Sunday, February 6, 2022

Nation Furious At Man Who Shared Medical Misinformation And Said The N-Word



WASHINGTON, D.C.—Millions of people around the world are calling for the immediate removal and de-platforming of Joe Biden after investigators uncovered his troubling history of sharing deadly medical misinformation and saying the n-word constantly.

"There are literally hours of tape of Biden making the most disgusting racist statements, and sharing dangerous misinformation, such as 'cloth masks work.' He even said the n-word at Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing!" said Fredrick Dinglefleep, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "We're honestly not sure how we didn't catch this before."

Experts are scratching their heads as to how a flaming racist with a propensity for speaking unscientific nonsense managed to sneak his way into the oval office. Some are suggesting he did so with a series of endearing folksy catchphrases such as: "Come on, man!" 

When asked for comment, Biden said, "Wear a cloth mask because they work, and if you don't wear one, you ain't a [n-word]!"


The Great Power Competition: Mirroring Communist China


Suppose we had done to China what they have done to us?


In the intensifying great power contest between the United States and genocidal Communist China, it is imperative to devise a strategy for victory, not one for subservience and appeasement.  

As Ronald Reagan proclaimed as he ended the myth of détente and commenced the drive for an irenic victory over the USSR’s evil empire: “We win, they lose.” Ultimately, through our nation and our allies’ perspicacious strategic and morally courageous policies, we won and the Soviets lost.  (And all of this without so much as a “snowflake” of the “nuclear winter” the accommodating, appeasing domestic Left had virtually guaranteed would occur under the leadership of the “amiable dunce” and “nuclear cowboy,” “Ronald Ray-Gun.”)

In devising a strategy to defeat our present totalitarian enemy, how would one assess the future of genocidal Communist China if, within their borders, our policies were accomplishing the following:

  • The elites of the genocidal Communist Chinese regime and their family members were corrupted and compromised by the United States?
  • Communist China’s government was rife with U.S. spies?
  • Communist China’s government was being lobbied by Chinese foreign agents paid for by the United States?
  • Communist China’s government was simultaneously being lobbied on behalf of the United States by Chinese businesses who are fearful of being excluded from the American economy?
  • Communist China’s propaganda campaigns were being hamstrung by Chinese business leaders, athletes, activists, artists, and others messaging on behalf of the United States?
  • Communist China’s media received money to disseminate U.S. propaganda?
  • Communist China was divided over the meaning of its revolutionary past and its present with a large segment of its population believing their country was founded illegitimately upon an exploitative, irredeemable ideology; denigrating communist revolutionaries and tearing down statues of Mao; deconstructing their vocabulary to reconcile it with free world concepts, and echoing the anti-regime propaganda disseminated by the United States?
  • Communist China’s People’s Liberation Army was purging its ranks of “Maoist extremists” and indoctrinating its troops with a philosophy of liberty, equality, and all God-given rights that are derived from the foundational principles of the United States?
  • Communist China’s universities were awash in U.S. dollars, premised upon the condition there are unflattering matters that cannot be mentioned about the United States?
  • These same Communist Chinese universities housed “Madison Institutes,” where the revolutionary ideals of the United States are proselytized to and by Chinese faculty members and students? 
  • Communist China’s students were taking to the streets and recreating their own version of the American Revolution by demanding their God-given rights, building statues of Lady Liberty, and quoting Madison and Jefferson and other founders of the United States (and weren’t being massacred by the regime for it this time)?
  • Communist China’s supply chain—including essential parts and products within such sectors as technology, manufacturing, medications, and thus the military—was housed within and almost wholly and dangerously dependent upon the United States?
  • Communist China’s own manufacturing base had been decimated by the predatory trade practices of the United States?
  • Communist China’s entire economy had been incessantly and successfully targeted for industrial espionage to illegally harvest their trade secrets by the United States?
  • Communist China was over $1 trillion dollars in debt to the United States?

By any measure, even this non-comprehensive list of prospective American strategic initiatives would justify optimism that such internal subversion of and division within the genocidal Communist Chinese regime will bear fruit in the near future; and deposit this evil regime alongside the Soviet Union in the dustbin of history.

Now, how do you feel knowing this is what the genocidal Communist Chinese regime’s unrestricted warfare has already accomplished within the United States?


