Autopen Nation: It’s Bigger Than Biden

posted by Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker 

I just got a text from Captain Republican. “I am shocked, shocked that the White House is using Autopens.”

Oops! Now I have a text from the Wizard of Woke: “Pay no attention to the male-identifying person behind the curtain.”

Look, never mind that Joe Biden was basically incapable of performing the office of President of the United States, probably from the moment they fixed the South Carolina primary for him in 2020 to keep Bernie Sanders off the Democrat ticket.

And forget that it wasn’t until well into 2024 that the lapdog media was almost ready to yap in annoying chorus -- as annoying lapdogs will do -- that Houston We Have a Problem.

But who is kidding whom? The whole point of the administrative state is that the President doesn’t really have executive power. The educated administrative bureaucracy wisely develops policy according to expert-agreed science, and the President signs off on it.

Only, of course, the science on administrative bureaucracy is, per Hayek, that administrative hierarchy cannot work, because it lacks bandwidth, big time. Only a market economy with prices, per Mises, has the bandwidth for that.

The Germans were first to recognize the problem after World War I, when their all-hands review of the war conducted by General Hans von Seeckt determined that war could only work if responsibility were pushed down the military hierarchy as far as possible. Generals and colonels were specifically ordered to issue general orders so that the subordinates could fill in the details. The idea, wrote Seeckt, was

to make of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier.

Yes, I am sure you have noticed that today’s educated, evolved bureaucracy is full of “self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful” responsible men and soldiers. Not.

But there’s more.

It’s George Stigler’s science about “regulatory capture.” The science states that government regulation inevitably fails because its regulatory activity gets captured by the special interests.

And all the world knows that the Biden administration was a double-blind social science experiment -- conducted by Ivy League academics on their off days between training pro-Palestine mostly peaceful protesters -- to confirm Hayek’s science about bureaucracy and Stigler’s science about “regulatory capture.” That’s what the flap about Biden and the Autopen is about. Anyone except a media lapdog could see with their scientific eyes that Joseph Robinette Biden, born into the working class of Scranton, PA, was not physically fit enough to sign executive orders, let alone mentally fit enough to understand what he was signing.

Now, according to the Federal Register, President Trump has signed 157 executive orders as of May 23, 2025. You think he knows the details of each executive order that he signed? Of course not. His Golden Age crew did all the work, and prepared the executive orders and briefed him on the major points so he could deal with the yaps of the lapdog media lapdogs. In other words, the Trump administration is acting just like Hans von Seeckt said to do, with a crew of “self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated” MAGAs that are “joyful in taking responsibility.” I dare say that makes Trump Literally Hitler.

But we wise ones have a deeper, wider worldview than the rather limited view of the world available to the average lightweight lapdog reduced to a life sniffing at the heels of former administration officials. We see that we humans must get beyond the conceit of the administrative state beloved of progressives, commies, and wokies. We can see that the administrative state is all very well for a jolly old world war, or the nightmare of a global pandemic, or world-ending climate change. We see that, below the surface, the administrative state is a remorseless engine of corruption, injustice, and decay. And in the hands of our liberal friends it has collapsed into a catfight of mewing Allies pretending to fight for the Oppressed Peoples du jour against the eternal White Oppressors.

We wise ones know that the future must be worked out in the usual messy way of humans somewhere between the warrior culture of the tech bros that fight in the chaotic arena of startups and venture capitalists and the social culture of the ordinary middle class that yearns for stability enough to work and marry and raise a family. Isn’t it amazing that God has put on one side of the stage the crazy Elon to evoke the crazy chaos of the startup arena and on the other the impossible Donald Trump to promise a Golden Age of stability and growth?

Autopens aren’t really the problem. The problem is the conceit that administrative government is a benefit to humanity, rather than just the usual conceit of a ruling class.

I wonder what Bugs Bunny would say about Autopens.

