‘Conspiracy Theories’ Aren’t Theoretical Anymore

posted by John Green at American Thinker 

The national mood in the mid-twentieth century was very different from now.

• The United States was respected around the world -- even if not necessarily liked.
• Technology was advancing faster than at any time in human history.
• Our cities were mostly orderly, safe, and clean.
• We believed there were few hardships which couldn’t be overcome with hard work. Opportunities seemed endless, as was our optimism.
• We were completely naïve about the danger posed by our own government.

Not everything was sunny. We had problems that needed attention. That is the nature of human existence after all. But when Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” we just thought he was promoting self-reliance and highlighting government inefficiency. As I said, we were naïve.

Along with that naivete, was a belief that our government would never intentionally harm us. It might be incompetent, but we didn’t think it was malicious. Theories of vast government criminal conspiracies were considered delusional. Going to the police and claiming that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA (as Robert Kennedy Jr. is suggesting), would have gotten one labeled a “conspiracy theory” nut; and more likely would trigger a psych evaluation than a criminal investigation. That was the American worldview before Barack Obama.

Things changed in 2016 when the conspiracies stopped being secret. Government operatives decided they could work with a political party to stop an outsider from playing in their sandbox -- by any means necessary. The FBI, CIA, DNC, and MSM created the Russian collusion hoax to undermine Donald Trump’s campaign -- but he won anyway.

Four years later, the same conspirators colluded to withhold critical information from the voters which likely would have changed the outcome of the election. Seventeen percent of Biden voters claim they would have voted differently had they known about the Hunter Biden laptop. This time the plan worked, and Trump was removed from the Oval Office. But he was still a threat.

When Trump announced his intent to run for office again, the DoJ in collusion with Democrat state and local prosecutors commenced a campaign of lawfare to scuttle Trump’s campaign. They twisted the law, and corrupted any notion of justice to indict Trump using legal theories which had never been tried before. They have identified their target, and are trashing our criminal justice system to get him -- and only him. Lavrentiy Beria would be proud.

Of course, the trials are being held in deep Blue Democrat party strongholds. Partisans in robes -- laughably calling themselves “judges” -- are ensuring that trials by Trump’s “peers” are actually trials by the Trump Derangement Syndrome-afflicted. Conviction seems inevitable.

To make sure the Trump problem is solved permanently, Democrat congressman Bennie Thompson has proposed a bill to strip Donald Trump of his Secret Service protection if he is convicted. Does anyone doubt Trump’s fate if placed in Attica or Sing Sing without his protective detail? Though the bill is unlikely to pass, it does reveal the Democrat mindset. They are perfectly willing to see a political adversary murdered -- so long as they maintain plausible deniability. But sure, Donald Trump is the real danger to our country.

Shockingly, the Democrats aren’t even trying to hide their intentions anymore. Apparently, they consider us too stupid or too powerless to stop them. That’s a rather sobering thought.

As we watch all this unfold, we know that vast government criminal conspiracies are no longer theoretical. There is nothing demented or delusional about believing our government would willingly facilitate the murder of a political threat. The actions of the DoJ in conjunction with the legislation proposed by the Democrats makes that perfectly clear.

The plot to place Donald Trump at the tender mercies of a prison’s “genpop” is not the only evidence of government criminal conspiracy.

The ATF really did traffic guns to Mexican drug cartels to promote gun-control legislation. One federal agent and countless civilians were killed with those guns.

The DoJ sought to remove a duly elected President -- even to the point of the Deputy Attorney General offering to “wear a wire” to record conversations with the President (with cabinet support).

The FBI really did set up some useful idiots to advanced their domestic terrorist narrative (the Governor Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping). It was a classic entrapment scheme in which federal assets planned the crime, and hapless stooges stepped in the trap.

All this is changing our worldview and is causing us to observe our government with a new level of skepticism.

The deaths of Vince Foster, Seth Rich, and Jeffrey Epstein were rather politically convenient for the Democrats. Were they something other than two random acts of violence and one suicide?

COVID was created using our tax dollars in a Chinese lab, and it caused a pandemic that affected the 2020 election. Was it really an accident committed by well-intentioned, but careless scientists -- or something else? Certainly, the Democrats didn’t let that crisis go to waste. Many thousands died. Were they just the broken eggs needed to make the make the election omelet?

A Chinese spy balloon was allowed to cross our continent and collect information from our most sensitive facilities -- apparently with the blessing of the Biden administration. But we’re told that the millions of dollars flowing from China to the Biden family had nothing to do with the President’s decision to leave the reconnaissance craft unmolested.

Two whistleblowers (Gal Luft and Alexander Smirnov) have come forward with evidence of Joe Biden selling government influence to foreign nationals. Conveniently, both have been arrested by the same DoJ which is setting a death trap for President Trump.

Things have changed a lot since the mid-20^th century. The children of the 21^stcentury have a completely different worldview.

• The United States is a corrupt and impotent international laughingstock.
• We’ve become technically stunted. Replacing the Francis Scott Key bridge is expected to take three times longer than building the Golden Gate bridge almost a century ago.
• Our cities are becoming unlivable post-apocalyptic hellscapes.
• “Living the American dream” is no longer a middle-class expectation.
• We know that fear of our own government is a prudent mindset.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn’t sound so crazy now that the conspiracies are no longer theoretical.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- April 23

 

War By Affirmative Action? ~ VDH

In the American Left’s vision of contemporary war, the West brings too many advantages in science, technology, and wealth.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Why does Biden play Iranian poker with American and Israeli lives?

Answer? He envisions war sort of like affirmative action, in which the less accomplished belligerent is allowed all sorts of concessions for the sake of equity.

Israeli and American military capability, and particularly their missile defenses, are seen as unfair, almost like high achievers’ top SAT scores that are seen as unearned and used to privilege some over others and therefore must be countered or dropped.

Given Iran’s and its surrogates’ incompetence, the administration, then, must extend the theocracy some allowances “to level the playing field.” Biden does not believe in an equality of opportunity in war, when an aggressor does its best to attack or indeed destroy a defender, who in turn does its own best to retaliate and achieve victory.

Instead, the Biden administration sees war leading to equality of result as something to be waged “proportionally,” especially when the power attacked is stronger and Western while the attacking aggressor is weaker and non-Western. The method, then, is to restrain the western power and give repeated chances for the non-western aggressors to catch up.

As a result, the Biden administration’s strategic attitude toward Iran ignores Iranian intent and agendas. So it does not respond fully to its acts of aggression and thereby almost rewards the incompetence of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis without consideration of their murderous aims.

Americans are thus baffled that Biden has not responded to some 170 or more attacks on U.S. installations in the Middle East by Iranian-backed terrorists in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. But in his calculus, Americans “can take the hit” due to their superior defenses—appeasement that only assures more hits.

Thus, other than a few apparently acceptable wounded or dead, there is no need for disproportionate responses to reestablish deterrence and end such opportunistic attacks. Such calculus in the Biden team’s mind would be “over the top,” perhaps “unfair,” or even “medieval.” And yet, it certainly would stop all such aggression quickly and warn aggressors not to touch a single American.

After the successful but mostly demonstrative Israel April 19 retaliatory strike against the Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries at Isfahan, Biden cautioned Israel “to take the win” and apparently not to rub in the fact of Iranian incompetence, much less stage a follow-up and much greater response.

But what if instead, Biden had warned the Iranians that Israel was not through. Rather, he would tell the Iranians that the restrained Israeli response was a one-off warning and demonstration to Iran that 1) Israel had the ability to strike and destroy the very protective shield of the nuclear installations at nearby Natanz, and thus Natanz itself and plants like it; 2) that unlike the 320 missile/drone Iranian attack on Israel, even Israel’s tiny response was entirely successful; 3) and that in any future Iranian-envisioned nuclear attack on Israel, Iran’s rockets would likely either fail at launch or in the air (half did so on April, 13), with the remnant having a 99 percent surety of being shot down, while earning a 100 percent surety of a devastating Israel counter-attack with the same sort of weapons that Iran claims it will shortly use.

Would such a warning have been more likely to end the current tit-for-tat, “de-escalatory escalation” than the Biden administration’s advice to Israel to “take the win”–in an endless cycle of supposedly managed violence as Iran and its terrorists seek to get it right and respond commensurately?

Similarly, recently, third-party communications with Iran were disclosed about its earlier April 13 attack on Israel. Apparently, the Turkish third-party emissaries claimed that “Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also came up during the meeting with (Secretary of State Antony) Blinken, and they (the U.S.) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits.”

Translated, that meant that apparently launching over 320 cruise, ballistic missiles and drones were acceptable Iranian responses as long as they did not kill too many Jews?

So what did Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan actually define as damage “within certain limits?” Something like the relatively small number of dead and wounded Americans who have fallen victim to Iranian-backed terrorist attacks from the Red Sea to Iraq and Jordan?

“Within certain limits” for Iran certainly could not mean the huge number of lethal projectiles Iran sent into Israel that were intended by Iran to kill thousands, but apparently only how many Israelis were killed by them?

So again, what would have been beyond “certain limits” for team Biden? One dead Israeli for each launched rocket, missile, or drone? 320 Jews or so in total? Did Biden and Blinken assume that some 300 or so projectiles would be mostly shot down or blown up, and thus they played poker with Israeli lives and assumed that the attack would probably fail?

But what might have happened had instead Biden transmitted to Iran the following warning:

“Given your record of unleashing terror and death throughout the Middle East, I warn you not to send a single rocket into Israel. If you do, we will ensure that none get through, but we will not ensure that there will be any limits on what will likely be a devastating Israel response to your homeland.”

Would Iran have then sent the 320 missiles?

When Israel went into Gaza to end the medieval violence perpetrated by the Hamas cowardly terrorists, it had already been the target of some 7,000 Hamas rockets aimed at its civilian centers and bases. Did Biden see that failed Hamas effort to kill thousands of additional Jews as a legitimate cause for Israel to go into Gaza and destroy the rocket-launching Hamas?

Or instead, did Biden consider Israel’s unique ability to conduct war—again, sort of like having high SAT scores and a straight A average as proof of unwarranted privilege in admissions—as a disproportionate (and likely “unfair”) advantage over Hamas that thus should be ignored or discounted rather than admired? But had Hamas killed 1,000 Jews with its 7,000 rockets, would Biden have given Israel the green light to respond fully? Or would it have taken only 500 deaths? Or was the magic number 250 killed?

What would have happened had Biden not specified certain restraints on the IDF but instead, on October 21, transmitted the following message to Hamas: “You began this war with inhuman slaughter on October 7 and massive rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and Israel will now end the war with your destruction.”

Six months later, would the Middle East now be safer without Hamas?

In mid-October 2023, a failed Islamic jihad rocket hit Gaza’s al-Ahli hospital, prompting the blood libel that it was Israelis who supposedly were responsible and had killed hospital patients. An upset Joe Biden was asked about the identification of the perpetrator.

He answered with a joke, but a jest nevertheless quite revealing: “And I’m not suggesting that Hamas deliberately did it either. It’s that old thing; gotta learn how to shoot straight.” Aside from the embarrassing fact that Biden seemed more wary about wrongly blaming the murderous Hamas for the Islamic Jihad rocket than his ally Israel, did he really mean that the global condemnation of Israel for the act of Islamic jihad—and the predicament it put Biden in—would have simply vanished had only Islamic Jihad shot “straight”?

And further translated, did Biden logically mean—if only the Islamic Jihad rocket had not fallen short on Gazans but instead had reached its intended target of civilians inside Israel, then there would have been no controversies, no melodramas, given the stronger power Israel could more easily have “taken the hit?”

Note that Biden did not really express much anger that Islamic Jihad was shooting rockets to kill Jewish civilians. He was only lamenting that its incompetence had led to a blood libel, which required embarrassing explanations from Biden himself.

Biden, note, said something somewhat similar about a possible Putin invasion of Ukraine. He had predicted the U.S. response on whether it was a “minor” offensive or not. In other words, the American response was not predicated on the violation of national borders by an aggressor against an independent nation, but how effectively the aggressor attacked.

In the American Left’s vision of contemporary war, the West brings too many advantages in science, technology, and wealth, especially when fighting in the skies and not in the messy suburbs of Mosul, Fallujah, or Gaza City.

The result is disproportionate. Accordingly, it does not matter that Hamas only stopped butchering, raping, and mutilating Israelis at about 1,200 deaths because of an impending IDF arrival or killed few despite 7,000 rocket launches into Israel, when their rocketeers had sought to kill tens of thousands of Israelis.

Instead, by their very failures at the art of war, Iran and its surrogates are constructed as victims, not aggressors, at the moment when either their targets do not suffer too many causalities or their own losses vastly exceed those whom they sought to slaughter.

Third-party managed proportionality, accompanied by the banality of “both sides are at fault,” is not morality but pretentious amorality—as well as a sure prescription for endless war.

Or, in other words, what is unfolding now in the Middle East.

Democrats Are Going to Get Someone Killed and They’re Perfectly Fine With It

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

There have always been radicals on college campuses – tenure exists to protect professors from being fired for doing pretty much anything, from espousing the virtues of violence against the United States in the name of “justice,” to screwing a new co-ed every semester. It’s the key to what is happening now on campus with the attacks on Jews and anyone else who isn’t a terrorist sympathizer, and it’s what is going to get people killed. Democrats just hope the people killed are on “their side,” as they are more than willing to sacrifice a few young people for the “greater good.”

There isn’t a location where these mutant armies are gathering that is controlled by Republicans. In fact, there isn’t even a Republican sniffing power in at least a generation. These people are evil, they aren’t dumb. At least the leaders aren’t dumb, the drones are.

Imagine being a parent struggling to help your kid get an Ivy League education because you think it will serve them well in life, only to see them repeating whatever some jackass from the theater department tells them to say? How quickly would you pull that kid out of school and save the money? You can educate away ignorance, not stupid, and anyone involved in these actions are stupid.

Well, the leadership isn’t stupid, they’re evil. The drones are stupid.

They’ve been brainwashed to sympathize with terrorists and terrorist enablers. They’ve been trained, like service dogs or circus seals, to obey in the hope of a bone, fish or some group acceptance, to do whatever they’re told; to repeat whatever they hear. Like an MSNBC viewer, they are not allowed to question or seek information from unapproved sources. 

Faculty did this, high school did this, popular culture did this, social media did this. But mostly, Democrats did this since they are all of those things and more. 

Democrats need disorder, they need ignorant people in an emotional frenzy, lest they think rationally and realize the root of the problems in their lives that are external – gas, food and energy costs, for example – are a direct result of the policies of the Democratic Party. People in an emotional state are easily manipulated – of the apologies you’ve given, how many were for things said calmly, in a normal state of mind vs an emotional state in the heat of the moment? I’d be most, if not all, were the latter.

The left needs people worked up like that because you can get them to do almost anything. 

But the thing about keep people at a boil for your own political advantage is it can only be done for so long before you either have to take the heat down or it boils over into violence. 

MSNBC whipped their base into a frenzy over the Republican plan to replace Obamacare with something more market-based and less oppressive – a little bit of freedom in an otherwise freedom-voided space. To achieve this, the horrible propagandists on video Pravda repeated endlessly the lie from a bogus “study” (the left always manages to pull out these “studies” at the right moment that claim doom and gloom, should Republican policies be enacted, then that never comes to pass, but whatever) claiming 10,000 Americans per year would die as a result of the plan. It was a lie, obviously, but that never stopped Democrats before, so they repeated it endlessly. 

It put fear in the hearts of a lot of the people dumb enough to never question progressive orthodoxy and they were motivated to vote. James Hodgkinson took it a step further. He believed the lie and though he had to act. If you believe a group of people are going to deliberately kill 10,000 people per year, and you’re insane, you can delude yourself into believing you HAVE to act. Hodgkinson did, trying to kill Republicans practicing for the Congressional baseball game.

That reality – that he was a man of the left, motivated to action by the lies of the left – was inconvenient, and so it was ignored. MSBNC and CNN moved on from the story before Steve Scalise was off life-support. 

What Democrats on the radical left are now pushing about Israel and Jews is going to get someone killed. The rest of the Democratic establishment knows that but is too afraid to say anything, instead they just hope whatever death or deaths come from it are something they can use. An angry mob beating a few Jewish students to death would be damaging to Joe Biden’s cause, but some terrorist allies getting killed would be exploited by the left to rally their goon squad to vote. In other words, they would be fine with that.

Individuals have always been disposable to the left – it’s how they can look at the 100,000,000 people slaughtered by their ideology in the last century and yawn. What’s a few more? As long as the deaths are ones they can use.

You never know on which side a pot is going to boil over, you only know there’s going to be splatter. A sane person – read: a good one – would turn down the heat so it doesn’t happen at all. Democrats are neither sane nor good…

🌲 New details on Danica's 2024 Christmas movie

 

Source: https://itsawonderfulmovie.blogspot.com/2024/04/danica-mckellar-oliver-rice-to-star-great-american-family-movie-a-royal-christmas-ball.html

Prepare to get swept off your feet this upcoming Christmas season in Great American Family's new holiday premiere, A Royal Christmas Ball. The film stars Danica McKellar, who is well-known for the sitcom Wonder Years and her movies Crown for Christmas, A Royal Date for Christmas, Swing Into Romance, and more.

Joining Danica in the film and on the dance floor is Oliver Rice, who you'll surely recognize from Chesapeake Shores, Aurora Teagarden Mysteries: Heist and Seek, and more recently in One Bad Apple: A Hannah Swensen Mystery, to name a few.

Get the full scoop on this all-new Christmas movie production coming this holiday season to Great American Family in the press release below...


PRESS RELEASE:

GREAT AMERICAN FAMILY

ANNOUNCES DANICA MCKELLAR

SET TO STAR IN

A ROYAL CHRISTMAS BALL (wt),

CO-STARRING OLIVER RICE,

PART OF 

GREAT AMERICAN CHRISTMAS 2024

NEW YORK, NY – April 23, 2024 – Great American Family, one of the nation’s leading producers of original holiday content, announced Danica McKellar (A Royal Date for Christmas, Swing Into Romance) and Oliver Rice (“Firefly Lane,” Magic In Mistletoe) are set to star in, A Royal Christmas Ball (wt), which begins production this week. A Royal Christmas Ball, with waltzes choreographed by “Dancing With the Stars” professional dancer Gleb Savchencko, premieres this November as part of Great American Christmas 2024.

In A Royal Christmas Ball, Chelsea Jones (McKellar) is a dance instructor and studio owner in Chicago who inspires kids to find themselves through dance. Just before Christmas, Chelsea discovers a photo she’s never seen before. Chelsea thinks the young woman is her birth mother who passed away when she was only five years old. The woman is in a wedding dress tugging on the hand of a man wearing a wedding ring, but that is all that can be seen of the man Chelsea believes may be her father. The photo’s handwritten inscription reads, “Our place, Havenshire, December 23, 1984.” With only the internet, a plane ticket, and lifelong determination to go on, Chelsea now has four days in Havenshire to solve the mystery of her birth family. Along the way, she’ll have to sneak into a castle, teach a stubborn Prince how to dance, and be in just the right place on Christmas Eve when the bells toll.

“Royal movies are among our viewers’ favorites,” said Bill Abbott, President & CEO, Great American Media. “Finding love when and where you least expect it is the heart of royal fanfiction and Danica and Oliver do a brilliant job of making heartfelt wishes come true,” Abbott concluded.

“Oliver Rice exudes a dashing Cary Elwes-vibe,” said star, Danica McKellar. “Oliver grew up in London and graduated from Oxford School of Drama and brings genuine nobility to the role of Prince Phillip. I cannot wait for fans to see him in the film,” McKellar concluded.

A Royal Christmas Ball (wt) is executive produced by Brad Krevoy, Amy Krell, Vince Balzano, Danica McKellar, Jimmy Townsend, Susie Belzberg Krevoy, and Don McBrearty. Producer is David Anselmo. Supervising producers are Kelly Martin, Michael Shepard, Michael Beard, and James Mou. A Royal Christmas Ball is written by Marcy Holland. Story by Danica McKellar and Marcy Holland.

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 on

Twitter: @GAfamilyTV Facebook: @GAfamilytv Instagram: @greatamericanfamily

------------------

My Quick Take:

Well, first of all, congratulations to Danica McKellar for seeing this film idea of hers finally coming into fruition. I know it has been many years in-the-making, and I'm most happy for her.

I did have a hunch that professional dancer Gleb Savchencko (who was Danica's dance partner on “Dancing With the Stars”) might be involved with this production, since I was expecting Danica's movie to revolve around dancing. And I must say Gleb's performance in Swing into Romance with Danica was excellent. In fact, I believe he's just as good as an actor, as he is on the dance floor. However, it doesn't sound as if he'll be in front of the camera at all for this movie, which is unfortunate if that ends up being the case.

Actor Oliver Rice has the honor of playing opposite of Danica in A Royal Christmas Ball, and I must admit, I'm still getting used to the idea. Honestly, he wasn't on my bingo card to play Danica's opposite this year. I was thinking of perhaps Matthew Morrison, Drew Seeley, or Joey Lawrence, based on the fact that dancing will be majorly involved, and I know all three are phenomenal dancers. However, I can definitely imagine Oliver playing the role of the stubborn prince while using his English accent.

So, I look forward to hopefully seeing some sneak-peeks of Danica and Oliver acting/dancing together, as they will be filming their Christmas movie for Great American Family soon!

Illegal Aliens Are Harassing Home Depot Customers, So the Store Is Taking Action

Madeline Leesman reporting for Townhall 

A Home Depot store in New York now has security guards, as well as a guard dog, to protect shoppers from thieves and aggressive illegal aliens. 

According to the New York Post, two guards wearing bulletproof vests now patrol the Home Depot location in New Rochelle with a German Shepherd. One of the guards told the Post that the security company was employed a few weeks ago to keep shoppers safe. 

“It’s not just because of [illegal immigrants], but because of a myriad of other things too, like people breaking into cars, that kind of stuff,” one of the guards who spoke to the Post said. 

Reportedly, the lot at the New Rochelle location was “quiet” when the Post visited. However, at a different location seven miles away, “at least 30 male migrants hovered at the doors of Home Depot,” the report noted (via NYP):

But many others aggressively confronted shoppers, trying to sell them phony Apple Airpods or soliciting tips for lifting items from shopping carts into cars — even when uninvited.

“You come out and you’re a woman by yourself, they literally leech onto your wagon, and you’re like ‘No, I don’t need any help,'” one worker said. “And when they’re following you to your car, it’s unnerving.”

She said a female supervisor saw one of the men washing his privates with a water bottle in the lot, and that several women have called customer service to complain that migrants robbed them of purses or phones.

She’s seen the number of grifters in the lot swell as the migrant population in New York City explodes.

“I came to work one day and there had to be 100 guys out here,” she said. “And I’m like, ‘Oh, my God!'”

LaurieAnn Masciocco, who works at the Home Depot customer service department, told the outlet that customers are regularly complaining about illegal aliens at their stores. 

“It’s come to the point where they’re invading personal space, touching people’s belongings, just harassing,” she said. “I get it, you’re trying to make a buck. But when it becomes aggressive and harassing there’s a major issue.” 

One illegal immigrant told the Post that he was at one of the New York locations seeking work from contractors. 

“There are a lot of people who have been coming here for a lot of years . . . asking people for jobs in construction and if they need help with projects,” he told The Post in Spanish. “We come here to find work.” 

An illegal immigrant from Senegal told the Post that he makes about $300 a day by charging customers $10 each time he helps them push their cart or haul their purchases into their vehicle. 

Home Depot told the outlet that loitering and soliciting are illegal at its stores, but would not specify what measures would be taken to stop it. 

“While we can’t go into specifics about our security measures,” the company said, “it’s not unusual for us to use third-party security at various stores across the country.”

Biden Is a Corporate Media Failure and Proof It's Losing Its Grip On the People

posted by Brandon Morse at RedStateVIP 

The corporate media used to be the most powerful entity when it came to controlling public opinion. While it still represents a major threat and has more influence than it should, I think we can safely say that the time of the corporate media's influence on the people is coming to an end.

Nothing shows me that this is the case more than President Joe Biden and, I'd say, the rising unpopularity of the Democrats in general. 

To be clear, any president who has a flagging economy will experience a massive drop in popularity along with that of his party, but this feels different. This feels like it's being accompanied by a massive shift in public opinion on a whole host of things. 

But let's start from the top. 

As reported by Nick Arama, NBC polling showed that Biden is starting to fall behind Trump in a big way, especially when it comes to inflation and cost of living. 

But the kicker is that Biden's numbers are so bad that he's setting records with his unpopularity: 

Biden is the lowest of anyone occupying the White House at this point in their terms when it comes to job approval, with only 42 percent. And he's lower than Trump was at the same point in approval and lower than Bush Sr., who did not win reelection. 

Head to head Biden loses against Trump, 46-44, according to the poll. The only thing that helps Biden, although Kornacki said it doesn't make a lot of sense, is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in their poll, seems to pull from Trump more than Biden. Then he said that led to "Joe Biden, 39%, Donald Trump 37%, there's Kennedy getting 13%."

I seriously doubt that part of the poll. And frankly, so does Joe Biden's team. That's why they are doing all they can to take Kennedy out of the election, including by weaponizing his family against him. They obviously believe that he's going to be a big problem for them. Joe Biden even did a post on X with members of the Kennedy family endorsing him. 

Now, any poll this far out should be taken with more than a few grains of salt, but we can still take some things from it. 

For one, Biden's stellar unpopularity is a sure sign that the media cannot keep him afloat. In this day and age, no amount of selective editing can save them thanks to the internet. In fact, the internet is a large portion of the reason the corporate media can't seem to get a foothold in the public conscience like it used to. 

If it had done its job, it would have possibly kept a good portion of its reputation as trustworthy, and even in the age of the internet, people would still have double-checked with NBC or ABC to make sure what they were seeing was legit. 

But networks like these have played a massive part in the degradation of America. They stood back and applauded riots, and corruption, and blatantly lied about everyone and everything that didn't fit into their leftist box. 

(READ: Is Katie Couric Right About 'MAGA' Voters?)

Biden was sold to the American people by the media, but it backed the wrong man in its desperation to get rid of Trump. It's trapped in a corner it put itself in and it can't get out without a massive mea culpa which it cannot and will not do. If it does do that, then it plants the seed of an idea in people's minds that if it was wrong about this, then what else is it wrong about? 

But the people can see what it's not admitting in large part because it trained us to. Many Americans are well aware of how untrustworthy the media is, and like the Bud Light debacle, Americans decided to try out other sources and now prefer those. 

This is only going to get worse for the media. The left is not going to change anytime soon and, as such, the media won't either. The two are attached at the hip. It's only going to get worse of them if Trump gets elected and does a stellar job of returning the economy to a more productive and successful state. 

I'm not suggesting that the corporate media is going to fully disappear, but it will never be as powerful as it was once. 

A Truly ‘Impartial Jury’ Is Hard To Come By

I have no doubt that if the case I deliberated on were tried in a blue city, jurors would have found a legally innocent man guilty.

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist

Jury duty is often reviled as a nuisance unless it comes with TV fame and a big check. In reality, juries are a constitutional right and responsibility that should be fulfilled with the utmost reverence and care.

You wouldn’t know it from the zany jury selection drama plaguing former President Donald Trump’s New York trial this week, but upholding the integrity of the American judicial system is still important and possible. You just won’t find good examples of it in politicized trials in New York City or Washington, D.C.

I learned this firsthand when I served as the forewoman for a small criminal trial in my county last fall.

Jury selection kicked off bright and early on a crisp Monday morning. I giggled to myself when the courthouse employee posted by the front door thanked me and 200 of my newest friends for responding to a summons that, if left unfulfilled, threatened fines and jail time.

As annoying as it was to be herded like cattle through security and into a room for a mandatory event that would likely interfere with my week, I wasn’t mad about my summons. I wanted to be on a jury because I knew I had what it took to be objective.

Impartiality is a hallmark of the jury process, as outlined by the Sixth Amendment and reaffirmed by the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment. A jury that can’t remain impartial is at risk of dismissal. Similarly, a jury that can’t maintain a presumption of innocence as ensured by the due process rights outlined in the Fifth Amendment violates its duty and undermines the quest for justice.

Failure to uphold impartiality and innocence unless or until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt renders jurors not only useless in what is supposed to be a free and fair trial but also in direct violation of their constitutional duty.

If the Trump trials have taught us anything, it’s that Americans whose streams of information are poisoned by the corporate media and apps linked to communist China are largely incapable of impartiality and a presumption of innocence.

I was surprised by the number of potential jurors in the pool with me who admitted to the prosecution and defense that they couldn’t be impartial or presume innocence in a sex crime case for various reasons. A few knew or knew of the defendant. Others raised their hand and said they had bad personal experiences with sexual assault or were inclined to “believe all women.”

I, along with a few others, however, reassured the court that we were capable of making an unbiased assessment based on evidence. I was in what the court called the “splash zone” of selection, which meant that while I wasn’t necessarily a shoo-in for the box, I could make the cut if the potential jurors ahead of me were dismissed.

Sure enough, I was selected as juror number six of six. Joining me, a female journalist, in the box were two female public school employees, a male civil lawyer, a male IT professional, and a male corporate energy company employee.

The Case

Most juries in our county, the lawyer juror noted during one of our breaks, do not end up with an even number of men and women, likely because women are exempted more often from service as the provider for children under 12 years of age who need adequate supervision.

Since this case focused on an alleged sex crime, two counts of indecent assault against a woman, however, the lead prosecutor likely rooted for more women in the box than normal.

This particular criminal case was the first of its kind to be litigated in my county. The judge informed us that it was also one of the first times this alleged conduct went to court since the law making it a crime was enacted in 2019. 

Texas Penal Code Section 22.012 defines “indecent assault” as:

A person commits an offense if, without the other person’s consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person: (1) touches the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person; (2) touches another person with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of any person; (3) exposes or attempts to expose another person’s genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female areola; or (4) causes another person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of any person.

The alleged offense is often classified as a Class A misdemeanor. The state legislature amended the law in 2023 to elevate the crime to a state jail felony if the accused was previously convicted of this offense or one similar or was a health care or mental services provider who allegedly committed the act on duty.

In this particular case, a personal trainer was accused of touching his client, a female police officer who was off duty at the time of the alleged crime, in the chest and genital areas with the intent to gratify himself. The pair maintained a friendly but flirty training relationship, which included text messages and suggested hangouts outside the gym, up until the point when she claimed he assaulted her and then tried to kiss her.

She waited a few days to fire him from training her over text and then waited a little longer to report the alleged event to her supervisor at work.

The defendant did not come off to the jury as the most upstanding guy in the world. He didn’t even take the stand. But the selected jurors including myself pledged to the defense during striking that the trainer’s silence would not sway our ability to remain impartial about the case.

Justice Is Served (Sometimes)

After one day of selection and introduction and another day and a half of arguments and evidence presentation, we were dismissed to deliberate. As presiding juror, my job was to keep us on task and ensure that discussions were focused on evidence, not feelings.

Intent is a difficult thing to prove because jurors can’t possibly know what the defendant was thinking at the time of the alleged incident. “Intent to arouse” is an even higher, more specific burden of proof because it requires evidence that the reported inappropriate touching was done for a very specific purpose.

Even with video evidence that the prosecution suggested showed the first crime, the trainer touching her breasts as he spotted her during weighted squats, there was no physical indicator on his body or face that the defendant demonstrated the intent required to convict him under this law.

The real bombshell evidence came when the alleged victim disclosed during questioning that she was sexually abused as a child. As we listened to her testimony of the treatment she received from her mother’s boyfriend, we noticed it mirrored what she accused the trainer of doing to her.

Less than one hour into deliberations, five of the six jurors including myself determined the defendant was not guilty on both counts. After another hour of review and debate, the sixth juror, who admitted to us that his feelings about his wife’s own history with sexual assault were affecting his ability to be objective, agreed the evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As forewoman, I signed the verdict and turned it in to the judge who read it to the courtroom.

Contrary to what some may think, being a juror does not require you to cast a moral judgment on a person, just a legal one. The defendant could be the least upstanding citizen in the county, but if his alleged actions did not meet all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, he is not guilty.

My jury did what we could within the scope of the very specific law and evidence presented to us.

I have no doubt that if the case on which I deliberated were tried in a big, blue city like New York or D.C., it likely would have resulted in a guilty conviction simply because of the pervasive #MeToo movement and tainted jury pool. In my conservative city, however, the alleged assault of an off-duty female police officer by a male personal trainer wasn’t a political trial and, as far as I knew, drew no media attention.

Thanks to the impartiality and presumption of innocence unless or until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a legally innocent man in a Texas city walks free.

Anti-Trump Comedian Michael Rapaport Eviscerates Pro-Hamas Protesters for Being the Reason Trump Will Win

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Leftist comedian Michael Rapaport, in his usual fashion, went after pro-Hamas protesters who have been staging anti-Israel protests and rallies at universities across the country. The issue has gained national prominence since the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

In a video posted on X, formerly Twitter, the comedian did not mince words, predicting that the antics of the pro-Hamas activists will push American voters to elect former President Donald Trump in November.

Warning: Profanity

“You know, it’s going to be great when d*** stain Donald Trump, gets elected, and I ain’t saying I’m voting for him, but when he does win, and he’s going to win, the screaming and yelling that you f****** p**** a** … miserable motherf****** on college campuses are doing now, the screaming that you’re doing at Jews, about ‘Free Palestine’, the screaming that you’re doing at Zionists is going to be nothing compared to the screaming you’re going to be doing come November when d*** stain Donald Trump wins the presidency because of you.”

He concluded by affirming that he dislikes the former president, but that he “can’t wait to see those f****** protests come November.”

Each and every one of you anti-Jewish and 'Israel ain't got nothing to do with me' people.

Rapaport’s comments come after law enforcement had to break up protests in which pro-Hamas students formed encampments on the campuses of Yale and Columbia University. Several protesters have been arrested for trespassing.

This development comes against the backdrop of nationwide pro-Hamas protests that cropped up after Hamas ignited the war by launching a surprise attack on Israel on October 7, killing over 1,000 men, women, and children.

Police began removing anti-Israel protesters from an encampment on Yale’s campus early Monday after a week of protests calling for the university to divest from military weapon manufacturers.

At least 47 protesters were arrested as police looked through tents set up in the encampment near Beinecke Plaza, Yale Police Chief Anthony Campbell told the Yale Daily News reported. Beinecke Plaza is where more than 250 agitators had gathered Sunday night.

Protest organizers told the paper that at least some of those arrested are students.

Campbell told the Yale Daily News that the arrested protesters would be charged with trespassing, a Class A misdemeanor, and would be released once they are processed.

These particular demonstrations have been going on over the past week, and in some cases, they even escalated into violence.

At Yale, a pro-Hamas protester stabbed a Jewish female student journalist in the eye using a Palestinian flag.

The demonstrations have been rife with antisemitic chants and calls for violence against the Jewish people.

Protesters have called for an intifada and the death of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One Jewish Columbia University student was told to "kill yourself" and repeatedly kicked in the stomach during the protests, while a Jewish Yale student was reportedly stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.

The demonstrations highlight the growing problem of antisemitism on campus since the October 7 terror attacks and the frustration many younger voters feel towards the Biden administration over its support for Israel.

Rapaport, who is also Jewish, is a staunch supporter of Israel and has railed against the pro-Hamas elements in the country. In November, he did another video in which he indicated that President Joe Biden would lose his vote if he failed to address these protests.