Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Biden-Putin summit: Awkward conversation looms in Geneva

 

Joe Biden said last month that he would be meeting face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin at some point soon. Now we have a date - and a location.

The first US-Russia summit of the Biden presidency will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 16 June. That comes at the tail end of Biden's already scheduled trip to the United Kingdom for the G7 summit and Brussels for a meeting of Nato leaders, giving the president plenty of time to hear from US allies before sitting down with Putin.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in a statement announcing the meeting, said the summit would cover a "full range of pressing issues" as the US seeks to "restore predictability and stability" to its Russian relations. That echoes comments Secretary of State Antony Blinken made during a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Iceland last week, as he said Biden's goal was a "predictable, stable relationship with Russia".

A full slate of topics - and tension

When Biden and Putin meet, they'll have plenty to talk about. A short list of subjects includes arms control, climate change, Russian military involvement in Ukraine, Russia's cyber-hacking activities, including the 2020 SolarWinds attack on US government and private computer networks, and the attempted poisoning and jailing of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny.

 

 

 

Those conversations seem destined to be fraught, as Biden and Putin have traded verbal barbs amid rising tensions in the past months.

In an interview in March, Biden agreed with the description of Putin as a "killer", prompting Russia to temporarily recall its ambassador to the US and Putin, in turn, to say it takes one to know one, before dryly wishing Biden "good health".

There's little expectation of any tangible results from this meeting, aside from the hopes it will lead to improved relations and understanding between the two leaders.

Sanctions imposed and waived

Contributing to the current US-Russia tensions are new penalties the Biden administration imposed last month as punishment for the Solar Winds hacking, which included new limits on transactions between US financial institutions and the Russian government as well as sanctions on Russian businesses and the expulsion of some Russian diplomats in the US.

If those sanctions were a diplomatic "stick", the announcement last week that the Biden administration would waive congressionally mandated sanctions on the nearly completed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany could help ease US-Russia tensions in the run-up to June's summit. (It also avoids irritating Germany, which could be an equally important concern for the Biden administration, which is intent on repairing US-EU relations.)

 

 

Biden's fine line

The rhetoric of the Biden administration toward Russia has been markedly different, even if its actions have not always matched the stronger words. That has led to some criticism of the White House's Russia policies from both political friends and adversaries.

Following the Nord Stream 2 waiver announcement, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez, a Democrat, said he didn't see how the move helped "counter Russian aggression in Europe".

And shortly after the White House summit information was made public, Republican Senator Ben Sasse hit Biden's Russia policy on a number of fronts, including the recent move by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to intercept a passenger jet in order to capture a dissident journalist.

"We're rewarding Putin with a summit?" he said in a statement. "Putin imprisoned Alexei Navalny and his puppet Lukashenko hijacked a plane to get Roman Protasevich. Instead of treating Putin like a gangster who fears his own people, we're giving him his treasured Nord Stream 2 pipeline and legitimising his actions with a summit. This is weak."

US-Russia summits are always diplomatic high-wire acts, with US presidents having to walk a fine line as the world looks on. Biden, as a former vice-president and long-time foreign relations expert in the Senate, has plenty of experience in the diplomatic arena and seems to relish developing one-on-one chemistry with world leaders.

The Geneva summit will be one of the biggest in-person tests of his political career, however
 
 
 
 

 

How to Watch Tomorrow's ‘Super Blood Moon’ Eclipse

 

On Wednesday, May 26, the Moon will move into Earth’s shadow, resulting in the first total lunar eclipse in nearly two and a half years. Here’s how to see it, regardless of where you live in the world.

The first total lunar eclipse since January 21, 2019 should be a good one, as the Moon will appear bigger and brighter than usual. The eclipse is “super” because the Moon will pass near to its orbital perigee—its closest point to Earth—making it appear large and bright in the sky (the Moon will appear about 7% larger than normal).

As for the “blood” part of the equation, our large natural satellite should be cast in a distinctly reddish glow, a result of the Sun’s rays being filtered through Earth’s atmosphere; lunar eclipses happen when the Moon passes through Earth’s shadow, but some sunlight manages to reach the lunar surface.

“The eclipsed Moon is dimly illuminated by red-orange light left over from all of the sunsets and sunrises occurring around the world at that time,” according to NASA. “The more dust or clouds in Earth’s atmosphere during the eclipse, the redder the Moon will appear.”

 

 

The celestial event is also being referred to as the Super Blood Flower Moon, with the Flower part a reference to a traditional term for the May full Moon.

