Hi. If you plan to run across the U.S. border, let me clue you in.
One of the reasons you want to come here is because you believe if you work hard, your children can move up. We were a socially mobile country.
The Democrats letting you over the border want to change that.
You and your children will be part of the permanent underclass. Sent to work for a select number of oligarchs who can pay the onerous taxes & comply with the crushing regulation they propose.
If you send them to our public schools they “may” become proficient in English. In some urban school districts our own children do not. And asking them to become fluent in our nation’s language is “racist”
They will be taught that men can become women & vice versa. Gender, you see is a social construct. So is the meritocracy, scientific inquiry & the free market. And we are the most inherently racist nation ever according to your Democrat benefactors.
Our biggest threat is white supremacist violence according to our elite intelligence & law enforcement agencies. If you are black or brown, our elites tell us you are at great risk.
But they still wave you in. Expecting you will be lured by free stuff. Healthcare, food, housing. Just please understand if you hook up to the free shit IV, your kids will be in line for the same program. The free shit IV is generational.
It ties you to the worst schools based on the zip code you live in. The “American Dream” is being murdered by the very people opening the gates. If I told you our government wants to own 50% of the land in this nation by 2050.
and the owner of the largest amount of farmland in the US is an oligarch, does that sound like we are on the road to where you are fleeing? These morons want us eating bugs, not beef.
Turn back. Use your smarts, your will, and your fight to improve your own country while we fix ours. We let the “Shining City on the Hill” degrade & I am sorry. We took it for granted. We can fix it if we have the will.
But to say we should be a nation of immigrants now is deceptive. People like AOC need masked nameless people to hold up the train on her Met Gala dress.
Obama needs masked servants for his birthday party & our corporate media needs cheap nannies & gardeners. Where you will live will put your kids in schools that let them be the next server, gardener, or nanny. Welcome to Neo-Feudalism.
Go home & build back better. Our elites see you as future voters & future cheap labor. You deserve better. God speed & blessings.
It’s time for Democrats with decent instincts to wake up to the threat their party is posing to the future of democracy in our country, and take a stand against it.
The correct answer to this question is: “Not yet . . . but the Jury is still out.”
The actual point of the exercise—as I will make clear—is not to offer a real time judgment as to where so-called liberal Americans are at this point in time. But rather, where they are headed. How much fascistic government will they support? Right now, Biden—or the figures in the shadows pulling his strings—are attempting to add 80,000 agents to the federal police, and sic them on citizens for every check over $600 that they write on their personal bank accounts.
The liberal Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, is perfectly on board for this massive expansion of federal police and their authority over Americans’ personal lives. Which is no mystery, as she has been the beneficiary of millions of corrupt dollars dropped into her personal accounts by the big banks she oversees. But then, when it comes to corruption, her boss Biden and his family are America’s reigning experts (a Hunter original, anyone?).
At the same time Commissar Pelosi is preparing her fourth Stalinist show trial of Trump and his supporters, many of whom have been locked up for 10 months in solitary confinement, charged with the crime of “trespassing” in the Capitol on January 6. At the same time, Ashli Babbitt’s murderer roams the nation’s capital scot-free, courtesy of his patron and protector Pelosi. In short, so-called liberals have been perfectly on board as the Biden radicals—a bare 10 months in power—have marched steadily towards a final resolution of the problem created by their unflinching view of political opponents as “enemies of democratic America,” “white supremacists,” and “domestic terrorists.”
Deciding where Jessica Tarlov stands on this once-liberal spectrum provides a bellwether for answering the $64 million question as to how much fascistic repression liberals are willing to take. Along with former Representative Harold Ford (D-Tenn.), Tarlov is one of only a handful of Democratic strategists still capable of registering even marginally fair-minded judgments about Trump-DeSantis Republicans, while resisting the temptation to tar and feather all conservatives as “white supremacists,” “Hitler wannabes,” and “domestic terrorists.”
Tarlov is a rising star in the Democratic firmament, having replaced the redoubtable Pat Caddell as the Democrats’ critic-from-within alongside her boss, pollster Doug Schoen. With Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), she occupies the furthest outlier spot on the Democratic spectrum for offering reasonable critiques of Democratic outrages, as the mass of America’s moderate electorate deserts Joe Biden in droves. Will Biden drive this once great nation off a cliff if he continues the calamitous course he has embarked on since his inauguration 10 months ago? Thirty-eight percent of the electorate thinks the answer is yes.
