Saturday, May 7, 2022

Don’t Buy into SEL!

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) was always a bad idea, and now that it is politicized, it’s a nightmare.


As a longtime teacher, I have seen firsthand that education is a fad-filled field. Culturally responsive education, inventive spelling, new math, experiential learning, balanced literacy, etc. are educational styles that have come and gone and come and gone and . . .

One of the more enduring educational whims is Social Emotional Learning (SEL) which took off in the 1990s when the Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) came into being, and hosted a conference with researchers, educators, child advocates, and others in the field. By integrating SEL in schools, the faithful claimed that they could “teach students critical life skills that will not only help their personal development but also their academic performance as well” and this, in turn, “creates a culture in which students and teachers respect one another and enjoy being together, further strengthening relationships and motivating both students and teachers to do their best.”

But as American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Robert Pondiscio explains, SEL has drifted ever closer to being a central purpose of education without a full and proper examination of its role, and has become an unwelcome intrusion into what has been traditionally the work of families, faith, culture, and other institutions. This has led to “schools assuming powers and responsibilities far beyond their brief and educators working beyond their training and expertise.” In other words, SEL has turned teachers into unlicensed psychotherapists. (It’s worth noting that schools acting as therapists is rather ironic. As Erika Sanzi, director of outreach at Parents Defending Education, points out, schools are heavily involved with inflicting emotional damage on children. Whether teaching about the looming global warming apocalypse, that white 6-year-olds are oppressors, or that kids are viral vectors who could pass a deadly case of Covid to grandma, schools are cruelly creating unnecessary fears in children. As a result of this misinformation, it’s hardly surprising that the CDC reports, as of 2019, “diagnosable mental, emotional or behavioral” disorders afflicted roughly one in five children under the age of 17.)

To bolster their sales pitch, the CASEL hucksters insist that SEL is “evidence-based.” But as Max Eden—a Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—notes, that argument is weak. He writes, “A 2017 RAND Corporation review identified 68 SEL studies meeting three tiers of evidentiary rigor. No studies within the top tier of evidentiary strength demonstrated benefits to academic achievement. Only one study within the second tier found benefits to academic achievement. Studies categorized within the third, weakest, tier of evidentiary rigor showed benefits across a variety of metrics, and we could debate how much stock to put in them.”

As first implemented, SEL was purely therapeutic in nature. It took a very dark turn, however, in 2020 when CASEL announced an ideological shift to “Transformative SEL,” which calls for students to “critically examine root causes of inequity.” According to CASEL, the concept of transformative SEL is a “means to better articulate the potential of SEL to mitigate the educational, social, and economic inequities that derive from the interrelated legacies of racialized cultural oppression in the United States and globally.” Slicing through the verbiage, it boils down to the fact that, SEL has become the therapeutic wing of the noxious Critical Race Theory. So now, kids are being radicalized and taught to feel good about it!

And of course, while kids are spending loads of time learning about power, privilege, prejudice, discrimination, and social justice, they are not learning about things their parents actually send them to school for like English, math, science and history.

Not surprisingly, SEL is big business. A report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CASEL discloses that sales of SEL materials grew approximately 45% from $530 million to $765 million between November 2019 and April 2021. One of the benefactors of this horrible use of taxpayer money is none other than Panorama Education, co-founded by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s son-in-law. Yes, the same Merrick Garland who, in October 2021, tried to create an anti-parent frenzy when he issued a directive to the FBI, hysterically claiming, “In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.” As a corrective, Garland directed the FBI to “convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.”

But thankfully, many parents have already been awakened to the fact that children are front and center in the culture wars, and will not be intimidated by Merrick Garland, CASEL or SEL-infused curricula. In fact, a recent Fox News survey revealed that 80 percent of parents are “extremely” or “very” concerned about what our public schools are teaching. Instead, many are now homeschooling. And those who have not exited from the system are running for school board, or in the least going to school board meetings and making their opinions known.

