Thursday, April 14, 2022

Bad Things Must Happen

Don’t be surprised when bad things happen in NYC, or in any other corrupt, big-government town or state. Bad things need to happen.


On Tuesday morning in Brooklyn’s 36th Street subway station, a 63-year-old black man popped a smoke bomb in a subway car and started shooting passengers. At the latest count, 29 people were injured, 10 were shot, five were in serious condition, but no one has died. 

There was apparently little warning that this man posed a threat to society—other than a series of “bizarre threatening rants on YouTube” in which he said that he should have gotten a gun and “just started shooting motherf—ers.” Oh, and the FBI had the man on a watchlist, but removed him in 2019. Other than that, no clues.

The would-be murderer used a Glock (illegal in New York City) with extended “high-capacity” magazines (illegal in New York City). And no doubt we’re about to hear about how we need even stricter gun laws because gun laws work great but there never seem to be enough of them. (Gun laws, indeed, are just like government as a whole—which only fails at everything it does because we don’t have enough of it . . .)

It’s an odd coincidence that, just this past weekend, a friend asked me seriously if I would be bringing a pistol for protection on my forthcoming trip to New York. I told him I didn’t think it would be necessary. In reality, it may be necessary, and I certainly wish I had one, but I can’t take the risk. My chances of being caught in a subway shooting are (for the time being) infinitesimal. My chances of being mugged are real, but so would be my chances of having my life ruined if the police caught me with an illegal gun: I’m sure they’d announce me to the press as a white-supremecist whose terrorist attack they’d foiled. It is simply a case of fearing the government more than armed criminals. Or, to put it another way, I fear New York’s organized crime more than I do New York’s disorganized crime. That’s why I moved out of the city a few years ago.

Unfortunately, the government’s desires and ours are misaligned yet again: You might think politicians want a reputation for safe streets. But that assumes politicians get elected by the people, which is not the case in our modern-day Tammany Hall-style system. This is why, despite our having had the least popular politician in the whole country in Mayor Bill de Blasio, there was no chance whatsoever that a Republican would defeat his successor for mayor. 

The more fundamental problem is that government today isn’t run by politicians—elected or otherwise—it’s run by officials. That’s why it was so easy to predict that Eric Adams’ government would be essentially identical to de Blasio’s.

And the problem with government officials (as “Yes Minister” explained so elegantly 40 years ago) is that they measure success by the size of their departments, the amount of money they have to spend, and the amount of power they wield.

Seen this way, two of the greatest tools for government success are crime and failure. Let’s face it: A safe and happy society has barely any need for government. Safe streets don’t create demand for a higher police budget, any more than good schools create demand for higher education budgets. A success in the eyes of the public might result in cutbacks, but there’s always a ready explanation for failure: “We didn’t have enough resources.” 

“Resources” means your money and your freedom—these are what the government burns to keep warm.

So don’t be surprised when bad things happen in New York, or in any other corrupt, big-government town or state. Bad things need to happen. This isn’t to say the government goes around deliberately stirring up trouble (though there’s plenty of evidence that they do). Just don’t expect them to be good at their jobs. If they were, they wouldn’t have their jobs in the first place.



BREAKING. Russian Flagship Sinks While Being Towed to Port

 

 
Russian warship "Moskva" gets cancelled. 
".. may be seen as the decisive moment of the whole war. "

Article by streiff in RedState


BREAKING. Russian Flagship Sinks While Being Towed to Port

 According to Russian media reports, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the guided-missile cruiser Moskva, has sunk while being towed to port. According to TASS:

The Moskva missile cruiser sank while being towed amid storm because of hull damage sustained during the detonation of ammunition, Russian Defense Ministry said Thursday.

“During the towing of the Moskva cruiser to the designation port, the ship lost stability due to hull damage, sustained during the detonation of ammunition because of a fire. Amid the heavy storm, the ship sank,” the Ministry said.

The Ministry underscored that the crew was evacuated to nearby Black Sea Fleet ships, as was announced earlier.

We have no reliable information on the number of casualties suffered by the crew.

I really hope this story can put to an end the innuendo that this is a “fake news” story.

Last night we covered the initial reports in BREAKING. The flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet Hit by Ukrainian Missiles, Dead in the Water, Crew Evacuated. The Moskva came under fire from a Ukrainian Neptune missile launcher that fired two missiles. At least one of the missiles penetrated the missile/gun defensive system, and when it detonated set off explosions of weapons loaded in their firing tubes and ignited propellant. The fire and explosions overwhelmed the damage control effort, evacuating the crew. At some point, the fires were either extinguished or under sufficient control to permit Moskva to be taken into tow. While in transit, Moskva sank.