X22, And we Know, and more- June 11

 

The Hard Truth about ‘L’Affaire Chauvin’

posted by Jack Cashill at American Thinker 

A week or so ago, I received an email from an old friend in the intelligence community—let’s call him “Smiley”—commenting on my research into the case of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer convicted in April 2021 of murdering chronic felon and drug abuser George Floyd a year prior.

Said Smiley, “Time for you to write a ‘J’accuse’ piece--naming names.” He was referring to the powerful public letter French author Emile Zola wrote in 1898 damning the people responsible for the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus four years prior.

A few days later, I received a providential email from American Thinker founder Thomas Lifson, a man whose opinion I have always respected. “I need to tell you,” wrote Lifson, “that your work, and that of John Dale Dunn, rectifying the injustice of Derek Chauvin’s convictions, makes me proud to know you both. Chauvin is the Alfred Dreyfus of our era, and that makes you the Zola. I mean that emphatically.” , I should note, is a doctor and an attorney, and a frequent collaborator.

“Keep it up!” concluded Lifson, and so I shall. As Zola said, “My duty is to speak, I don’t want to be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the specter of the innocent who atones over there, in the most dreadful of tortures, a crime he did not commit.”

The parallels between L’Affaire Dreyfus and L’Affaire Chauvin are strong, not in the nature of the “crimes,” but in the motivations of the accusers and the reaction of the public. Human nature, when allowed largely free rein in a democratic republic, seems to be a constant.

In brief, Captain Dreyfus stood accused of betraying his country by secretly sharing French artillery secrets with the Germans. As evidence, the accusers presented a letter allegedly sent by Dreyfus detailing the terms of the exchange. In the Chauvin case, the equivalent evidence was the autopsy report.

In each case, the real crime was the race/ethnicity of the accused. Headlines in the French media routinely spoke of “le Juif Dreyfus”—the Jew Dreyfus—just as the American media never failed to identify Chauvin as “white” and Floyd as “black.”

Chauvin’s former partner, the still imprisoned Tou Thao, nailed the issue in a recent interview with Liz Collin of Alpha News, “I’ll put it this way,” said Thao, “if it were my knees on the back of Floyd’s neck or black officer Keung’s knees, or Black Chief’s Arradondo’s knees, but for Derek being born white, we’d all still be patrolling the city of Minneapolis.”

In both cases, even after the evidence against the accused began to evaporate, the fear of provoking the race mongers all but paralyzed those with the power to see justice done. It took 12 years—many of them spent in the hellhole of Devil’s Island—for Dreyfus to be formally cleared. Chauvin has already spent five years in various prisons and suffered a near-fatal stabbing while incarcerated.

What made Zola’s letter so effective, as Smiley suggests, was his willingness to name names, each name preceded by “J’accuse”— “I accuse.” Smiley helpfully included the list of people and institutions deserving their own moment of infamy. Among them are the following.

I accuse the media, national and local, of fanning the flames of unrest through their universally uncritical acceptance of the Black Lives Matter narrative based on no more than a snippet of viral video.

I accuse Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison of preserving the narrative by gratuitously withholding the exculpatory police body cam footage until being forced to do so by judicial order.

I accuse Black Lives Matter, Benjamin Crump, and other “civil rights” grifters of encouraging the $2 billion of destruction that followed the video’s release.

I accuse every public official who “took a knee” of assuring that Chauvin and his colleagues—Tou Thao, Alex Kueng, and Thomas Lane—would never find justice in a Democrat city in a Democrat state.

I accuse DC Medical Examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell of successfully corrupting the autopsy report by threatening Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker with ruin if he did not add “neck compression” to the final report. Mitchell volunteered this information in a documented meeting with four Minnesota Assistant Attorneys General on November 5, 2020.

I accuse the four Minnesota Assistant AGs of failing to share this powerful exculpatory evidence implicit in Mitchell’s testimony with the defense in any meaningful way before the trial.