As NASA explains, the eclipse will be visible to observers around the world, provided the sky is clear. That said, some regions will be limited to partial views of the eclipse. Diana Hannikainen, observing editor at Sky & Telescope, says you “only need your eyes to see the drama unfold, but if you have binoculars or a backyard telescope, they’ll give a much-enhanced view.” Unlike with a solar eclipse, no eye protection is needed to view a lunar eclipse.

Areas in which a total lunar eclipse will be visible include the western continental U.S and western Canada, Mexico, much of Central America, and parts of Peru, Chile, and Argentina. For these regions, the total eclipse will be visible prior to the Moon setting on the western horizon, just before sunrise. Observers along the Asian Pacific Rim will see the total eclipse right after the Moon rises in the east.

The eclipse, in both total and partial form, will be visible to observers in eastern Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, and Hawaii shortly after moonrise.

Areas in which a partial eclipse can be seen include the eastern U.S. and eastern Canada. Observers can catch this view just prior to the Moon setting in the morning. Observers in eastern Russia, India, Nepal, western China, and Mongolia can catch the partial eclipse after the Moon rises in the evening sky.

 

 

 

The total lunar eclipse—when the Moon is in its deepest shadow—will only last for about 15 minutes, so it’s important to plan ahead and know the exact time for your particular observing area. The chart above will help, with the row “Total begins” signifying the start time of the lunar eclipse sequence. So for people in PDT (Pacific Daylight Time), the eclipse is set to start at 4:11 a.m. local time on the morning of May 26. For people along the eastern coast of the U.S. and Canada, a partial eclipse will be visible between 4:48 a.m. and 5:16 a.m. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time).

If you’re in Europe or Africa, or simply don’t intend to be awake in the wee hours of the morning, you’ve still got options. Live webcasts of the eclipse are being made available, weather permitting, courtesy of Griffith University (starting at 4:45 a.m. EDT, 1:45 a.m. PDT), Lowell Observatory (5:30 a.m. EDT, 2:30 a.m. PDT), and the Virtual Telescope Project (6:00 a.m. EDT, 3:00 a.m. PDT). 

 

 

 

https://gizmodo.com/how-to-watch-tomorrows-super-blood-moon-eclipse-1846963697?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter 

 

 


 

DOJ Could Struggle With Jan 6 Prosecutions as Cases Move Closer to Trial


Shipwreckedcrew reporting for RedState 

More than five months have now passed since the January 6 protests, and the prosecution of hundreds of protesters in dozens of criminal cases filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia are well underway.

Like many legal commentators on the conservative side, I expressed some reservations early on with regard to the stridency with which early criminal complaints filed in connection with some of the prosecutions described the events of January 6.  The description of events seemed unnecessarily hyperbolic in some respects, and such hyperbole seemed to set an unusually high bar for the presentation of evidence to meet the charges alleged.

After initial detention hearings where the government won in almost every instance, further review by the courts in later proceedings — when more evidence was available for review — caused some judges to reconsider their previous detention orders.  The basic problem was the evidence the government could actually submit didn’t measure up to the evidentiary “proffers” that prosecutors had initially made to the Courts when bail was first being considered.

Now, most of the early discovery disputes are being resolved in one fashion or another, and the actual evidence which the government has with regard to the indicted defendants is making its way into the hands of the defense attorneys.

But even in the few cases where the government has substantial evidence — and I predict this is going to be a very small fraction of the number of cases filed — the nature of the charges that can be sustained on the evidence DOJ has will leave a public anticipating long prison sentences based on “insurrection” or “incitement” terribly disappointed in the likely outcomes.

Before I explain the shortcomings and reasons for disappointment in the charges for which some defendants might be found guilty, there is one key point that needs to be understood.

The United States criminal justice system is designed to address the criminality of individuals for their specific actions — it is not a system that attaches collective criminality to a group where the worst bad actor and the least bad actor end up with similar outcomes.  Guilt and sentencing are individualized determinations meant to be unique to each charged defendant.

In this article and a couple to follow, I want to point out some of the deficiencies in the statutes that have been charged in most of the cases filed to date, and why the outcome of those cases — even if defendants are guilty — will lead to some real questions about whether the decision to call January 6 an “assault on democracy” and an “existential threat” to our country was really worth the trauma.

Among the most commonly charged offense

1. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1752(a)(1) — Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building.