Some stray thoughts.

  • Today is the 110th anniversary of the RMS Titanic striking an iceberg.
  • This is the first loss of a Russian flagship since the Battle of Tsushima Straits.
  • This is the biggest warship lost since World War II.
  • The Argentines are able to share the ignominy of being one of the two nations that lost a capital ship since World War II.

The Russians are still blaming Russian incompetence for the loss rather than giving Ukraine credit for the missile strikes. Placing the responsibility for the loss on a non-specific “explosion” is rather lame as the evolutions a cruiser would carry out don’t have the same risk factors as those aboard aircraft carriers (see USS Oriskany and USS Forrestal; the loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard is in a class of its own).

 

The Moskva figured prominently in an event in the early days of the war when it demanded that Ukrainian troops defending Snake Island surrender. The incident is commemorated in a Ukraine postage stamp. The sinking of that ship will create a huge morale boost.

The most immediate military impact, excluding the boost in Ukrainian morale (yes, I know, “In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one”), is the permanent loss of Moskva’s impressive array of missile launchers to the Black Sea Fleet. According to the provisions of the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, warships of belligerent nations can’t enter the Black Sea unless they are homeported there. Turkey has said that for the purposed of the Convention, the special military operation Russia is flogging away at in Ukraine is a war, and it has turned down requests by three Russian warships to pass through the Straits. The remaining Russian surface combatants are much less capable in a land-attack mode, and they will act, as my old man would say, like a long-tailed tomcat in a room full of rocking chairs. 

No sane person believes the Moskva suffered a catastrophic fire and explosion combination by negligence and was lost in a storm.

She was fatally struck by two homegrown Ukrainian cruise missiles, neither of which, according to any simulation, should have been able to make it through Moskva‘s defenses. The prestige damage to Russia is huge, and it may, in retrospect, be seen as the decisive moment of the whole war. 

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flag-ship-sinks-while-being-towed-to-port-n550404







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


X22, Christian Patriot News, and more-April 14

 



Got an actual surprise from NCIS LA today. (yes, those still happen!). This was posted today:



Yes, that's all of them in that cake. At first glance, I thought this dumb show was actually giving me hope of being interested in this stupid episode. Until the REAL group pic was posted. And well, it's exactly what I feared it would be. 7 idiots pretending reaching such an important milestone is so great when you only have 7 out of 8 Series Regulars around to celebrate while the whole show goes up in smoke.

Not even sure why I'm surprised anymore. It's almost like they want to mess with everyone like this because they know they're still getting their fucking paychecks for doing this show!! 😡😡 Whatever. The 'best crew in Hollywood' can go stuff themselves if they think this is the way to treat their fanbase.

Here's tonight's news:



Loose Nuke Talk ~ VDH

The world has become obsessed with nuclear weapons. Is there a danger in daily normalizing the abnormal and casually thinking the unthinkable?


Americans, like the planet’s other 7.5 billion people, are not prone to talk or think much about nuclear weapons. 

Of course, some of us are old enough to remember how “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD, was supposed to ensure the general peace. 

Some recall the eerie Cold War-era nuclear bomb movies like “Dr. Strangelove” or “Fail Safe” or more recent postnuclear armageddon films like “The Book of Eli.”

Millions have grown up referring to the scary “doomsday clock” of atomic scientists that usually ticks closer to a midnight nuclear holocaust in times of crisis.

So the planet is not naïve about the dangers of its 13,000 to 15,000 nuclear weapons. In 1961, the Soviet Union terrified the world when it exploded history’s greatest nuke—the 50 megaton “Tsar Bomba.” 

The Cuban Missile Crisis a year later brought the United States and the Soviet Union closer to a nuclear exchange than at any time since. 

In 1983, Ronald Reagan countered the Soviet nuclear-tipped SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at Europe by stationing American Pershing II missiles in Germany. 

In response, for a few months Hollywood and the media began talking about a “nuclear winter” to follow the supposedly reckless war talk of the American cowboy president. But what followed was a series of superpower missile negotiations that lowered the tensions of the waning Cold War.

During the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Russian-backed Serbia was bombed by NATO air forces intent on stopping the slaughter of Kosovars. At one point in 1999, a senior British NATO commander Lt. General Michael Jackson refused an order from his superior U.S. counterpart General Wesley Clark to block Russian use of an airfield with the now famous rejoinder, I’m not going to start Third World War for you.” 

Every time a nondemocratic nation joins the nuclear club—Pakistan in the mid-1980s, North Korea in 2006—the chances of a nuclear exchange supposedly increase. 

But we forget that a number of powerful European and Asian states could easily go nuclear at any time within months. Instead, influential, wealthy nations like Australia, Germany, Japan, and South Korea rely on either NATO or the huge nuclear arsenal of the United States to deter their nuclear enemies. If that assurance is ever in doubt, then at any moment they may decide to go nuclear themselves.

Nuke talk especially heats up anytime a rogue nation—usually one ostracized by the United Nations, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the late Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, or theocratic Iran—begins enriching uranium. 

Yet for the most part as long as the world’s three largest nuclear powers—the United States, Russia, and China—do not square off in a war or are not sucked into a third-party conflict, the world assumes nukes are out of sight and out of mind. 

Or so we thought until recently. 

The current Ukraine war has restarted loose nuke talk. Once outmanned, outnumbered Ukraine unexpectedly repelled Russian invaders—thanks to massive shipments of Western sophisticated anti-tank and anti-aircraft arms—talk arose from Russia about the use of nuclear weapons. 

Vladimir Putin has recently boasted of possibly using nukes against both Ukraine, and, more ominously, those NATO countries who aided Kyiv. In response, French President Emmanuel Macron reminded Russia that NATO itself has an ample nuclear deterrent. 

In theory, should NATO and the United States supply Ukraine tanks, artillery, and planes, the fierce Ukrainians could push the entire Russian army entirely out of its country. But would a nuclear Putin allow that?

Over the last few weeks nuclear talk has arisen over a myriad of issues. If the war continues to go badly for Russia, at what point will a seemingly erratic Putin begin issuing nuclear redlines to Ukraine and its allies?

Would a crushing defeat push over the edge a nuclear trash-talking Putin—facing the possible end of his regime?

Ukraine nuke talk spins off into lots of other places. Nuclear North Korea is resuming its ballistic missile launches to intimidate non-nuclear South Korea and Japan. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear stockpiles and now talks openly of ending a free Taiwan, warning Taiwan’s friends and allies to keep out—or else.

Iran promises to become nuclear soon. Nuclear Russia has assumed the role of interlocutor of all discussions to restart a new nuclear “Iran deal.” 

Russia controls Syrian airspace. In theory, Putin could stop nuclear Israel either from replying to terrorist attacks emanating from Syria, or from staging a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear bomb facilities.

Suddenly newspapers and blogs seemed fixated on hyping the relative stockpiles and megatonnage of various nuclear states, as if they were just GDP or energy output data. 

The world has become nuclear obsessed. Is there a danger in daily normalizing the abnormal and casually thinking the unthinkable? 

Curbing loose nuke talk won’t calm tensions or guarantee peace, but it wouldn’t hurt either.



Robert Reich Smears Elon Musk’s Vision for Twitter as ‘Dangerous Nonsense’

 Robert Reich Smears Elon Musk's Vision for Twitter as 'Dangerous Nonsense'

The libertarian vision of an 'uncontrolled' internet is not the dream of dictators.

Robert Reich is a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, having served under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. He has taught public policy at the University of California, Berkeley since 2006, and is one of the most influential progressive economic writers and commentators alive today.

He attracted attention on social media on Tuesday for writing a particularly awful column titled "Elon Musk's Vision for the Internet is Dangerous Nonsense." It ran in The Guardian.

Reich begins by condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's authoritarianism: how he hides the truth from the people of Russia by outlawing dissent, jailing protesters, and prioritizing government propaganda over independent media. Reich then turns his attention to former President Donald Trump, writing that the decisions by social media companies to ban the president "were necessary to protect American democracy."

But wait a minute: Why does silencing a political viewpoint protect democracy? How is that any different than Putin saying his silencing of dissenters is necessary to protect Russia? Reich doesn't seem to realize that he is condemning one kind of tyranny while lionizing another, which leads him into a very, very odd attack on Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who recently became the largest shareholder of Twitter after buying a 9 percent stake in the company.

Musk has expressed misgivings about Twitter's treatment of dissenting views, and is worried that the social media site—which serves an important function as a place of discussion and debate among the political and journalistic classes—is increasingly unfriendly to free speech. It's important to be clear that when we're talking about free speech in the Twitter context, we're talking about the principle of free speech, not free speech as protected by the First Amendment. Social media sites are private companies, and the First Amendment protects their right to set whatever moderation policies they want: The First Amendment cannot be cited as a defense by anyone who is shadow-banned or de-platformed on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or anywhere else. What we possess, under the First Amendment, is a right to criticize bad and hypocritical behavior free from government censorship.

That's what Musk thinks, it's what I think, and it's what many independent voices on both the left and the right think.

But not Robert Reich. He writes:

Will Musk use his clout to let Trump back on? I fear he will.

Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an "uncontrolled" internet. That vision is dangerous rubbish. There's no such animal, and there never will be. …

In Musk's vision of Twitter and the internet, he'd be the wizard behind the curtain – projecting on the world's screen a fake image of a brave new world empowering everyone.

In reality, that world would be dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn't be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good.

That's Musk's dream. And Trump's. And Putin's. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.

Reich, unfortunately, is deeply confused. The libertarian vision of an "uncontrolled" internet is not the dream of dictators. Dictators like Putin want a controlled internet. Reich is also advocating for a controlled internet—and apparently likes the people who control it right now: i.e., the sort of progressive-minded moderators who don't want people to read about the Black Lives Matter foundation spending millions in donations to buy up real estate rather than promote change, a story that Facebook decided to suppress.

An internet where Facebook hides the truth from users is a controlled internet—it's just one controlled by people Reich approves of. Musk purports to want something entirely different: a social media site where the gatekeepers don't try to suppress information, but instead, allow users to decide what to think and believe.

Under this vision, people will frequently encounter information that is wrong. That's true. But they will also be free to judge for themselves—and thus, we would run less risk as a society of having a truth vigorously suppressed from public discussion because it embarrasses someone in power. Recall that for months, Facebook refused to allow users to talk about the lab leak theory on the platform. Now that policy has changed, as the lab leak theory has enough mainstream credibility and plausibility that even they can't deny it. That's the risk: When we attempt to vigorously stamp out lies, we can blind ourselves to the truth.

Reich is not alone in preferring things the way they are. Ellen K. Pao, the former CEO of reddit, wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post that "Elon Musk's vision of 'free speech' will be bad for Twitter." It will be bad for Twitter, she writes, because Musk wants to let more people speak on Twitter without fear of censorship.

Progressives like Reich and Pao shouldn't frame their dismissal of free speech as a sort of rejection of tyranny. It's the opposite: It's an embrace of tyranny—of a kind of tyranny that is popular in both Russia and China, the U.S.'s main political, social, and economic rivals. Russia and China don't want their citizens saying whatever they want on social media. Elon Musk does. That's the difference between an uncontrolled libertarian ethos for the internet, and the ethos of the censors.



To Secure The Border, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Should Shut It Down

The Biden administration will not enforce immigration laws or secure the border. But states like Texas have the power to act on their own.



Amid the churn of recent headlines about inflation and the war in Ukraine, you might have missed what’s happening right now on the southwest border — not the ongoing border crisis, but something very much related to it. For the past few days, commercial traffic between the United States and Mexico has ground to a halt.

On Monday, Mexican truckers blocked north and southbound lanes on the Mexico side of the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge in Pharr, Texas. They did it to protest Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision last week to order state troopers to inspect all northbound commercial trucks, something usually done by federal authorities. The state inspections immediately caused massive delays at ports of entry all along the border, triggering a second protest by truckers waiting to cross into El Paso on Monday afternoon, with trucks blocking both northbound and southbound lanes in Juarez.

This is no small thing. The volume of international traffic in question is massive. At the port of entry in Laredo, Texas, about 20,000 commercial trucks cross the border every day. Hundreds of billions of dollars in trade flow over the Texas-Mexico border every year. The entire system is a well-oiled machine. Throwing a wrench into it, even a minor one, could create a different sort of crisis at the border. But it might be worth it.

The backstory here is that Abbott issued those inspection orders last week in response to the Biden administration’s plans to cancel Title 42, the public health order invoked by then-President Trump at the onset of the pandemic. For the past two years, Title 42 has enabled federal authorities to expel illegal immigrants quickly amid an historic surge in illegal immigration. It’s not too much to say that Title 42 is the last remaining tool the federal government has to control record-high levels of illegal immigration.

Every other policy the Trump administration implemented to secure the border has been rescinded or neutered by Biden, and on May 23, Title 42 will be gone too. As my colleague Jordan Boyd has explained in some detail, the border will then be effectively open to almost anyone. Instead of arresting 150,000 or 200,000 illegal immigrants a month, federal authorities will be dealing with a half-million migrants or more each month, possibly as many as 18,000 a day.

Those are numbers far beyond the federal government’s ability to detain or even process. The only choice federal officials will have in that situation is to immediately release migrants they catch crossing illegally, or not detain them in the first place, rendering the border effectively lawless.

What’s coming, in other words, is a border surge of historic and almost unimaginable proportions, and it is happening as a direct result of Biden’s policy choices. The crisis about to unfold is 100 percent avoidable, and 100 percent Biden’s fault.

Abbott’s response to Biden ending Title 42 was to issue a series of executive orders last week that seemed designed to gin up headlines and media coverage rather than actually secure his state’s 1,200-mile border with Mexico. The order that got the most attention wasn’t the inspections that have snarled commercial traffic on the international bridges but Abbott’s plan to charter buses and flights to transport migrants released from federal custody to Washington, D.C. “Evacuating” them, as the order puts it.

Federal government wants to open the border? Fine, let those fat cats in Washington deal with the illegals! So goes the thinking, if not the rhetoric.

Abbott’s busing order is quite obviously a stunt — a cheap shot at Biden that makes no effective use of his considerable powers as governor of Texas. It will almost certainly not result in even one migrant showing up in Washington who was not already headed in that direction, especially given that transport to the nation’s capital must be “voluntary.” 

Such stunts are to be expected with Abbott, though. I saw first-hand late last year how his sprawling “Operation Lone Star,” which purports to use state law enforcement to secure the border in the face of federal inaction, is almost entirely political theater. Don’t get me wrong, it’s expensive and logistically complex, but given the narrowness of its scope and the legal constraints the Abbott administration has imposed on its application, Operation Lone Star hasn’t made a dent in the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border into Texas, and it never will.

So too with this unserious busing scheme. If Abbott were serious about securing the border, he wouldn’t announce a plan to transport migrants to Washington but a plan to take them back to Mexico. In these pages yesterday, Ken Cuccinelli argued that Abbott’s busing gimmick is nothing more than “window dressing” that amounts to a taxpayer-funded sideshow “to pay for optional vacations 2,000 miles away — at a time of record gas prices — instead of turning these illegal migrants around and sending them two miles back across the border.”

Cuccinelli, who served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security and director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Trump administration, is among those who have rightly argued that the border crisis amounts to an “invasion” under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. In the face of federal inaction, he argues, states like Texas have the authority to arrest and remove illegal immigrants, securing the border entirely with state law enforcement.

Under normal circumstances, immigration enforcement of course falls entirely under federal purview. States, even border states like Texas, have a limited role in it. But these are not normal circumstances.

The relevant section of the Constitution that Cuccinelli and others point to says this: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.”

Those last two phrases are what Cuccinelli’s argument hinges on. Indeed, there’s a strong case already that Texas is being “actually invaded” and that the situation “will not admit delay.” When a half-million migrants show up on the border in June after Title 42 is gone, there will be no question that the state is being actually invaded and that the situation will not admit delay.

There’s almost no chance, however, that Abbott will ever agree with such an interpretation of the Constitution or even seriously consider taking action based on it. Too bad, because it would not only focus Biden’s attention on the border but also force a reckoning over an important constitutional question: if the federal government is derelict in its duties, do states have the right to act on their own?

But Abbott could dodge that reckoning while still challenging Washington to address the border crisis. The complete shutdown of commercial traffic on the border this week presents an opportunity for Abbott, if he can seize it.

By ordering state inspections of commercial trucks coming in from Mexico, Abbott has demonstrated the leverage he could have over policymakers in Mexico in much the same way Trump did in May 2019, when he threatened a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican imports unless Mexico cracked down on illegal immigration and intercepted the large migrant caravans trekking toward the U.S. border. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador responded immediately to avoid the ruinous tariffs, and illegal immigration quickly plummeted.

Admittedly, forcing commercial traffic between the United States and Mexico to grind to a halt will also harm the Texas economy — just as Trump’s threatened 5 percent tariff on Mexican imports would have in 2019 — but it will hurt Mexico worse and more quickly, which means it has a chance of working, by motivating Mexican officialdom and by forcing the Biden administration to engage.

But it will only work if Abbott comes out like Trump did and explains what he’s doing and why. Given the protests and the delays at the ports of entry, which were already up to 12 hours at some crossings on Monday, Abbott should hold a press conference later this week and explain that the entire situation is entirely of Biden’s making, and that all the president needs to do to reopen international trade along the U.S.-Mexico border is to reverse course on the cancellation of Title 42, which he could do with one phone call. He could also call on López Obrador to put pressure on Biden to keep Title 42 in place.

Abbott has real leverage here, and he should go out of his way to ensure that everyone knows it. He could say, “Because Biden will not secure this border, as governor of Texas I have a duty to protect the people of this state, so I’m shutting it down.” Something like that. He might even enjoy it.

If Abbott wants headlines, that will do it. It might also help secure the border.



Rwanda asylum seekers: UK government criticised over 'cruel' plan

 

Plans to send some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats to live in Rwanda have been described as "absolutely chilling" and "cruel and nasty" by charities and politicians.

The government has faced fierce criticism for the policy with questions raised over costs and impact as well as Rwanda's human rights record.

But Boris Johnson said the £120m pilot scheme would "save countless lives".

The PM said it would break the business model of "vile people smugglers".

The pilot scheme would initially focus mainly on single men arriving on boats or lorries and would see them given a one-way ticket for the 4,000-mile trip to Rwanda where they would be processed and, if successful, would have long-term accommodation in the African country.

Home Secretary Priti Patel, who travelled to Rwandan capital Kigali to sign the deal, said the "vast majority" of those arriving in the UK "illegally" would be considered for relocation to Rwanda.

The scheme is one of a number of measures announced to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel, with others including plans to hand operational control of the Channel to the Navy and asylum seekers who are resettled in the UK being spread more evenly across authorities.  


It has been met with criticism from many quarters, with Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, saying the charity was "appalled by the government's cruel and nasty decision" that would "do little" to deter people from coming to the UK.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Johnson was trying to distract from his "partygate" fine with the "unworkable, unethical and extortionate" scheme, while the Lib Dems said the government was "slamming the door" in the face of refugees and the SNP's Ian Blackford called it "absolutely chilling".  


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61110237    




Has the Right’s March Through the Institutions Begun?

Has the Right’s March Through the Institutions Begun?


Elon Musk’s potential hostile takeover of Twitter is only one data point in a growing trend.


You likely haven’t noticed this, but there is an awful lot of evidence out there that the Left is beginning to lose the institutions they’ve spent the past couple of decades seizing control over.

Or maybe you have noticed it. If so, it could be that what’s going on with Elon Musk and Twitter might have provided the clue that got you started thinking about this.

You probably already know the particulars here. Musk bought up some 9.2 percent of Twitter, urged on by the social media platform banning the Babylon Bee’s account after the satire publication named Richard “Rachel” Levine, the cross-dressing bureaucrat working in the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, as its Man of the Year in response to USA Today naming Levine as its Woman of the Year.

Along the way, Musk posted a number of things on Twitter highly critical of the app’s treatment of free speech. He conducted a poll asking whether Twitter protected free speech; more than 70 percent of his followers said no. He suggested that Twitter should have an edit button; other apps like Facebook do. And Musk kept hinting that big things were in the offing.

Including Musk openly musing about starting his own social app, which led to speculation that he’d buy up Twitter and then shut it down.

Last week, Twitter offered Musk a seat on its board. On Saturday, he turned it down. Twitter’s bylaws would have restricted Musk to a 14.9 percent share of the company, effectively barring him from upsetting the apple cart more than he already has. When Musk refused the board seat, speculation exploded that what he’s doing amounts to a hostile takeover of Twitter to come.

This column has no information on whether or not that will happen. Musk could dump his 9.2 percent share of Twitter at a hefty profit tomorrow, and if he did, Twitter would likely be mortally wounded. Or he could keep buying and drive the stock price higher. Musk’s initial stock purchases jumped Twitter stock some 30 percent, though it fell from a high of $52 following that buying spree to its current price just below $45.

In fact, Twitter stock dropped more than $2.50 on the news that Musk wasn’t going to join the board, an indication investors were expecting a Musk selloff more than a hostile takeover.

But Elon Musk is in a very unusual position. He’s the richest man in the world, so he has the wherewithal to swallow up Twitter. In fact, he could buy up every share of that company and still have 85 percent of his net worth invested elsewhere. He’s also got the reach, on social media and elsewhere, to get out the kind of messaging that can move the stock price. If Musk wanted to, he could trash Twitter’s stock and make buying it up a quite affordable proposition.

Or he could leave it a shattered ruin.

The thing to remember is that the Babylon Bee incident wasn’t the only provocation for Musk’s potentially hostile interest. Twitter’s CEO Parag Agrawal, who at 37 is the youngest CEO of a company in the S&P 500, took over from its founder Jack Dorsey in December to the horror of many critics. Agrawal had said in a 2018 interview that Twitter should “focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”

“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard,” he declared in the interview. “And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content.”

This after Dorsey had completely botched his company’s treatment of free speech, including taking the breathtakingly stupid step of banning former President Donald Trump, who had 88 million followers on the app. Dorsey was thought to be a free speech advocate who was dragged into cancel culture by the momentum of Twitter’s employees.

And when Agrawal took over for Dorsey, among his first actions was a diktat from Twitter HQ that users would no longer be able to post pictures of someone without his or her consent. That led Musk to figuratively poke Agrawal in the eye with this:

Of course, the disappearing Soviet apparatchik wearing Dorsey’s face is Nikolai Yezhov, a secret-police official who went from walking alongside Joseph Stalin (or Agrawal, as the case might be) in the famous photo to being executed, buried in an unmarked grave, and airbrushed out of the shot.

Twitter is an institution that commands the participation of most of the corporate press. Lazy journalists use it as a substitute for getting out in the real world and doing their jobs, the effect of which is that much of American journalism comes from a terribly skewed perspective. They think Twitter is America; it isn’t. Most Americans aren’t on Twitter, and those who aren’t have a much different attitude and reality than those who are.

Which is another way of saying that Twitter is an institution that is out of touch with the market it purports to serve. And that’s a real problem. Twitter’s market capitalization is a little more than $35 billion. That’s tiny compared to other Big Tech institutions. But it punches far above its weight in the amount of influence it exerts on other, more consequential media institutions and the national cultural and political narrative.

So if Musk were to carry out a hostile takeover of Twitter, it would be something like the Battle of Midway in the war to restore some balance to our national discussion. Or at least Washington crossing the Delaware. It would be a disruptive eventuality that could expose the fact that our crumbling social, cultural, and corporate institutions have been usurped by people unfit to hold them, and the rout might begin from there.

Because there are lots of institutions that are failing and in severe danger of major disruption, if perhaps of a less dramatic character than Musk’s potential takeover might be for Twitter.

This column has talked about the real decline of higher education, particularly when it comes to attracting men. American colleges are increasingly female-dominated, and students are increasingly pursuing courses of study of the liberal arts variety, if not the Junk Studies variety. The overall value of a college degree is therefore plunging, and the word is getting out — the higher ed bubble is bursting, if slowly.

And of course, there is K-12 education, an institution that has been broken for some time. But the consequences of that failure are only now coming to the fore as parents terrorize school board meetings by objecting to stupid Branch Covidian policies as well as transgender and critical race theory advocacy. Bills like Florida’s anti-grooming law and money-follows-the-child education funding plans are also racing through state legislatures. Meanwhile, the number of people homeschooling their kids has more than tripled in the past three years and private schools are bursting at the seams with students.

Hollywood is in a state of collapse after going horribly woke under the control of the hard Left. And yet the Christian-infused Kurt Warner biopic American Underdog has managed to gross some $27 million at the box office, earning a tidy profit while other films with huge budgets like Nightmare AlleyThe 355, and West Side Story fell well short of the black. American Underdog directors Andy and Jon Erwin are unapologetic Christians whose last feature film, I Can Only Imagine, turned a $7 million budget into an $85 million box-office hit.

And Joe Rogan still has 11 million downloads per podcast despite the Left’s attempts to cancel him. Rogan was never a particularly right-wing personality, but he gets friendlier to conservatives all the time. At one point, we were told that the podcast world would be the Left’s answer to talk radio, but that isn’t the reality on the ground. Not anymore.

There is a clear advance afoot, and it isn’t just a reflection of the polls showing a rough election cycle ahead for Democrats. Musk, who isn’t what you’d call a conservative but is a believer in the ideals of the American Revolution and a passionate defender of the First Amendment, is certainly no friend of the shot-callers of the cultural Left. He might just be the man who robs them of their most dearly held Big Tech darling.

And when he does, if he does, conservatives will absolutely delight in telling our cultural Marxist friends, “Well, if you don’t like Elon Musk’s Twitter, then by all means go and build your own.”


Former Clinton Lawyer Gambit to Dismiss Case Fails Miserably — Now, Hillary Has to Be Sweating


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Looks like the folks in Clinton-land are going to be unhappy with the latest decision in the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann.

As we previously reported, after filings in the case exploded all over the news about surveillance on Donald Trump’s DNS look-ups, someone must not have appreciated the attention that Hillary Clinton was once again getting in the case. Then came a motion to dismiss the case from Sussmann’s attorney. Sussman was charged with making a false statement to the FBI because he told the FBI general counsel James Baker that he wasn’t working for any clients when he fed them information smearing Donald Trump with the Alfa Bank allegations, when in fact Sussmann was working for Tech Executive-1 (Rodney Joffe) and the Clinton campaign.

That deceived the FBI into then investigating the matter, not knowing that it was precipitated by the Clinton campaign. The Alfa Bank allegations — that somehow the Trump Organization was communication with the Kremlin-connected Alfa Bank — were subsequently debunked.

But the decision on that motion came in on Wednesday and it was denied, as I’d predicted was likely to happen.

Sussmann’s attorneys moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the alleged lie for which Sussmann is being prosecuted wasn’t “material” as required by the charge.

The judge found that the question of materiality was up to the jury, so he couldn’t dismiss the matter, and that the government had to be allowed to present its case on the matter. So, the judge ruled against the dismissal.

The judge also accidentally confirmed the identity of Tech Executive-1 — by including Rodney Joffe’s name in the filing.

That means the case will proceed to trial on May 16, barring any postponements or a plea beforehand.

Now, that can’t make Hillary Clinton happy because Sussmann’s options as to what to do are running out. He can plead guilty or go to trial, with even more evidence likely to come out on the Clinton campaign plot. Meanwhile, once he is up against the wall on the charge, then that’s the time where the Special Counsel would likely be pressing for more information on the plot — who knew what when, and all the further details.

The net seems to be drawing tighter. Even John Podesta and officials from Hillary for America have been interviewed in relation to this case.

So, grab the popcorn: if he doesn’t plead out, we may get to see some fun testimony and a lot of sweating from the Clinton team.



Joe Biden's Approval Numbers Hit a New Low, Show Horrifying Trend for Dems


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Just when you think he can’t go lower, he does. Oh, who am I kidding, we all thought Joe Biden could go lower in regards to approval rating, and the latest survey from Quinnipiac has his numbers rivaling a punch to the face.

To be clear, this isn’t just a record low for Biden in this specific poll, but as far as I can tell, it’s a record low overall, regarding any poll. For the moment, this is the deepest in the hole the current president has ever been. It’s also a five-point drop in just a week.

When you break down the numbers, things don’t get any better. In fact, the breakdown of his approval is probably more startling (for Democrats, at least) than the top-line number. For example, Hispanic Americans only give the president a 25 percent approval rating. Independents? 26 percent.

Those Hispanic numbers are just horrific for the administration. As RedState reported on Tuesday, new polling out of Nevada, a once-safe blue state, already looks bleak for Democrats. These latest approval numbers bolster the case that Hispanic voters are, in fact, shifting over to the GOP in numbers that could swing elections. Being sub-30 percent with independents, who are typically swing voters, is a real “for whom the bell tolls” moment as well.

Of course, Biden does manage to receive high marks from two groups of Americans: White, college-educated women, and African-Americans. We are firmly at the point where the president could start a nuclear war and streak naked during the State of the Union, and those two demographics would still give him high marks. There’s no sense behind it. Just blind partisanship.

Regardless, that’s not going to be enough to save Biden and his party. When you look at the issues in the poll, things are bleak. 68 percent of Americans think the U.S. should be doing more to help stop the killing in Ukraine. That’s a rebuke of the administration on an issue that was supposed to favor them. On sanctions, the respondents were evenly split on whether they’ll be effective or not.

This version of the Quinnipiac poll (they switch back and forth) did not measure domestic questions about the economy, which is probably a good thing for Biden. If they had, the numbers would have certainly been terrible, and the newest inflation numbers will only add to the discontent.

And there you have it. Biden’s presidency is a disaster, there’s no hope for it on the horizon, and Democrats will suffer greatly come November. Be sure to come back for the next installment of “how low can he go?”