Which brings us to our moment of truth. America’s teacher unions are a bastion of communist perfidy and Marxist indoctrination in our k-12 classrooms. They took the COVID-19 year off—with pay—because they could, even though there was no measurable threat to their health had they decided to show up for work instead. They took the time to inject a pack of anti-American racist lies into the k-12 curriculum called the “1619 Project” and critical race theory, designed to portray America as a racist country from birth whose institutions and laws should not be respected by anyone with even a modest sense of decency and justice. In other words, they have done the work of America’s most hateful enemies—from Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing to Kabul, Ramallah, and Gaza—as an ideological service.
School boards are elected by the teacher union slush funds. Naturally when parents complained, the teacher unions—who are the biggest donors to the Democratic Party—appealed to the Justice Department to send in the FBI to harass and intimidate them by putting them on lists—a tried and true tactic of totalitarian regimes.
This is where Jessica missed a beat. Instead of recognizing the threat her own party posed to the parents, her country, and the democracy liberals are supposed to cherish, and even though she couldn’t figure out why the FBI was invited in, she still weighed in on the threat posed by the parents, angry about a curriculum which teaches their sons and daughters to hate their country, and if their skin is white to hate themselves.
To pick up on something that Jesse said, you know, use the word peaceful which is critical to the First Amendment and understanding of how these meetings should go. We all realize that even if you disagree with someone you should treat people with respect. You shouldn’t get in their faces. There’s video of people, of teachers and school board members being accosted on the street. It’s my impression, just understanding, you know, President Biden and the people who work for him, Merrick Garland, they don’t seem like irrational people that they are going to be talking about folks who are taking this to an inappropriate level versus just someone who is saying excuse me, I don’t agree with this bit of the curriculum.
And most parents, I think, should understand that the mask mandates are not coming from the teachers themselves. That’s coming from the higher-on ups up there.
Of course the teacher unions run the schools and the school boards. They also make up 25 percent of the delegates to Democratic national conventions. They elect the school boards with the slush funds they extort from their members. There are no “higher-on ups up there.” And, of course, Merrick Garland is a corrupt snake, a rubber stamp for whoever in the deep state is pulling those fascist levers. Garland went on the record before a congressional committee saying of the January 6 mainly peaceful demonstration—they’ve mainly been charged with “trespassing” Jessica—“I think this was the most heinous attack on the democratic process that I’ve ever seen,” and then claiming that only patriotic conservatives could be characterized as “domestic terrorists.”
Shame on you, Jessica. It’s time for people like you with decent instincts to wake up to the threat your own party is posing to the future of democracy in our country, and take a stand against it.
Art gallery repping Hunter Biden received $500K federal COVID loan, records show
Isabel Vincent - New York Post
The Georges Berges Gallery on West Broadway in Manhattan. J.C.Rice
A federal COVID loan to the art gallery repping Hunter Biden more than doubled after his father took office, records show.
The Georges Berges Gallery initially received a $150,000 COVID “disaster assistance loan” from the Small Business Administration last year, according to public records.
But the loan was recently “revised,” with the SBA approving a further $350,000 to the SoHo gallery this summer, records show.
The approval came on July 26, in the lead-up to Berges’ exclusive marketing of 15 paintings by the president’s scandal-scarred son, public records show.
In addition to the COVID disaster assistance loans, the SoHo gallery received nearly $80,000 in two payments in April 2020 and February 2021 under the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program, funds meant to help businesses keep up with paychecks to employees during the pandemic.
All tolled, $580,000 in taxpayer-funded COVID relief aid was doled out to a gallery with only two employees, according to SBA records.
Berges declined to specifically respond to repeated queries from The Post on whether the Bidens interceded in his loans; if any of the government cash went directly to Hunter Biden as a salary or stipend; or if any of it was used to market his artwork.
Besides being the President’s son, Hunter Biden also creates art.TheImageDirect.com
“I received my PPP loan in April of 2020 when Donald Trump was president, along with countless other galleries which, considering a global pandemic was happening, we had every right to. … Most galleries received this loan,” Berges told The Post in an email. “We were not unique.”
While there is no evidence President Biden helped secure the additional $350,000 loan, a watchdog group found that of the more than 100 galleries in New York City’s 10th congressional district, which includes SoHo, TriBeCa and Chelsea, the Georges Berges Gallery received “by far” the largest SBA disaster loan windfall.