Additionally, there is a growing demand for more transparency in schools. In fact, legislators in 19 states have introduced or already passed bills requiring curriculum transparency. Importantly, many moms and dads have involved themselves with organizations like the aforementioned Parents Defending Education which have the needs of families as their number one priority.

The war is on, and being a spectator is not an option.


X22, On the Fringe, and more- May 7

 



Got a long, and gloomy NCIS LA day tomorrow. (I'll have some kind of article up tomorrow.). Sigh. I get how rare it is to reach 300 episodes, but did this show really deserve it at this point given how bad things have gotten since Episode 250?

Here's tonight's news:


The Truth of the Heart

The extremism of the abortion ideologues is archaic and barbaric.


As an elected official for much of my patently wasted youth, I attended innumerable political and civic events. If pressed, today I can recall some of these events, due to the purpose or the participants. Yet, there are a precious handful of political gatherings that are not remembered for the cause or celebrants, but for an unexpected lesson learned or a long-held belief proven—especially those truths of eternal relevance.

While I cannot recall the reason for the event, I will never forget accompanying my mother, a city elected official, to a (likely) non-partisan event in our hometown. Having made the rounds of the room, we both sat down at our table. My mother saved an empty chair for her friend, our state representative. We weren’t worried, as she was likely stuck in the state capitol for a vote that ran late. 

The state legislator was a solid Republican, though I (and my mother) disagreed with her on one fundamental issue: abortion. I suppose the present political equivalent would be U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). Back then, it was far more common for elected officials differing on this issue to remain cordial and, especially within the same party, cooperate on a host of other issues without the rancor we currently witness. 

Still, the political maxim remained in effect: when two allies agree on the vast majority of issues, the few where they disagree grate more than the plethora of differences they have with opponents. Mea culpa.

When the virulently pro-choice state representative arrived, she was elated. My mother inquired why. “Joan,” she responded, “my daughter-in-law is having our grandbaby!”

I looked up from my cardboard mostaccioli. “Don’t you mean ‘grandfetus?’”

There was no response, though for a moment the realization of her monstrous support for abortion flared in her eyes—then dimmed and dulled back into cold-blooded ideological dictates. 

This “teachable moment” isn’t memorable because the state representative changed her pro-choice position. To my knowledge she never did. In fact, this episode is memorable because she did not. What, then, was learned and affirmed?

In the blessed, daily course of human existence the truth of the heart will out. In that one moment, the adamantly pro-choice representative was a grandmother, joyously announcing the impending arrival of a grandchild that she already deeply loved; and already lived in her daughter-in-law’s womb. And all was right with a world that made moral sense.

Then powerfully rearing its heinous head, ideology proved itself the enemy of sanity. There was a recrudescence of all the cynical rationalizations for permitting the destruction of her grandchild prior to birth. Caught betwixt the reality of her grandchild’s existence and her position that this child and all others similarly situated—could be legally destroyed on demand, she shut down and could not respond to my remark. But again, in the end, the loving reality that had, for a beauteous moment slipped her lips was smothered into silence by her hideous pro-abortion ideology.

Thus, today, when Joe Biden and his pro-abortion minions slander pro-lifers as “extreme” and “archaic,” I believe ultimately the truth of the heart will out. 

It is they, the supporters of exterminating innocent human life up to and afterbirth who are extreme, and worse. 

It is they who abide and abet the abortion industry’s selling of aborted unborn children’s bodyparts who are extreme and worse. 

It is they, who while claiming to be on the “right side of history” are on the wrong side of history, medical technology and, yes, science. 

It is they, who at a time when the human hand can reach into the womb to heal or to kill the innocent, deny that there is no choice but life.

And it is they, whose archaic, barbaric, extremist pro-abortion ideology renders them blind to this reality; and deaf to an unborn child’s cry from the heart to live and be loved.


Marjorie Taylor Greene Gets the Last Laugh Over Liberals Accusing Her of 'Insurrection'

Marjorie Taylor Greene Gets the Last Laugh Over Liberals Accusing Her of 'Insurrection'

AP Photo/Brynn Anderson

Marjorie Taylor Greene has been caught up in a ridiculous sideshow the last few months, with liberal activists suing to try to get her removed from the ballot before November’s election.