I accuse the same Dr. Roger Mitchell of potential witness intimidation. While Chauvin’s trial was still in progress, Mitchell enlisted 400 physicians to sign an open letter to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh demanding an “immediate investigation“ into the practice of Dr. David Fowler, former Maryland chief medical examiner, after Fowler testified in Chauvin’s defense.

I accuse the understandably frightened Dr. Baker of yielding to Mitchell’s threats and finessing this critical deception about the cause of death through his trial testimony. In a deposition, Hennepin County assistant prosecutor Amy Sweasy testified that shortly after the autopsy, Baker asked her, “Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?” Baker found out.

I accuse Hennepin County assistant prosecutors Amy Sweasy and Patrick Lofton of knowing enough about the corruption of this case to withdraw from it—Baker had told them “there were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation”—but of lacking the courage to come forward.

I accuse feckless Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of poisoning the jury pool. Said Frey, “I’ve wrestled with, more than anything else over the last 36 hours, one fundamental question: Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail?” He also falsely declared, “That particular technique that was used was not authorized by the MPD. It is not something that officers are trained in on. And should not be used period.”

I accuse Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo and Assistant Chief Katie Blackwell of repeating Frey’s lie under oath at trial in spite of the fact that, as Hennepin County Judge Edward Wahl recently acknowledged, the “MPD [Minneapolis Police Department] training materials from 2018-2019 … included images of officers applying knees to the neck or upper back.”

I accuse the Minneapolis City Council of corrupting the trial beyond repair by unanimously voting to award Floyd’s family $27 million while the jury was still in the process of being selected.

I accuse the “respectable” conservative media, FOX News in particular, of remaining silent in the face of this obvious injustice.

I accuse Judge Peter Cahill of undermining Chauvin’s defense by refusing a change of venue, by failing to sequester the jury, by failing to recognize Mitchell’s admission, by preventing the jurors from seeing the exculpatory MPD training materials, and by allowing Arradondo and Blackwell to lie about the training under oath.

I accuse Gov. Tim Walz of letting the rioters burn down much of Minneapolis, including a police station, while he hesitated to send in the National Guard for fear of offending his progressive base.

I accuse Gwen Walz—she who boasted of keeping her windows “open as long as [she] could” during the riots to smell the burning tires—of encouraging her husband’s craven behavior.

“It is all the more odious and cynical that they lie with impunity,” said Zola of those accused. “They stir up France, they hide behind its legitimate emotion, they close their mouths by disturbing hearts, by perverting minds. I know of no greater civic crime.”

Zola continued, “We are horrified by the terrible day that the Dreyfus affair has just thrown into it, this human sacrifice of an unfortunate, a ‘dirty Jew’”!

As Zola might have said about L’affaire Chauvin, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

Eisenhower Warned Us

 

By Chris Crandall  |  June 11, 2025  |  Minding the Campus

When Dwight D. Eisenhower stepped down from his generalship as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe following the Second World War, he became the President of Columbia University.

During his short tenure at the university, a professor approached him and extolled the virtues of European scientists at the institution, to which Eisenhower queried, “They may be talented, but do they love America?” The professor replied, “what does that matter,” to which Eisenhower stated, “that is all that matters.”

Currently, the American Higher Education system has a record enrollment of international students attending its universities, with over 1.1 million foreign students studying in the United States. Over 500,000 of these students are enrolled in our graduate education programs.

While these students provide an important contribution to our higher education system, facilitating cultural exchange and a diversity of viewpoints, the increasing reliance on foreign revenue by America’s higher education institutions is disconcerting.

It is estimated that foreign students contribute upwards of $50 billion to the American economy during their studies in the United States. However, what is less often stated is that China alone steals over $500 billion in intellectual property every year.

Foreign money creates foreign influence, and foreign influence facilitates foreign theft.

[RELATED: Foreign Students Price Americans Out of Their Own Workforce]

As stated in previous articles, international students currently comprise more than 50 percent of the academic cohort enrolled in graduate STEM programs at American higher education institutions, with the majority of these students coming from China and India.