For lack of a better description, this is a federal “trespassing” statute.  It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to only one year in prison unless the person used or carried a dangerous or deadly weapon.  Because it is a misdemeanor, the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply, so a federal judge at sentencing can choose any term of days or months from 0 to 365.  I expect most sentences will be “time served” for anyone held in pretrial detention, followed by a one-year term of supervised release — a form of federal probation.

The bigger problem with this statute is that, by its own terms, it only applies to “posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; or of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”   

This is not a “trespassing” statute that applies to all federal buildings generally — only buildings or grounds secured by the Secret Service.  The Capitol on January 6 qualified as such, but ONLY during the period up to the departure from the Capitol of the Vice President.  So there is a timing issue with regard to when defendants were present inside the Capitol or in a cordoned-off area of the Capitol grounds.

2. 18 U.S.C. Section 1752(a)(2) — Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building

This is another provision of the same statute, and it is also a misdemeanor if there was no dangerous or deadly weapon possessed — punishable by up to one year in prison. This statute also only applies while the Vice-President was in the Capitol, and not after he left.

A problem that is starting to be addressed in this statute is that the “disorderly or disruptive conduct” must have been engaged in “within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Defense attorneys are beginning to raise the question of what exactly was happening inside the Capitol on January 6 — a ceremonial event or “official” business/functions of the Congress.

Some legal commentators, including myself, questioned the process of “counting” electoral votes on January 6.

The meeting of Congress on January 6 is required by statute — 3 U.S.C. Sec 15, referred to as the “Electoral Count Act.”  Pursuant to that statute, the President of the Senate — the Vice President — shall open and announce the vote of each state’s electors of the Electoral College.  It also establishes a mechanism for the filing of “objections” by Members of the House and Senate to the counting of any state’s electors as announced.

But the statute alters the process adopted in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution — something a statute cannot do. The 12th Amendment only provides that the President of the Senate shall open the certificates and the votes shall be counted. It confers no power on Congress to adjust or reject the vote count as cast by the electors. Thus, the opening of the certificates and counting of votes is merely a ministerial act, not a substantive one. The outcome of the election will be the same whether the ceremonial opening of the certificates takes place or not.

If Congress is meeting for purely ceremonial purposes, a question arises as to whether the January 6 protesters were disrupting any actual “government business or official function” as contemplated by the statute.

I’ll return to this topic and examine the remainder of the statutes that are being commonly charged in articles later this week.


Poll: Most Brits Want Harry and Meghan to Put a Sock in It.

 

More than half of British people polled want to hear less from Harry and Meghan Markle, according to a Newsweek poll.

The survey, conducted by Redfield & Wilton on behalf of Newsweek, quizzed 1,500 British adults last Wednesday.

The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said “they would prefer to hear less about” Harry and Meghan, while just 18 percent “wanted to hear more.” Nineteen percent stated “they wanted to hear about the same amount” as they hear now.

The numbers change considerably based on age group, however.  In the 18 to 24-year-old demographic, 46 percent said that they wished to hear more from Harry and Meghan, while only 19 percent said they “wished to hear less.”

Among 35 to 44-year-olds, only 12 percent expressed a wish to hear more from the couple, while 56 percent wished to hear less. And, in the over-65 age group, only 11 percent said they would like to hear more from the couple, while an overwhelming 71 percent wanted to hear less.

 

 

 

Thirty-nine percent of those polled said that “they disapprove of… Harry speaking publicly about his Royal upbringing,” while 36 percent approve of Harry’s speaking of it.

This poll follows on a series of interviews in which Harry and Meghan slammed the British Royal Family, making a number of allegations.

Harry and Meghan’s recent complaints and allegations do not seem to be sitting well with the British people. Fifty percent of Brits believe that Harry and Meghan should lose all of their Royal titles, while only 31 percent–less than a third–believe they should not, according to the Newsweek poll.

 

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/poll-most-brits-want-harry-and-meghan-to-put-a-sock-in-it/ 

 

 

 


 

Military detain Mali’s president, prime minister and defence minister

 

May 24, 2021

By Paul Lorgerie and David Lewis

BAMAKO (Reuters) -Military officers in Mali detained the president, prime minister and defence minister of the interim government on Monday, deepening political chaos just months after a military coup ousted the previous president, multiple sources told Reuters.

President Bah Ndaw, Prime Minister Moctar Ouane and defence minister Souleymane Doucoure were all taken to a military base in Kati outside the capital Bamako, hours after two members of the military lost their positions in a government reshuffle, the diplomatic and government sources said.

Their detentions followed the military ouster in August of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita. They may exacerbate instability in the West African country where violent Islamist groups linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State control large areas of the desert north.

