Friday, April 5, 2024

The Bezmenov Plan: Is America now in the Last Stage?


President Joe Biden’s welcoming Easter Sunday message posted on X that, “Today, on Transgender Day of Visibility, I have a simple message to all trans Americans: I see you…” was shocking. Most could not understand how the President’s judgment can be so skewed on the most holy day for Christians.

As offensive as this was, it provides a window through which all can see what’s happening. With Biden’s cognitive decline being so obvious, there can be little doubt that he is being used by internal and external enemies of America intent on breaking down the constitutional republic of the United States without firing a shot. And it’s not hard to recognize the plan being followed is parallel to the blueprint plan revealed forty years ago by Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who explained the four stages of communist subversion: 1) Demoralization, 2) Disorientation, 3) Crisis, and 4) Normalization.

The United States has been under prolonged internal attacks of demoralization for several generations, through the educational system and the culture which have delivered messaging that disparages the United States and derides traditional values.

The second stage, known as disorientation, is most successful after a large portion of the population has been demoralized. Covid-19 brought about disorientation through mask mandates, social distancing, quarantines, lockdowns, and the abandonment of best medical practices of preventative and therapeutic treatments. Another important part of disorientation that was inflicted on America at that time was the ginned-up racism after the death of George Floyd, which triggered rioting, looting, and destruction of several billion dollars’ worth of property and the tearing down of historic statues and memorials in many cities across the United States.

What added to the disorientation of Americans at that time was that for weeks nobody seemed able to do anything about the rioting, lawlessness, and destruction going on in big cities across America. There were few arrests while some 1,000 police officers were injured and 33 were killed. At the same time cities with the most lawlessness like Minneapolis, Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore initiated efforts to defund their police and law enforcement.

When nothing makes sense, the subliminal message is, “This is not the America you know, it’s a new world that you have entered.”  This was as close to a mass state of disorientation in a time of relative peace as Americans have ever experienced.

The stage that follows “disorientation” is the “crisis” stage. The crisis stage would come in November 2020 with election rigging. The fear factor of Covid contagion was exploited by Democratic operatives who brought change to swing state election rules that greatly expanded mail-in ballots and drop boxes, which everyone knows facilitates vote fraud.

Simultaneous to the changes to election rules to facilitate stuffing the ballot boxes, a social media censorship and cancellation campaign was undertaken by the Stanford University-based NGO Election Integrity Project (EIP) in consultation with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a unit within the Department of Homeland Security.

EIP had an inordinate influence on the 2020 election by convincing major social media companies such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, You Tube, Reddit, and Pinterest to change their customer terms of service policies to incorporate language about “delegitimization.” Once that was accomplished, according to Mike Benz, a former U.S. State Department communications policymaker and an expert on propaganda, the door would be open to instantaneous algorithmic mass censorship and cancellation. EIP then exerted pressure on all the social media companies to adhere to their customer service policies and censor, cancel, or deplatform any content that contained “delegitimized” terms such as: ‘new election protocols and processes,’ ‘issues and outcomes,’ ‘mail-in ballots,’ ‘early voting,’ ‘drop boxes,’ and ‘Antifa.’ And when the Hunter Biden laptop story broke in mid-October 2020, it was immediately delegitimized, and taken down from every social media site.

In the end by EIP’s own admission, Twitter was forced to cancel 22 million tweets that contained “misinformation” associated with delegitimized terms that violated the company’s terms of service prior to the November 2020 election. After the election, when many Americans felt disenfranchised and had many questions about perceived irregularities, they found that social media effectively thwarted discussion about election fraud, again facilitated by censoring and canceling any content containing new delegitimized terms such as ‘Stop the Steal,’ ‘dead voter rolls,’ ‘Sharpiegate,’ ‘manufactured ballots,’ ‘stolen election,’ and ‘Postal Service’ to name a few.  

While America is still in the crisis stage, some subversion experts argue that the censorship and cancellation regime that now exists is also part of the last and final stage of communist takeover known as “normalization.”  If Americans are denied access to information, become accustomed to rigged elections, accept limitations on free speech, and acquiesce to the rewriting of history facilitated by cancellation and deconstructing the past, the constitutional republic that was America will be gone, and the new world of government elite control will be normalized. As John Adams, the second president, warned, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.”  

With information narratives coming from government agencies that have direct portals to social media, combined with information and voices being blocked, canceled, or deplatformed on social media by NGOs like Election Integrity Partnership, the result is an Orwellian thought control.

Censorship is not just a violation of the First Amendment and an assault on the Constitution. It is a betrayal of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our entire way of life is protected by the First Amendment, which is the firewall against abuse of power and tyranny.



And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- April 5

 




Americans Differ on Ukraine and Gaza ~ VDH


When Russia invaded Ukraine, Americans overwhelmingly supported Ukraine—as they did with Israel after October 7.

No wonder: Ukraine was surprise attacked by Russia, and Israel was by Hamas.

It seemed an easy binary of good versus evil: both the attacked Ukraine and Israel are pro-Western. Both their attackers, anti-Western Russia and Hamas, are not.

Now everything is bifurcating. And the politics of the wars in America reflect incoherence.

Both Ukraine and Israel are portrayed in the media as supposedly bogging down in their counteroffensives.

More pro-Israel Republicans are troubled by Ukraine’s strategy, or lack thereof, in an increasing Somme-like stalemate.

Yet more pro-Ukrainian Democrats are turning away from Israel as it dismantles Gaza in the messy, bloody slog against Hamas. The left claims either Israel cannot or should not defeat Hamas, or at least at the present cost.

So the left pushes Israel to a ceasefire with Hamas.

It blasts Israeli “disproportionate” responses.

It demands that Israel avoid collateral damage.

It pressures it to form a wartime bipartisan government.

It lobbies to cut it off from American resupply.

It is terrified that Israel will expand the war by responding to aggression from Hezbollah and Iran.

Yet on Ukraine, the left oddly pivots to the very opposite agenda.

It believes Ukraine should not be forced to make peace with Russian “fascists.” It must become disproportionate to “win” the war.

President Zelensky deserves a pass, despite cancelling elections while suspending political parties.

America must step up its resupply to Kyiv with more and far deadlier weapons.

Ukraine has a perfect right to hit targets inside Russia.

Russian threats to widen the war should be considered empty and thus ignored. America should hate Russia far more than Hamas.

By contrast, conservatives are less supportive of Ukraine’s offensives, if more than ever allied with Israel.

In their realist views, Ukraine is a smaller power, vastly outnumbered by a richer, better-armed Russia. Thus, it should negotiate while it can, rather than eventually losing everything.

Israel, however, is, in their view, defeating Hamas. If allowed to finish the job, it can soon win the war in Gaza and still handle Hezbollah and deter Iran.

Furthermore, the right is wary that Russia is a nuclear power. The Ukraine war is unfortunately creating a new, potent anti-American axis of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea and drawing in former U.S. allies like Turkey and Qatar.

Yet, in Israel’s case, the U.S. is far more powerful than Hamas’s patron, Iran, and can easily deter it should Tehran intervene.

As of now, none of Hamas’s allies have nuclear weapons. Israel, however, does, unlike Ukraine.

Many conservatives further point out that Israel is a long-time U.S. democratic ally.

Ukraine’s elections are currently suspended while the country remains under martial law.

In realist terms, the old idea of Russian triangulation still makes some sense. Russia should be no friendlier to China than to the U.S., and China is no more aligned with Russia than with America.

Hamas, by contrast, is a terrorist clique, as are Hezbollah and all of Iran’s terrorist appendages. Their hatred of the U.S. is long-standing, immutable, and transcends the Gaza war.

How about the public’s views in general?

With over $35 trillion in debt, still smarting over the humiliating withdrawal from Kabul, and the military short 40,000 recruits, the public does not wish to get heavily involved in either war, even as polls still show radically differing left/right attitudes toward both.

Americans once overwhelmingly supported vast aid for Ukraine. Now they decidedly believe the U.S. is providing too much to Kyiv.

They still poll strong support for Israel over Hamas, but less so for Israel’s ongoing destruction of Hamas given the collateral damage that follows.

Given there are few Russian-Americans, there are almost no demonstrations on behalf of Moscow’s war. But there are plenty of protests for Hamas since there are lots of Middle-Eastern Americans and visitors within the U.S.

What are we to conclude about these contradictory wars and American attitudes toward them?

The more democratic and defensive the power, the more Americans support it—but only up to a point.

Even more, they demand quick victory—and lose interest when the wars stagnate, costs increase, and protests grow.

When Ukraine and Israel began costly counteroffensives, the former losing thousands and the latter killing thousands, the American public began to be less invested in either war.

Final lessons?

Israel should do all it can to destroy Hamas as quickly as possible and end the war.

Ukraine does not have the wherewithal to defeat Russia. It should cease costly offensives against Russia’s fortified lines and seek to negotiate.

Or, put another way, fickle Americans sympathize with those who are attacked. But their continuing support seems contingent on whether the victim can remain sympathetic—and win decisively to end the war rapidly.



John Eastman and the Left's War on the Legal Profession


John Eastman is a lawyer, legal scholar, and a friend. A former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, candidate for California attorney general, and dean of Chapman University School of Law, I got to know John during my weeklong 2018 legal fellowship with the Claremont Institute, which he oversaw. We have stayed in touch and done at least one event together for Claremont since that time.

Unfortunately, since the 2020 presidential election, John has been put through the wringer more than just about anyone in American public life.

He was forced to retire from law school where he was a longtime constitutional law professor and even dean. He was let go by the University of Colorado's Benson Center for Western Civilization, where he was a visiting scholar. Armed Stasi -- sorry, FBI -- agents accosted him in a parking lot and seized his phone without a warrant. He has been suspended from academic conferences and lost board seats. He and his wife have endured death threats, spikes in their driveway and threatening graffiti in their neighborhood. He has been debunked by Bank of America and the USAA. He is being criminally prosecuted by scandal-ridden Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis. And last week, State Bar Court of California Judge Yvette Roland devoted 128 pages to explaining why he should lose his law license.

All this because John had the chutzpah to do what every law school student is taught to do in legal ethics class: defend and zealously advocate for one's client, no matter how unpopular or even disreputable that client may be. In this case, John's unpopular client was a high-profile one: former President Donald Trump.

There has been an astronomical amount of misinformation about John's activities in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol jamboree, as well as the legal advice that he offered his high-profile client during that time. The corporate media and the Democrat-lawfare complex typically speak of John's legal advice as encouraging the "overturning of an election" or "fomenting an insurrection," but such hyperbolic talk is irresponsible and wildly off base.

John acquitted himself well in a compelling essay he penned for Claremont's American Mind online journal on Jan. 18, 2021, titled "Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS 'Ask.'" His 12th Amendment argument about the vice president's more active role in certifying the states' slates of electors and his accompanying argument regarding the constitutional dubiousness of the Electoral Count of 1887 might not be correct (although it could be), but it is well within the bound of plausible, non-frivolous legal argumentation an attorney can (indeed, should ) press upon an embattled client. That is doubly so here because the U.S. Supreme Court has never authoritatively interpreted the relevant 12th Amendment provision. Countless legal arguments more frivolous than this are advanced every day in courtrooms across America.

Nor is John Eastman the only man being prosecuted, and possibly disbarred, for his legal activity after the 2020 election. Former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is also being prosecuted in Georgia, and he was just found by the District of Columbia Bar to have violated an ethics rule, which might lead to his own disbarment there -- all stemming from an internal Department of Justice memo that Clark never even sent.

Once upon a time, the American Left understood the moral imperative of ensuring that all Americans have adequate access to legal representation, no matter one's popularity in the eyes of the government or societal elites. Indeed, the definitive American example of such unpopular legal representation actually dates back to before the United States was even independent: In 1770, a young lawyer named John Adams, the man who would become the young republic's second president, took it upon himself to defend the British soldiers accused of killing five colonists at the Boston Massacre. Years later, in his dotage, Adams reflected that this was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

Presumably, Fani Willis and Judge Roland would have preferred to see John Adams tarred and feathered for his treachery. One also cannot help but wonder how they might have viewed the NAACP's legal representation in the Deep South during the days of Jim Crow.

The ultimate aim of those Jacobins prosecuting and disbarring lawyers for having the temerity to practice the legal profession is clear: the subordination of the rule of law to the Jacobins' own friend/enemy-level politics, and the cowing into submission of those lawyers who would so much as consider representing a high-profile Republican client or work in a Republican Department of Justice. Ironically, and without any hint of self-awareness, they do all this in the name of "our democracy."



Unsurprisingly, Dem Strategists Don't Understand Why Young Men Are Walking Away From the Party



Common knowledge is that Gen Z is a hive of leftist voters but, like most generalizations, this isn't exactly true. As awash with leftism as the voting youth is, there's a solid chunk that is conservative or at least more right-leaning than not, and you'll find that well among Gen Z males.

I reported on this interesting trend last year when a study found that high school seniors were largely divided on their political beliefs through gender. Girls tended to lean Democrat while boys saw a radical spike to conservative. 

Now, with November approaching faster than Democrats would like, they're only now discovering that Biden's popularity with the male youth, including black and Latino men, is dangerously low. Democrat strategist James Carville seemed particularly shocked. 

“I’ve been very vocal about this,” Carville said on his podcast. “It’s horrifying, our numbers among younger voters, particularly younger blacks and younger Latinos and whatever, younger people of color. Particularly males. We’re not shedding them, they’re leaving in droves.”

Carville's belief is that they aren't explaining how their future is in danger if they vote for Trump. 

"I don’t think they’re going to buy that,” he said. “Try if you want to, but I don’t think we’re going to appeal to the better angels of their natures. Because of complicated economic forces, they don’t feel like their future is secure in the United States. And it may not be.”



I'm no expert strategist but it seems to me that the expert strategists in the room don't understand why young men are drifting away. Hint: It's only partially about economics. 

Carville said, "They're leaving in droves." That's not necessarily the case. In truth, the Democrat Party is pushing them out. 

As I explained at the time, young men are going conservative because the Democrats have been treating men like literal garbage. 

What I said in the article at the time remains the same. The Democrats have become a very gynocentric party that wants to appeal to women on a shallow level that lends to a sense of self-victimization. This usually means finger-wagging at men, belittling them, and blaming them for everything bad that ever happens while convincing women they're not accountable for anything. 

As such, men go elsewhere:

The Democrat Party, which invests heavily in modern feminist ideals, has reiterated its disdain for men and masculinity repeatedly. In an age where boys are being inundated by the leftist narrative that they’re awful just for being boys, they’re naturally going to migrate to places and people who don’t look at them as defective.

As such, boys are listening to people like Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro, and more. Boys have effectively migrated out of the bubble the Democrats attempted to set for them and as such, messaging from other sources is reaching them more easily. You can even see this happening in the entertainment sector where the “toxic masculinity” of Japanese manga and anime has now outstripped the American industry by leaps and bounds.

 It's entirely unlikely that the Democrats are going to win men back without a massive cultural shift within the left, and as men continue to be painted as people who should be second-class citizens by celebrities, feminist groups, and politicians, the bleed will only increase. 

This will ultimately be disastrous for Democrats, especially as Gen Z gets older and becomes more economically aware as Carville suggested. 

It also doesn't help that statistically, wives tend to vote the same way their husbands do. This will only further encourage the left to drive a wedge between men and women, furthering the divide and driving more and more men further to the right. 

If the left truly wants men to come back it would have to stop painting masculinity as a problem, but it can't do that because "masculinity bad" is the main talking point of feminist groups and echoed by LGBT groups as well. 

My prediction is that at some point the left will begin reacting by generating the narrative that masculinity is so toxic that it causes men to embrace "far right" positions like...secure borders, safe streets, lower taxes, and free speech. Their bubbled belief system will cause them to believe that this will somehow convince more people to join the left not to be labeled as a right-wing extremist, but if there's one emotion that overpowers the fear of shame it's the pleasure of spite. 

And men have a lot of reasons to feel spite for the Democrat Party. 



Net Neutrality Could Expand Biden’s Social Media Censorship To The Whole Internet

What could possibly go wrong by placing one of the nation’s most dynamic economic sectors under greater control of federal bureaucracies?



The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in one of the most important cases this term, one with critical implications for First Amendment free speech rights as society proceeds further into a world reliant upon internet service.

The controversy at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri is the Biden administration’s effort to pressure or “jawbone” social media to censor various opinions and public policy advocacy about the Covid pandemic that it found objectionable. 

The Biden administration naturally claims it was simply engaging in discourse with social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but discovered correspondence included direct threats against the companies while White House officials openly and publicly threatened new “legal and regulatory measures” if the targeted groups failed to submit to its desires. 

Those revelations only confirm widespread suspicion that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to exploit its vast authority to suppress the speech of Americans who don’t share its preferred narratives or big-government goals.

The Supreme Court must now determine whether that White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s form of “informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief,” even where the targeted groups are “free” to ignore its threats, because “people do not lightly disregard officers’ thinly veiled threats.” 

Government Censorship with ‘Net Neutrality’

The case assumes additional importance amid the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) attempt to resurrect the discredited Title II “net neutrality” regulations that would designate internet service as a “public utility” subject to federal micromanagement under Depression-era statutes meant for obsolete copper-wire telephone service. 

What could possibly go wrong by placing one of the nation’s most dynamic economic sectors under greater control of federal bureaucracies? 

Actually, the idea was briefly imposed at the end of the Obama administration, and the results were immediate and destructive: For the first time in history outside of an economic recession, private broadband investment declined. After the Trump administration rescinded the Title II rules and returned to the longstanding “light touch” internet service regulations, internet investment resumed and internet performance accelerated and even outperformed all expectations through the Covid pandemic. This week, the FCC announced it will vote later this month to revert to Obama-era “net neutrality” rules.

Unfortunately, many Supreme Court observers suggest that the justices’ behavior during oral argument in Murthy last week indicated the court may be reluctant to fully condemn and remedy the Biden administration’s assault on First Amendment free speech rights. That makes it even more important for Americans to awaken to how Title II “net neutrality” would give the Biden administration new and powerful tools to exercise political control over the internet. 

As noted above, reimposing those “net neutrality” regulations upon internet service providers (ISPs) would allow the federal government to dictate the types of services offered and even the prices that could be charged. In turn, that would allow federal bureaucrats the authority to penalize ISPs that fail to toe the administration’s line versus other more compliant ISPs. 

The Biden administration claims it would never use its Title II “net neutrality” powers to set prices. As we at the Center for Individual Freedom have recently highlighted, however, rate regulation is precisely what the Biden Commerce Department has sought to impose through its implementation of broadband expansion programs within the 2021 infrastructure bill, despite the statute explicitly prohibiting it, and despite sworn testimony before the Senate from Commerce Department officials foreswearing the same.

Watch what the Biden administration does, not what it says, even in sworn Senate testimony. 

Enforcing ‘Digital Equity’

As another example of gross regulatory misconduct, the FCC, under the guise of “digital equity,” continues to move forward with unworkable and legally questionable racial discrimination rules that measure any unequal outcomes as evidence of intentional discrimination. Once again, the FCC foreswears any effort to exploit its authority to enforce its divisive agenda, but that same FCC also just demanded that broadcast companies provide government reports on the racial makeup of their labor forces.

Again, focus on what they do, not what they say.

Collectively, all of this reveals how the Biden administration seeks to create a political environment in which speech from those with whom the administration disagrees politically is suppressed or censored, even if that is accomplished via third parties in the private sector.

What the Biden administration wants is obvious. The question is why Americans would ever allow its growing administrative state vast new powers like Title II “net neutrality” to accomplish it. 



Bureaucrats Hunker Down and Protect Themselves in Anticipation of a Trump Victory


streiff reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden's Office of Personnel Management took a big step Thursday toward preventing a new Trump administration from uprooting a hostile and disloyal federal civilian workforce. In a notice published in the Federal Register, OPM effectively killed the concept of a "Schedule F" employee created by President Trump during his first term's waning hours. That classification covering policy-related positions would have involuntarily reclassified tens of thousands of civil service employees from essentially tenured positions with significant employment protections to a new category of "at will" employment.

The order would create a new Schedule F within the excepted service of the federal government, to be composed of “employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions,” and instructs agency heads to determine which current employees fit this definition and move them—whether they are members of the competitive service or other schedules within the excepted service—into this new classification. Federal regulations stating that employees hired into the competitive service retain that status even if their position is moved to the excepted service will not apply to Schedule F transfers.

Positions in the new Schedule F would effectively constitute at-will employment, without any of the protections against adverse personnel actions that most federal workers currently enjoy, although individual agencies are tasked with establishing “rules to prohibit the same personnel practices prohibited” by Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The order also instructs the Federal Labor Relations Authority to examine whether Schedule F employees should be removed from their bargaining units, a move that would bar them from being represented by federal employee unions.

“Except as required by statute, the civil service rules and regulations shall not apply to removals from positions listed in Schedules A, C, D, E, or F, or from positions excepted from the competitive service by statute,” the order states.

Joe Biden suspended implementation of this reorganization shortly after taking office. Today's OPM action reverses that Executive Order.

The new regulation — which will be published in the Federal Register for public inspection on Thursday — seeks to provide 2.2 million federal employees with defined protections that would make it difficult for a future administration to re-apply the Trump policy, known as Schedule F.

“We are confident that our final rule is the best reading of civil service statutes and is grounded in the civil service in the statutory language, congressional intent, legislative history and decades of applicable case law and practice,” said OPM Deputy Director Rob Shriver on a press call. “The rule is strong, it will help to ensure the rights employees earned as envisioned by Congress when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978 and expanded and strengthened those protections through subsequent enactments.”

While Schedule F still exists, it is now virtually impossible to reclassify civil service employees involuntarily. In case of an attempt to reclassify an employee involuntarily, the rule creates an elaborate and time-consuming appeals process that can be used to delay the action until eternity.

Keeping in mind that this rule was one of the Biden OPM's top projects, it has taken over three years to jump through the hoops in the rule-making process to reach this point. It would take a Trump OPM at least as long to unwind it.

From this, we can draw a useful bit of information. The Deep State is alive, but it is afraid that a vengeful and (hopefully) more competent Trump Administration 2.0 will try to fix that. 

“The people who originally proposed Schedule F have been in fear of what often is called a ‘midnight regulation’ — some kind of rule that would come by, that would wipe out their ability to be able to do what they want to do if, in fact, Trump wins,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, said in an interview. “This isn’t so much a midnight regulation as much as maybe a 10:30-in-the-evening kind of regulation. But it’s very clear that the Biden team wants to do all it possibly can to lock down the current system.”

Unfortunately, this action ensures that Trump and his administration will have to deal with a civilian workforce implacably opposed to Trump's agenda and for which there is no legal remedy.



Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: Biden ‘Pissed’ Edition


When Joe Biden is incapable of solving a problem of his own making, the media will surely report that he’s at least ‘angry’ and ‘frustrated.’



Axios headline, April 4: “White House temperature is ‘very high’ ahead of Biden-Bibi call.” Here’s another news story meticulously crafted by the Biden White House to buy time on one more catastrophe unfolding on the president’s watch.

Citing an unnamed “U.S. official,” Axios claims Biden is “pissed” ahead of a call scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in light of the deadly attack this week on a food aid caravan in Gaza.

“President Biden’s phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planned for Thursday morning,” the report said, “is expected to be tense as Biden is ‘outraged’ about the killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in an Israeli air strike in Gaza earlier this week, four U.S. officials said.”

This is how the White House handles every failure that Biden and Kamala Harris either cause or exacerbate. They do nothing that would truly fix the problem, watch it spiral further out of control, and then their handlers tell DC reporters they should at least put it out there that the president is just as frustrated by it all as the rest of America.

Biden caused the border crisis by explicitly inviting all of the world’s destitute to flood the country. Then, as his poll numbers tanked both generally and on his handling of the issue, Axios dutifully reported the president had “sat at the head of his conference table and exploded with fury” about it.

As Americans across the nation considered shooting up heroin just to numb the pain of paying 30 percent higher prices at the grocery store — another havoc wrought by Biden — the president’s team once again relied on the media for some cleanup.

“[B]iden has privately grumbled to top White House officials over the administration’s handling of inflation,” wrote the Washington Post in May 2022, “expressing frustration over the past several months that aides were not doing enough to confront the problem directly…”

See?! He’s grumbling! He’s frustrated! He cares! Just like you!

It’s at least fortunate (for now) that the Israeli predicament is largely just a political one that’s fun to watch the White House struggle through. On the one hand, independents and a majority of Democrats still prefer siding with our sole Middle East ally over the savages trying to eradicate it.

On the other, there are enough savage sympathizers in the Democrat Party to make Biden uncomfortable in publicly taking a strong position. That’s why his administration is both delivering aid to Gaza and funding Israel’s razing of it.

Ugh! But he’s losing sleep over it! Don’t be too hard on him!

Look how it has played out so far in Politico over the past three months:

Feb. 1: “Biden puts Israel on notice”

March 22: “From ‘I Love You’ to ‘Asshole’: How Joe Gave Up on Bibi” 

March 27: “The limits of Biden’s one-on-one diplomacy with Netanyahu”

April 3: “‘Angry’ Biden stays the course on Israel” 

Everyone recalls that scene from “Brokeback Mountain” when Biden says to Bibi, “I just can’t quit you.”

It’s all fake. It’s a story the media periodically throw up after the White House feeds it to them. It’s the surest sign that Biden has made no progress on mitigating a disaster he either caused or passively accepted.

He’s not “angry” or “pissed.” He’s feckless and weak.



♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 


Biden Blasted for Considering Unprecedented Change Against Longtime U.S. Ally

Katie Pavlich reporting for Townhall 

During Thursday's White House press briefing, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby warned that if Israel doesn't change the way it defends itself against Hamas, President Joe Biden will consider moving forward with policy changes toward the longtime U.S. ally. 

Biden had a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the day and called for an "immediate ceasefire," something Hamas has refused since the war started as they continue to hold American hostages in the Gaza Strip. From the call readout, provided by the White House: 

President Biden spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The two leaders discussed the situation in Gaza. President Biden emphasized that the strikes on humanitarian workers and the overall humanitarian situation are unacceptable. He made clear the need for Israel to announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers. He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action on these steps. He underscored that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and protect innocent civilians, and he urged the Prime Minister to empower his negotiators to conclude a deal without delay to bring the hostages home. The two leaders also discussed public Iranian threats against Israel and the Israeli people. President Biden made clear that the United States strongly supports Israel in the face of those threats. 

According to Chair of Urban Warfare Studies West Point John Spencer, Israel has done everything possible to mitigate civilian casualties under very difficult, urban conditions against a terrorist enemy that has no rules. 

Given the change in positioning, Kirby was cornered on Biden's previous claims his support for Israel was "unwavering."

The statement is being blasted by national security experts and former government officials who are calling out the administration for capitulating to the Iranian backed terrorist regime. 

Even Democratic Senator John Fetterman is pushing back.