In 2025, India surpassed China in the number of foreign students enrolled in the United States. If one views a graph, the number of international students, especially from China and India, has been steadily increasing since 2001, while the number of foreign students from other regions of the world has remained relatively static.

This is because both China and India are rapidly modernizing their nations in the technological and digital fields, with the explicit goal of increasing economic power and attaining military, weapon, and space indigenization. Both China and India seek to become Great Powers on par with the United States. To accomplish this goal, they must be able to compete in the economic arena and field comparable technological and weapons-based systems to protect their interests. As the United States is the global leader in the STEM fields, both of these nations seek to educate their students in the United States in order to further these goals.

If this process continues, then America will lose its competitive edge in the STEM fields.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that China poses the greatest threat to American security in the near term, as Pete Hegseth stated in recent comments at the Shangri-La Security Forum in Asia, “The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent.”

Yet India too has long-term strategic goals, and to replace Chinese students in the STEM fields with Indian students does not consider the long-term implications of providing another Great Power rival with the technological education to become a peer rival to the United States.

Many from both the left and right argue that the United States must collaborate with India to counter the rising influence of China. This may be true in some geopolitical respects; however, in many cases, this argument is based upon globalist economics, where American corporations are seeking cheaper markets, lower labor costs, and lower environmental standards in India so as to replace the lost market shares in China.

This is bad for America, its citizens, and the environment. In doing so, reliance on critical manufacturing components is simply shifted to another near-term adversary, creating a long-term risk rather than an investment in advanced American manufacturing that would create national security and increase jobs for American citizens.

However, the critical point here is that the Executive Branch and Congress are often overlooking that replacing Chinese students in the STEM fields with Indian students, whose enrollment is increasing at a rapid clip, merely displaces more American students.

The United States, with a population of about 340 million, is far smaller than China and India, each with over 1.4 billion people. As these countries’ economies and education systems advance, more of their students are likely to apply to U.S. universities, potentially displacing American students. Many of these domestic students may then find themselves in lower-tier jobs, often working under the very international students who took their place, with the justification that the latter are more skilled. This claim is misleading, as it overlooks how American students are denied opportunities to thrive. For instance, Jared Gould has argued that the H-1B visa program is exploited by U.S. employers to hire foreign workers at lower wages under the pretext of a shortage of domestic talent.

we should reject the assumption that foreign nationals are inherently more talented, more qualified, or better educated than their American counterparts. We should also challenge the notion that American workers are undereducated for the jobs being filled by H-1B visa holders—mostly tech jobs—or that employers are merely making a rational business decision … Universities actively grow the pool of qualified foreign nationals for U.S. jobs. In fact, they openly promote the H-1B visa as a selling point for earning an American degree, highlighting special benefits and pathways to the visa for foreign nationals earning master’s or PhDs. By doing so, higher education institutions actively participate in undermining the American public—the taxpayers who fund them.

The influx of international students is one aspect of a broader “great replacement” and “great realignment.” It supplants the American Dream with that of others, treating U.S. students and citizens as expendable, akin to economic markets or supply chains. In this globalist “economics as destiny” model, prioritizing foreign students undermines the futures of American students. Regardless of views on India as a strategic threat, this trend denies domestic students opportunities to lead in technology and digital fields.

[RELATED: H-1B Visa Undermines American Students and Workers]

Seats in high-quality graduate-level STEM programs are a limited commodity. Thus, every seat taken by a Chinese or an Indian student is a net loss for a domestic student. As stated earlier, over 500,000 international students are studying in the United States at the graduate level. Each of these seats represents a letter sent to a homegrown young American telling them that a foreign student has taken their opportunity to increase the profit margins of a university that was originally created to serve American citizens.

The remedy to this very real issue is federal and state legislation, and, barring that, executive orders that cap the number of seats occupied in graduate-level STEM fields by international students and prohibit students from India and China from pursuing STEM graduate studies through a four-year phase-out upon matriculation. Many Democrats support this policy in California; thus, there is a real opportunity for bipartisan legislation. This would permit the time necessary for new federal and state funding legislation to be promulgated, as well as the development of new partnerships with tech and manufacturing firms that would help offset the net revenue loss previously derived from foreign tuition monies.

The onus cannot be placed solely on universities to make the change, as they have a monetary incentive to maintain the status quo and potentially increase international student enrollment numbers.

We are not living in a free market global community as some might posit, but rather in a multi-polar world of Great Power competition with adversaries that are as dangerous if not more so than our adversaries during the Second World War and the Cold War period.

Lawmakers must act and end the open society narrative that falls flat given the current realities. We are living in a new geopolitical era. American corporations and universities must be mandated to work in the national interest and not against it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was right in his reply to the Columbia professor—loyalty to country comes first. It was in this vein of thought that, as President of the United States, he created the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that sought to harness the talents of American students to counter the Soviets following the successful launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957. Today, we face various adversaries and technologies, yet the logic remains the same—American citizens must come first. The time for lawmakers to act is now.

---

Image: “Dwight D. Eisenhower visits the construction site of the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR) in 1948. At that time, Eisenhower was the president of Columbia University” by Brookhaven National Laboratory on Flickr

Author: Dr. Chris Crandall read the law at Vermont Law School, where he received his MA in Environmental Law and Policy studying international climate dynamics. He pursued his Doctorate Degree in Educational Administration and Innovation from the University of South Florida in Tampa, where he studied the intersection of higher education and international politics. His current position is at the Soka University of America as an Academic Writing Specialist. The opinions expressed in this article are his and his alone.

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/06/11/eisenhower-warned-us/

Is Long COVID Actually Vaccine Injury?

posted Brian C. Joondeph at American Thinker 

The COVID pandemic has resulted in widespread infection and vaccination throughout the United States. According to data from , more than 81% of the U.S. population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

96.4% of Americans have COVID in their blood, indicating previous infection. Most of these two groups overlap, and all vaccinated people should have COVID antibodies in their blood, as the vaccine prompts the body to produce spike proteins to elicit an immune response and facilitate antibody production.

The issue is that mRNA vaccines lack an off switch, meaning that vaccinated individuals may produce spike protein for weeks, months, or even years without any way to control that effect. In contrast, natural COVID infection includes an off switch, as the immune system will eventually clear the virus, similar to what happens with the flu or a cold.

This lack of an “off switch” is called “spikeopathy” and was summarized in a in Biomedicines.

Spike protein pathogenicity, termed ‘spikeopathy’, whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a ‘synthetic virus’, is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology. Pharmacokinetic transfection through body tissues distant from the injection site by lipid-nanoparticles or viral-vector carriers means that ‘spikeopathy’ can affect many organs. The inflammatory properties of the nanoparticles used to ferry mRNA; N1-methylpseudouridine employed to prolong synthetic mRNA function; the widespread biodistribution of the mRNA and DNA codes and translated spike proteins, and autoimmunity via human production of foreign proteins, contribute to harmful effects.

This extensive exposure to the virus and the vaccines has led to reports of persistent symptoms following infection (commonly referred to as “long COVID”) and, in many cases, adverse events following vaccination.

Given the overlap in certain reported symptoms, especially neurological ones, it is essential to differentiate between long COVID and vaccine-related injuries to ensure accurate diagnosis, treatment, and public health messaging.

My question is whether COVID vaccine injuries are labeled as “long COVID.” This is one of many legitimate scientific questions that health authorities are “curiously incurious” about.

Remember how the seasonal flu, or influenza, disappeared during the 2020-2021 season? Were flu cases mistakenly or deliberately mislabeled as COVID?

The COVID PCR test was excessively sensitive, falsely “diagnosing” many people who carried only a few viral fragments in their noses as “COVID cases,” as the New York Times surprisingly and intrepidly reported.

What if a similar mislabeling is now happening, labeling vaccine injuries as “long COVID” to prevent questioning or challenging the “safe and effective” mantra?

The CDC defines long COVID as follows,

Long COVID is defined as a chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months. Long COVID includes a wide range of symptoms or conditions that may improve, worsen, or be ongoing.

Long COVID occurs more often in people who had severe COVID-19 illness, but anyone who gets COVID-19 can experience it, including children.

Symptoms of long COVID include: “Multi-organ effects can involve many body systems, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, skin, and brain.” This can “be difficult to recognize or diagnose.” Symptoms can be “mild or severe” and “result in disability.”

How does this compare to vaccine injury? The CDC website still claims, “Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is a safer, more reliable way to build protection than getting sick with COVID-19.” Yet they don’t explain the Cleveland Clinic’s study finding an increasing incidence of COVID infection correlating with more vaccine doses.

The CDC mentions few adverse events after vaccination. These include local injection site reactions, transient flu-like symptoms, and “rare” myocarditis, anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and thrombocytopenia syndrome. There is no mention of blood clots, turbo cancers, or sudden death.

This is puzzling as the CDC and Department of HHS are under new MAHA leadership, which promises transparency and accountability. Perhaps agency leaders are too busy placing bets on the recent Trump-Musk cage fight.

The CDC continues to promote the vaccines as being “safe and effective” despite increasing contrary evidence. In contrast, the Independent Medical Alliance, which is not a governmental health bureaucracy, offers a more thoughtful and objective review of vaccine adverse effects.

Most serious adverse events following vaccination occur in the two weeks immediately following a dose of the vaccine. However, evolving data suggest that some patients who otherwise had no adverse events from the vaccine appear to have delayed acute cardiac events (often leading to sudden death). This appears to peak between 4 to 6 months after the vaccine but may extend for at least one year. There has also been evidence of an emergence of “turbo” and relapsed cancers in the months following vaccination.

This is where the overlap between long COVID and vaccine injury becomes unclear. The Independent Medical Alliance’s approach is “to preventing delayed complications from vaccination is to enhance the body’s ability to eliminate spike protein.”

The spike protein is a hallmark of both COVID and the mRNA COVID vaccines. As the CDC notes, “mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.”

One could say that both long COVID and vaccine injury result from an excess of pro-inflammatory and pro-clotting spike protein. The difference lies in how long the body produces spike protein.

Natural COVID infection triggers an immune response that ultimately eliminates the virus, including the spike protein. In contrast, the vaccine instructs the body to keep producing spike protein without a volume control or an off switch.

How long can spike protein be detected in the body after vaccination? Yale researchers found,

Typically spike protein can be detected for a few days after vaccination, but some participants with post vaccination syndrome had detectable levels more than 700 days after their last vaccination. Persistent spike protein has been associated with long COVID as well.

This is the crux of the problem. Both long COVID and vaccine injury result from an excess of spike protein in the body. Are these two conditions two sides of the same coin? How can one be distinguished from the other?

Let’s follow the science,

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) estimates that the spike proteins that were generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks, like other proteins made by the body. The immune system quickly identifies, attacks and destroys the spike proteins because it recognizes them as not part of you.

But what happens if the body keeps producing spike protein?

mRNA COVID “vaccines” program the body to produce spike proteins for an unknown duration, possibly indefinitely. This could explain the presence of long-term spike proteins in the body, which may account for both long COVID and vaccine injury. So which is it?

It’s unfortunate that the medical and health authorities refuse to look beyond their talking points. The same smart set insisted that sudden deaths in numerous athletes could not be explained but were definitely not related to COVID vaccines.

So much for scientific curiosity. What happened to “follow the science”?

Strokes are on the rise among younger individuals, with no clear explanation. The CDC reports that between 2020 and 2022, there was a 14.6% increase in strokes among people aged 18 to 44.

And, of course, doctors are “puzzled”. “We’ve never had patients so young,” said Dr. Mohammad Anadani, chief of neuroendovascular services for the Endeavor Health Neurosciences Institute.

Similarly, the increase in autism rates from <3/10,000 in the 1970s to 1/31 today is “puzzling and inexplicable”, but it is definitely unrelated to the rapidly expanding childhood vaccine schedule over the same time period.

Or consider this recent Washington Post headline, “The mysterious drop in fentanyl seizures on the US-Mexico border,” which ignores President Trump’s border policies and Mexican trade deals. Is this stupidity or willful ignorance?

If scientists cannot explain what IS causing something, how can they be certain about what IS NOT causing it? As John Lennon sang, “Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.”

Is it any wonder that only about a third of Americans trust the US healthcare system, according to Gallup? And that vaccine hesitancy continues to rise?

Perhaps Americans are embracing the adage, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” when they think that healthcare authorities are being evasive or outright lying. This is not following the science; instead, it resembles an Orwellian big brother telling us what to believe with obedience and no questions.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

World Trade Organization Agrees with President Trump Position of Unsustainable, Unbalanced Trade Status – Global Trade Taking Advantage of USA

Sundance reporting for CTH 

This is actually a very surprising development.  The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a heavily controlled multinational exploit of the World Economic Forum assembly (WEF).  This could be looked upon as the WEF taking a knee as they finally accept Godzilla Trump is not going to relent.  Remember, the Build Back Better agenda was a construct from the WEF/WTO.

Looking a little more deeply at the people behind the latest shift in tone and paying close attention to the wording they are using, there’s an inference the WTO is telling Europe to stop being intransigent or they will lose U.S. military support.  A very unusual shift in WTO tone.

In my first review opinion, as the legal arbitration system for trade complaints, the WTO are trying to mitigate President Trump’s full-frontal assault on the global trade imbalance that brings the global trade wealth back to the USA.

NEW YORK POST […] – Top economists at the international institution, which helps finance low and middle-income countries, acknowledged that many nations do not provide reciprocal trade access to the US.

“This [situation] could not be sustained indefinitely,” the World Bank’s chief economist, Indermit Gill, said during a news briefing, the Washington Post reported.

[Gill] contended that Trump’s actions were merely a response to uneven trade access between other countries and the US.

Other experts at the World Bank concurred with that assessment and indicated that Europe, Japan and China should all take steps to reduce trade barriers on the US, while calling for an across-the-board rollback on tariffs on all sides. (more)

There’s No Point In Arguing With Democrats About Trump

There isn't a single fact, much less a body of them, that you and a lefty can agree upon to start a conversation about The Orange Man.

posted by J.C. Bourque at The Federalist

Consuming biased media distorts what Democrats believe drives and informs conservatives. This effect does not go in the other direction. Everything we know about Democrats spews, ceaselessly, from their lips and major media. Everything they think they know about us comes from media propaganda, out-of-context video clips, and other loony bins who don’t speak for the right.

This misrepresentation results in statements to Donald Trump supporters like, “I guess you’re OK with Trump turning the country into a fascist dictatorship.” In addition to inviting a debate about Trump’s intentions, this challenges you to defend how you can be such a blind, gullible idiot unable to see the obvious truth. See: “Do you still beat your wife?”

Recently, a left-leaning friend proposed we attempt a civil conversation, in writing, about several subjects including climate change (yes, I broke my own rule). The conversation was civil and respectful, but we could not agree on any scientific expert or study that we could use as a common starting point. So, the conversation went nowhere concerning changing minds or openness to new information by either side.

The science is settled, and arguing that “settled science” is an oxymoron will get you nowhere. You’re a denier. There is only one rightthink.

Leftist Don’t Actually Want a Conversation

Trump haters may demand from you, the hapless Trumpanzee, an explanation for how you can be so stupid. They call it a “conversation,” but it’s a cross-examination.

The lefty will start with some variant of: “How could you vote for a sexist, racist, homophobic, convicted rapist who is guilty of 473 felonies?”

You could respond, “Why did you vote for a vacuous, incoherent, babbling drunken whore?” But this will not work. Only Trump’s, and your, shortcomings are on the docket. So don’t answer.

After becoming frustrated at your insolence, some will demand to know why you won’t “defend” your decision. Here’s the answer: “Because I am not a defendant, counselor.”

Lefties seem to feel entitled to an explanation for your decision-making, while assuming they require none for theirs, because they are so obviously right. Another tack they take is, “If we can’t talk about this, how do we solve the problem?” What problem? My guy’s in, doing exactly what I elected him to do.

Here’s the root cause (lefties love looking for root causes) of the problem communicating across party lines: There is not a single fact, much less a body of them, that you and a lefty can agree upon to start a conversation about The Orange Man. None. That’s why it can’t happen.

If they are friends or family members, these inquisitors are trying to understand how they can like you in other respects, and yet you can be that stupid. They are baffled that you can appear to be an interesting, funny, cogent, and thinking person — as they see themselves — and still support Trump.

If you agree with any premise held out by an agitated leftist, you have lost the argument from the get-go. The only choice is not to engage. This will render them apoplectic, but there’s nothing you can do to prevent it. Your only hope is that the lefty will eventually be exposed to credible contradictory information and realize he’s (she’s? they’s) been lied to about just about everything related to Orange Man.

Conversation Begins When They Quit CNN

Mainstream media and left-wing pundits all read from the same script, creating the illusion of “consensus” about this assertion or that hoax. This information laundering works by repeating information — maybe true, maybe false — so often by so many sources that it is eventually regarded as fact.

For some reason, left-leaning people seem to regard a manufactured consensus as fact, as seen with the pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, the Russian spy hoax, and the 97 percent of scientists agreeing to call themselves scientists. A staggering degree of trust in corporate information sources seems to render the sufferer incapable of skepticism. They believe whatever they are told on their screens.

Many conservatives are steeped in skepticism about information, including from right-leaning sources, and want to see the proof. In my experience with family, friends, and other opponents, it comes down to the issue of credulity. Left-leaning people seem to have a bias toward believing institutional sources of information, sometimes unquestionably, whereas conservatives I know have a natural skepticism about news — even toward “approved” outlets. In short, lefties believe what they are told, even if the information is false.

Common Media Deception Techniques

The mainstream media launders incorrect information and outright propaganda. Using “unimpeachable” yet anonymous sources, The New York Times will make a baseless claim about Trump or Republicans, which permits the other left media to endlessly repeat those claims as fact. 

This is how we heard the insane claim that Trump suggested people “drink bleach” when he was referring to experiments using UV light as a disinfectant for COVID-19. The media employed this technique to advance the Russia hoax, the Hunter laptop cover-up, the migrant kids in cages hoax, and many others.

Another technique is the selective video edit. The “fine people” hoax is a prime example. Although it has been repeatedly debunked by showing the phrase in full context, it persists in the minds of many people who get their news from corporate outlets. Sen. Chuck Schumer repeated this lie as recently as mid-March 2025.

Repeated out-of-context video editing creates the impression that conservatives are a bunch of uneducated hayseeds. The confirmation bias of the audience reinforces these impressions without creating any interest in finding out if they are true. So the stereotypes persist, and leftists don’t know anything accurate about conservatives.

Alternative media, however, gives the right a steady diet of accurate information about leftists. They will often play the entire rants of Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, and other pundits. It’s not necessary to deceptively edit left-wing tirades. They perform better in context. That’s why we understand leftists accurately and they think we are deplorable, ignorant Bible-thumping gun nuts.

If you want to know what’s really going on around you, turn off the audio, and use your eyes. Don’t automatically accept claims made even by “trusted sources.” And don’t argue with leftists.