According to their arguments, Greene is ineligible to run because she helped foment an “insurrection” on January 6th. The evidence provided? Clips from the movie “Independence Day” — and the fact that she used the term “1776.” That and a text message in which she pointedly does not call for martial law.

The scenes from the courtroom were hilarious, if not grating, with Greene having to answer questions about alien invasions and QAnon. Now, a decision has been made, and the Georgia Congresswoman has been ruled eligible to run for reelection.

That this moronic exercise even made it this far is a blight on our system. While the judge ultimately made the correct decision, there was no reason for him to allow this carnival to happen in the first place. Similar lawsuits were thrown out against other Republicans because they clearly lacked merit.

It is not an “insurrection” to discuss legal avenues to challenge an election. It is also not an “insurrection” for a congressional member to object to the certification of said election. If it were, multiple Democrats would be in jail and would have been barred from the ballot following the 2004 and 2016 elections. Greene’s detractors are perfectly welcome to criticize her attitude about the 2020 election. That does not make it illegal or dispositive that she committed “insurrection” and is therefore constitutionally disqualified.

While the left constantly cries wolf about the downfall of our “democracy,” do you know what is an actual threat to our “democracy”? Democrat Party hacks trying to kick Republicans off of ballots because they got their feelings hurt and can’t win elections fair and square. These ploys are a direct attempt to influence the coming election and overturn the results by default. If Georgians in Greene’s district don’t want her to represent them, they can vote her out of office.

The point is that it’s their choice, not the choice of some far-left funded beltway lawyers acting on behalf of Democrats. Greene’s victory here is important because it hopefully puts a stop to this lunacy going forward.


CNN Abortion Poll Backfires, Ultimately No Opinions Moved by SCOTUS Leak


CNN contracted for an urgent poll of voters [Article Here] to gauge the anticipated enthusiasm bump that Democrats were expecting for the mid-term elections. [SEE POLL pdf HERE] However, unfortunately for the wide-eyed narrative engineers expecting the stratospheric shift in support…. the results show no one really cares.  LOL

The results from the poll show despite about a 50/50 split in response to the question about have you heard of the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v Wade, there was almost no statistical change in voter opinion from prior polling.

More depressingly for the leftists in media, when it comes to enthusiasm about voting in the mid-terms because of this issue, the enthusiastic crowd is the pro-life happy people. The registered voters who would be grumpy or angry was 20%.  The registered voters who would be happy or joyful was 38%.  Whoops.  But wait, it gets better….

When you compare the results of the internal questions to the last time they were asked, there’s no difference in response.  This issue is such a predetermined opinion, that virtually nothing around it changes.

CNN has sad.   See video below (prompted):


The net takeaway is a big nothingburger.  No one cares.   [See Poll pdf Here]



Putting Some WD-40 on the Supply Chain

Putting Some WD-40 on the Supply Chain



Politicians, the Federal Reserve, and Fed and administration apologists like to claim that the inflation we face is caused by supply constraints. This claim goes against the facts on the ground. According to the World Trade Organization, even though there was a collapse in trade at the beginning of the pandemic, trade in intermediate goods — critical inputs in finalized products — quickly recovered despite port and shipping bottlenecks. Sure, it increased at a slower rate than before, but trade was still rising.

In addition, data from the main U.S. ports show that after declining at the beginning of the pandemic, ports soon recovered and operated at pre-2020 levels. There were chokepoints, but supply chains were far from “cut off” in the way that President Joe Biden likes to assert.

To the extent that there are real obstructions in supply chains, they started long before the pandemic. For these, there is a lot that the administration and Congress can do.

For instance, Congress should immediately repeal the 1920 Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act. Under the Act, all freight moving by water between U.S. ports must be hauled on ships that are built, crewed, and flagged only by Americans. These requirements directly raise the costs of shipping freight by water. And by artificially increasing the demand to instead ship by rail and trucks, the Jones Act also increases the cost of hauling freight on land.