“We’ve reached a new low in American politics where the President’s son gets his midlife crisis art career subsidized by the American people as part of our pandemic response to COVID,” said Tom Anderson, director of the government integrity project at the National Legal and Policy Center.
The Virginia-based organization this week submitted a complaint to the SBA questioning the the taxpayer-funded loans to the gallery, and noting the discrepancy in the size of its loan when compared to other local galleries.
“You can’t make this up,” Anderson said, adding that funds from the federal loans could have been used to promote Biden’s work — a possible ethical breach. “This is a unique situation in which the president’s son is directly benefiting from federal loans made to a third party,” he said.
The Georges Berges Gallery initially received a $150,000 COVID “disaster assistance loan” from the Small Business Administration last year.Georges Berges Gallery
Another government ethics expert questioned the gallerist’s loan.
“If he [Georges Berges] got any special treatment on the loans from the president, that could be problematic,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former chief White House counsel to President George W. Bush, from 2005 to 2007.
Berges, 45, told The Post that he met Biden through collectors in Los Angeles two and a half years ago, and has helped the largely self-taught and once drug-addled entrepreneur turn his abstract expressionist painting from a hobby to a full-time job.
Last week Berges held a private viewing for 200 celebrities and collectors at the Milk Studios in Los Angeles. Guests, including Los Angeles Mayor and Biden nominee for ambassador to India Eric Garcetti and former boxer Sugar Ray Leonard, nibbled hors d’oeuvres as they viewed Biden’s canvases and prints, which are priced between $75,000 and $500,000.
A federal COVID loan to the art gallery repping Hunter Biden more than doubled after his father took office.bergesgallery.com
An exhibit of the work that was scheduled to open at the SoHo gallery this month has been postponed to the spring, a source told The Post Thursday.
Even before the LA show, Biden sold five prints, valued at $75,000 each, The Post revealed this week. In an interview with The Post on Saturday Berges’ publicist denied that any of Biden’s prints had been sold and would not specify when the exhibit of Biden’s work would open at the gallery, citing security concerns.
In an effort to prevent influence-peddling, the White House promised that the buyers of Biden’s art work would remain anonymous and that the gallery owner, Berges, would not disclose their identities to the president. But critics have already pointed out that the artist’s participation in publicity events to promote his work makes this arrangement difficult to enforce. “I’ve said from the beginning it wasn’t going to work to make it anonymous,” said Painter. “Word is going to get out.”
Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, an upstate Republican who is a member of the House’s Small Business Committee, noted that “Hunter Biden’s recent diversion into the art world is the perfect example of Washington DC grifters profiting from public service.
Hunter Biden’s art is finally going up for sale at an NYC gallery, with the most expensive pieces expected to top $500,000, and buyers promised anonymity.Georges Berges Gallery
“Revelations that Hunter Biden’s art broker was granted a massive SBA loan further erodes public trust in the President, just when you thought it could not go any lower,” she told The Post.
A spokesman for the SBA would not discuss individual loans, but said that under the Biden administration, small businesses could apply or “revise” their loan for exponentially higher amounts. “Businesses may apply for an additional increase even if they have already applied for and received previous loans,” said Matthew Coleman, the New York spokesman for the SBA.
The long-term SBA loans, which carry favorable interest rates of 3.75 percent, can be secured by personal property, but public land records show the gallery used none of its property as collateral.
The SBA approved more than $270 billion COVID disaster relief loans to small businesses in fiscal 2021, which ended last month.
In addition to Biden, the West Broadway gallery, which has an outlet in Berlin, represents 18 other artists.
Biden, 51, began painting a few years ago, partly to deal with addictions to alcohol and drugs, struggles he documented in “Beautiful Things,” a memoir released in April.
While we are used to fact-checks being slanted, we must ask ‘Why’ of AP’s blatant prevarication here.
There is no shock in a revelation that a fact-checker in the media is contorting the very foundation of its mission statement — the facts. This adjunct in the journalism complex has been shown to be a narrative-manipulating device, one employed to aid and abet one party. For proof, just choose a news outlet, comb through its fact-check section, and note how frequently the entries are used on critics of the Democrats and how infrequently they actually fact-check Democrats.
One of the latest examples however requires full analysis – the recent news of parents of school children being deemed domestic terrorists. The Associated Press recently corrected the story that broke about there being an effort made to list parents in this fashion, and it is a disturbing effort. Their assessment is remarkable, in that the news syndicate did not reframe the story, or resort to the tried practice of delivering “context,” suggesting there are “nuanced details,” or otherwise suggesting details have been omitted. The AP declares the claim to be outright false.
This is done, despite the fact that The National School Boards Association sent out a letter specifically outlining their contentions, and its call to have President Biden step in and control their contentious meetings. Over the past year, we have seen numerous school board meetings turn contentious regarding the refusal to open schools, mandated mask-wearing for students, and/or the Critical Race Theory curriculum, and now they want the actions of parents of students to be deemed acts of domestic terrorism.
The AP goes to great lengths in attempting to deflect on this matter. First, here is the declaration made by the AP.
CLAIM: The National School Boards Association is asking the Biden administration to label parents who protest school policies domestic terrorists.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The organization — the NSBA, for short — is not asking Biden to label parents who protest at school board meetings as terrorists.The NSBA asked the administration to do an interagency investigation of threats of violence against school board members and said the threats “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
Now on first blush, this appears to be the application of the fact-checker’s nuance. It is not the protesting, they say, but the select violent aspects seen at particular times during, or following, these meetings, goes the explanation. But for the AP to come to this conclusion, the outlet either never read the letter sent by the NSBA, or it was merely repeating fed talking points from a spokesperson.
This is because we can read the letter that was sent to President Biden. In it, the NSBA wants protests labeled as domestic terrorism, and suggests the president should involve the DOJ, possibly the Patriot Act, the Hate Crimes Act, Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, the US Postal Inspection Service, and even the possibility of a presidential executive order. Yes, they have suggested any and all of those to be used regarding school board meetings with parents present.
The AP quotes a PR rep from the school board group attempting cover for their wild claims, and to place a better image on this hysterical bout of overreacting.
NSBA and school board members don’t want to stop parents from expressing their First Amendment rights or label them as terrorists,” NSBA CEO Chip Slaven said in a statement emailed to the AP. “Our letter to President Biden was about stopping dangerous and threatening acts that school board members and other education leaders are receiving,” Slaven added.
Yeah, except…
In their letter, the NSBA actually went so far as to list out actions and activities that the group deemed worthy of being labeled as domestic terrorists, and to call some of their examples violence is to employ the most woke/triggering/safe-space definition of the word. Here are some of the examples of the activity they want the force of the federal government thrown at for their sake.
School board meetings have been disrupted in California, Florida, Georgia, and other states because of local directives for mask coverings to protect students and educators from COVID-19.
Disruptions are now to be regarded as “violence”?
During two separate school board meetings in Michigan, an individual yelled a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements, and another individual prompted the board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.
Okay, while crude and probably unnecessary, this amounts to the shouting of words, not a violent act.
In New Jersey, Ohio, and other states, anti-mask proponents are inciting chaos during board meetings. In Virginia, an individual was arrested, another man was ticketed for trespassing. In other states including Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Tennessee, school boards have been confronted by angry mobs and forced to end meetings abruptly. A resident in Alabama, who proclaimed himself as “vaccine police,” has called school administrators while filming himself on Facebook Live.
Yes, there have been some instances of very select examples of violent behavior, but these have been dealt with by local authorities. But look again at the words of the spokesman, claiming they do not want to stop the expression of First Amendment Rights.
Most of what they list — disruptions, yelling, angry parents, or filming of some events — are forms of expression, not violence, yet these are being held up as terrorist behavior, and numerous federal agencies are being called on to stifle these expressions.
AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File
So why would the Associated Press look over these very strained efforts to relabel what is considered violence approvingly? Why is the wire service agreeing with this organization that what amounts to vocal outbursts is considered terrorist behavior? This is not reflexive media defense of Joe Biden since, as the fact-check stipulates, neither Biden nor the DOJ has declared parents to be terrorists — so they are siding with the school boards on this matter.
As the NSBA is quoted calling outbursts at meetings terrorism, the AP says anyone stating such is in the wrong. In its rundown, it twice calls the claims “false,” also labeling them “misinformation,” and that they “aren’t accurate.” This means effectively the AP is perfectly fine with the wrongful classification of parents of school children objecting to school boards overstepping authority. Sure, the school board authority only wants help investigating threats and violence; the issue is in what that entity classifies under those terms — and who.
Over the past half decade, there has been a growing trend signaling a shift in the perceived and accepted role of science. It is not uncommon to see slogans and mottos such as “the science is settled” and “believe in science.” Statements like this present two major problems: first, science is determined to be final and indisputable; second, it is accompanied by a value or moral judgment. For example, scientific studies indicate that wearing a helmet can “reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, [and] face injury by 23%.” While it takes little effort to align with science on such a matter, I intend to demonstrate that an application of the first behavior is contradictory to the foundation of science and the second lies entirely outside its purview.
To establish common ground, we begin by reviewing the merits and fundamentals of the scientific method. First, an observation is made, followed by a question regarding the observation. A hypothesis is then formed that could potentially answer the question. A prediction about future results based on the hypothesis is then tested via experiments. Analysis of the results of the experiments are utilized to confirm or reject the hypothesis. If the results seem to demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct, then confidence begins to build in the predictive power of the hypothesis and its ability to describe the real world. If the results seem to demonstrate that the hypothesis is incorrect, then the scientific method loops back on itself and the hypothesis is challenged, refined, modified, or discarded. The process is rigorous, thorough, and exacting. It is also deeply empirical, meaning it relies on information from the real world; it can only extract data from things that have already happened. In its most basic form, this process is what constitutes “science” as commonly referred to in media and conversation.
With common ground established, the first major problem can be addressed. It is, ironically, antiscience to ever declare that science is settled. There are a few characteristics of the scientific method that substantiate this claim. Since the scientific method is based on empirical data in relation to a hypothesis, it is reliant on the senses and perceived experiences. This means it is wholly dependent on the past. Science cannot properly predict the future; it can only model what has happened and make a reasonable projection about what could happen. All scientific law hangs desperately on statistical probability.
In addition, since man is not omniscient, the future will forever remain unknown. As man continues to explore the physical world, there always exists the possibility that enough data will accumulate to falsify, or at least cast into doubt, a well-established scientific conclusion. Because of these conditions, statements declaring the science to be settled are altogether unscientific: they reject the core principles and practices of the scientific method and the nature of human experience. Such conditions expose the ridiculousness of any insinuation that science is settled. Strictly speaking, science is unable to ever be settled. Imagine the carnage if scientists around the world had retired their lab coats and accepted the leading theories of the early twentieth century that cigarettes were good for human health. Fortunately, continued use of the scientific method has built a compelling counterargument that cigarettes are in fact very detrimental to the body.
The second major problem may have more perilous implications when thoroughly examined. In the preceding discussion, it is clearly shown that science is only able to approach statistical truth based on empirical evidence. Science is, however, utterly unable to tell us what is right or wrong. There is nothing naturally occurring within the scientific method that empowers it to make value judgments or moral decisions. It cannot tell us what is good, bad, better, or worse. In essence, science is never able to say “should” or “must.” To return to our previous example, science may conclude that wearing a helmet prevents head injuries in motorbike accidents, but it is powerless to dictate that motorists should wear helmets. To do so is to make a value judgment that can only be made by individuals.
Wearing a helmet is only prescriptive if the individual motorist values the possibility of preventing a cracked skull over riding freely in the wind. Knowing the risks and being informed by science, most motorists would likely choose to wear a helmet, but science is unable to tell them that is the choice of highest value, since individuals have different, and differing, value systems. In regards to science, what is right is dependent on the precise ends desired by individual actors and their values. As Ludwig von Mises stated, “There is no use in arguing about the adequacy of ethical precepts…. Ultimate ends are chosen by the individual’s judgments of value. They cannot be determined by scientific inquiry and logical reasoning.”1
Allowing science to make universal value judgments also enables it to define morality. An example of this can be found in the debates surrounding abortion law. Science can tell us when a heartbeat begins, how developed a baby is in the first, second, and third trimester, and even the sex of the baby. But again, it is absolutely powerless to tell us whether it is or is not moral to abort the baby. Such an evaluation would rest on the value judgments and moral code of the individual.
