Excusies about the late post, nap went way longer then it should've. Here's tonight's news:
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
X22, Red Pill news, and more- Sept 21
Excusies about the late post, nap went way longer then it should've. Here's tonight's news:
Could a Defeat in Ukraine Spell the End of Putin’s Russia?
Vladimir Putin prides himself on his understanding of history and surely realizes he’s backed into a corner, likely to repeat it.
Last week, Ukraine managed to recapture more than 2,000 square miles of the Kharkiv province in the country’s east. The media, U.S. government officials, pundits, and observers alike heralded this event as the beginning of the end of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Newsweek’s William Arkin even foretold that this defeat signifies the end of Russian President Vladimir Putin himself.
While the battle for Kharkiv was a major rout for Russian forces—no matter how the Kremlin tries to spin the story—the war is far from over. Still, the events of last week raise several vital questions, chief among them is what would happen to Putin’s regime should he face a decisive defeat in his military campaign in Ukraine.
If Russian history is an indicator, it might be that Putin’s power structure and the government he has built to sustain it could crumble as a result. This was the case with the collapse of every regime in the history of modern Russia.
It begins with an authoritarian figure who, feeling an abundance of power and entitlement, ventures into a war he is not properly prepared to conduct, makes rash and ill-informed decisions, and suffers a major humiliating loss. Aside from the military defeat, the public image of said leader is tarnished beyond repair, resulting in an erosion of his claim to absolute legitimacy and leaving enough cracks in the standing system for serious opposition movements to maneuver.
This was the case of Czarist Russia, under the reign of Czar Nicholas II, the last ruling Romanov. Possessing a shallow understanding of modern warfare, Nicholas relied on the whimsical and often ignorant advice of his military entourage and household. He did not understand how to manage the rising tensions with an overly aggressive and powerful Japanese Empire to his east, a factor which inevitably led to war in 1904.
After a short-lived period of military modernization, the czar felt invulnerable and engaged a large portion of his army in the war effort. He made several major decisions that led his armies along a string of defeats, culminating in the destruction of most of the Russian navy and the death of more than 80,000 troops. Back home, the image of the infallible patriarch was shattered and political opposition saw the light, first as a failed revolution in 1905. The state barely managed to maintain control over an ever-disgruntled population and, despite many efforts to remedy the disaster of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, Russia’s entry into another conflict, World War I, effectively signified the end of the old Russian Empire.
More than six decades later, it was a similar scenario that ushered in the end of the Soviet Union. Leonid Brezhnev had reached nuclear parity with the United States and spread the influence of the USSR far beyond its borders. The growing Soviet military power instilled in him the same sense of invulnerability Nicholas had felt, as he opted to invade neighboring Afghanistan, in support of the embattled communist government there. This was justified through the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Soviet response to the Eisenhower Doctrine, which effectively stated that a threat to any socialist state is a threat to all socialist states.
Brezhnev died before he could witness the disastrous effect of the war on the Soviet Union. Beaten by a ragtag consortium of peasant guerilla fighters, whom Soviet officials deemed inferior and incapable of sustaining the onslaught of the Soviet war machine, the Communist Party and the Red Army lost the veil of legitimacy through which many still saw them, as well as the fear that had silenced a majority of Soviet citizens. The image of Soviet tanks trampling the Prague Spring no longer evoked the same sense of dread. Popular pressure mounted, former Soviet republics gained their independence, and the Soviet Union was no more.
Fast forward 30 years, another Russian autocrat sits atop a new version of the Russian Empire. After a successful modernization of his armed forces and three major military interventions in which he came out on top, Putin showed the same signs of feeling invincible as our previous two protagonists. He entered a war he was not truly prepared to engage, which visibly showed during the first stage of the invasion when he sought to quickly storm Kyiv and anticipated ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine would welcome him with open arms. Both expectations proved false and, as we would discover shortly after, were the product of advice from arrogant and vastly incompetent military advisors and commanders.
Putin’s fate, however, seems far from sealed. His war remains popular in Russia, with more than three-quarters of the population supporting it, while his own approval ratings still hover higher than 80 percent, according to the latest polls by the independent Levada Center. It is difficult to know whether these numbers are the product of genuine conviction or the success of the Russian government’s wartime propaganda campaign.
We are starting to see cracks on the internal front, however, with sizable opposition groups now voicing concern, one way or another, about the prospects of the war. These include the right-wing Russian nationalists, the Russian Communist Party, and even some of the state-owned media currently experiencing more and more difficulty to spin unfavorable news to support the Kremlin’s needs.
Most importantly, we are seeing growing discontent among the young generation. The greatest opposition to the war and to Putin himself comes from people under the age of 30. This generation did not experience Soviet indoctrination, nor does it remember the turbulent 1990s. They don’t feel they owe Putin anything, least of all loyalty. It was also this same demographic that led the charge both in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and the Soviet-Afghan war in 1989. Alienating and aggravating this segment of the population is likely to lead to Putin’s downfall or, at the very least, mar the legacy he tried so hard to build over the past two decades.
Putin prides himself on his understanding of history, to which he often makes reference in order to justify his policies and politics. As a result of the defeat in Kharkiv, he probably sees himself backed into a corner, since he knows the true cost of defeat. It will go far beyond Ukraine and even his own person. Defeat will dismantle the version of Russia he has been painstakingly constructing for the past two decades.
Why the Middle Class Is Being Destroyed
The emergence of a cognitive elite, and, for the first time in history, the almost total convergence of intellectuals with the financial elite explains the coming extinction of the middle class.
Nearly 30 years ago, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published “The Bell Curve,” which became notorious for its chapter that highlighted differences in IQ test results by race. But that controversy overshadowed the primary focus of the book, which was that the human race is dividing into a cognitive elite and everyone else.
In the book, the authors argue that for the first time in history, humans are far more likely to marry their intellectual equals. “As the century progressed,” they write, “the historical mix of intellectual abilities at all levels of American society thinned as intelligence rose to the top. The upper end of the cognitive ability distribution has been increasingly channeled into higher education, especially the top colleges and professional schools, thence into high-IQ occupations and senior managerial positions. The scattered brightest of the early twentieth century have congregated, forming a new class.”
Herrnstein and Murray went on to predict an alliance between the cognitive elite and the affluent, writing, “For most of the century, intellectuals and the affluent have been antagonists,” but that now, “the very bright have become much more uniformly affluent than they used to be while, at the same time, the universe of affluent people has become more densely populated by the very bright. Not surprisingly, the interests of affluence and the cognitive elite have begun to blend.”
Although parts of The Bell Curve have been hotly debated, these two predictions—the formation of a cognitive elite, and the alliance of the cognitive elite with the affluent—resonate strongly today. They explain one of the root causes of globalism. Herrnstein and Murray even predict the rise of “the custodial state,” which they define as “a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation’s population, while the rest of America goes about its business.”
The problem with that prediction, however, is that it suggests America will divide into three classes: the cognitive elite and affluent class, the middle class, and a permanent underclass of the cognitively deficient, completely dependent on the “custodial state.” That would have been bad enough, but that’s not quite what is happening. Instead, the elites in America, joining with their counterparts in most of the rest of the developed world, are engineering a future where there will only be two classes: the elites and a permanent underclass.
Not everyone who is highly intelligent or independently wealthy embraces the extreme climate and equity agenda. Many still see that such a flawed agenda is bound to impoverish and embitter billions of people. While there are powerful incentives to go along, and powerful disincentives to resistance, minds can be changed. The prevailing consensus can be broken.
To avoid turning the vast majority of humanity into livestock, which is where we’re headed, requires presenting alternative scenarios. Appealing to those elites who retain a shred of common sense and common decency is not impossible. Protecting the planet and promoting fairness does not require rationing and racism. Elaborating on those basic facts may yet convince a critical mass of elites to change the course we’re on.
Meanwhile, to try to fully understand the reason America’s elites are distancing themselves from everyone else, and engineering the destruction of the middle class, another curve has explanatory value: the curve of population growth in the world.
After a few millennia of slow growth, the human population began to skyrocket. Rising from 190 million in the year zero to nearly 1 billion by 1800, by 1928 it had doubled to 2 billion, hit 3 billion by 1960, and then added another billion every 15 years. World population now stands poised to break 8 billion within the next year or two.
You don’t have to be a member of the cognitive elite to see the human population cannot continue to double every 40 years indefinitely. And it won’t. Several possible causes have been identified to explain the relatively recent and steady reduction of birthrates around the world, but the decline is indisputable. Humanity most likely will reach its peak population within a few decades, if not sooner, after which the total human population will be aging and shrinking. How fast it will shrink, and what that will look like, though, brings us back to the role of the elites.
Herrnstein and Murray in their predictions and prescriptions for Americans coping with the rise of a financial and cognitive elite didn’t take into account global population demographics. They also didn’t anticipate the rise of the green movement as a moral pretext for the destruction of the middle class.
The elitist argument for destroying the middle class is simple. If everyone on earth used as much energy as Americans use, global energy production would have to more than quadruple. That fact roughly applies to all natural resources. We might argue—and we should argue—that innovation can deliver a middle-class lifestyle to 8 billion people without catastrophically depleting critical natural resources or causing unacceptable harm to the earth’s biosphere, but apparently that’s not a choice the elites want to make. And they don’t have to.
Explaining this refers to another development, the full impact of which Herrnstein and Murray couldn’t have seen coming, which is how artificial intelligence and other technological innovations will make the existence of a middle class unnecessary.
In their book, Herrnstein and Murray ask, “what is the minimum level of cognitive resources necessary to sustain a community at any given level of social and economic complexity?” By implication, they suggest that if the average IQ of a population is low or in decline, that jeopardizes the potential of the population to advance or even maintain their standard of living. But the consensus among today’s elites is that broadly distributed intelligence in a population is no longer necessary.
The logic for this is sound, even though it dismisses the aspirations of billions of people. People in jobs of moderate responsibility, or less, won’t need to know as much or think as much as they once did. Even doctors and airline pilots will rely increasingly on algorithms to make their diagnoses and fly their planes. If the plane crashes, as we saw a few years ago with two grisly 737 incidents, that is an inevitable byproduct of working out the bugs in the software. If a cyber attack systematically crashes the entire civilization, the elites will be in their bunkers, sandboxed away from the ensuing mayhem.
What is coming is a ruthless meritocracy that will admit only those individuals with the skills to do work that can’t be replaced by algorithms and robots. There won’t be many openings. In most professions and trades, to the extent human involvement is still necessary, competence will be secondary to affirmative action because automated procedures and artificial intelligence prompts will tell workers what to do.
By blending and flattening the population of the world’s cognitively normal, the cognitive elite will be able to pacify and manage them, distance themselves, and have exclusive access to whatever property and privileges they consider not sustainable or desirable for everyone to enjoy.
For example, even if it becomes possible to deliver a middle-class lifestyle to the entire global population of aging billions, the elites may ask, “Is it desirable?” And if it becomes possible to deliver life extension therapies inexpensively with nothing more than a gene modifying injection, the elites may also ask, “Is it desirable?” Why should elites care about any of this if an underclass of machines that do not require these things can do all the work for far less bother than an underclass of humans?
Meanwhile, the ongoing expansion of the custodial state is concurrent with the average IQ of Americans shifting into decline. This shouldn’t be surprising. The so-called Flynn Effect, the theory that social and economic progress caused IQ scores to rise in the early 20th century, has now been thrown into reverse. Many factors could explain this reversal, but because it is happening universally, we might start by implicating a degraded system of public education, a dumbed-down media, the diversions of mindless, endless online rubbish, the collapse of meritocracy, and the replacement of the pursuit of excellence with the quest to acquire status and rewards by defining oneself as a victim.
The controversy over one chapter in Herrnstein and Murray’s book should not diminish the fact that, way back in 1994, their work anticipated two of the most decisive trends in the world today: The emergence of a cognitive elite, and, for the first time in history, the almost total convergence of intellectuals with the financial elite. The consequence, an apparent consensus among the two groups to destroy the middle class to protect their own interests while claiming they’re saving the planet and promoting “equity,” should surprise nobody.
It’s the easy path. But it’s the wrong path.
The Great Pretending – Denial of Truth Allows Easier Trespass
I was asked recently, what I considered to be the biggest problem of the current moment, and how would I describe it to my future self. My response was, we are living in an era of great pretending, and if you elevate yourself and pause its actually quite interesting to watch.
The pretending issue goes beyond politics, it’s everywhere. Sure, there was always an era where reality was skewed in favor of one position or another by various groups, people and leaders, where denying the obvious was always odd. However, this current state of our national and international disposition extends far beyond politics into almost everything.
A person would ordinarily expect to see cultural or social pretending as an outcome of political correctness. Denying the underlying social construct behind the rules of the urban society has been the norm for several years. However, the pretending has become so pervasive it has recently extended into finance and economics; places where reality -actual outcomes- used to inoculate facts and figures against pretense.
It is no longer uncommon, heck, it’s become almost standard in this new era, to see CEO’s, CFO’s and even entire boards of directors, maintaining a standard of pretense. It is quite weird to see it happening.
Yes, this era -for a host of reasons- has made delusion somewhat of a norm.
In the social sphere, cultural norms now claim men can have babies, people can choose their gender, labels and pronouns, and everyone else bears the responsibility to conform to the delusion. While goofy, that part is somewhat a weird cultural phenomenon of this western era. If we were not pretending people like AOC would have no career opportunities.
In the political sphere, the axiom of politics being downstream from pop culture is perhaps the reason the infection of pretense has overwhelmed congress and the professional bureaucracies of government. The social pretending has metastasized from the federal level to the state level, and now we see efforts to counteract “wokeism” as a social priority for state and local leaders. It’s weird to see so much time and effort being exhausted on combatting social pretense at every level.
But the more stunning development comes in the sphere of economics, where factual outcomes of transactions are matters of simple accounting. A ledger of sales and profits would normally dictate whether a business was successful or failing, and in the bigger picture would show empirical evidence of the financial health of the community of customers who purchase goods and services.
Under all common norms of economics, if a business was operating at a higher cost than its income; or if the income was to shift or disappear quickly; people would seek to identify the underlying cause. However, in this era of great business pretending, an economic mass formation psychosis has led to complete denial of the obvious.
Accepting the state of the Main Street economy as it is – not as we would pretend it to be, CTH shared several months ago that quarterly profits would be far below expectations, and we would see revised projections from just about every business entity who engages in selling durable goods. People just are not buying stuff because the cost of living and buying energy, food, fuel and shelter, has become extraordinarily difficult. It isn’t rocket science to connect economic dots.
As expected, at a macro-level, topline sales for businesses have dropped or collapsed. Inventories of non-essential products are piling up. Consumers are stressed and/or hunkering down, and general economic activity has slowed dramatically.
None of what is happening is surprising. However, what is surprising is that businesses -while faced with empirical results that describe the situation- would continue pretending.
Yahoo Finance – […] The auto giant Ford warned of a whopping $1 billion profit hit late Monday in the form of higher parts costs, with the company blaming vendor inflation. Ford now sees third-quarter adjusted operating profits in the range of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, well below Wall Street estimates for $3 billion.
Somewhat oddly in the face of the major warning, Ford reiterated its full-year operating profit outlook of $11.5 billion to $12.5 billion.
The mood on Wall Street is that Ford’s warning is generally a shocker given relatively upbeat comments on demand and the bottom line when second-quarter earnings hit in late July. Now, the Street is scrambling to mark down profit and valuation estimates on the company.
“Vehicles in transit will be seen as transitory, but surprise inflation is always worrying,” said Evercore ISI analyst Chris McNally in a note to clients, adding that he sees Ford’s stock trading down to about $13 off the quarterly letdown. Citi’s Itay Michaeli also appeared stunned by Ford’s warning. (read more)
The great pretending continues…..
Danica McKellar's First Christmas Movie with Great American Family Has Been Revealed!
Source: https://itsawonderfulmovie.blogspot.com/2022/09/danica-mckellars-first-christmas-movie.html
Third times the charm! Once again, Danica McKellar is pairing up with Neal Bledsoe (The Winter Palace) for an all new movie for Great American Family. Danica and Neal have starred together in two previous movies: Coming Home for Christmas for Hallmark and The Winter Palace for Great American Family.
See all the details on their new Christmas movie, Christmas at the Drive-In, below...
DANICA MCKELLAR AND NEAL BLEDSOE
SET TO STAR IN
GREAT AMERICAN FAMILY
ORIGINAL MOVIE
CHRISTMAS AT THE DRIVE-IN
NEW YORK, NY – September 21, 2022 – Great American Family today announced Danica McKellar (“The Wonder Years,” The Winter Palace) and Neal Bledsoe (“The Man in High Castle,” The Winter Palace) are set to star in Christmas at the Drive-In, premiering on the network this holiday season. McKellar is also executive producer for the film, her first original Christmas movie since signing a multi-picture deal with Great American Family. Christmas at the Drive-In reunites McKellar and Bledsoe following the successful premiere of The Winter Palace in January. Christmas at the Drive-In is part of Great American Christmas, the network’s holiday programming franchise which returns on October 21 with a new slate of original holiday movie premieres every Saturday and Sunday and Christmas movies all day and all night through the end of 2022.
In Christmas at the Drive-In, Sadie Walker (McKellar) is starting over in her hometown of Chesterfield, New York, following a series of major life disruptions that include leaving her law practice after losing her biggest case and no longer being engaged. Now a law professor at Chesterfield College, Sadie has no interest in ever pursuing law again until she finds herself fighting to preserve a cherished local landmark, Chesterfield Drive-In. Sadie is surprised to find out her passionate effort to keep the drive-in open has staunch opposition – the late owner’s son and Sadie’s childhood sweetheart, Holden (Bledsoe).
Executive producers of Christmas at the Drive-In are Brad Krevoy, Eric Jarboe, Amanda Phillips, Amy Krell, Vince Balzano, Jimmy Townsend, Danica McKellar, David Anselmo, Susie Belzberg Krevoy, Kathy Ceroni, and Don McBrearty. Supervising producers are James Mou, W. Michael Beard, Michael Shepard, Kelly Martin, Allan Fung, and Micheline Blais. Christmas at the Drive-In is written by Rick Garman. McKellar is repped by Matt Sherman Management and attorney Dave Ryan at FTSAMR.
ABOUT GREAT AMERICAN FAMILY
Great American Family is America’s premiere destination for quality family-friendly programming, including original holiday movies, rom-coms and fan-favorite series that celebrate faith, family and country. Great American Family is home to year-round seasonal celebrations including Great American Christmas, the network’s signature franchise featuring holiday themed movies and specials. Founded in 2021, Great American Family is part of the Great American Media portfolio of brands. Follow Great American Family onTwitter: @GAfamilyTV Facebook: @GAfamilytv Instagram: @gactv
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Pam Slay
Network Program Publicity
818.415.3784
pamslay@gacmedia.com
Mead Rust
469.663.7717
meadrust@gacmedia.com
Petulant White House Is Really Upset With Fox News Reporter Bill Melugin
As RedState reported on Tuesday, the United States has now had more than two million apprehensions of illegal aliens at the Souther border in the current fiscal year. That’s the most in history and represents a major crisis, both for those charged with enforcing the law and for those breaking it.
With that being the setup, you’d think the Biden administration would be scrambling to enact better policies and provide some semblance of security at the border. After all, what’s going on is a political liability, and one that is becoming more front and center as each day pass.
But nah, instead the White House is gnashing its teeth about Fox News reporter Bill Melugin, who has been the go-to source for information about the current border crisis. You see, they don’t want to actually fix the problem, they just want you to not know about it.
Immigration has been a key issue that has filled many hours of programming for Fox News since its inception. The network regularly dispatches people to the border to cover illegal border crossings, stoking fears about caravans of immigrants. The coverage is often accompanied by stories of crimes committed, despite studies showing the immigrants have a lower propensity for committing such acts.
Everything about those two paragraphs is mind-numbing. “Stoking fears about caravans of immigrants?” Again, two million illegal aliens have been encountered at the border this fiscal year alone, and that doesn’t count those who made it through unscathed. How is it “stoking fears” when those fears are completely fact-based and rational?
As to the idea that illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate, that’s questionable given that all the studies done on the matter are done by pro-immigration organizations. It’s also irrelevant. Any crime committed by an illegal alien is by definition preventable given they shouldn’t have been allowed into the interior of the country in the first place. And even past that, the fact that illegal aliens might be marginally more well-behaved that some Americans doesn’t justify crossing the border illegal. In other words, it’s a mindless talking.
For his part, Melugin just reports the facts on the ground. If things seem sensationalized, that’s because what is going on at the border is sensational. Yet, the petulant children in the Biden administration are “irritated” that he’d dare expose their failures.
As Melugin has become an increasingly visible figure on the network, his coverage has caught the attention of the White House, which has become increasingly irritated by his reporting. During a press conference last week, press secretary KARINE JEAN-PIERRE noted that Fox News got the heads up on the Martha’s Vineyard flight before local, state and federal agencies.
“The fact that Fox News — and not the Department of Homeland Security, the city, or local NGOs — were alerted about a plan to leave migrants, including children, on the side of a busy D.C. street makes clear that this is just a cruel, premeditated political stunt,” she said.
One administration official who used to work on immigration issues told West Wing Playbook that the Biden team has complained about the lack of nuance in the network’s coverage of the topic, which focuses more on the number of migrants rather than explaining the root causes of the situation. Another administration official believesthat the conservative network amps up border coverage whenever there are bad headlines for conservatives in the news.
Why would DeSantis have let the Department of Homeland Security, which is largely responsible for this mess, know what he was doing? But I digress, this idea that Melugin doesn’t talk enough about the “root causes” is a weak deflection. The “root causes” of the current crisis are the Biden administration’s policies, specifically its resending of Remain in Mexico and the president’s open invitation to illegal aliens to “surge the border” upon him taking office.
The world has always been full of poor, desolate countries. The current situation in South America, for example, is not unique. There is no major driving factor today that didn’t exist a decade ago. What has changed is having a president who makes a joke of border security for partisan reasons. When you basically light up a giant billboard telling illegal aliens to come on in, there should be no surprise when they come on in.
This only gets fixed by having leadership in Washington that takes the issue seriously and is willing to make the tough choices to stem the tide. Unfortunately, all we can count on the Biden administration doing is crying about press coverage.
Soyuz MS-22 launch
A Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle launched the Soyuz MS-22 spacecraft from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, on 21 September 2022, at 13:54 UTC (18:54 local time, 09:54 EDT). Soyuz MS-22, with Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev, Dmitri Petelin and NASA astronaut Frank Rubio is scheduled to autonomously dock to the Rassvet module of the International Space Station (ISS) at 17:11 UTC (13:11 EDT). The Soyuz MS-22 spacecraft is named “K. E. Tsiolkovsky” (К.Э. Циолковский) in honour of Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky.
Don Lemon Uses Queen Elizabeth II Death to Propose Colonial Reparations, Gets Schooled on Slavery
This is a little funny and a well-deserved embarrassment for CNN host Don Lemon. {Direct Rumble Link}
The intellectually deficient little nitwit from the fake news has no concept of true historic reference when he began advancing a narrative about the British monarchy paying reparations due to slavery. However, the royal scholar being interviewed, Hilary Fordwich, has a solid understanding of history and used the opportunity to remind Don Lemon exactly which country was the first to end the practice of slavery and how many British patriots died battling against African tribal lords and kings who did not want to end it.
Don Lemon was left a befuddled mess… LOL WATCH:
Tim Allen Triggered the Left Over Joe Biden—and They Just Can't Cope
Actor and comedian Tim Allen has given us a lot of good comedy over the years from “Home Improvement” to “Last Man Standing.” He’s also not been quiet about being more conservative and not in the left-wing mode of a lot of Hollywood. He’s even admitted to liking that President Donald Trump got under the skin of some people by some of what he has said.
But Allen also has something else that many comedians do not: the nerve to be both fearless and funny, when many hold back in the present-day political climate, afraid of how the left might come after them if they make jokes about Democrats like Joe Biden.
He doesn’t tweet a lot but when he does, he makes it count on a critical issue of the day: Joe Biden and his disastrous interview on “60 Minutes.” It was pretty bad, and the White House has already been trying to walk some of what Biden said back on issues like Taiwan and the pandemic being over. Allen went there on Biden’s competency.
“Biden was on 60 minutes. I heard he asked how long the show was,” Allen joked. Now, that’s funny, and it’s a classic political joke–the kind that we used to see a lot of from comedians, but not so much anymore, unfortunately. It’s funny, but it’s still pretty mild as political jokes go, and hardly nasty.
But it shows you where we’re at, at this point, that the left flipped out over something so mild, over Biden — who everyone knows is old and has issues. The coping and seething is something else. They have no tolerance at all, even for simple jokes, if it does anything at all to attack their “side,” even if it is so on target when it comes to Joe Biden.
For them, a “dad joke” is treason; that’s how over the edge they’ve gotten at this point.
They even think they’re finking on him to Disney to try to cancel him.
Many of these are the same folks who called Trump every name under the sun, and level all kinds of false calumny against him — calling him a traitor, a Russian agent, and all sorts of things. But, they can’t even take something so mild about Biden.
Team Walk Back strikes again
You can understand why the people in charge of the presidency do their best to limit Joe Biden’s interviews.
Before flying to London for Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, Joe Biden recorded a 20-minute interview for 60 Minutes and by the time it aired, the White House had to walk back two statements made by the guy supposedly in charge of the White House.
Old Joe told Scott Pelley that the American military would fight to defend Taiwan should it be invaded by China.
Biden’s declaration was quickly followed by a voice-over from Pelley explaining the White House walk back:
But that wasn’t the only statement they had to walk back.
The guy supposedly in charge also proclaimed the pandemic over.
Then on Monday, the White House explained that the administration’s COVID policy has not changed.
You can understand why the people in charge of the presidency do their best to limit Joe Biden’s interviews. Flooding the country with over 4 million illegal aliens, destroying the economy, and targeting your political opponents for prosecution are time-consuming enough. Nobody wants to expend the time and energy it takes to constantly have to walk back this old fool’s remarks.
Next time, just have whoever runs the presidency sit down for an interview with 60 Minutes.
Old Joe got a bit rattled when Scott Pelley brought up concerns over his mental fitness.
Did Joe forget that he isn’t a candidate anymore? He already is the president.
“Watch me” is something a candidate would say.
We have been watching. For twenty months.
And after 20 months of watching, the majority of Americans have concluded that the guy in the Oval Office doesn’t have the mental fitness to do the job.
He tells Pelley we should look at his schedule. Well, okay, then. Let’s look at his schedule.
By September 2, Biden’s 591st day in office, he spent 214 days hiding away either in Delaware or at Camp David. In other words, 36% of PeePaw’s time in office has been spent ducking the office.
Is it any surprise that the old man who spends 36% of his time skiving off in Delaware or Camp David doesn’t know the official White House position on Taiwan or COVID? Is it any wonder the people running the show have to walk back things this absentee president says when he finally goes on record?
In March, I joked that the busiest office in the White House must be the Office of “What He Meant to Say.”
They’re the clean-up crew. The crew that’s responsible for walking back every statement from the foolish old man who is the only person on the Planet who still believes he’s in charge.
This is why I often get a chuckle when I read headlines from right-leaning blogs like, “Biden picks defund the police radical for DOJ” or “Biden targets parents protesting school boards” or “Biden colluded with social media giants.”
Who are they kidding?
Biden isn’t in charge. He isn’t the guy who did any of that.
The only thing this broken-down old crock is responsible for is sitting at a table and signing whatever the people in charge put in front of him while news cameras film him doing it.
This is precisely why, when he opens his gob and makes a statement, the folks running the White House have to walk back what he said while struggling to explain what he meant to say.
“Watch me,” the old man told Scott Pelley.
Oh, trust us, grandpa. We have been watching.
That’s why you’ve been polling underwater for over a year.