While they’re at it, Congress should reform the Foreign Dredge Act, which requires that dredging barges are Jones Act–compliant. This significantly inflates the costs of dredging U.S. ports, preventing expansions that could accommodate more and larger ships.

The Biden administration must also end former President Donald Trump’s punitive tariffs and import quotas. These measures inflate costs and reduce the supplies of goods — including goods that are themselves useful for further easing supply constraints. For example, Section 301 tariffs drastically reduce the supply of truck chassis in the United States, worsening bottlenecks in the surface transportation of other freight.

Immigration restrictions affect supply chains, too. As the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome notes, these restrictions have “removed at least 1 million potential (and lawful) workers from the U.S. labor market, putting acute pressure on labor-intensive industries like warehousing. (And backed-up warehouses make it more difficult to clear containers that are stacked up at various ports.)”

Those in favor of supply-side reforms should be wary of the new talk about ramping up antitrust enforcement.

Lincicome also rightfully argues that the administration should end the ban on Mexican trucking companies operating on U.S. roads, since this ban keeps “the largest and closest supply of potential U.S. truck drivers” out of the country and reduces the number of American trucks “available for inland work because they’re picking up cargo at the border from Mexican truckers who have to drop it there.”

State and local governments have their own role to play in removing supply-chain obstructions. Local zoning, land-use, and environmental rules have stopped ports and other companies from building or expanding warehouses and other container structures.

These rules and many others explain why there is no American port among the 50 most efficient in the world. You can, however, find the largest U.S. port system, in the Los Angeles area, near the bottom of some measurements of the 351 global ports. Easing restrictions would significantly help improve American ports and, in turn, increase the flow of supplies.

Economists fittingly call these ideas “supply-side” reforms, and they are beneficial far beyond specific issues with supply chains. For example, reforming land use and zoning rules would also expand the supply of housing, reduce home prices, increase labor mobility, and reduce income inequality. 

Finally, those in favor of supply-side reforms should be wary of the new talk about ramping up antitrust enforcement. Most of today’s enthusiasm for antitrust is merely hostility to large and successful firms and lacks credible evidence of harm by monopolies. Threatening to punish firms for profitably serving consumers will only make corporate executives less diligent at improving efficiency and keeping their prices as low as possible. As the history of antitrust shows, vigorous enforcement is often aimed at firms that are especially successful at improving product quality and lowering prices. Antitrust, despite its lovely name, obstructs and weakens supply chains.

The bottom line is that while inflation wasn’t and isn’t the result of deficient supply chains, there is plenty that can be done. Why don’t the politicians who are so focused on Americans’ access to goods start by removing some obvious barriers?

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.


Backlash Over Biden's 'Disinformation Board' Grows

Backlash Over Biden's 'Disinformation Board' Grows

('1984' screenshot)

Backlash is continuing to build over the formation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security as 20 GOP attorneys general are threatening legal action against DHS, and more than 175 Republican members of Congress are demanding answers about the board’s mission.

Republicans recognize the foolish error made by Joe Biden in not only creating the board but naming a left-wing radical to head it up.

Nina Jankowicz, the proposed director, is very selective about what she sees as “disinformation.”

Washington Examiner:

Jankowicz, a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, will be the executive director of the Department of Homeland Security’s new anti-disinformation effort. She has a history of either labeling claims as disinformation that were later found to have credibility or giving credence to assertions that were later discredited, including those related to Hunter Biden, Christopher Steele, Iranian election meddling, the Wuhan, China, lab leak hypothesis, and more.

Jankowicz also dismissed parental concerns about CRT, saying it was merely the GOP “weaponizing people’s emotion.”

But firing the director won’t change the fundamental fact that a “disinformation board” doesn’t belong in America. It presupposes that only a select few are able to see through the propaganda and get at the “truth” of a question.

The problem with that is that it presupposes the American people are a bunch of dunces who need the helping hand of the government to identify what’s true and false.

The House Republicans also voice their “ethical concerns about an organization charged with securing the homeland engaging in anything that could have an impact on speech.” They believe the board “could be utilized as a political tool under the guise of security” including ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

The GOP also pointed out that DHS’s “primary mission sets are countering terrorism, securing the border, securing cyberspace and infrastructure, upholding economic security, strengthening resilience, and strengthening DHS itself” and that combating misinformation has largely been a U.S. foreign policy mission, not a domestic one, and so “we are concerned that DHS is overstepping its authority with the creation of this board.”

The Republicans further argued that “the policies of the current administration have resulted in over 1.5 million border encounters in the last six months” and that “we are concerned that the Disinformation Governance Board will distract from this crisis.”

Indeed, it certainly is interesting timing that the announcement by Secretary Mayorkas of the board’s existence comes about a month before the administration says it will rescind Title 42 border restrictions. Once those roadblocks are removed later this month, an estimated 700,000-800,000 illegal immigrants will attempt to cross the border.

But using the announcement of the disinformation board to distract from the coming border horror is far too subtle and sophisticated for the group of dimwits in the White House.


Quick Look at US Code Makes Jen Psaki’s 'Answer' on Targeting Justices at Home so Much Worse


Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

We’ve reported this week on how White House press secretary Jen Psaki has been asked multiple times about various aspects of the story that broke Monday about the Supreme Court leak regarding the draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito in which he declared “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

On Wednesday, Psaki gave a very troubling answer when questioned on whether the Biden White House would view a majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade as a “legitimate” ruling. She refused to give a straight “yes” or “no” answer, and instead pivoted to how things would supposedly take a dire turn for women in at least “half” the states in America if the draft majority opinion held.

Things got even more shameful on Thursday when Psaki was asked about the admitted plans by the radical leftist group “Ruth Sent Us” to target and march outside of the private homes of some of the conservative Justices, whose addresses were partially shared complete with maps by the militant left-wing agitators in a clear attempt at intimidating them over the Mississippi pro-life case currently before the court.

Not only did Psaki decline to condemn the leak, but she repeatedly refused to condemn the planned “protests” outside of the Justices homes.

“Peaceful protest is not extreme,” she told Fox News reporter Peter Doocy. And then later, when pressed on whether President Biden thought it was okay to target Justices at their homes where in some instances there are small children, Psaki said “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. I want it — we want it, of course, to be peaceful. And certainly, the President would want people’s privacy to be respected. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here …”

Keep in mind that as you read her incredible answers that they came just a day or so after Joe Biden went off on “MAGA” conservatives, proclaiming “This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history. Recent American history.”

In addition to Psaki’s answers being the equivalent of the White House giving their enthusiastic seal of approval to the “peaceful protesters” who will descend on the homes of the Justices like rabid wolves next Wednesday, what was also troubling about what Psaki told the reporters who asked her specific questions about the targeting is the fact that she’s either apparently either unaware or is being willfully ignorant of the U.S. Code on demonstrations launched in front of the homes of judges and anyone involved in court proceedings with the intent to influence their decision:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

Here’s a screengrab of it for good measure:

Now, let’s pause for a moment and think about what the reactions would be from the left and the media, including the MSNBC hosts who Psaki will work alongside when her next gig begins if Kayleigh McEnany or Donald Trump gave nods of approval to any “MAGA” group that planned on camping out at the homes of liberal judges or Justices at any point during his time in office. They would be absolutely hysterical and accuse the Trump administration of trying to “incite” people to harass, intimidate and possibly harm jurists.

But because we’re talking about abortion here, all the talk we’ve heard over the last year and a half or so from Democrats and the media about how dangerous it was to allegedly “disrespect democracy” and “undermine our sacred institutions” has suddenly flown out the window.

Just beyond shameless they’d promote unlawful actions. And worse, potentially dangerous actions, too. But it’s apparently okay or something now because #priorities and stuff. If something, God forbid, happens to these Justices, can we look to these same people to yell “insurrection” accusations and apologize for their role in fomenting it? Of course not. Because, as we’ve noted before, if Democrats did haven’t double standards they’d have none at all.



Liberal Women Threaten Sex Strikes to Save Roe, to No One's Dismay

 


LOL! Well, that's one way to improve the gene pool! Thanks!

 

Article by Matt Margolis in PJMedia


Liberal Women Threaten Sex Strikes to Save Roe, to No One's Dismay

If you’ve been on social media at all this week, you’ve probably been amused by some of the unhinged reactions from the left to the leaked draft majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They were full of apocalyptic predictions by people who don’t understand what overturning Roe v. Wade would actually do. Be that as it may, it is widely believed that the draft opinion was leaked in order to allow for a pressure campaign to take place in the hopes that some justices could be swayed before the final opinion is released.

Some on the left have come up with creative ways they think will encourage people to save Roe v. Wade.

Earlier this week on The View, co-host Joy Behar floated the idea of a sex strike.

“Women in the world have conducted sex strikes in history,” Behar explained. “In 2003, a sex strike helped to end Liberia’s brutal civil war and the woman who started it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2009, Kenyan women enforced a sex ban until police political infighting ceased. Within one week, there was a stable government.”

“We have more power than we think we do and some of it could be in the bedroom,” Behar insisted.

One of her co-hosts, Sara Haines, backed the idea, calling it “a perfect weapon and method for the topic we’re talking about.”

If liberal women want to go on a sex strike, more power to them. It may not prevent the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but it would make this country a better place. The women certainly wouldn’t be hurting anyone by abstaining. And ironically, a strike would potentially reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing the number of abortions.

Behar’s brilliant plan was widely mocked on social media. “I don’t think the ladies of the view participating in a ‘sex strike’ is going to have the effect that they intended. Just sayin…” tweeted Don Trump Jr.

“Joy Behar says she’s going on a sex strike,” noted Fox Nation host Jimmy Failla. “And here I was thinking she wanted to punish men.”

“A sex strike by Democrat women would end the need for abortions,” observed cartoonist Scott Adams. “Everyone wins.”

Good luck to Joy Behar and all the other liberal women on their sex strike! May it last a long, long, long, long, long, long time.

 No comment


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/05/05/liberal-women-threaten-sex-strikes-to-save-roe-to-no-ones-dismay-n1595413 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


We still need to learn the right lessons from America’s disastrous COVID response

We still need to learn the right lessons from America’s disastrous COVID response

Mandates
Americans are expressing their desire to end all mandates, as restrictions continue to be lifted. AFP via Getty Images/ Patrick T. Fallon

More than a century ago, Mark Twain identified two fundamental problems that would prove relevant to the COVID pandemic. “How easy it is to make people believe a lie,” he wrote, “and how hard it is to undo that work again!” 

No convincing evidence existed at the pandemic’s start that lockdowns, school closures and mask mandates would protect people against the virus, but it was remarkably easy to make the public believe these policies were “the science.”

Undoing this deception is essential to avoid further hardship and future fiascos, but it will be exceptionally hard to do. The problem is that so many people want to keep believing the falsehood. 

Adults meekly surrendered their most basic liberties, cheered on leaders who devastated the economy and imposed two years of cruel and unnecessary deprivations on their children. They don’t want to admit these sacrifices were in vain.

They’re engaging in what social psychologists call “effort justification,” which has been observed in studies of painful initiation rituals for fraternities and other groups. Once people endure the pain, they convince themselves that it must have been worthwhile even when their reward is actually worthless.

If one brief bad experience can transform people’s thinking, imagine the impact of the pandemic’s ceaseless misery. It’s been a two-year-long version of Hell Week, especially in America’s blue states, with Anthony Fauci and Democratic governors playing the role of fraternity presidents humiliating the pledges.

Fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci warned Americans that the pandemic isn’t over, as things head back to normalcy. 
AP/ Susan Walsh

Americans obediently donned masks day after day, stood six feet apart, disinfected counters and obsessively washed their hands while singing “Happy Birthday.” They forsook visits to friends and relatives and followed orders to skip work and church. They forced young children to wear masks on the playground and in the classroom — a form of hazing too extreme even for Europe’s progressive educators.

To undo the hazing’s effects, we need to not only present the facts but also reassure people that they’re not to blame for the useless suffering. They submitted to it because they assumed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knew how to control disease and scientists and public-health officials would provide sound scientific guidance about public health. 

Those were reasonable assumptions. They just turned out to be wrong.

Children
Many parents are still struggling on whether or not their children should wear masks in school.
AP/Marcio Jose Sanchez

CDC leaders terrified the public with worst-case scenarios based on computer models — and then used those blatantly unrealistic projections to claim unprecedented powers and experiment with untested strategies. They ordered lockdowns without even pretending to weigh the hypothetical benefits against the tangible economic, medical and social costs — not to mention the intangible costs in emotional hardship and lost liberty.

Randomized clinical trials conducted before the pandemic had repeatedly shown that masks did little or no good at preventing viral spread, but the CDC proclaimed them effective against COVID and promoted mask mandates nationwide. Federal officials stubbornly ignored the hundreds of studies around the world showing that, except in a few isolated places, lockdowns did not reduce COVID mortality and mask mandates were generally ineffective and senselessly harmful in classrooms. Instead of heeding all this evidence of their mistakes, officials did their best to suppress it and silence dissenters.

The public needs to learn what went wrong during the pandemic, but they’re not going to hear it from the Biden administration. For now, the best opportunity for a public airing of the facts may be the 2022 election campaign. Some candidates are already attacking the lockdowns and mask mandates, and pandemic strategies could become a major issue in the 2024 presidential race, especially if Ron DeSantis runs on his success as Florida’s governor.

Florida employed some of the least restrictive COVID policies, avoiding lockdowns and mask mandates, and it still fared as well or better than the national average in measures of age-adjusted COVID mortality and overall excess mortality (how many more deaths than normal from all causes occurred during the pandemic). 

DeSantis
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is strongly against wearing masks. 
TNS/ Joe Burbank

Florida flourished economically by comparison with other states, especially California, which imposed singularly strict COVID mandates and suffered one of the nation’s worst surges in unemployment. Yet California’s overall death toll has been slightly worse than Florida’s. 

If California’s cumulative rate of excess mortality equaled Florida’s, about 5,000 fewer Californians would have died during the pandemic. And if California’s unemployment rate equaled Florida’s last year, 500,000 fewer Californians would have been out of work.

Those are the hard truths that Americans need to hear after two years of COVID hazing. It won’t be easy convincing them that they fell for a deception, but it can be done, as DeSantis demonstrated at a recent appearance when he urged a group of high-school students on the podium to take off their masks. “We’ve got to stop with this COVID theater,” he said. “If you want to wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous.”

Some students on the podium kept their masks on, looking like meek pledges during Hell Week, but a few were emboldened to uncover their faces and breathe fresh air. At least for the moment, they were free to wonder whether this ridiculous fraternity was worth staying in anymore.

Excerpted with permission from City Journal.



Biden's new press secretary raises serious conflict-of-interest questions

 


Article by Rajan Laad in The American Thinker


Biden's new press secretary raises serious conflict-of-interest questions

A couple of days ago, it was announced that Karin Jean-Pierre will take over as White House press secretary from next Friday, the 13th.

Democrats usually celebrate when even a solitary "diversity" criterion is satisfied.  Barack Obama was celebrated for being just the first black president.  The celebrations hit the next level when an additional factor was satisfied.  Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson were celebrated for being female and black. 

But this time, not one or two, but three criteria were satisfied.  Jean-Pierre just happens to be female, black, and from the LGTBQ community.

It must be remembered that when the Democrats boast about inclusion and diversity, their focus is solely on the attributes such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, which are by virtue of birth or sexuality.  Never is any diversity of thoughts and ideas tolerated; total conformity is mandatory to join this club.