Political instability and military infighting has complicated efforts by Western powers and neighbouring countries to prop up to the impoverished nation, contributing to regional insecurity.

Ndaw and Ouane had been tasked with overseeing an 18-month transition back to civilian rule after the August takeover, but they appear to have moved against the military’s control over a number of key positions.

“The sacking of the pillars of the coup was an enormous misjudgement,” a senior former Malian government official told Reuters. “The actions are probably aimed at getting them back in their jobs.”

The military’s ultimate goal was not immediately clear. One military official in Kati said this was not an arrest. “What they have done is not good,” the source said, referring to the cabinet reshuffle. “We are letting them know, decisions will be made.”

 

 

But Kati’s military base is notorious for ending the rule of Malian leaders. Last August, the military took President Keita to Kati and forced him to resign. A mutiny there helped topple his predecessor Amadou Toumani Toure in 2012.

Mali has been in turmoil ever since. Toure’s departure triggered an ethnic Tuareg rebellion to seize the northern two-thirds of the country, which was hijacked by al Qaeda-linked jihadists.

French forces beat the insurgents back in 2013 but they have since regrouped and carry out regular attacks on the army and civilians. They have exported their methods to neighbouring Burkina Faso and Niger where attacks have skyrocketed since 2017.

There had appeared to be some cause for optimism. The transitional government said last month that it would hold legislative and presidential elections in Feb. 2022 to restore a democratic government.

“It is regrettable, but not surprising: the arrangement agreed to after the coup last year was not perfect, but it was a compromise agreed to by all the major Malian and international stakeholders,” said J. Peter Pham, former U.S. special envoy for the Sahel, now with the Atlantic Council, told Reuters

 

 

 

https://www.oann.com/military-detain-malis-president-prime-minister-and-defence-minister/ 

 

 

 


 

 

Feet-of-Clay Icons

Our most important and cherished institutions
—the military, science, and the law—
are losing the trust of Middle America.



"The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay."
— Daniel 2:33

Americans mostly have given up on familiar institutions for entertainment, guidance, or reassurance. What now do Hollywood, network news, the media in general, Silicon Valley, the NBA, NFL, MLB, or higher education all have in common? 

A propensity to lecture Americans on their moral inferiorities, a general ethical decline in their own disciplines, and a strange obsession to acquire great wealth while living in contrast to what they advocate for others. Add also incompetence. Movies are mostly bad now. The network news is blow-dried groupthink. There is no “paper of record” anywhere. Twitter and Facebook no longer even try to hide their politicized contortions of warped rules and twisted protocols. 

Professional athletes are now reminders of why no one ever wants to be “enlightened” by multimillionaire quarter-educated narcissists. The public a half-century ago lost faith in academia. It wasn’t just that most new bad ideas could be traced to the campus or that hothouse professors increasingly seemed both ignorant and arrogant, but rather their product—educating students—was defective. No one believes anymore a BA is synonymous with knowledge. More likely, it is a euphemism for incurring $100,000 in debt. 

But until recently there were still a few institutions we considered sacrosanct, incorruptible, and invincible amid faith-based assertions, toxic woke fads, civil dissension, and hatred of the past. One certainly was the military. Another was “science,” or rather the scientists, researchers, and investigators who devoted themselves to disinterested empiricism. And, a third, was the sacred idea of the “law,” or the idea that Americans respect our statutes because they were crafted by ourselves and applicable to all, equally, and without exception.

All three have lost their luster. Americans do not trust them, at least not in the old way. Perhaps it was the 2020 perfect storm of plague, quarantine, recession, riot, a contentious election, and red/blue antipathies that ripped off the scab and exposed beneath something far different than what the public had assumed.

Protect or Proselytize?

The Pentagon seems to have lost its way. It has transmogrified into a cultural engine of change from a defensive force devoted to battlefield supremacy. The Defense Department is chasing its tail, supposedly on the scent of white supremacists of the armed insurrectionist sort who stormed the Capitol.

The only problem is that none of the rioters now sitting in jail without bail and in solitary confinement have even been charged with insurrectionary crimes, treason, or conspiracies. None used arms. None even possessed them inside the Capitol. None killed any law enforcement officer, contrary to what we were told. So far, no architects of the supposed insurrection—most likely a spontaneous riot of ragtag misfits—have been arrested. Four of the five who died were protesters. None died violently at the hand of another—except an unarmed military veteran who was shot entering a window by an officer, whose name, age, and race remain concealed, as does most of the video evidence of the Capitol melee itself. Thousands of hours of Capitol videos of the entire mess have not been released. 

In other words, a woke military is pursuing an ideological witch hunt of its own based on the myth of an epidemic of armed insurrectionists in its ranks. Does the Pentagon scan its enlistments for any youth who rioted, burned, and looted all last summer? Is it afraid there are sympathizers of radical Islamists of the Major Nidal Hasan sort, the 2009 mass murderer at Fort Hood, whose killing spree of unarmed U.S. soldiers apparently worried then Chief of Staff General George Casey that his diversity initiatives might suffer?

Defense Secretary General Lloyd Austin, who promises to find the occult alt-Righters, is only following the directives of a progressive Washington elite that sees a racist or Trump supporter (terms it considers synonymous) under every American bunk. 

The military has barged clumsily into highly contentious social and cultural minefields when there was no need to, other than to virtue signal wokeness. Cartoon recruitment ads now focus on enlisted soldiers who are the offspring of two lesbian mothers. More Americans know that the Pentagon subsidizes transgender reassignment surgeries than what the strategy for victory has been over the last 20 years in Afghanistan. It is not as if a Clausewitzian brilliant military—after stellar strategic success in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya—can now afford to turn its proven genius homeward to wake up America to address its primordial sins.

Americans increasingly cannot comprehend what motivates their supposedly most esteemed retired generals and admirals. Some in 2020 likely violated the military Uniform Code of Military Justice by attacking, personally and viciously, their commander in chief, as they weighed in on every controversial issue in a tinderbox summer of violence. Their only internal disagreement was whether their own president was Mussolini, or a Nazi emulator, or trying to recreate Auschwitz on the border, or should be removed before an election, or was a coward or a traitorous Russian asset.

Trump’s mere consideration in June 2020 of calling in federal troops to quell riotous, looting, violence and arson was blasted by retired military as tyrannical, Nazi-like, even seditious. But all those dangers later did not apply to stationing 30,000 armed soldiers in the capital amid barbed wire and barricades following the January 6 Capitol assault.

Now we are witnessing the second phase of an internecine war of retired generals and admirals. Once liberal former brass blasted Trump as a veritable traitor and fascist, it was inevitable that more conservative retired generals would step up to reply in kind. So in mirror-image fashion, now another group of retired generals and admirals likewise is blasting their current commander in chief, Joe Biden—as cognitively challenged and physically and mentally incapable of carrying out his presidential duties. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as retired military officers descend into the spirit of the Balkans.

Yet Americans do not want their generals conducting political witch hunts of their enlisted ranks. They do not want retired admirals to be known as liberals or conservatives by the nature of their publicly expressed venom against sitting presidents.

They do not want the Pentagon weighing in on every contentious cultural and social issue or directing ad campaigns to virtue signal their political partisanship. They do want the military to win the wars it fights, to leave politics to their civilian overseers, and, in the manner of Martin Luther King, Jr., to look at the content of the character of their soldiers rather than, in the spirit of Al Sharpton, obsess over the color of their skins—or the partisan politics of the enlisted men. And they want a stop to retired military-industrial-complex generals and admirals becoming multimillionaires by contracting their past service expertise to enhance the bids of current defense contractors.

Policy or PR?

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, spreading panic, superstition, false information, and rumor, we at least had “the science”—American science, the disinterested expertise that created the modern affluent and sophisticated world we take for granted.

But shortly thereafter “the science” started to baffle Americans. We were told to listen to the World Health Organization that assured us the virus was not transmissible, that travel bans were superfluous, that China was blameless, that the virus was static. All were not just lies, but Chinese-fed lies that scientists—scientists of all people—swallowed or aided. 

Our iconic Dr. Anthony Fauci, rather than collating current research and hosting medical symposia, became a TV junkie and spin doctor. His narratives about our daily regimens kept changing to accommodate the political agenda deemed most influential at the moment. What followed was a pandemic version of Alice Through The Looking-Glass surrealism. For Fauci, masks were useless, then essential, then even better when two were worn. Vaccines alone would save us—but not until mid- or late 2021.

But then they mysteriously were ready in November 2020 and even mysteriously so announced, but only a few days after the election. Herd immunity would follow, or not—given that 60, 70, or maybe even 90 percent of the population needed to be vaccinated or to have had previously acquired immunity. The ancient trope of the “noble lie” resurfaced, as an increasingly desperate Fauci spun his prior politicized policies in terms of misleading the clueless public for its own good.

Fauci taught us vaccinations were our salvation and would free us from the virus tyranny—but only if we were almost all vaccinated. But then he insisted that even if we were vaccinated, we would still have to social distance. We would wear masks, even outdoors. And we would still face reinfection. So millions mused, “Is Fauci running a PR campaign to convince us that getting vaxxed is superfluous?” 

Fauci first insisted that China was not culpable and that it was conspiratorial to suggest such a thing, only to concede that it was sort of, kind of, remotely possible that the virus was engineered in a Wuhan level 4 virus laboratory—despite the consensus of the “experts” that a bat gave us the virus. Anyone who even suggested that Dr. Fauci might have approved U.S. grants for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab was considered a dangerous crank—until it was conceded that he had done this and the conflict-of-interest Fauci went mute for a few hours.

Fauci is only a totem of the decline in public health expertise. When we were told the science mandated national quarantines, state and local officials on that prompt began arresting dissenting pastors, hair stylists, and gym owners—any who reopened their livelihoods in violation of the “science.” Except there was no science at all when 1,200 of our “health care professionals” swore to us that protesters, both violent and peaceful, could with impunity violate the quarantines, because their “science” dictated that exposure to the virus was less harmful than the mental anguish of not being able to demonstrate, scream, congregate, and march en masse against social injustice and police brutality. 

When other scientists said the damage from lockdowns might well eventually outweigh the toll of the virus, they were cancelled as the “bad” (who will probably be proven right) by the “good” scientists who were proven wrong. 

In the end, all Americans wanted from science was disinterested, humble, fact-based advice—how, why, and when could one become infected, what was the most likely treatment protocol to recover, and when exactly would the vaccination appear. 

Instead, they got an ideological war reminiscent of something out of the 17th century when Galileo was put on trial by the “good” faux-scientific consensus of geocentrism for advocating the “bad” correct science of heliocentrism. 

Finally, in 2021 it was not so much that Americans lost respect for the law as they were bewildered by it. Or rather they wondered whether it still even existed.

Laws or Laxity?

Is it illegal to enter the United States without permission? Or does unlawful entry warrant instant state subsidy and federal legal help to further violate the law? Is everyone or just a few anointed allowed to carve out an entire urban no-go zone that even the police dare not enter? Is there a crime such as arson or looting? Are there even criminals such as arsonists and looters anymore—or just those naïve enough to try torching buildings or stealing from pharmacies in small numbers and without ideological pretenses? Does attacking Jews and Asian Americans constitute “hate crimes”—or does it depend on the race, ideology, or ethnicity of the attacker? 

Is defacing a monument or tearing down a public statue a crime or just woke exuberance? Are there good riots and good looting and good arson that are not indictable, and then again bad riots and bad looting and bad arson that are? 

There are plenty of dangers when our important institutions lose their traditional sources of support. The Left inherently distrusts the military to the degree it cannot quite turn it into a people’s army of social change and an ideological tip of the spear. It also has contempt for science that believes in absolute cannons and remains the lone atoll in the academic sea of relativism that long ago absorbed the humanities and social sciences. And the Left despises the law as an ossified obstacle to social change. “Critical theory” is the reductionist idea that equality of result and “equity” alone adjudicate whether murder is murder, theft is theft, and a border is a border. 

Most conservatives and traditionalists have given up on their once cherished FBI that transmogrified into James Comey’s “I cannot recall” and “I don’t remember” ideological swamp. Ditto the CIA and NSA run by the likes of partisan wheeler-dealer John Brennan and partisan incompetent James Clapper, who both lied under oath with impunity and politicized the very security agencies of the United States.

Our most important and cherished institutions are losing the trust of Middle America. I doubt they will easily recover it, or find any such loyal supporters among their new coterie of fair-weather, progressive sycophants—and to the detriment of us all.


Exactly How Corporate Media Launders Opinion To Attack Inconvenient People And Facts



A New York Times business correspondent in Hong Kong, a weekend editor at The Guardian who lives in New York, a British Business Insider reporter with a focus on the Saudis, and the executive editor of The Daily Beast.

A 48-year-old blogger who works for Rachel Maddow, a union activist who covers “extremism, far-right politics and media disinformation” for The Huffington Post, and the 29-year editor of the Arkansas Times. 

A breaking news reporter at The Washington Post who wrapped up her most recent internship in May 2016, a 2016 University of Pennsylvania graduate who covers “young people doing big things” for Forbes, a 45-year-old former George Will intern who writes for CNN, and David Frum.

What do these people have in common, aside from their political ideology? Every one of them is a part of a machine that launders smears and opinions through newspapers, magazines, and television channels, presents the cleaned-up product as unimpeachable truth to the public, and then uses the fresh-minted facts to protect friends and hurt enemies. It’s called “the news,” and here’s how it worked for Arkansas’ Sen. Tom Cotton’s completely plausible theory that COVID-19 came from a Chinese lab.

That Hong Kong business correspondent? She wrote this headline for the Times in February 2020: “Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins.”

“Scientists,” the slug reads, “have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.” 

“Republican who floated virus conspiracy says ‘common sense has been my guide,'” the weekend editor at The Guardian dismissively explained.

“A GOP senator,” our award-winning Saudi investigator declared, “keeps pushing a thoroughly debunked theory that the Wuhan coronavirus is a leaked Chinese biological weapon gone wrong.”

“Sen. Tom Cotton Flogs Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Dismissed by Actual Scientists,” the editor of The Daily Beast howled.

“Tom Cotton’s veiled threats really aren’t helping,” Maddow’s blogger chimed in

“Don’t Listen To Sen. Tom Cotton About Coronavirus,” our “media disinformation” boy piped up.

“Tom Cotton and the virus conspiracy theory,” the three-decades’ veteran of an Arkansas weekly blogged, citing a Vanity Fair write-up that maintained far more nuance than the grizzled writer.

“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory,” the young Post staffer confidently led, “suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” That “theory,” her headline definitively states, “was already debunked.”

“Senator Tom Cotton Ramps Up Anti-China Rhetoric,” Forbes’ “Under 30 community lead” righteously wrote

“Tom Cotton,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza authoritatively declared, “is playing a dangerous game with his coronavirus speculation.”

Get all that? We’ve now heard from everyone from Rachel Maddow’s blogger to The New York Times, and from a 200-year old English newspaper to Cotton’s local editor that the senator is a racist, fear-mongering conspiracy theorist who imperils us all. But was a lick of it true?

It was hard to say at the time because the vast majority of the country didn’t know much about the virus at all — although that didn’t hold any of those above back in spouting their opinions and shutting down Cotton’s.

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update? Of course not. So far, the only thing like that was issued by PolitiFact for an article “fact-checking” a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” who repeated the lab-leak theory.

That poor, ignominious “fact-check” was written by Daniel Funke in September 2020. Although Funke doesn’t stand out above any of the mediocrities above, he ties a bow on media manipulation nicely.

Young Funke graduated from the University of Georgia in 2017, receiving a News Lab fellowship from Google. Google, in their wisdom, placed their young student at the Poynter Institute in Florida, which bills itself as an academic authority on media critiques and fact-checks. Funke must have impressed that summer, as he was rewarded with a job at Poynter’s pet project, PolitiFact, which boasts it is the “home of the Truth-O-Meter and independent fact-checking.”

In his new job, Funke fact-checked a number of COVID claims, smacking down the now largely acceptable lab-origin one more than once and making himself quite an authority on the facts.

But lest anyone think he’s being picked up unfairly, don’t fret. His now-retracted “fact-check” on an unknowable thing (from a time that was obvious) won’t slow him down: Today, he proudly covers misinformation for USA Today. No one in this machine is ever held accountable.

It’s rare to catch the media machine so red-handed, but don’t worry about them, either — they’re already rewriting the history.

Enter: Frum, an angry and somehow unembarrassed architect of the Iraq War who is now a senior editor at The Atlantic, the once-venerable magazine with its own fact-checking problems. “Some,” he declared this week, “are trying to turn the lab-leak theory into a potent political weapon.”

By “some,” he meant conservatives. Rinse, lather, repeat.


To Fight Back, Question Everything

 


Article by J.B. Shurk in The American Thinker


To Fight Back, Question Everything

The world is so plagued by contradictions right now that I sometimes find myself quietly mouthing the opening sentences of Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities (and I bet I'm not alone in this admission).  In terms of safety, health, opportunity, and prosperity, there has never been a better time in human history, but hardly anyone living anywhere is celebrating.  Barack Obama sold "hope" on his march to power, but Black Lives Matter and Antifa preach only despair at every turn.  An American government invested in projecting strength abroad stokes fear at home.  It has never been easier to acquire knowhow of almost any kind, yet ignorance runs amok.  How is this even possible when humans have never had greater access to information?  

Before the printing press revolutionized mass communication in the mid-fifteenth century, nobody owned books.  They were prohibitively expensive secret stores of knowledge possessed by a tiny percentage of monastic scribes and wealthy elites (many of whom were illiterate themselves).  Within fifty years of Gutenberg's invention, more books were produced than during the previous thousand years.  Still, just two hundred years ago, almost ninety percent of the world couldn't even read or write.  Now almost ninety percent of the world is literate, and most of us walk around with little computers in our pockets that, along with an internet connection, allow us to retrieve almost every word that has ever been written about almost anything.  If knowledge is priceless, and almost anyone can now scoop it up with the tap of a screen, we live in the golden age of universal wealth.  

Then I take a quick look at Facebook or Twitter and remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  For every person interested in gold, there seem to be a thousand just fine with pyrite.  And that lack of discernment is crucial to producing a society surrounded by answers yet in possession of few.

There is no problem in the United States that could not be solved if we were still a nation of critical thinkers.  But critical thinking has been intentionally replaced by dogma.  Having a degree is not equivalent to having an education.  Knowing something is not the same as understanding it.  In a world saturated with information, the "key" to distinguishing between truth and falsehood is one question, one word: "why?"

Why should schools and companies discriminate based on skin color?  Why should my race say more about me than my brain?  Why is it okay for federal immigration law to be ignored while federal tax laws must be obeyed?  Why are Americans who defend the Constitution treated as domestic terrorists?  Why are Americans who burn down cities treated as heroes?  Why does every "solution" to climate change involve the expansion of government powers and the contraction of personal liberties?  Why must the government police speech in order to keep it free?  Why must government disarm citizens in order to keep them safe?  Why is the government so afraid of the people that it must spy on them at all times?  Why is it no longer "our government," but rather the government?

Are those questions dangerous in a "free" society?  Of course not.  They lead to discussion, which leads to debate, which leads to contemplation, which leads to greater understanding, which creates a more perceptive mind, a more capable American, and a more complete human being.  When government deems some questions subversive, it is admitting that it no longer represents the people, but rather rules over them.  And any public school system that replaces the tools necessary for developing critical thinking skills with rigid indoctrination countenancing no dissent is producing not healthy citizens, but useful slaves.

The great philosopher George Carlin used to say, "Don't just teach your children to read[.] ... Teach them to question what they read.  Teach them to question everything."  That's how real learning is done — in the trenches with one hand on a flashlight searching for knowledge and the other gripping a shovel, digging up the oft-buried truth.  Carlin also knew that when it comes to truth, governments cannot be trusted: "I have certain rules I live by.  My first rule: I don't believe anything the government tells me."  If more Americans could learn this simple principle, our society would be in a much better place.  Free people with free minds do not need politicians to do their thinking for them.

But thinking critically takes effort.  It takes work.  It cannot be done overnight.  

There's a terrific movie called Greater that tells the inspirational story of Arkansas Razorbacks offensive lineman Brandon Burlsworth, whom some justifiably call the greatest walk-on in the history of college football.  In one scene, his high school football coach is stressing the value of hard work by teaching his players that they cannot control how they came into this world, but control completely how they will go out.  "Sow with thought, you reap in action.  Sow with action, you reap a habit.  You sow a habit, you reap a character.  You sow a character, you reap a destiny."  

Notice how at odds these words are to current educational malpractice and, in particular, Critical Race Theory?  Working hard and thinking critically strengthen the individual.  Seeing "systemic racism" hiding behind every corner provides an excuse for individual weakness.  Sowing racial division produces hate.  Sowing blame denies any chance for personal growth.  Sowing grievance distracts from goals of greatness.  And by denying that individual responsibility leads to happiness, schools no longer interested in teaching students how to learn destroy their students' destinies.  "Every place starts with a cadence, and ends with a whistle.  What you do in between, determines your legacy."  Schools in the business of replacing critical thinking with Critical Race Theory are in the business of killing legacies.

The science is settled?  The time for debate is over?  Never.  Only people interested in stealing your agency and capturing your soul say such things.  It is our capacity for reason that makes each of us distinct and our distinctive qualities that make each human life individually valuable.  When government deems individual minds unnecessary, then individual lives become disposable.  That's when governments do great evil.

Anyone just repeating what he's told is a mimic, not a thinker.  There are plenty of power and money in mimicry.  Toeing the line and questioning nothing can be well rewarding in this life.  But a mimic does not think for himself.  He is a puppet, speaking someone else's words with someone else's hand holding him up from behind.  A thinker stands on his own feet because he knows why he believes what he believes.  A mimic only serves those in power; a thinker possesses power all his own.

So fight back.  Think critically.  Teach others to think critically.  And question everything.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/to_fight_back_question_everything.html







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage