There is an ongoing legal battle surrounding the 145,000 absentee ballots that were due to be audited. The audit was supposed to begin yesterday, Friday May 28th. However, in a last minute court filing Fulton County officials are attempting to block the audit on procedural grounds {Go Deep}. A Georgia judge granted a 30 day pause in the audit until the legal arguments could be heard in court…. and now the building was compromised?
Witnesses previously said they saw ballots being counted twice, several batches of mail-in absentee ballots without folds (which is impossible), and the appearance of copying of ballots and machine filled ballots. The initial review of low-quality resolution sample batches found a 21% difference in the number of ballots between what the election officials said was in a batch and the actual number of ballots in the batch. That is part of the reason why the judge granted a full audit of the absentee ballots in Fulton county.
The alarm going off? The building left “wide open and unattended”?…
During a public event yesterday Grandpa Badfinger, the inappropriate old man, resurfaced.
Joe Biden looks at a little girl in the audience, the daughter of a veteran, and says “I love those barrettes in your hair. Man I’ll tell you what, look at her she looks like she’s 19 years old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed.”
A former US airline pilot has admitted committing a "lewd, indecent, or obscene act" during a flight last year.
Michael
Haak, 60, exposed himself to the female first officer in the cockpit
and watched pornography on a laptop, prosecutors said.
As the Southwest Airlines flight continued, Haak engaged in further "inappropriate conduct" in the cockpit.
A judge in Maryland sentenced him to one year's probation and ordered him to pay a $5,000 (£3,500) fine.
The
incident happened during a flight from Philadelphia International
Airport to Orlando International Airport on 10 August 2020, the court
heard.
When
the flight reached cruising altitude, Haak got out of the pilot's seat,
"intentionally disrobed" and watched pornographic media on a laptop.
"Haak
further engaged in inappropriate conduct in the cockpit, as the first
officer continued to perform her duties," federal prosecutors said in a
statement.
Haak had never met the first officer prior to the flight, they added.
Assistant
US Attorney Michael Cunningham said the co-pilot "had a right not to be
subjected to this kind of behaviour, regardless of what may have
motivated it or prompted it", the Associated Press reported.
Haak
was charged in Maryland because it was the state that the plane was
flying over at the time. He pleaded guilty to intentionally committing a
lewd, indecent or obscene act in a public place.
In
a statement via video link, Haak apologised for his behaviour, adding:
"It started as a consensual prank between me and the other pilot. I
never imagined it would turn into this in a thousand years."
US
Magistrate Judge J Mark Coulson told Haak that his behaviour had had a
traumatic effect on the first officer and could have affected the safety
of passengers.
Haak, of Longwood, Florida, was a pilot with Southwest Airlines for 27 years before retiring at the end of August last year.
In
a statement, the airline said it did not tolerate "behaviour of this
nature and will take prompt action if such conduct is substantiated". A
spokesman said the company had only learned of the incident after Haak
had voluntarily left the airline.
It said that, as a result, it had ceased paying him any benefits he was entitled to following his retirement.
In my column last week, I said that Senator Josh Hawley’s book The Tyranny of Big Tech raises important issues, and I’d like this week to go into one of these. He notes that Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, YouTube, and Google Search have immense influence on the news and political opinions people see.
As he points out, the
tech platforms are destroying Americans’ control over their lives … by manipulating what news Americans can see and influencing the political decisions they make. By 2019, Facebook was boasting it could change election outcomes…. In the days leading up to the 2020 presidential vote, Facebook and Twitter seemed determined to try. Both platforms censored the distribution of a New York Post report detailing illicit foreign profits by Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and alleging Joe Biden’s potential involvement. The platforms suppressed the story until after the election was over. (p. 7)
Here is an example of censorship I experienced myself. Sometime ago, I tried to send a link using Facebook to an article by Gordon Tullock, “Hobson’s Imperialism” (Modern Age, 1963). Although I tried to send the link in a private message, the message did not go through. The problem was that my link was to an index run by Ron Unz, who holds controversial views that make him a “nonperson” to Facebook. His index is just that, an index, and doesn’t contain political views. But the very mention of his name in a link is sufficient to block a message.
The media giants operate on a premise that, if true, would make their acts of suppression reasonable. The premise is that certain opinions, if widely held, can cause great damage and that people cannot be trusted to judge these opinions for themselves. A wise elite must protect us from these opinions.
To return to an example mentioned last week, suppose that you would like to study whether wearing masks helps prevent the spread of covid-19. Tom Woods had an excellent YouTube video arguing that it doesn’t. YouTube took it down, and now people are now longer able to listen to his case and make up their own minds about it.
The censors reason in this way. If people see the video, they may be convinced by it and, as a result, stop wearing masks. But Woods, they think, is wrong: wearing masks is beneficial. His talk may thus have bad consequences and should be suppressed.
What is wrong with this reasoning? Obviously, if Woods is right, then if people listen to him, this will have good consequences. People will be reluctant to wear masks and this will help free us from a petty tyranny that blights our lives. But suppose, contrary to fact, that Woods were wrong. That is, suppose that wearing masks did help save lives. Then wouldn’t YouTube have done the right thing in taking down his video?
I do not think so. Shouldn’t people be free to evaluate for themselves conflicting opinions on controversial issues? That, at any rate, is the assumption on which a free society is based. In response, it might be urged that people lack the ability to do so, either because they are stupid or because they do not have the expert knowledge needed to make accurate judgments. The implicit premise of the censors is that because ordinary people do not have the ability to evaluate arguments for themselves, they must be guided by their betters to do so.
On what basis do the censors claim that ordinary people are too stupid to be able to see their way through controversial issues without expert guidance? Often, the support for the premise is that people by themselves arrive at conclusions the experts think are wrong. People who saw the video might because of their stupidity throw their masks away. And what shows they are stupid? The very fact that they find convincing the arguments against masks. This blatantly begs the question.
But aren’t the censors right that some issues cannot be judged properly without expert knowledge? That is true, but this just pushes matters back one step. Why can’t people be trusted to figure out for themselves who count as real experts? Further, it is vitally important to bear in mind that the judgments of the alleged experts on political issues to whom the media giants appeal at least in part reflect their own values, which often differ greatly from those of the public. Most people, it is safe to think, wish to retain their liberty and resent intrusions on it. Those who wore masks did so because they thought this a regrettable necessity. Dr. Anthony Fauci appears to think freedom of little value, though he does not himself observe the restrictions he endeavors to foist on others.
Unfortunately, wearing masks is but one of many instances of suppression by the media giants. If you attempt to post on Facebook videos critical of the view that “climate change” requires drastic action to deindustrialize the American economy, you will not be permitted to do so. If you search for “climate change,” you will be directed to the “Climate Science Information Center.” Here you will learn, among other things, that “the cause of climate change is widely agreed upon in the scientific community.” You will not be surprised to learn that global warming is “human-caused.” Disagreement among qualified scientists about this alleged fact is a myth. One might view this assertion with more confidence were it not the case that those experts who do dissent are censored and attacked. First you suppress the experts who reject your views; next you support your views by pointing out that those whom you haven’t suppressed agree with you. This is not altogether convincing.
The critics of the advertising algorithms whom I talked about in my article last week usually have very different political views from the supporters of masks and “climate change” activism mentioned in the present article. But both groups fall into a common pattern: they assume that people cannot judge for themselves. Thus, from one side, the purveyors of the algorithms must be stopped; from the other, people must not be exposed to the “wrong” opinions.
Though it is a digression, I’ll mention one topic that came up in the comments on my article of last week. Some people adduced as a point in support of their critical view of the algorithms that if you spend a great deal of time on Facebook or on your phone, changes in your brain will result. The insinuation was that if this is so, you are being manipulated and that such attacks on your brain need to be curtailed. Though the matter merits much more discussion than I’m giving it here, the point about brain changes is trivial and doesn’t lend support to demands for suppression. Whenever you think or feel, something is changing in your brain. To call attention to this is insufficient to show that something sinister is going on.
To return to our main topic. We ought to reject the claim that ordinary people need to be protected in forming their opinions, from whatever source this claim comes.
SAN DIEGO, CHINA—Conquered Americans laboring away among other undesirables in a Chinese prison camp remember fondly how the American military, when it was still around, was a fully inclusive institution.
The camp known as Happy Democratic People’s Sunshine and Happy Exercise Wellness Center, set up at the former grounds of Navy Base San Diego, is billed as a top notch resort to get plenty of sunshine and exercise as well as a top notch education in Communist Party fundamentals. Many prisoners have noticed however that the Chinese officers staffing the gulag were not very diverse or concerned with things like what pronouns the prisoners preferred to be called.
“At least our military was inclusive,” said Prisoner #1138 in a hushed whisper while breaking rocks with a pickaxe and loading them into wheelbarrows. ”We had daily meetings about being less white, started every intelligence briefing by asking everyone to state their preferred pronouns for that day, and even meticulously tailored every uniform for each individual to make sure no one was body shamed just because they were a person of size or had a fetus inside them.”
“I really miss the transgender working groups,” reminisced one former officer from the U.S. Air Force. “Yep, those were the days.”
“I don’t identify as this number,” piped up another worker. “I keep telling them I identify as xe/xer but all they do is hit me and call me #1277 or ‘pansy.’”
“Work faster, pansy! All of you, keep your pansy mouths shut,” barked the Chinese soldiers up in the watchtowers as they trained their machine guns on the prisoners. Other Chinese soldiers began to laugh at the prisoners while taking breaks from lifting weights, cleaning their firearms, and talking about the women and children they missed back home.
At publishing time, the conquered Americans in the prison camp were reportedly very happy to at last be living in a nation with universal health care.
Article by Oliver North, LtCol. Ret. USMC, in Townhall
Memorial Day Tribute: Honoring Our Fallen Heroes
In 1967, "Memorial Day" became the official title of the somber
holiday we observe on May 31. Across the country, ceremonies will take
place at all 141 national cemeteries in the United States and 24 others
on foreign soil. More than 3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines
and Guardsmen are interred in these hallowed burial grounds. In words
written on stone markers, military cemeteries tell the story of who we
are as a people.
Since 1776, more
than 1.5 million Americans in uniform have given their lives for the
cause of freedom. Regardless of when they served or how they died, all
the heroes interred in our national cemeteries and elsewhere sacrificed
for their country. To selflessly serve a higher cause, they gave up the
comforts of home and the warmth and affection of loved ones.
In
his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy said:
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival ... of liberty." On this
Memorial Day, we remember and honor the American patriots who paid the
price, bore the burden and met the hardships to assure the survival of
our liberty.
There are few things more selfless or noble than
sacrificing one's life for a higher cause, particularly when that cause
is the freedom and security of our fellow Americans. This is the reason
the day is set aside to honor our military heroes who gave what Abraham
Lincoln called their "last full measure of devotion" in defense of
freedom.
Although Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, it is not an
occasion for grief or mourning. Rather, it is a day for remembering and
giving thanks. General George S. Patton said it best: "It is wrong to
mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God such men lived."
Indeed, we should. America has survived as a nation for more than 240
years because brave men and women are willing to die for an idea; the
idea that God granted them, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness."
As citizens of this great country, we are able to
enjoy the blessings set forth in the Declaration of Independence because
God endowed us with these blessings and American heroes sacrificed
their lives preserving them. As Americans enjoy Memorial Day cookouts
and picnics, we pray they will stop long enough to remember why they are
free to do so.
As citizens of the world's foremost bastion of
liberty, we have long benefitted from the freedoms spelled out in the
Bill of Rights. We must never take these or any of our rights for
granted or forget those who sacrificed their lives preserving them for
us. This is why it is so important to set aside one day out of the year
to remember our fallen heroes and give thanks for them.
More than 16 million Americans served in World War II. Only a handful
of the "Greatest Generation" remain. Others died fighting the tyranny
of communism in the mind-numbing cold of Korea while outnumbered 10 to
one.
On the heels of the Korean conflict, more than 12 million
Americas donned the uniform to serve in what was called the "cold war," a
decades-long conflict that was anything but cold. Then came the Vietnam
War, during which more than 7 million Americans served and 58,267
warriors lost their lives.
Since the end of the Vietnam War,
Americans have continued to sacrifice for freedom in far-flung hot spots
such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. Therefore, on this Memorial Day,
we encourage all Americans to remember our fallen heroes and pass down
the stories of their sacrifices so future generations never forget
Perhaps the last half of this interview explains why the mainstream media are now willing to let Anthony Fauci take the heat for the Wuhan Bio-Lab leak. The entire interview with Australian investigative journalist Sharri Markson is well worth watching. The first major point was how Anthony Fauci was arguing against scientific consensus to keep allowing “gain of function” biological experimentation with deadly viruses. Fauci advocated for weaponization research in 2012, the scientific community was against it because of the inherent risks.
The second major point was President Obama stopping gain of function research in 2014 due to the global risk of a leak from a lab. Then in 2017, in the first year of the Trump administration, unbeknownst to senior officials in the administration, NIH Director Anthony Fauci pushed through a restart of the dangerous research.
Obama stopping and Fauci unilaterally starting would explain why the media are willing to step aside and let Fauci take the fall. Defending and protecting President Obama are the primary objectives of the MSM and operatives embedded in the administrative state. Now the sudden shift makes sense. Those in the umbrella intelligence apparatus knew this type of investigative evidence was going to surface.
If
there’s a topic the woke like talking about most, it’s themselves.
This is not unusual for people obsessed with their own well-being,
status, and influence over others. Which pretty much sums up the mindset
of most of the woke. A culture based on such values easily tips over
into narcissistic exhibitionism -- the obsessive desire to parade one’s
self before others: nothing could be more important than satisfying the
craving for attention, approval, and adulation.
I
don’t wish to denigrate the suffering of those who experience mental
health problems. But parading themselves around on TV ‘continuing the
global conversation’ about mental ill-health borders on the grotesque.
They’re all willing participants, of course, and as adults can give
consent to their use as fodder for a project that is in effect
normalizing trauma by turning it into a lifelong obsession. Because
that is the message: if you suffer disabling trauma (or merely believe
you do) at some point in your life, this is a threat to your mental
health and emotional well-being for life, and to ease the resulting distress you need the help and care of ‘experts.’ For as long as you live. This is a false humanism.
Ever
since Sigmund Freud -- who systematized the idea that life necessarily
involves psychological conflict and trauma -- theorists, academics,
therapists, novelists, and many more have pushed the idea that to live
is necessarily to be tormented from within. True believers -- the
emotionally fragile or otherwise psychologically vulnerable -- spend
their entire existence seeking out the cause of their torment and then
searching for the ideal therapy. Life-coaches, life-style gurus,
chat-show hosts, and other promoters of ‘well-being’ have now turned
this into a constant searching for the ‘real me’ or the ‘me you can’t
see.’ The performative display of this quest for authenticity consists
of celebrating fragility instead of overcoming it. This is
existentialism woke-style.
Among
the woke it is seen as a virtue to open up about one’s mental health
issues, or merely one’s emotional fragility. Receiving therapy brings
status. The psychotherapy field is mushrooming with options. With
hundreds of approaches to psychotherapy and counseling, even the most
expert practitioner cannot possibly be proficient in more than a few.
But how to tell the genuine from hyped-up quack-remedies?
With
identity politics now firmly established in the public consciousness
every effort is being made by the wokerati to convince everyone else
that there must be something mentally wrong with them. Much-desired
‘victim’ status can then be theirs simply by opening up about their
mental trauma (real or imagined) in public. Woke psychopathology becomes bad soap opera.
There
is a deeper point to be made about all this, which has not yet received
the attention it deserves. And this is that the purveyors of this snake-oil
have managed to make claims of mental distress and disorder (whether
genuine or imagined) not only fashionable but almost compulsory if one
is to attain any credibility in a certain social circle -- the woke.
The woke are apparently obsessed with their own inability to live
with(in) themselves. Their therapy, it would appear, consists of
advertising their emotional sensitivity as if in a game show where the
most convincing performance wins the prize of ever more attention,
approval, and adulation. The most privileged appear on TV tell-all
shows during which they recount their emotional ordeals whilst insisting
they are ‘survivors’ of something dreadful which clearly didn’t kill
them but which they cannot let go of. Their emotional travails have
come to define them and have become an essential part of who they are.
The
cognitive dissonance involved must in itself be disabling, and perhaps
this is why the participants are so lacking in self-awareness. Their
self-disclosures are ever more revealing, but their authenticity can be
judged only on their performance. Their entire history of mental trauma
and distress must be retold at every opportunity to convince others of
the truthfulness of their account. They can’t let it go. They can’t
move on. They’ve turned themselves into living exhibits of
psychological dysfunction. They’re trapped by their own artifice of
compulsive competitive victimhood.
In the 18th century it became fashionable to visit Bethlem Royal Hospital in London on sunny Sunday afternoons to gawp at the inmates’ bizarre behavior (hence ‘Bedlam’), for the price of one penny.
Today’s
version makes for very profitable careers for those who seek to exploit
the obsessive curiosity of their audiences, drawing in ever more
converts.
But
to succumb to a moral hazard such as this is to adopt a new identity
founded on the social recognition of mental ill-health being a lifetime
affliction, locking the sufferer in a psychological prison from which
there is no escape; the torment and turmoil susceptible only to
temporary relief through recourse to psychiatrists, psychologists,
counselors, life-coaches, lifestyle gurus, quacks and other kinds of
ego-masseurs such as chat-show hosts.
There are at least two fundamental problems with all this.
First,
whatever therapy those afflicted in this way claim to be receiving and
thus recommending for others clearly doesn’t work, except to prolong the
condition. Which only adds to the list of quack ‘solutions’ that
simply fleece people of their money. This devalues therapies that might
actually have some chance of being beneficial to those with genuine
mental health problems. Worse still, it is easy not only to convince
vulnerable people that they have a mental health problem, but also to
reinforce their unhealthy habits, which Sigmund Freud (in one of his
more helpful moments) categorized as ‘repetition compulsion.’
Thus
is a cycle established whereby the experience of mental trauma, along
with the resulting distress, expresses itself as an obsession and comes
to dominate the person’s life such that they are unable to break free
without competent professional help, and sometimes even this fails. But
all this is as nothing to the second fundamental problem arising from
the turning of woke psychopathology into bad soap opera.
And
that is that so many people want a walk-on part that the set is
becoming rather overcrowded, with the most adept indulging in rhetorical amplification to gain extra attention and kudos:
If
this carries on what we might term ‘normal’ people -- that is,
reasonably well-adjusted, psychologically competent, emotionally
well-balanced individuals capable of sufficient insight to detect what
is actually going on here -- will be in a minority and the asylum will
consist of almost the entirety of the society in which we live.
And
when that stage is reached, the vulnerable and impressionable, the
gullible and otherwise hapless individuals sucked into this latest fad
will be too many in number for the competent psychiatrists,
psychologists, and counselors to accommodate and the way will be open
for cynical political manipulators to take charge with their promise of a
utopia that will solve all of humanity’s problems.
Is there something in the California water that makes Silicon Valley’s censorious dweebs so damned shameless?
On Wednesday, Facebook revised its policy of banning posts suggesting the coronavirus was man-made — because the COVID situation is, er, “evolving,” as a spokesman told Politico.
Gee, thanks. The flip-flop comes more than a year after the social-media giant banned a well-reasoned Post opinion column by China scholar Steven Mosher that speculated about a potential lab leak. Will our columnist receive an apology? Of course not. But it’s the American people who should be holding the Menlo Park tyrants to account.
Think about it: If you were Xi Jinping, and you wanted to deploy an information-control operation over the origins of COVID-19, you couldn’t have done better than to just let Facebook, working in conjunction with America’s bottom-feeding “fact-checking” industry, do its thing.
The Chi-Coms, after all, were held in odium in the US eye long before the first COVID cases arrived: How much more effective — and devious — to have a gazillion-dollar US tech firm shut down public inquiry into the virus’ origins, and that with the help of well-credentialed “experts” and “fact-checkers.”
It’s worth returning to what Mosher wrote to see how shameful Facebook’s censorship was. For starters, note that Mosher didn’t definitively claim that COVID-19 had leaked from a lab. What he argued, rather, is that a lab leak should be plausible to anyone familiar with Chinese realities. Among the pieces of evidence he marshaled:
• The fact that Xi himself had, in the early days of the crisis, warned about “lab safety” as a national-security priority.
• The fact that, following Xi’s guidance, “the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: ‘Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.’ ”
• Above all, the fact that the Middle Kingdom has only one Level 4 microbiology lab that can “handle deadly coronaviruses” — and that lab just happens to be located at the “epicenter of the epidemic.”
Set aside any other scientific questions about the virus (many remain unresolved): Didn’t it at least merit some thought that the country’s sole coronavirus lab is located at the outbreak’s ground zero?
Even if Mosher were wrong — and a growing number of US security officials and top scientists are coming around to his side — didn’t Americans and their policy makers have the right to consider the possibility? The virus’ true origins, after all, would inform any number of concrete decisions, not least whether Beijing and the curiously Beijing-subservient World Health Organization deserved US cooperation.
But no. Facebook and its “experts” knew better and moved to suppress a vital column, distorting the US debate when it mattered most.
Oh, about those “experts,” whose testimony was used to justify the ban: At least one of them — Danielle E. Anderson, an assistant professor at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore — regularly collaborated with the Wuhan virologists, hardly an unconflicted source.
Another “expert” insisted that no “responsible” government would permit such deadly leaks, and the quaint assumption that China ranks among responsible governments was enough to merit banning Mosher’s column to her mind.
Similarly dubious “expert” claims, amplified by partisan “fact-checking” outfits like Politifact, were used to frame as conspiracy nuts anyone who dared warn of a potential lab leak. (Politifact has now quietly taken down its denunciation of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson as a leading conspiracy theorist on this issue.)
This pattern of Big Tech censorship, enabled by unaccountable “fact-checkers,” poses a catastrophic danger to America’s ability to govern herself and respond to crises.
The problem isn’t just that it leaves ordinary Americans in the dark, but that it insulates elites themselves from uncomfortable realities — such as the possibility that their beloved Chinese trading partner might be responsible for a pandemic that cost millions of lives.
Enough is enough. Facebook and the other Big Tech giants are irreformable. Only political action — in the form of removing the special status that allows them to act like publishers without any of a traditional publisher’s liabilities — can save us from this private tyranny.
I want to make a suggestion. It is past time for some type of "coalition of free American states."
States
have a long history of creating partnerships with each other. Law
enforcement task forces, farming cooperatives, river management boards,
and collegiate sports conferences all benefit individual states through
regional collaborations and are common throughout the United States. It
is also common for state attorneys general to coordinate lawsuits
against the federal government. Republican governors and Democrat
governors meet at party retreats to strategize how best to advance their
respective parties' interests. And innumerable lobbying and legal
groups work every year to promote the passage of nearly identical
statutory language in state legislatures across the country.
What
I have in mind is more substantial — the formation of a coalition of
free states whose explicit purpose is to reduce the power of the federal
government over individual states and their citizens while banding
together to lessen the inevitable retaliatory blows the federal
government will initiate against the states in response.
Although
America's constitutional form of limited government was designed
specifically to maximize the liberty of citizens and maximize the power
of states at the expense of the federal government, the accumulation of
power has flowed only in one direction — away from individual states and
individual citizens and toward the national government in D.C. This
phenomenon is so natural throughout history that it was a chief concern
of the Founding Fathers themselves. Thomas Jefferson, a shrewd student
of human nature, was blunt: "Experience hath shewn [sic], that even
under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in
time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Let's
be honest: the federal government hasn't looked in tip-top shape for a
long time, and now it's a train wreck waiting to happen.
It's
made up of millions of petty bureaucrats who couldn't care less about
"serving the public." Rather, they use their sinecures to exert power
over (and not on behalf of) Americans and turn a tidy profit in the
process. As was made clear while President Trump was in office, the
president's prerogative is routinely thwarted by an unelected
administrative Leviathan that has no foundation in the Constitution's
division of government but does move to the Democratic Party's marching
orders. Congress is made up of below-average-intelligence scoundrels
and prima donnas who pretend to be statesmen and lawmakers while outside
lobbyists, corporate kingmakers, and foreign governments write the laws
that punch the rest of us right in the gut. And the federal courts
have become home to too many political hacks camouflaged in priestly
robes who distort the rule of law in pursuit of partisan objectives.
Notwithstanding
the timely re-emergence of fiscal conservatives every few years who
promise to have an answer to America's budgetary crisis and looming financial Armageddon, nobody honestly believes there is any way to arrest America's runaway debt explosion and unfunded liabilities spiraling past 250 trillion dollars while one quarter of the money supply now in circulation has been created out of thin air in just the last year.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military is engaged in war in some eighty countries —
or nearly half the nations on the planet — and most Americans have no
idea what kind of fighting is being done on their behalf or why. They
do know that while the federal government finds the logistical
legerdemain to engage in global conflict, it cannot (and will not) be
bothered to use any of that skill to secure the southern border —
preferring instead to enable drug-traffickers and criminal gangs to wage
war against American citizens while at the same time demanding that
Americans relinquish their Second Amendment rights to self-protection.
But
do not worry. Have no fear. We have an Intelligence Community in
America that is keeping everyone safe by reading all of our emails and
text messages, spying on our phone calls, and generally making sure that
any American objecting to the State-enforced political correctness
struggle sessions of the day be added to the government's growing list
of "extremists." The same bunch of propagandists who could be counted
on to push the Russia hoax for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and who
will now make sure that the origins of the Wuhan Virus get
covered up for the political benefit of Joe Biden, are the wizards who
regularly engage in national disinformation campaigns against the
American people for their own good. Was the CIA lying about
Russian bounties being paid for the killing of American soldiers in
Afghanistan in order to manipulate White House policy? Sure. Is
military intelligence pushing UFO sightings today
to distract the American people from emerging crises on the
horizon? Maybe. Is there any check whatsoever on the powers of the
Intelligence Community? Not likely. Does anyone in Congress seem to
care? Nope.
At
some point, the whole federal government is at risk of crashing down
under the weight of its own extravagance. Maybe the Ponzi scheme set up
by Treasury and the Fed falls over like a Jenga tower in the near
future, or U.S.-NATO provocations against Russia succeed in making us
the beneficiary of a cyber- or EMP attack that takes out half the
nation's electrical grid, or the Democrats' dance with woke fascism
finally awakens enough Americans to the abundant threats to their
freedom that people start pushing back. It's as economist Herbert Stein
adroitly pointed out: "If something cannot go on forever, it will
stop." Then what?
Well,
it's back to first principles, and those states prepared to exist
without an overarching national government will survive. Just as it was
during America's founding, personal and economic freedoms will
determine everything. Those states that respect families and religious
liberty, reward knowledge and hard work, secure property rights while
limiting welfare, and protect economic and intellectual liberty over
regulation will dig themselves out from whatever mess lands our
way. States that abandon currency manipulation by backing money with
gold and silver will prosper. In turn, innovation and social wealth
will rise. The same foundations in liberty that made America
exceptional will redound to states' future survival and success.
The
Democrats are on the wrong side of liberty. The federal government has
strayed entirely too far from the clear meaning of the U.S.
Constitution, and its increasingly Marxist proclivities promise only
further betrayal. For American freedom to survive, the states must
again do the heavy lifting. It's time for a "coalition of the willing"
to come together again.
Joe Biden’s coronavirus adviser has continued to downplay the
investigation into the origins of COVID-19. During an interview on
Thursday, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel explained that China is withholding information which may be relevant to the Wuhan lab leak theory.
Emanuel insisted the origins of the virus is not the real issue,
despite Biden directing the U.S. Intelligence Agency to launch a probe
into the matter. He went on to claim the main focus should be on how to
protect ourselves from future pandemics.
“We need transparency and we do need the Chinese to participate
because the real issue is not how did this happen,” said Emanuel.
Instead, he claims the more important question to ask is how can we
protect ourselves from a future pandemic? The doctor also suggested
implementing an early warning system for the public.
Nonetheless, Biden has directed the Intel Agency to complete a probe into the root causes of the virus within 90 days.
I must say this part of THE BIG UGLY brings a smile to my face. The more President Trump can call out the DeceptiCons the more people will wake up to just how manipulated and corrupted the Republican party has become.
There was no doubt in my mind that Paul Ryan was positioning himself to lead the “establishment” republican wing of the UniParty. However, in reality, Paul Ryan as a candidate for Vice-President in 2012 received less votes in his own state of Wisconsin than candidate Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. The ‘America First’ national agenda, both economically and in larger global terms, was not represented in either wing of the UniParty system until Donald Trump came into politics.
PRESIDENT TRUMP – “RINO Paul Ryan, who became a lame duck Speaker of the House, lost all vote-getting capability with the people he represented in Wisconsin, and was the single biggest factor, other than Romney himself, for the monumental Romney/Ryan loss in the Presidential race of 2012 (I got more votes by far, 75M, than any sitting president in history!), and he is now speaking to other Republicans telling them how to win elections. Interestingly, I was in the Great State of Wisconsin when they booed him off the podium—I literally had to come to his rescue.
Ryan should instead be telling them how to stop the cheating of elections and that we would have won if Republican leadership fought the way the Democrats did.
It was the day that Ryan went on the board of Fox (Fox will never be the same!) that Fox totally lost its way and became a much different place, with millions of its greatest supporters fleeing for good. Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country.
As a Republican, having Paul Ryan on your side almost guarantees a loss, for both you, the Party, and America itself!” (link)
As the House Speaker Paul Ryan undercut President Trump at every turn in the first two years of his administration. Ryan’s duplicity included his unwillingness to support Devin Nunes and other House chairman in their subpoena efforts against the bad actors in the intelligence community. Paul Ryan was, in deliberate terms, knowingly and with specific intent, protecting the corrupt DC interests.
Yes, it is something he would rather people not remember, but it was Speaker Paul Ryan who blocked republicans in the House from issuing subpoenas in 2017 and 2018 for the election surveillance and FBI lies against President Trump. It is also worth remembering that Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC funded democrat Conner Lamb in the 2018 mid-term election after Ryan announced his intended departure.
Paul Ryan has always been the type of DeceptiCon who could get the CPAC audience to stand and cheer for him only minutes after passing a massive omnibus spending package to support President Obama. Thus the UniParty maneuvers are always present; including when Ryan said: “I am not going to defend Trump – not now, and not in the future.”
Additionally, former House Speaker Paul Ryan previously held a fundraising event for Liz Cheney (March 2021), and Paul Ryan recently announced he will host a fundraising event for Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger.. ..
A week after saying any Democrat who made the 2020 presidential race about “Trump’s personality” will beat him, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch hired Paul Ryan to serve as a board member for the news organization. This announcement followed on the heels of Fox News hiring the former head of the DNC, Donna “Debate-Gate” Brazile, as a contributor. Yes, it is clear to see the direction and intent of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.
It must also be remembered that in 2013 Fox News worked behind the scenes to facilitate the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform platform. Additionally, a year later, Murdoch himself advocated for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as the preferred candidates in 2016, using Megyn Kelly to achieve their objective.
Yes, it is all one unfortunate, political and ideological continuum.
PRESIDENT TRUMP