X22, And we Know, and more-Feb 6

 




Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Do You Trust the U.S. Government?

Maybe Russians are doing what the Pentagon and State Dept say they are doing.  But our mantra should be “Don’t trust unless you can verify.”


Do you trust the U.S. government? I don’t recommend it.  

Consider what John Kirby, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said a couple of days ago at a press briefing. “We believe,” Kirby said, that Russia is planning to stage a fake attack by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces against Russian sovereign territory, or against Russian speaking people,” in order to justify an invasion of Ukraine. Kirby had lots of details: “We believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video, which would include corpses and actors that would be depicting mourners, and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment, at the hands of Ukraine or the West.” 

Gosh. Should we be worried? Yes. But not necessarily for the reasons that Kirby and his puppet masters want you to be worried. The United States is sending troops and arms to aid Ukraine, so of course there needs to be an emergency to justify that action. John Kirby just outlined a scary scenario. But inquiring minds want to know: What’s his evidence for this dramatic claim? 

That was the burden of the remarkable exchange between State Department spokesman Ned Price and veteran AP reporter Matt Lee. 

OK, Lee said, we’ve just heard that Russia is in the process of organizing a gigantic false flag operation to justify its attack on Ukraine. “What evidence,” Lee asked, “do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?”

Bingo. What followed is the stuff of legend.

PRICE: This is derived from information known to the U.S. government, intelligence information that we have declassified.

LEE: Okay. Well, where is it? Where is this information?

PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified. 

LEE: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?

PRICE: I just delivered it.

LEE: No. You made a series of allegations.

Ned Price was not looking too happy by this point in the exchange. I suppose he deserves some sort of commendation for persevering. 

PRICE: Would you like us to print out the topper? Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself.

LEE: That’s not evidence. That’s you saying it. That’s not evidence. I’m sorry.

PRICE: What would you like, Matt?

LEE: I would like to see some proof that you can show that shows that the Russians are doing that.

Price also get points for chutzpah.

PRICE: Matt, I’m sorry you don’t like the format but we have—

LEE: It’s not the format. It’s the content.

PRICE: I’m sorry you don’t like the content. I’m sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the U.S. government.

Fortunately, Matt Lee is part terrier. Once he got his teeth into Price, he wasn’t letting go. “You don’t,” he said, “have any evidence to back it up other than what you’re saying.” That’s when Price played the capital-D Deterrence card. “That is the idea behind deterrence, Matt. That is the idea behind deterrence. It is our hope that the Russians don’t go forward with this.” That is, we’ll make these allegations publicly, but we won’t show you what we’re basing the allegations on. And by the way if the Russians do nothing, “that is not, ipso facto, an indication that they never had plans to do so.” Hall of mirrors, anyone? 

Lee and Price offered brief closing summaries. Lee: “What is the evidence you have that suggests that the Russians are even planning this? I’m not saying they’re not, but you just come out and say this and expect us to believe it without you showing a shred of evidence that it’s actually true, other than when I ask or what anyone else asks what is the information? You said, well, I just gave it to you, which is just you making a statement.”

A hit, a palpable hit. Price ended with the old “sources and methods” wheeze, surmounted by a little cherry of anti-patriotic innuendo: 

You know that when we make intelligence information public, we do so in a way that protects sensitive sources and methods. You also know that we do so, we declassify information only when we’re confident in that information. If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments and want to, you know, find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.

Ouch, yes, but the sore spot is not anywhere on Matt Lee. 

The Biden Administration, what is left of it, is cranking up the old U.S. war machine. Perhaps his advisors have been watching “Wag the Dog.” It worked there, old shoe, but I wouldn’t be too confident about a repeat performance of that script. For one thing, the American people are more concerned about U.S. sovereignty and the integrity of our southern border than Ukraine. 

For another, there have been too many exposed lies emanating from the corridors of power for us to take this latest allegation at face value. We’re still cataloging the lies they told us about COVID: Where it came from, who was involved in weaponizing the virus, how dangerous it was, and on and on. We haven’t gotten to the bottom of that, not by a long shot. Nor have we gotten to the bottom of the January 6 pseudo-insurrection narrative. Then there was the “Trump-is-a-puppet-of-Putin” lie, part of the gigantic Russian collusion delusion fomented by Obama’s intelligence apparat and then assiduously circulated by the regime media. 

Nor is government mendacity a new thing. Remember Colin Powell’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” gambit? That lie was elaborated in great detail to justify attacking Saddam Hussein. I bought it myself: all those slides and charts and photos. Pretty impressive. All lies. 

Turns out, alas, that lying has been standard operating procedure for decades. Back in 1964, Lyndon Johnson lied about U.S. destroyers being attacked off the coast of Vietnam in order to justify air strikes and troop deployments against North Vietnam. 

Maybe the Russians are doing what the Pentagon and State Department say they are doing. But our mantra should be “Don’t trust unless you can verify.” And this is a good place to suggest that you keep your eyes peeled for false-flag propaganda emanating from the United States. Given the deep state’s fondness for doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of, I would not be at all surprised to see Kirby, Price, and Jen Psaki solemnly describing foreign tragedies that were born and bred in the U.S. of A. As a friend observed, the FBI probably already owns all the Nazi paraphernalia in North America. You never know when a swastika will come in handy to smear an imaginary “domestic terrorist,” disgruntled trucker, or angry parent complaining about his local school board.  

Ned Price was like a scab torn off a suppurating wound of illegitimacy. “If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government,” forsooth. You would have to be an idiot not to.


Afghanistan: Inside prison where children as young as 12 are held and female governor has vanished

 Sky News is given exclusive access to a Taliban jail in Herat where it is claimed inmates are being held with "no proof, no evidence and no trials".  


The cells of Herat's main prison are crammed full. In each of the cells we go into, there are about 40 men laying jammed up against each other on the floor with some on bunk beds around the edges.

We've been given exclusive access to one of the Taliban's jails and we're escorted by the Taliban governor and his armed guards the entire time.  


The Herat prison chief, Mohammad Nabi Khalil, tells us he used to run a secret prison before the Taliban came to power last August.  


At that time, he says, they'd move their prisoners to different locations every night to try to avoid the coalition raids.

He's not doing that any more. Some of his prisoners tell us they've been in these cells for about five months - locked up here shortly after the Taliban took power last August.

Those we speak to tell us they've not had a trial or been through any judicial process at all. The governor himself says they only launched the city's Sharia court system "about a month ago".

 

 With the governor looking on, one prisoner who appears to have a fresh injury, with his right arm all bound up and in a splint, tells us many of those jailed are former government employees.  


"We've all been put in here with no proof, no evidence and no trials," he says.

"And we have no idea when we are going to be let out."  


The governor quickly shuts down the conversation, instructing our interpreter not to translate this and urges us to move on.

Taliban authorities promised the international community there would be an amnesty for all those employees of the former government or those who worked alongside foreign troops.

But all the evidence we have collated suggests this is not being applied.

The female head of Herat's women's prison, Alia Azizi, was one person who was given a letter from the Taliban granting her amnesty if she returned to work.  


She received a telephone call from her male Taliban counterpart, Mr Nabi Khalil himself, on 2 October, calling her to the prison.

She left home for the prison and according to telephone records supplied to the family by the local telecoms provider, the last call she received was from the Herat prison governor outside the prison.

Her family has not seen her since.

When we interviewed the prison governor, he insisted he had no idea what had happened to Ms Azizi. 


But he went on to say that he believed she was corrupt, had been stealing prisoners' possessions and had run away to claim asylum in another country.

"If she was here I would definitely know about it," he said. "The idea that we are somehow responsible for her disappearance is fake."

Ms Azizi's family have a very different view. They're convinced Alia is being held by the much feared Taliban intelligence service, called the istikhbarat.

They have been linked to multiple unexplained disappearances and raids and are being blamed for the arrests of female activists, civil society leaders and journalists who have spoken out about human rights and the rule of law in Afghanistan.

Ms Azizi's husband, Mohammad Zia, shows us his wife's police uniform and a carpet strewn with certificates and honours from her career.  


There are several photographs of her with the foreign troops and international workers who trained and coached her as one of the high-profile senior women intended to lead the country to a better future.

Her husband tells Sky News: "'She would never leave without us. She has two sons. She told us we were her life. It's a lie to cover their tracks."

He's been warned by the Taliban to keep quiet about his wife's disappearance and not make too much of a public fuss.

He's adhered to this in the fear he'd only make her situation worse but now he says he cannot keep silent any longer.

"It's been nearly five months since she disappeared," he says. "I have to speak out."  


The family and human rights defenders suspect she's being held by the istikhbarat - a target because of her job; because she's a female and because she belongs to the ethnic minority group, the Hazaras.

Her disappearance comes in the midst of an increasingly tough crackdown on the Afghan media.

Hundreds of Afghan media outlets have shut down over the past five months and those still operating do so under very strict rules.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is one of many groups monitoring the situation on the ground for Afghan journalists and has catalogued a number of incidents which violate the country's media laws.  


A recent RSF report said: "Javad Sargar, the senior Istikhbarat official in charge of Department 53, which handles the media, recently horrified journalists by 'inviting' them to stop covering certain subjects and stop asking certain journalists to participate in TV discussions, 'if you don't want me to rip your tongue out'."

The journalists who meet us do so in an atmosphere of terrible fear. We are not identifying them because of the very real risk of retaliation against them.

One told us: "I think it's a dark future for us in the media. We've all lost our jobs, we've all lost our dreams."

They speak of being instructed by the new Taliban rulers about what to broadcast and publish and what not to; how female presenters are banned from appearing on television in their area and no female callers to the phone-ins are even allowed. 


They have to run scripts past the Taliban when reporting on any news events and are told to avoid anything which is negative about the de-facto authorities.

"It is not a media," one journalist says. "Only in name."

The curbs on Afghanistan's media freedoms means unexplained disappearances and arbitrary arrests go unreported and unquestioned.

The Sky News team sees children as young as 12 inside Herat's prison - and many of them tell us they're there for "stealing bicycles" - and while children are locked up and those seen as Taliban critics continue to disappear inside these prisons, there'll be concerns over those holding the power in this country.  


https://news.sky.com/story/afghanistan-inside-prison-where-children-as-young-as-12-are-held-and-female-governor-has-vanished-12534928  





Time Is Running Out for the COVID Coverups

Rogan & Spotify aren’t in trouble for spreading false information. They’re in trouble for embarrassing the media and government officials who themselves pushed false information.


The Left has a word for misinformation that turns out to be true. They call it, “misinformation.” Over and over again, the tech giants, cheered on by power-drunk government officials, have censored and deplatformed people who have contradicted the official narrative regarding COVID and heavy-handed public health measures that restrict freedom with dubious health benefits.

Tellingly, the demands to censor Joe Rogan rarely identify the supposed “misinformation” he peddled. Even more tellingly, the censors totally fail to acknowledge that Rogan-promoted “conspiracy theories” have a better track record than many of the articles of faith his critics promoted.

Let’s start at the beginning. In March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, a “conspiracy theory” emerged suggesting that the dread COVID-19 virus actually escaped from the Wuhan virology lab that studied coronaviruses. Voxwarned

With more and more people searching online for information about the coronavirus outbreak, they can easily encounter a barrage of misleading and potentially dangerous information. And the WHO, which has also released its own ‘myth-busting’ resources, is warning that misinformation about the novel coronavirus has caused harmful stigmatization and discrimination. In the US, for instance, there is a growing number of reports about misinformation fueling racism against Asian Americans.

Facebook and other social media then censored posts that suggested the virus originated in the Wuhan lab.

As Rogan recently noted, Newsweek and several other outlets later reported, “the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore,” adding, 

Thanks to DRASTIC, we now know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had an extensive collection of coronaviruses gathered over many years of foraging in the bat caves, and that many of them—including the closest known relative to the pandemic virus, SARS-CoV-2—came from a mineshaft where three men died from a suspected SARS-like disease in 2012. We know that the WIV was actively working with these viruses, using inadequate safety protocols, in ways that could have triggered the pandemic, and that the lab and Chinese authorities have gone to great lengths to conceal these activities. We know that the first cases appeared weeks before the outbreak at the Huanan wet market that was once thought to be ground zero.

Then there were the cruel shutdowns that wrecked so many lives, destroyed businesses, and deprived families of so many irreplaceable experiences. In May 2020, Facebook totally censored a group on its platform called, “Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantine.” It further banned users from organizing, “events that defy government’s guidance on social distancing,” restrictions it later did not apply to the Black Lives Matter-aligned gatherings that soon followed. The double-standard spoke volumes.

Yet, it turned out that the oppressive restrictions provided little or no benefit to public health. The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics conducted a sweeping review of public health data to determine whether countries achieved better public health outcomes by implementing strict public quarantine rules. 

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the authors found. “In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” 

Then there was the ferocious attack on non-vaccine medical treatments. One of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo’s first official responses to the pandemic was to issue a March 3, 2020 executive order prohibiting off-label use of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus. It was an odd thing to do at such an early stage of the pandemic before any science was available to test the claim. Since then, a public relations campaign savaged doctors who suggested ivermectin might be effective in treating COVID. We all remember the “horse-dewormer” slurs against ivermectin, as though anyone taking it must have pilfered the pills from a veterinarian’s medicine bag.  Yet a Japanese study detected a significant “antiviral” effect against coronavirus (on humans, not horses). 

The American Journal of Therapeutics published a study in the summer of 2021 concluding, 

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

At the time of writing this piece, YouTube’s policy continues to prohibit, “Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19, Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, and Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19.” This, notwithstanding the fact that Reuters has now issued a correction conceding that the Japan study yielded credible evidence of ivermectin’s antiviral effect.

Joe Rogan and Spotify aren’t in trouble for disseminating false information. They’re in trouble for embarrassing the media and government officials who themselves have pushed false information and bad policy. That’s why the powers that be are resorting to censorship instead of rebuttal. It’s easy to understand their panic. As I wrote in 2020, “If social media wants to play doctor, they should prepare to be sued for malpractice.” 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died from COVID, some of whom might have lived if social media hadn’t blocked legitimate information about therapeutics. When COVID finally abates, they will no longer be able to justify censorship to “protect” public health. Let the lawsuits begin.


BATFE Now Has Data on Over One Billion Firearms Transactions but They Are Totally Not Building a National Gun Registry


streiff reporting for RedState 

One of the main fears of gun owners for decades has been that we would be required to register our weapons with the federal government. The fear was that such a registry could be used by a particularly lawless administration, like one, for instance, that had an Attorney General who allowed guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels so he could juice the number of deaths attributed to weapons bought by those cartels illegally in the United States and create a pretext for regulation, for the purpose of weapons confiscation. This is not a new concern. When the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 was signed into law to address blatant abuses by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (Explosives was added to its name after 9/11), it expressly forbade a federal firearms registry. This is what the law has to say about the custody of firearms records.

18 U.S. Code § 926 – Rules and regulations

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

The FBI’s background check system has a similar safeguard; at 88 days, all weapons background checks are purged from the system.

It seems, though, that the ATF has found a way to create a database containing ownership information of nearly 1 billion, yes, that is with a “b,” weapons.

A coalition of Republican lawmakers is investigating the Biden administration over its stockpiling of nearly one billion records detailing Americans’ firearm purchases, according to a copy of the investigation that accuses the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) of planning to “sweep up records of every gun sale in America.”

The probe, spearheaded by Rep. Michael Cloud (R., Texas) and backed by 35 of his colleagues, comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report detailing how the ATF maintains a database of 920,664,765 firearm purchase records—far more than has previously been publicly disclosed. The massive number of records, most of which are digitized in a searchable database, sparked concerns the Biden administration is violating federal laws that bar the government from maintaining a national gun registry.

Now the lawmakers are demanding the ATF come clean about how it is using the database, which the agency claims is primarily used to track guns used in crimes. The ATF also says, however, that the firearm database is often not useful in helping to prosecute gun crimes, fueling concerns the Biden administration’s goal is to track legal gun owners. The lawmakers say their fears are compounded by the administration’s bid to overhaul current gun laws to ensure the records of every licensed firearm dealer in the country ultimately make their way into the federal government’s hands.

Cloud and his colleagues say this change to the law—which would mandate that gun stores keep their records in perpetuity instead of 20 years, as is currently permitted—constitutes a massive federal overreach.

How does this happen? The ATF does this by claiming ultimate ownership of the sale records kept by every holder of a Federal Firearms License in the nation. The ATF gets all of your sale records when you leave the business or sell out to someone else. The law currently allows for record destruction at 20 years, but for records less than 20 years old, the ATF is collecting, digitizing, and putting records in a searchable database.

The federal government claims that their collection of this data is a) non-threatening to gun owners because Joey SoftServe would never ever think about weapons confiscation and b) critical to solving crimes. Of course, we know the first claim is a lie as Biden, or rather the gang of criminals that now governs the nation at his behest, will do whatever they think they can get away with. The claim about using the database to solve crimes sounds great to a nation whose favorite television shows include the “CSI” franchise. But, in real life, it seems to be a fantasy used as spank-bank material by gun control fetishists.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses.”

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.

There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to have a database of nearly 1 billion firearms when it is forbidden by law to create a firearms registry. There is no legitimate reason for the ATF to claim that it has any ownership right to FFL business records unless they have been seized by a valid subpoena. There are only illegitimate reasons.

We’ve seen no indication that the current Congress has any interest in safeguarding our Constitutional rights; in fact, all evidence points in the exact opposite direction. If the GOP takes control of the House in 2022 (and the way they are getting punked on redistricting is making the task harder, see North Carolina Supreme Court Delivers a Massive Blow to GOP Redistricting Hopes), we have to make sure protecting gun rights is a top priority.



Chris Wallace Learns a Valuable Lesson After Jeff Zucker's Ouster From CNN


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Chris Wallace recently left his long-time, top position as the host of “Fox News Sunday.” Being the principled newsman that he is, he chose to run over to the shining jewel of journalism that is CNN to be part of their new streaming service. Since that announcement, we haven’t heard much of anything from Wallace.

But apparently, he’s speaking up about Jeff Zucker’s departure. As RedState reported, the former CNN head was recently forced out after he failed to disclose a long-term affair with his chief lieutenant (also a CNN employee). Allegations that Zucker and his mistress colluded with Andrew Cuomo have surfaced as well.

Per Radar Online, which broke the Zucker story weeks before Zucker’s resignation, Wallace is not happy about the development.

In wake of the decision from WarnerMedia suits to oust Jeff Zucker, Wallace is said to be “second guessing his decision” even though he is believed to be earning $8 to $10 million per year.

“Chris is the type of person who makes it known if he doesn’t like something,” said a TV industry insider.

“He went over there for Zucker and now Zucker is gone. Wallace feels that he has been stiffed. He’s got no staff, no Executive Producer and the guy he gave up a prized gig for has just walked out the door.”

Zucker is said to have allayed Wallace’s concerns about two heavyweight figures at CNN: Jake Tapper, the host of The Lead, and Sam Feist, the cable giant’s Washington bureau chief and senior vice president.

While I’m assured Wallace is a brilliant journalist, if he went over to CNN based on the word of Jeff Zucker, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of his decision-making abilities. Wallace was already staring at a step down in stature going to a streaming-service program at a far lesser network, compared to being the face of Fox News (at least for the hard news side of things).

Further, the cultural issues at CNN have not been a secret. When Wallace left months ago, it was obvious that things were toxic at the “most trusted name in news.” Since then, multiple scandals have been exposed, from Chris Cuomo’s sexual harassment to multiple producers caught abusing minors. By contrast, Zucker’s transgressions seemed tame, but they were still an indictment of how rotten things were at the top.

Apparently, Wallace was counting on Zucker to insulate him from all the mess at CNN, including the territorial predations of Jake Tapper. That’s obviously not going to happen now, and Wallace has been left adrift. From the sound of things, there isn’t even much framework in place of his new show yet, and with the intra-company battles likely to heat up at the rudderless network, Wallace may not have the ability to do anything but cower.

Meanwhile, Fox News is dominating the ratings and thriving. Will this become another Megyn Kelly situation? It sure looks that way, and while Kelly had enough talent to reset and redefine herself, I’m not sure the 74-year-old Wallace has the time or ability to do that.

Honestly, I’m perplexed that Wallace ever thought this was a good idea. If he went to CNN for Zucker, what did he expect? Yes, Wallace is a Democrat and perhaps wanted to be on a network with a more leftward bent. Still, I bet he was a lot more comfortable getting the “serious newsman” treatment at Fox News than he is now in his current situation at CNN.

Regardless, Wallace is learning a valuable lesson right now about what CNN actually is. Lucky for him, he’s got a fat salary to make him feel a little better.



Bad Government Brings Bad Inflation

 


Article by John Stossel in mrcNewsBusters


Bad Government Brings Bad Inflation

Inflation is the worst in 40 years.

The price of cars is up 37%. Gas is up 49%.

During the last few years, as politicians spent ever more money, experts told us not to worry.

Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, said inflation would be “transitory.”

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said, “I don't anticipate inflation is going to be a problem.”

Now she says, “I'm ready to retire the word transitory.”

What went wrong?

“Big corporations have taken advantage,” says Rep. Ted Lieu.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “greedy corporations are charging Americans extra.” It's “price gouging.”

This is nonsense.

“Greed is constant,” says economist David Henderson in my new video. “If it's greed, how do we explain prices falling?” When oil prices fall, is it because “oil companies just suddenly decide, 'I'm gonna be less greedy'?”

Prices change because of supply and demand.

Inflation results “from too much money chasing too few goods,” explains Henderson. “If government's spending more money, that's more money chasing too few goods.”

Lately, the government borrowed from the Fed, and spent much more money. Under President Donald Trump, the national debt rose $7.8 trillion. Under President Joe Biden, it's grown $2.2 trillion in just one year. Biden wants to spend even more -- a record $6 trillion this year.

Where will they get the money? Government has no money of its own, so increased spending means politicians must borrow more, tax more, or, easiest of all, create money out of thin air by just printing it.

In the last few years, that's what they did. In an untested experiment, the Fed printed more money than ever in history.

All this new money sloshing around the economy makes money we have less valuable. You notice the price increases, but you may not notice the damage inflation does to your savings.

If you put $10,000 under your pillow, 7% inflation will reduce that to $2,342 in just 20 years.

If you were counting on those savings for retirement, too bad. Most of your savings will be gone.

Yet today's politicians want to spend even more.

Biden claims his spending bills will “reduce inflation.”

“Biden's wrong,” Henderson responds. “There's no economic theory that says when the government spends a huge amount more money, prices fall.”

Some people want government to stop inflation by imposing price controls.

That would be “horrible,” says Henderson.

Price controls were tried before. In 1971, President Richard Nixon ordered a freeze on all prices.

It sounded reasonable. Too much inflation? Our intuition tells us that government can fix that with a price freeze. But “that's where people's intuition goes wrong,” says Henderson.

Wrong because prices are not just money; they are also information.

“Prices are signals ... that guide people,” explains Henderson. “Mess that up, you've really messed up the economy.”

Price changes tell buyers what to avoid and sellers what to produce. When COVID-19 hit, the price of face masks rose sharply. Immediately, producers made more. New Balance switched from making footwear to making masks.

Flexible pricing gets suppliers to produce what people really need.

Now there are shortages of some products because COVID-19 interrupted supply chains.

Price controls would make the shortages worse.

Soon after Nixon froze prices, there were shortages of gasoline. I drove around, wasting gas, searching for gas stations that had it.

“Price controls are like saying it's really cold and I'm going to solve that by breaking the thermometer,” says Henderson. “It's actually worse than that because breaking the thermometer doesn't reduce the temperature, whereas price controls cause actual shortages!”

Venezuela's price controls led to a shortage of food. And yet inflation got much worse. 270%, 700%, eventually 400,000% inflation!

Once inflation starts, it's hard to stop.

In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe couldn't collect enough in taxes to pay for his grand plans, so he printed more money.

A few years later, Zimbabwe was printing 100 trillion-dollar bills.

Such drastic inflation hasn't happened here. It probably won't because recently the Fed reigned itself in.

But with Democrats and Republicans eager to spend more, it could happen here.

 

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/john-stossel/2022/02/03/bad-government-brings-bad-inflation 

 


 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


How Much Did Mark Zuckerberg’s Money Shift Wisconsin Votes For Biden?


Private funding of election administration in Wisconsin was biased, significant, objectionable, and should end moving forward.



We believe—and hope—that conservatives can rally in support of greater election integrity measures that can address legitimate concerns about how the 2020 election was conducted. But to do that, we must focus on arguments that withstand scrutiny.

Recently, Dr. William Doyle wrote a response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that cited our organization’s work investigating the 2020 election in Wisconsin. The author seems chiefly concerned about our analysis of private election funding from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, and argues that it was “deeply flawed.”

He points to his own analysis of CTCL, and its claims, as the better study. Not only do we disagree with his analysis, we fear studies like this could damage efforts to improve election security.

The article characterized the WSJ and WILL’s position as “[t]here were some slight ‘problems’ with the election.” That’s not true. We thought private funding of election administration was biased, significant, objectionable, and should end moving forward.

Indeed, WILL supported legislation that would have required any private funds to be distributed based on population to all municipalities in the state. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, even though an equal distribution of private funding for mail-in voting could still be expected to benefit Democrats.

We reached this conclusion because we found the distribution of CTCL funds was skewed toward heavily Democratic areas and materially increased turnout in these areas. The author seems to believe we assume all counties were equally affected by CTCL funds. This is not correct.

What we did do is examine all municipalities that received CTCL funds, not just those that received the most. That is what one should do in attempting to assess the statewide impact of this funding. That statistical analysis led us to conclude that skewed CTCL funding may have increased Biden’s turnout by 8,000 votes. Since the race in Wisconsin was decided by a bit more than 20,000 votes, that’s a very significant finding. 

Doyle says he found a larger impact, but we think his methodology was fundamentally flawed. He compares the 2016 and 2020 election results only in counties that increased their votes for Biden. The problem is that, apart from a minor adjustment for population growth and the statewide turnout increase, his model considers only that factor.

Put differently, his study assumes its conclusion and attributes almost all increases in turnout for Biden to CTCL grants. Indeed, any counties that got substantial amounts of funding but showed a net gain for Trump were completely left out of his count of the effect. Ignoring data that runs counter to your hypothesis is a fundamental flaw in research. It may stoke partisan rage, but it will convince no one who is not already part of the choir.

This failure to consider other factors is fatal to conservative arguments like those we and other readers of The Federalist want to see made. Across the nation, voter turnout increased by more than 17 million over 2016, including in areas without a CTCL presence.

In Wisconsin, Trump received 200,000 more votes in 2020 than he did in his previous election, yet our study found that CTCL funding did not benefit Trump. This was a national election that generated a lot of attention, and CTCL grants in states like Wisconsin were one of many factors that may have contributed to increased voter turnout.

Indeed, our election report points to a number of other areas that warrant further discussion such as the excessive use of indefinitely confined status to obtain absentee ballots, the illegal use of ballot drop boxes (something we have challenged in court), and subjectivity in absentee ballot rejection rates. Yet, in Doyle’s analysis, there is no attempt to account for any of these factors. 

There are other problems with the author’s study. For example, he uses county-level election returns to measure the effects of grants that almost exclusively occurred at the municipal level in Wisconsin. This winds up masking the fact that Biden only gained about 6,000 more votes in the city of Milwaukee than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, underperforming increased turnout in the rest of the state.

Even under our more thorough and careful approach, the CTCL funding made a big difference. Why exaggerate it? Nor should we go beyond what the evidence shows. Finding that CTCL raised Biden turnout by 8,000 (or even 65,000) doesn’t mean these new voters weren’t real people and eligible to vote.

Based on what we know, CTCL did not result in fraud such as made-up votes and ineligible voters. But it did put a fairly large thumb on the scale for Democrat turnout efforts. Unfortunately, such funding is probably legal. If someone would uncover illegal acts funded by CTCL, it’d be a different matter. So far, no one has.

CTCL’s closeness with supposedly neutral election officials was somewhere between unsavory and putrid. It injected a private and partisan actor into the administration of our elections. Even if that’s not illegal currently, it is definitely unfair and unseemly. To reiterate, we believe that dynamic should change moving forward.

WILL is committed to the conservative cause and our litigation and policy work speaks for itself. And we don’t think the movement is served well by studies like this even if they might provide “more” support for our position.

Serious work to improve election integrity requires a willingness to call “balls and strikes.” We have found that this leads to court victories and policy reforms. There is no inconsistency between commitment and rigor.