The issue, then, with slogans like “believe in science” is the tendency to conflate science with morality and value. When science is wielded to make laws, it is most often done with a moral code attached. It has been shown that science is not able to do this, so the only way science can be used to make law for is someone, some real person or persons somewhere, to draw a moral conclusion based on the science. This personal, individual moral conclusion is then applied wholesale upon all that the law will reach. It is for this reason that science should never be used as a justification in any government action to enforce moral systems. Doing so results in the morals and values of the few being imposed upon the many. It is only individuals who can make decisions about what they will do in regard to any scientific consensus. F.A. Hayek put this neatly when he said that “individuals should be allowed … to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s.”2
The results of any scientific study require interpretation and any interpretation is necessarily subjective. The interpretation of results can go on to inform value judgments and moral codes. But if science moves into a space where its conclusions can never be challenged and it also determines morality, then it suddenly ceases to exhibit characteristics of science and has assumed characteristics of religion. When conveniently married to power, an exaltation of science to this status can have disastrous effects, as evidenced by the acts committed by the Third Reich and other horrific occurrences. The further science drifts from the scientific method and embraces religious zealotry, the more dangerous its potential to restrict choice, destroy human liberty, and harm real people. It should always be remembered that while science can tell us that a phone will carry our voices through the air, it will never be able to tell us what should be said.
1. Ludwig von Mises, Profit and Loss (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), p. 33.
2. F.A. Hayek, "Planning and Democracy," in The Road to Serfdom (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 62.
Liberal media engages in a lot of delusional behavior, as we’ve seen over time.
But we have a good one for your laugh of the day, if you need one.
One publication has now figured out why Joe Biden’s polls are cratering. It isn’t because everything he touches blows up on him from his bad decisions on the border to Afghanistan. It isn’t because he doesn’t understand the economy, and his polices have made it worse.
It’s all because of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), according to the New Republic.
Warning: contains coarse language
Enough, Kyrsten Sinema. Enough of this self-infatuated preening. Enough of helping to drive down President Biden’s poll numbers. Enough of derailing what should have been—what still can and I believe will be, although thanks to the Arizona senator and some others, not on quite the level it could have been—a great moment in this country’s history. Enough, enough, enough. Liberal America, Democratic America, indeed sensible America transcending ideology and party, is sick of you. [….]
One of the best historic indicators of midterm election results is the president’s approval rating at the time. Biden has sunk to the mid- to low 40s, and while most of it is probably Delta variant–related, some of it surely has to do with the fact that he hasn’t had a W since March (the Covid relief bill). If Democrats had avoided this sh*tshow and passed these two bills right after Labor Day, as they should have, Biden would be up around 50 and people would be talking very differently about his and his party’s posture heading into the midterms. Yes, there’s still time, but this entire mess was avoidable, and it has done damage that can’t be undone.
Who writes these things, and what kind of medication are they on? That’s pretty hilarious — except when you realize the person is serious and so deluded.
First, a reminder on this demonization of Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that the left keeps engaging in. It isn’t just those two folks objecting. There are other moderates, as well as presumably, about 50 Republican senators. You know, the majority that have issues with Biden’s profligate spending bonanza. So no, America isn’t “sick” of her position; they actually welcome it to stop the craziness inherent in the bill. Sorry, you’re not getting that “great [socialist] moment in history.” At least, not yet.
Second, Biden is fully responsible for his polls dropping like a stone. Notice what the New Republic doesn’t acknowledge. One of the biggest precipitators of the drop in approval was the debacle he made of the Afghanistan withdrawal, getting Americans killed and leaving Americans and Afghan allies behind. It was after that that the polls dropped, not surprisingly. That seemed to open the eyes of many independents – the folks responsible for much of the drop in Biden’s approval polling.
The New Republic also fails to note the polls have gone down to 38% approval with 53% disapproval in the recent Quinnipiac poll. There’s even one poll that has him underwater in 40 states. One of the biggest things that the polls are indicating is a concern about his competence and mental stability. Sorry, guys at the New Republic — he earned it all on his own.
Strangely enough, none of the people list Sinema as a reason for their disapproval of Biden in the polls.
With Ports Clogged, Some Retailers Are Looking for Alternative Supply Chains
Eric Bohem - Reason
(Image of Sport/Newscom)
With ports clogged and supply chains snarled in advance of the holiday shopping season, some major U.S. retailers are taking unprecedented steps to get goods onto store shelves.
That includes chartering their own cargo ships to import goods.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Walmart, Target, Costco, and Home Depot are among the major retailers to adopt the "if you want something done right, do it yourself" approach to importing goods. Worker shortages and COVID-19 protocols have slowed trans-Pacific shipping considerably—it now takes about 80 days to transport items from Asia to the U.S., about twice as long as it did before the pandemic, the Journal reports.
While some politicians are quick to blame the global system of trade for the ongoing supply chain issues America is experiencing, it's clear that many of the bottlenecks are domestic issues. For example, major ports in Europe and Asia operate around the clock, but American ports run at about 60 percent capacity because they close at night and on Sundays. Even when dozens of ships are waiting to be unloaded, inflexible union rules that govern dockworkers' and truckers' hours make it difficult to meet swelling demand.
By chartering smaller, private ships to carry their goods, retailers like Walmart are hoping to bypass the backlogs by landing at smaller ports up and down the east coast. That will cost more money—and those costs will be passed onto consumers—but that's better than running out of inventory during the Christmas rush. Home Depot, for example, is relying on chartered ships to deliver only a small percentage of its overall inventory with a focus on high-demand items like plumbing supplies, power tools, holiday decor, and heaters, the Journal reports.
Getting goods onshore is only half the battle. There are plenty of other bottlenecks to be navigated, like a 25-mile freight train backup that occurred at a major shipping facility outside Chicago earlier this year. At the port in Savannah, Georgia, The New York Times reports that workers are "running out of places to put things" as they unload ships, snarling both ground- and sea-based transportation.
The coronavirus pandemic has snarled global supply chains in several ways. Pandemic checks sent hundreds of billions of dollars to cabin-fevered Americans during a fallow period in the service sector. A lot of that cash has flowed to hard goods, especially home goods such as furniture and home-improvement materials. Many of these materials have to be imported from or travel through East Asia. But that region is dealing with the Delta variant, which has been considerably more deadly than previous iterations of the virus. Delta has caused several shutdowns at semiconductor factories across Asia just as demand for cars and electronics has started to pick up. As a result, these stops along the supply chain are slowing down at the very moment when Americans are demanding that they work in overdrive.
None of the problems facing supply chains are interminable or unsolvable—just annoying. As the Journal's reporting indicates, the profit motive is doing its best work to keep goods flowing by getting companies to think outside the box. And the current mess is in some ways an illustration of how remarkable the modern world of global trade really is: something that you can only fully appreciate when it isn't working quite right.
A group of transportation workers led by airline pilots speak out about the danger of forced medical procedures represented by the the vaccine mandate. This video from US Freedom Flyers might help explain the current airline industry issues that have recently been in the news. From their website:
“We are a group of transportation professionals representing the air, rail, and trucking industries who are spearheading efforts to protect medical health freedom. Our goal is to push back against the US government’s threats of vaccine mandates for private businesses. We know this effort is not simply a matter of employees versus companies, but citizens opposing illegal and tyranical mandates by the US government.” (link)
“US Freedom Flyers is a group of transportation industry employees who have come together to fight federal and state mandates which aim to strip Citizens of their right to medical freedom. Together, in partnership with Health Freedom Defense Fund and The Davillier Law Group, we lead to preserve Informed Consent and defend Constitutional rights.” (read more)
The co-founder of US Freedom Flyers, Joshua Yoder, appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson earlier this evening to discuss:
As we previously outlined, this is not about vaccines per se’, this is more about a slippery slope of having the government dictate how you can live your life and earn a living.
If they can force you to have a medical procedure, and then carry documentation of that procedure in order to work… why can’t they force you to get a small electronic implant of your identification, which would coincidentally include your medical authorizations for work?
It’s just a metal detector…. it’s just taking off your shoes… it’s just wearing a mask…. it’s just a vaccination….. it’s just a COVID passport… it’s always, “just”.
Factually I do not believe a federal mandate for a vaccine is even possible or legal. It appears to me that all of Biden’s threats in this regard are simply that, threats.
The purpose of the threat is to push people to take the vaccine without actually attempting a legal federal mandate; and that approach so far has been successful. However, now they are going to encounter the more hard-core groups who will not concede liberty or freedom to a federal mandate.
It is obvious Anthony Fauci also knows a federal mandate will lose in court when challenged. The fact that Fauci brings up state vaccination requirements for education, as examples of historically forced vaccinations is both a strawman argument and structurally false. There has never been a FEDERAL mandate for any vaccination. All the vaccinations Fauci discusses (ex. his kids) were state mandates. Each state also has a different set of standards and laws for children and vaccines. There is nothing federal.
The federal government is attempting to set up a federal work authorization standard for private businesses. Non compliance means you cannot work, or you lose your existing job if your employer goes along with the government demand. THAT alone should alarm everyone.