Every news report about Jean-Pierre's appointment came with information about her race and sexual orientation.  What receives scant mention is her education and her career. 

She grew up in a New York Haitian working-class neighborhood.  Her father was a taxi driver and her mother a health care worker.  Yet she obtained a B.S. from the New York Institute of Technology and her master's from Columbia University. 

Her personal life had its share of challenges with her family initially not being accepting of her sexuality, which she says caused her to attempt suicide.

Despite her struggles, she managed to work her way up the Democrat hierarchy.  She worked in far-left advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU and liberal media houses such as MSNBC and NBC. 

She was a key political director in the Obama administration.  Prior to joining the White House press team, she was chief of staff to Kamala Harris.  Next week she becomes the White House press secretary.  

She is a hardcore Democrat who subscribes to the groupthink and frequently wallows in victimhood.

But there is a positive message for minorities here: education and work experience are the sole way to upliftment. 

The fact that the Democrats and the media chose to focus on her race and sexual orientation and not so much on her education and career shows where the party is today.

They celebrate only those attributes that can be turned into victimhood, that can eventually be used to silence critics.  Education and achievements comes in a distance second place.

However, there is a major concern with Jean-Pierre's appointment, which few in the media have focused on, obviously.

The media coverage celebrated Jean-Pierre's sexual orientation, but there was scant mention of her domestic partner.

Why?

Because she happens to be prominent CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux.

A White House press secretary in a long-term relationship with a prominent media personality is a blatant case of conflict of interest in both appearance and substance.  It is blatantly unethical of the White House to offer Jean-Pierre the job, and it was unethical of her to accept the position. 

But ethics and morals have no place in the world of Democrats.

If conflict of interest really mattered to the Democrats, Hunter Biden's myriad shady business ties in foreign countries would have prevented Joe Biden from having a career in public service.

CNN's record on such matters isn't exactly stellar.  Now-axed CNN host Chris Cuomo had his brother Andrew on his show quite regularly while they indulged in brotherly banter, and nobody at CNN objected.  It was eventually revealed that Chris was advising his brother, then-governor Andrew Cuomo, on how to deal with his sex scandals while working at CNN.

With Jean-Pierre, the situation is likely to be similar.

The reason Jean-Pierre's links with the media haven't been mentioned even in some right-leaning media is that the Democrats' news media ties are now accepted as obvious.  In fact, it would be erroneous to regard the mainstream media as an independent body influenced by the Democrats.  The current mainstream media should be thought of as a department or a wing within the Democrat party.

This explains why the persons in the mainstream media have identical views, despite working in different outlets.  It's not only the views, but even the phraseology to describe occurrences that is often identical.  Words such as "collusion," "insurrection," "post-truth," and "Alt-Right" weren't just a coincidence.  An adept wordsmith among the Democrats dictated these words, and the media assiduously used them so frequently that even Republicans, at times unknowingly, use these terms.

The CNN-Cuomo scandal was nothing out of the ordinary.  The reason action was taken is that their display was brazen, and most importantly, the Democrat leadership wanted Andrew Cuomo out.  

The corruption and malpractice in the media are so widespread the link between Jean-Pierre and CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux may not even matter.  Jean-Pierre is merely a cog in the vast machinery.

Will Malveaux leak information to Jean-Pierre to make her work easier?

Leaks are required only when there is an adversarial relationship or a distance between the establishment and the media.  CNN's function is to make the Democrats look good.  Jean-Pierre will not need to rely on leaks from her partner because she will get all the information she needs from each and every mainstream media outlet without challenge.  In fact, the information will be provided even if it isn't requested, as in inter-departmental communications.

It is most unfortunate that matters have deteriorated to such an extent that this link between the White House and the media is not a major issue.

As a news consumer, you have to continue to presume every word emanating from both Jean-Pierre and the news media to be false until proven true.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/bidens_new_press_secretary_raises_serious_conflictofinterest_questions.html 

 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage