Monday, June 19, 2023
An Ordinary Citizen’s Bill of Rights
What, we might wonder, would our municipal Bill of Rights look like if we could ever take our cities back from the activist chieftains who lord over them on their tribe’s behalf?
New York City has approximately 70,000 bums—the size of a small army—which we might consider sending to help out Ukraine in lieu of continuing our giveaway of billions in aid and weaponry.
Instead, because, apparently, those bums don’t already have enough rights compared to the rest of us, the New York City Council, with Mayor Eric Adams’ signature on the dotted line, recently passed a “Homeless Bill of Rights” to give them some more.
Sponsored by New York’s “Public Advocate” Jumaane Williams—whose life’s mission, contrary to his misleading title, is to advocate not for the general public but for thugs, bums, and derelicts and to be a perpetual thorn in the side of all of those who think living in a city that is safe, sane, and sanitary is a worthwhile goal—the Bums’ Bill of Rights accomplishes such things as setting forth their right to a city-funded shelter, including one consistent with their preferred gender identity (no, that’s not a joke), codifying their right to sleep on the city’s streets, as though they needed an invitation, and reminding them of their right to vote . . . because, of course, we want the input of people who contribute nothing to our society, pay no taxes, live off of the hard work of others, and make our lives just a little more miserable each and every day, to have an influence on public policy.
To those of us who live in this city and actually use its streets and subways—unlike the hereditary caste of limousine liberals that assuages its guilt at having inherited wealth by making a conspicuous show of promoting policies that coddle druggies, bums, and criminals and make cities generally unlivable — the Bums’ Bill of Rights is just another slap in the face, another reminder of all the rights ordinary citizens don’t have because they are always the city’s last priority. What, we might wonder, would our municipal Bill of Rights look like if we could ever take our cities back from the activist chieftains who lord over them on their tribe’s behalf?
The Ordinary Citizen’s Bill of Rights might look something like this:
- We have the right to a reasonably clean and orderly city and to be free of individuals who litter, urinate, and defecate in public spaces.
- We have the right to walk the streets without having to dodge bums splayed out on the sidewalks or psychos and drugged-out zombies teetering toward us.
- We have the right to streets, subways, and other public spaces that do not play host to homeless encampments or open drug scenes.
- We have the right to park benches and seats on public transportation free of semi-permanent occupants spreading trash, filth, and mephitic odors all around them.
- We have the right to be free of noise pollution caused by thugs who refuse to use headphones, of cigarette smoke on buses, trains and stations, and of the stench of marijuana in all public places.
- We have the right to service workers willing and able to make malingerers and miscreants move on, who are charged with summoning law enforcement to the scene when they are needed to grapple with situations that may be more volatile.
- We have the right not to be accosted by aggressive panhandlers who invade our space or even make physical contact with us, refuse to move along after their requests are ignored or declined, threaten us, curse at us or besiege us when we are eating in a restaurant or sitting on public transportation.
- We have the right, when we are out in public, to never see indecent displays of a lewd or sexual nature and, unless we are on a beach or at a public pool, we have the right never to see people who are shirtless or whose undergarments or nether regions are substantially visible.
- We have the right to have criminal laws and regulations enforced such that fare-beaters, shoplifters, vandals, and all violators of sanitation codes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
- If we are threatened, such that we have a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, so long as law enforcement officers are not immediately available to assist, we have the right to defend ourselves and those around us.
The Ordinary Citizen’s Bill of Rights is aspirational, obviously. We are not expecting miracles. We are not expecting our streets and public transportation hubs, trains and stations to be cleansed of all litter and human trash overnight, nor are we expecting people grown used to the city’s indifference in the face of criminal conduct to realize immediately that things have changed. Such transitions in mores take time.
Those of us who lived through the halcyon years of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg in New York City watched the signs of decline accumulate gradually and then suddenly under the incompetent and malevolent Mayor Bill de Blasio. Day by day, month by month, and year by year, we watched shoplifters, turnstile jumpers, and smokers in the subways try out their infractions with furtive, tentative looks over their shoulders, and we watched other would-be shoplifters, turnstile jumpers, and smokers watching as well, beginning to realize that the city itself was no longer watching, that the next generation of miscreants could dispense with the furtiveness and the tentativeness and do their deeds out in the open, with impunity.
It took all of de Blasio’s disastrous eight-year reign for the sky to fall, for crime to spike again and for the filth, disorder, thuggery, and vagrancy to rise to its present-day fever pitch.
And so, just as it took years for our hard-won good habits to degenerate into bad ones, it will take years for us to learn once again that actions have consequences and that the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who are the backbone of our society, as of every society, actually matter more than the rights of thugs, bums, and criminals. What we want is a good-faith effort.
Mayor Eric Adams has said and done many things right, increasing police presence in the subway, posting security guards—albeit symbolic security guards—at subway exit doors to discourage potential fare evaders and making efforts to institutionalize those bums who are so psychotic—whether as a result of drug abuse, mental illness, or drug-induced mental illness—as to pose a danger to themselves or others.
But as a black mayor in a city destabilized by violent, hateful anti-cop, pro-chaos Black Lives Matter rhetoric, he is uniquely positioned to do far more to turn back the tide and establish a new, broader consensus coalescing around the basic right to a sane, safe, clean, and orderly city in which everyone of every race and origin can thrive. Enacting the Ordinary Citizen’s Bill of Rights as an ideal to strive toward would be a good start.
There Is No Removing Trump Case from Broader Context
Donald Trump’s Republican legal critics would do well to take account of some recent history.Donald Trump’s Republican legal critics would do well to take account of some recent history.
Listening to critical comments about former President Trump’s alleged criminal behavior in his treatment of classified documents, especially in interviews with William Barr and Andrew McCarthy, I was struck by a glaring omission in these supposedly dispassionate analyses. According to his Republican critics, Trump blocked the FBI’s effort to investigate his holding of classified material, and, to make matters worse, Trump’s lawyers shamelessly misrepresented this situation in communicating with the grand jury.
Supposedly, we should not view Joe Biden’s even more reckless relationship to classified documents in quite the same way, McCarthy explained in an interview on June 10. Unlike Trump, Biden never lied about holding classified material to a grand jury. It may also be the case that the Department of Justice should have gone after Hillary Clinton for ignoring a subpoena to turn over classified material, which Clinton destroyed instead of giving up. But that was an oversight that can no longer be undone. In any case, argues former Attorney General Barr, one cannot set right a past sin of omission by refusing to punish others who commit similar illegal acts. Such a move just adds to the unpunished criminality that is polluting the world.
Although most of the jurists making this case clearly dislike Trump, I won’t challenge their insistence that the multiple counts in the indictment against the former president, including violation of the Espionage Act, are truly grave. Even if half of these charges can be made to stick, Trump may be spending the rest of his life in the slammer. I won’t even deny that Trump took unwarranted liberties with the documents by waving them around in front of observers and allegedly storing some of them in his bathroom. Like Trump’s critics in the Republican Party, I shall even look past the less-than-impartial special prosecutor whom our partisan attorney general chose to investigate Trump’s handling of classified documents. What is harder to look past, however, is the obvious context of this case, namely a prolonged political war, most of which was directed against our former president.
Pace McCarthy, there is no way Biden will have to explain any of the illegal things he may have done, whether taking bribes from foreign governments or stealing and holding classified documents as a senator and later vice president. That’s because no one in his government will indict him; and even if someone did, the “fake media” would likely black out the information. That is how our Fifth Estate has treated any harmful news pertaining to Biden or his family, and they’ve been following that script ever since Joe became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020. What Barr treats as an oversight in the case of Hillary Clinton was not that at all. It was an obvious case of a politicized FBI working in tandem with the media to protect their preferred presidential candidate.
Trump’s Republican legal critics would do well to take account of some recent history. Since 2016 the FBI has worked energetically to discredit Trump and if possible, remove him from office. The misuse of the fictitious Steele dossier, eavesdropping on Trump and his team during the 2016 presidential campaign and then on Trump after he became president, phony investigations of Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russian government, leaks of confidential material to a Trump-hostile press, and finally keeping damning information about Biden and his family from reaching the public just before the 2020 election are just a few of the questionable actions carried out by a rogue surveillance organization targeting the former president. Now the same enemies are going after him one more time and making a criminal act out of his holding of classified material.
Victor Davis Hanson notes the utter hypocrisy of the FBI and Biden’s special prosecutor, Jack Smith, pursuing selected enemies for mishandling classified material when the FBI interim director, Andrew McCabe, committed obvious felonies without being held to account. McCabe, a Democratic Party stooge, leaked classified material repeatedly to friendly news sources. Hanson asks whether it is “now the policy of the United States government that an FBI director can lie with impunity, and leak, and mishandle sensitive classified information.”
Other than the fear of repercussions, why should Trump treat a rogue agency that now seems totally out of control with any degree of respect? Why should we even expect him to?
McCarthy, Barr, and others who speak of Trump’s grave offenses act as if we’re still living in an earlier era, when the FBI deserved our respect because it at least tried to stay above politics. That is clearly no longer the case.
Moreover, what the FBI and the Biden Administration are doing to Trump is unmistakably partisan. Their actions are clearly intended to shape the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Trying to remove the legal case against Trump from its broader context is like starting a narrative at the end. It may be useful to fill in the rest of the story before making judgments about the last scene.
The Ukraine-American Gordian Knot ~ VDH
The illegal efforts of Ukrainians to lobby for arms shipments will prove counter-productive. And if not curtailed, the interference will turn off Americans enough to cut this tangled Ukrainian knot.
Most Americans sympathize with Ukraine and were and are willing to supply it with defensive weapons to repel Russian aggression.
Proof of that goodwill is the virtual draining of U.S. weapon stocks—from stockpiles of anti-tank weapons and large-caliber artillery shells to anti-aircraft and surface-to-surface missiles. Yet the more the United States gives, the more Volodymyr Zelenskyy demands—and the more the American people acquiesce in sympathy for his plight.
Given such U.S. largess, Ukraine currently enjoys the third-largest defense budget in the world, behind only the United States itself and China in annual outlays. That gargantuan expenditure is a result almost exclusively of American massive arms shipments and other NATO countries’ arms transfers, all based on a commitment to help Ukraine repel Russian aggression. Officials in Russia, Ukraine, and the United States have all agreed that the war is a high-stakes proxy conflict between nuclear Russia and nuclear NATO.
The original mission, as assumed, was to aid Ukraine in pushing the invader back to the prior post-2014 borders, de facto established by prior Russian invasions that had absorbed the disputed eastern border and Crimea. Then supposedly, negotiations would begin to adjudicate the ancient border disputes that had led to the first iteration of fighting in 2014.
The Disputed Ukrainian-Russian Border
Ukraine’s latest counteroffensive could, in fact, get close to achieving that goal of reclaiming much of the ground taken after February 2022.
But apparently, the war’s aims have now shifted to reestablishing the 2013Ukrainian-Russian border. That is an ambitious agenda and, in the past, neither President Barack Obama nor Donald Trump nor Joe Biden had ever signed on to it. Oddly, those on the Left calling for the utter defeat and humiliation of the Putin regime and the retaking of Crimea (and who also gave us 2009 Russian “reset”) had rarely voiced such agendas after the 2014 aggression during the Obama Administration. (And remember that was not Putin’s first rodeo; he had invaded Georgia and absorbed South Ossetia in 2008).
To accomplish this new objective, Ukraine will require far more American weapons, far more deep strikes into Russian territory, and far more attacks against the Russian Black Sea fleet. Those radical escalations have already altered much of conventional American geostrategic thinking.
Gone is the Kissingerian triangulation doctrine that Russia was to be no friendlier to China than to the United States, and vice versa.
Gone is the unspoken taboo on nuclear saber-rattling. Not since October 1962 have so many politicians and media grandees, in and outside Russia, talked so brazenly about the use of tactical, and on occasion, strategic nuclear weapons.
Gone is any legitimate worry of a new “Axis of Evil,” given Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are now united in their active anti-Americanism. The new Axis powers are courting Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some Middle East oil exporters.
Such an alliance brings with it two of the world’s top-three oil producers, the world’s two largest nations, one in population, the other in territory, the world’s largest nuclear arms stockpile, and, in Iran and North Korea, soon perhaps, two of the most unhinged terrorist-supporting nuclear nations.
Gone, too, is the idea that the United States must always have sufficient wherewithal to fight simultaneously two, or at least one-and-a-half, wars. At the rate of the present diminishing American arms stockpile, and our pathetic state of munitions production, very soon the United States will not be able both to meet Ukraine’s insatiable arms demands and still have the weapons and resources fully to arm Taiwan and deter Chinese aggression— aside from meeting any new conflagration in the Middle East.
All the above considerations are well aside from the humanitarian crises in which over 8 million Ukrainians have fled their country that is being systematically wrecked by the Verdun-like war. No one knows precisely how many Russian and Ukrainian dead, wounded, captured, and missing the war has consumed, but the vast slaughter, oddly, has rarely become the chief topic of discussion. The approximations on both sides are likely low, and we could conceivably see 500,000 total casualties by year’s end.
Ukrainian Involvement in U.S. Politics
Then there is the elephant in the room that no one acknowledges. In the last eight years, Ukraine has insidiously managed to massage U.S. domestic politics in a fashion like no other nation in recent memory. Kyiv’s intrusion is ironic, since we had been lectured nonstop about foreign meddling involving nonexistent “Russian collusion” and “Russian disinformation.”
The former was discredited by Robert Mueller’s 22-month failed unicorn investigation and the recent report from Special Counsel John Durham. The latter hoax of laptop disinformation has now ruined the reputations of “51 former intelligence authorities” who themselves signed a disinformation letter falsely alleging that Hunter Biden’s authentic laptop, safely in FBI hands, was a likely hallmark of “Russian disinformation.” Their letter was solicited by the 2020 Biden campaign to offer a plausible denial of the laptop’s incriminating information for candidate Biden in the upcoming presidential debate.
From 2013 onward, Ukrainian opponents of the then-Kyiv government sought out officials high up in the Obama Administration to aid in their efforts to remove the elected, albeit pro-Russian, president and then to help fast track the proper successor government.
In 2015-2016, on the assumption that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the presidency, a Ukrainian-American consultant was hired by the Democratic National Committee. More specifically, she colluded with the hierarchy of the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C., to derail Trump’s then-campaign manager Paul Manafort on grounds he was too friendly with the Russians.
Politico reported at the time that the same Alexandra Chalupa, a Clinton acolyte, as part of her $412,000 fee from the DNC, also tapped Ukrainian sources to advance the narrative of Trump-Russian collusion—a project apparently aided indirectly by the Ukrainian Embassy.
Ukrainian Serhiy Leshchenko, the former investigative journalist and Ukrainian lawmaker, was reportedly a source for the fake Christopher Steele dossier—the catalyst that launched James Comey’s misadventure of Crossfire Hurricane.
At the climax of the 2016 campaign, the then-Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Valeriy Chaly, took the extraordinary step of weighing in on the election. He wrote for The Hill an anti-Trump candidacy op-ed that helped feed the then-Russian-collusion hoax that was intended to damage the Trump campaign.
Ukrainian-American and military veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman became a left-wing folk hero for his efforts in prompting President Trump’s first impeachment. Vindman, remember, was assigned as a National Security Council staffer to listen in on a classified presidential phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
But Vindman, worried that Trump might indeed delay or stop arms aid to Ukraine, then likely took the extraordinary step of leaking the call, again likely illegally, to a third-party “whistleblower” CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. YetVindman testified that he did not contact and indeed did not even know Ciaramella. He still has not explained how the “whistleblower” knew of the contents of the classified call. And so it was no surprise that Vindman himself was widely reported to be the true whistleblower—and had misled Congress about that fact.
Ciaramella’s supposed knowledge of purported presidential wrongdoing depended entirely on second-hand knowledge of the classified call. No matter.He apparently followed Vindman’s prompt and collaborated with House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Vindman to craft the strategy of impeaching Trump, right after the recent failure of the Mueller investigation to find any proof of “collusion.” Ciaramella was the Ukraine director on the National Security Council and currently is a loud think-tank advocate of ensuring NATO membership for Ukraine.
The Left heatedly blasted any suggestion of what it called the “dual loyalty” defamation of Vindman. But that hyperreaction missed the point. Criticism of Vindman was not based on “dual loyalty” but rather Vindman’s own implausible testimony and his partisan activism as a supposedly nonpartisan military officer on behalf of his native Ukraine, whose agenda included further targeting of President Trump on apparent grounds he was insufficiently pro-Ukrainian.
Indeed, Vindman himself let it be known that the Ukrainian government had offered him on various occasions the key post of defense minister. In truth, no foreign government offers such a high post to a mid-level American officer unless it assumes he brings with the billet Washington insider advocacy and influence—or deserves reward for past service.
Since his retirement from the military, Vindman has been a vocal proponent on cable news of the need to step up existing massive U.S. arms shipments to his native Ukraine, and belittles most who express worries about the commensurate depletion in American strategic arms stocks.
He did his reputation on the Left no favors when he founded his own military contracting company, Trident Support, in which he seeks to be paid millions by the Ukrainian government to service and repair imported arms inside Ukraine.
In other words, Vindman, who was the catalyst for the impeachment of a president over the question of arms shipments to Ukraine, is now a wannabe profiteering middleman military contractor facilitating arms transfers from NATO countries to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy and other members of the Ukrainian government reportedly have also called U.S. news agencies to complain about occasionally unfavorable coverage of the current war. Most notably, liberal media outlets report calls from Zelenskyy himself to the Fox News hierarchy, complaining, in particular, about the perceived anti-Zelenskyy commentaries of Tucker Carlson. Those reported contacts preceded Carlson’s own firing from Fox News.
Then we have the Biden family consortium and its lucrative multimillion-dollar Burisma profiteering. Disputes over the Biden lobbying, along with Vindman’s testimonies, prompted the impeachment of the president of the United States.
Trump’s Call to Zelenskyy
For all his bluster and ranting, Trump has, in fact, persuasively defended his call to Zelenskyy on six grounds that are rarely countered.
First, the Biden family indeed was likely corrupt and may well have peddled its influence to affect U.S. foreign policy to Ukrainian government-related interests for lucrative payoffs.
Second, Joe Biden did interfere in Ukrainian government politics by demanding the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was beginning to question improper Burisma expenditures to foreign agents such as his son—and himself.
Third, congressionally approved military aid was not canceled by Trump but only briefly delayed. The arms shipments included Trump-requested offensive weaponry that the Obama-Biden Administration prohibited.
Fourth, Vladimir Putin did not dare go into Ukraine during Trump’s tenure, although he did so both before and after—during the Obama and Biden Administrations.
Fifth, under Trump’s tenure, there were no formal investigations of likely 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden’s corruption. That restraint was not shared by the Biden Administration, whose special counsel appointee just indicted Trump, now leading in the Republican primary polls.
Sixth, the recent disclosures of IRS and FBI whistleblowers and from internal government documents allege that members of the Biden family had not fully paid income tax on their quid-pro-quo profiteering. There is an additional allegation of a $10 million payoff to both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy giant.
The Ukrainian Gordian Knot
So ponder this complex Ukrainian Gordian Knot: We have Ukrainian government officials and oligarchs interfering in the highest processes of the U.S. government.
Their ambassador damned a leading presidential candidate in the 2016 race in an op-ed.
The DNC paid a pro-Ukrainian activist hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in the “sourcing” of the bogus Steele dossier that sought to sabotage a presidential campaign and presidency.
A Ukrainian-American, pro-Ukrainian activist helped launch the impeachment of the president of the United States by likely improperly leaking the content of a president’s phone call. The Ukrainian government subsequently offered the same officer the minister of defense post, and he is currently the CEO of his own defense contracting company that is lobbying for multimillion-dollar contracts with Kyiv to provide support services for Ukraine’s military. His company depends on a continued and constant flow of Western arms into Ukraine.
There are now stunning revelations that oligarchs with close ties to the Ukrainian government may have paid the current Oval Office occupant, when he was vice president, along with his son, at least $10 million in exchange for influence peddling.
To the degree that the United States supports the brave efforts of Ukrainian resistance is nevertheless a purely American matter. The people of the United States decide their own foreign policy in terms of what is in both American interests and what is the proverbial right thing to do.
They can make their own choices without the interference in their elections by Ukrainians, without expatriate Ukrainian-Americans aiding partisan efforts to smear a presidential candidate, without a military officer seeking to impeach a president while boasting about being asked to head the Ukrainian defense department, and subsequently running an arms business connected to Ukraine, without Ukrainians pressuring U.S. news agencies to report “correctly” on Ukraine, and without Ukrainian oligarchs sending millions of dollars to a prominent American political family among whom is the current president of the United States who sets U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine, apparently in expectation of nothing other than advancing a pro-Ukrainian foreign policy.
The irony is that Americans on their own have been generous to Ukraine, often at the cost of endangering their own stockpiles of critical weapons.
The continued extracurricular and illegal efforts of Ukrainians to lobby for increased arms shipments will prove counterproductive eventually. And if not curtailed, the interference will turn off Americans enough to cut this tangled Ukrainian knot.
For Ukraine’s own sake and self-interest, it should cease and desist all of its insidious interference in American politics.
Neil Oliver Contemplates the World The Elites Strive Toward But Ultimately Cannot Achieve
GBNews has made some changes to their content distribution; changes that appear specifically intended to diminish the voice of GBNews pundit Neil Oliver. The network still puts Oliver on their YouTube Channel, but for the past month+ they have removed his content from their website page. As a result, the transcripts are now very difficult to locate – if at all.
Neil Oliver does a great monologue this week, generally following the arc of our current situation as constructed by a network of political elites. Oliver takes the continuum to its logical conclusion and then asks, what then? The political people and corporate institutions, those protecting themselves inside compounds and behind walls, cannot self-sustain. What happens when they need the proles they have diminished? WATCH:
#Winning. 3 terribly political movies all bomb at the box office 🎉
Grooming Disney’s Elemental, Mr. They/Them’s The Flash, and the gay, Black Lives Matter-inspired The Blackness all tanked at the box office, to which I can only say, God Bless America.
All three of these flops, the latest products of Hollywood’s Woke Reich, debuted on Friday, and all three bombed both at home and abroad. In fact, all three came in well below even their most pessimistic projections.
Let’s start with The Flush; I mean The Flash.
The Flash stars serial criminal and credibly-accused child groomer Ezra Miller. The hype told us this was the “greatest superhero movie ever made.” Worse, we were gaslighted all the way up to Saturday afternoon with the breathtaking news The Flash was potentially tracking for $80 million domestic. End result: a pathetic, worse-than-Black Adam $55 million.
The Flash also crashed overseas, taking in just $75 million from 78 countries. Total global debut: a devastating $138 million.
Hey, maybe handing a $300 million franchise over to a pretentious pervert and fetishist freak who uses those stupid They/Them pronouns isn’t such a good idea?
I’m offering you some free advice Warner Bros. It’s up to you (and your board of directors) if you choose to accept it. I don’t really care. Watching Hollywood fail is a lot more entertaining than your movies.
P.S. Because he’s a protected Alphabet Person, the disgraceful blacklisters in Hollywood refused to cancel Flash star Ezra Miller, so the market stepped in and did it–which is how it’s supposed to work.
In today’s episode of Disney is Doomed, the latest Pixar film, the $300 million (budget + promotion) Elemental, debuted to a hilarious $29.5 domestic. Disney’s Big Gay Lightyear was a massive flop, and that massive flop opened to $51 million. Oh, and now that the word is out that the child abusers at Disney attempted to sneak some sexual child grooming into Elemental, normal people will likely stay even further away. Overseas, Elemental collected only — LOL — another $15 million.
Disney will never recover from the brand damage of openly embracing the grooming of toddlers. What a fall–and I’m enjoying every minute of it.
Finally, in honor of the stupid Juneteenth holiday, Lionsgate released the horror-comedy The Blackening. Low-end predictions said it would do about $7 million. It ended up bombing with just–LOL–$6 million. Here’s how Christin Toto described this Woke Bomb…
“[T]he story lumbers on for 96 brutal minutes while the characters spout BLM-approved talking points” and , the movie “assumes black people hold monolith views on race, the police and much more.”
At certain points, Toto explains, the characters expose their own prejudices, but we’re supposed to sympathize with these racist views. Here are his bullet points:
- “White people scare me,” one character complains
- The story’s biracial character, played by Beyers, loathes her white heritage
- “Are there any white people who wanna kill us? Potentially all of them.”
Naturally, one character is gay.
So there you have it… The glorious news is that Hollywood sent three woketard movies out into the world, all three of them within the most popular genres out there (superhero, animation, horror), and they all bombed.
Tucker Biographer: Fox Staffers Jumping Ship to Work with Carlson
The headlines for Fox News just keep getting worse in the wake of Tucker Carlson’s firing. Not only have the network’s ratings fallen off a cliff, but Tucker’s new Twitter show is receiving massive numbers of viewers. I reported recently that their internal employee portal was riddled with LGBTQ Pride propaganda. And last week, a loyal 10-year vet of the channel was forced to resign after he approved an on-air chyron saying, “Wannabe dictator speaks at White House after having his political rival arrested.”
He didn’t even get a warning? Morale must be pretty low these days at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan—Fox headquarters.
Carlson biographer Chadwick Moore thinks things are about to get even worse for the former number-one cable news network, which was recently leapfrogged by MSNBC. He says that at least nine staffers have exited—and are joining Carlson’s team instead:
Moore believes “Chyron Guy” might be one of those joining forces with Carlson, who, until his departure from Fox, pulled in the highest ratings of any cable news show:
Moore wasn’t done, writing, “Tucker Carlson’s team at Fox was extremely close. Most of them were there from the launch of the show until its end, and they’ve stood by their boss in the aftermath. I write about it in my book.”
He also claims that many former guests won’t appear on Fox anymore. We know at least one of them, and as RedState‘s Susie Moore reported, it’s attorney Harmeet Dhillon:
Here’s the full text of her post:
For all the friends who have been asking “why don’t we see you on Fox anymore?” — This is why. I am passionately committed to free speech and a free flow of information necessary for a free society. Until Fox stops trying to silence Tucker, it’s not a place for me. And I feel for my friends working at the network which has clearly caved into pressure from some quarter to silence @TuckerCarlson. What you are seeing on Fox today is a censored version of the news. Keep that in mind as you make your viewing and your commenting choices.
If Rupert Murdoch (or whichever of his progeny won at Succession) thought that the termination of Tucker Carlson would soon fade into distant memory and the network would quickly recover, he appears to have miscalculated—badly. The ratings across the primetime board tell the story: many viewers are sick of the network and feel it’s abandoned its core audience. If Chadwick Moore is correct, staffers feel the same way.