those that favored Caucasians, the left soon became appalled by the result — a heavy preponderance of Asians on the campus.  The leftist administrators reacted by implementing the racial quota system to reduce that preponderance.  They succeeded.  They replaced higher-caliber students with less capable ones.

Contrary to conventional belief in some quarters, Asians are not significantly more intelligent than Caucasians or blacks, at least not in the degree reflected in their college performance.  Their families do, however, tend to be more emphatic about educational success, sometimes to the extreme.  Obviously, the outcome is enhanced academic performance in that group, due not to their race, but to their culture.

An anecdote from my own experience may illustrate the point.  I was in my forties when I returned to college.  My brain was not exactly a steel trap, and so I struggled to maintain satisfactory grades.  One late weekend night in the library, studying hard for final exams, I noticed that I was the only "white guy" in sight.  A large number of others were Asian, and quite a few were black.  The blacks, however, were not American.  I recognized them from my classes as foreign students, mostly from Africa.

The point is that many of my American classmates were at party night.  Culture, not race, drove others of us to the library.

It is also interesting that Asian immigrants, although many are raised in religious traditions such as Buddhism and Taoism, have a strong tendency to join, or form, Christian churches in America — and not so much social justice–themed churches, but Baptist and fundamentalist Protestant.  Why?  I think it is because they bring with them family values and a work ethic that are consistent with those of conservative faith.  African Anglicans are far more conservative than many of their European and American counterparts.

We have no reason to be averse to such people immigrating and no excuse for racism against them.  They are far closer to the American ideal than are many Americans.

Barring people from Islamic cultures from immigrating to America is not racist, and as regards some of them, caution is most certainly advisable.  In those cases, cultural aversion is not a moral flaw, but a rational attitude.

Racism is a moral flaw, one that goes against the grain of conservatism.  Aversion to cultural intrusion — so-called "xenophobia" — is a very different thing.

 





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Dr. Fauci Takes Group Of Schoolchildren Hostage, Demands Stimulus Bill As Ransom



WASHINGTON, D.C.—Local law enforcement for the District of Columbia has issued an Amber Alert for five schoolchildren kidnapped by Dr. Anthony Fauci. They are currently being held hostage in an undisclosed location, with Fauci threatening to keep them in captivity until a stimulus bill is passed by Congress. 

"This is for science," said Fauci. "Science is demanding a stimulus bill be passed. You all didn't listen so now I have to make you listen!" 

Federal authorities are looking for the missing children. Their only lead is a ransom note left at the front doorstep of the FBI headquarters this morning. The note reads as follows and is pictured below: 

"If you ever want your children to go back to school again, leave a stimulus bill in the dumpster behind Hooters. Small bills only. Midnight. No cops."

The FBI has requested for anyone with information on the whereabouts of the hostages to call them immediately. 

The Biden Administration has praised Dr. Fauci's decision to kidnap and hold the kids for ransom as "very scientific."


Demand Answers From Pelosi on What She Knew About Security Decisions Surrounding Capitol Riot


Top Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday demanding answers regarding the security decisions surrounding the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, particularly, her part in the decision to deny the Capitol Police Chief’s request for National Guard support, and her refusal to comply with requests to turn over materials relevant to the decision.

In their letter, House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer, and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes noted that “five weeks have passed since the January 6th attack on the Capitol building, and many important questions about your responsibility for the security of the Capitol remain unanswered.”

The Republicans are demanding answers to the following  questions:

  • When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?
  • Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?
  • What conversations and what guidance did you and your staff give the Sergeant at Arms leading up to January 6th specific to the security posture of the campus?
  • What conversations with the SAA and Capitol Police did you have during the attack on the Capitol and what response did you give security officials on January 6th when Chief Sund requested National Guard support that required your approval?
  • Why are your House Officers refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over materials relevant to the events surrounding the 6th?

Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes pointed out that former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund had requested the assistance of the National Guard on Jan 4, but former Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he was concerned about “the optics” and didn’t feel the “intelligence supported it.”

The congressmen accused Pelosi of terminating both men without consulting Republicans.

In the wake of the attack, there were many calls from members, on both sides of the aisle, to conduct a full bipartisan and bicameral review. Republicans have introduced a bill to establish a structure for this review, identify failures, and ensure the Capitol is never violently breached again. Instead of working together, you decided unilaterally to fire then-Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Paul Irving, demand the resignation of then-Chief of the Capitol Police (Chief) Steve Sund, and appointed retired General Russel Honoré to lead a security review. These decisions were made in a partisan manner without any consultation of House Republicans and therefore raise questions about the political motivations of your decisions.

“As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” they wrote. “The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”

It has been widely reported and confirmed by multiple sources that when Chief Sund requested the National Guard be activated ahead of the January 6th Joint Session of Congress, the response from the SAA, acting on your behalf, was that the “optics” of having the National Guard on-site were not good and the intelligence didn’t support the move. The request was not approved. Furthermore, on January 6th, in the middle of the on-going attack of the Capitol, Chief Sund again notified the SAA of his request for approval to authorize the National Guard. It took over an hour for his request to be approved because the SAA had to run the request up the chain of command, which undoubtedly included you and your designees.

Notably, the congressmen suggested that Pelosi had lied about the matter during a press conference the next day.

On January 7th, you held a press conference in which you stated, in part, that you were calling on Chief Sund to resign because he “hasn’t called us since this happened.” That claim is refuted by Chief Sund who in a letter to you, dated February 1, 2021, detailed two occasions that he briefed you on the situation on the Capitol campus—the first occurring at 5:36 p.m. and the second at 6:25 p.m., both on January 6th.

Sund, according to Fox News, claimed in a letter to Pelosi earlier this month that he briefed former Vice President Pence on the security posture during the first call at 5:36 p.m., and that Pelosi had joined the call.

Sund detailed another call at “approximately 6:25 p.m.,” which he said was a conference call with congressional; leaders, including Pelosi, now-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, now-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. James Clyburn.

In their letter to Pelosi, Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes expressed concern that the House’s “independent security review” of the event would not be free of political motivations since retired General Russel Honoré, the man conducting the review, was appointed by Pelosi without any consultation with the minority.

The congressmen have good reason to doubt Honoré’s objectivity.

Honoré, known for leading relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, viciously decried President Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria in Sept. of 2017, characterizing Trump’s perceived mishandling of the disaster as a biproduct of his alleged racism.

“The president has shown again, you don’t give a damn about poor people, you don’t give a damn about people of color and the SOB that rides around in Air Force One is denying services needed by the people of Puerto Rico,” the retired general said on CNN.

Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes went on to say they were “very concerned by the obstruction and inability to procure and preserve information from your House Officers when requested.”

Such information is necessary to properly conduct oversight on the January 6th events. Preservation and production requests were sent to the SAA and the House Chief Administrative Officer, among other legislative agencies, requesting that such relevant information concerning the attack on the Capitol, including correspondence, video footage, audio recordings, and other records, be preserved and produced to the relevant committees. In multiple cases, your appointees, acting on your behalf, have denied requests to produce this information.

The response we received was: “We regret to inform you that given the scope of the information requested and the concerns implicated by the nature of the request… we are unable to comply with the request at this time.” Even more troubling is despite your House Officers refusal to comply with the request we have recently learned that some of the same material we requested was provided to the House Judiciary Committee on a partisan basis. This is unacceptable. Madam Speaker, that direction could only have come from you.

The Republicans called Pelosi’s actions since the Capitol riot “hyperbolic,” and a “misdirection and misappropriation of House resources.”

Lastly, your hyperbolic focus on fabricated internal security concerns has taken critical resources away from the real threat, which is from outside the U.S. Capitol. Your decision to install magnetometers around the House Chamber is yet another example of this misdirection and misappropriation of House resources, which could be better used to protect members, staff, and official visitors from real, confirmed threats. Tellingly, Madam Speaker, you have failed to comply with this requirement yourself. End this political charade, and work with us to protect the Capitol and those who work here every day.

Pelosi’s office responded to the letter on Monday, snapping that the security of the Capitol and democracy are “not the priorities of these ranking members,” while claiming that “the Committees of Jurisdiction were briefed in advance of January 6 about security preparedness.”

Pelosi deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill told Fox News that the Republicans’ letter was a “transparently partisan attempt to lay blame on the Speaker, who was a target of assassination during the insurrection fueled by the lies of House Republicans, the Ranking Members are trying to absolve former Police Chief Sund, former Sergeant at Arms Stenger and the leader who appointed him, Mitch McConnell, of any responsibility.”

“We look forward to these Ranking Members asking these same questions of former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,” Hammill said. “As the target of an assassination attempt, the Speaker knows all too well the importance of security at the Capitol and is focused on getting to the bottom of all issues facing the Capitol Complex and the events that led up to the insurrection.”

Hammill added: “Clearly, these Republican Ranking Members do not share this priority.”

Pelosi meanwhile reportedly plans to give the Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who protected the Capitol during the riot.

“They are martyrs for our democracy, those who lost their lives,” Pelosi said during her weekly press conference on Thursday.

Senate Republicans last week warned that if witnesses were called in the Senate impeachment trial of former President Trump, they would include Pelosi as a witness to discuss security preparations before the Capitol siege.