Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Fauci: COVID Hit the US the Hardest for One Big Reason

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a member of the White House's Coronavirus Task Force, on Monday said he believes the Wuhan coronavirus has hit the United States harder than any other country. 

A large part of the growing pandemic, Fauci said, is because of how individual states are responding to the virus. 

"The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it, as opposed to in response to federal mandates, which are relatively rarely given," Fauci told the BBC on Monday, CNN reported.

The lack of consistency, especially when it comes to masks and lockdown orders, are something the NIAID director sees as a "major weakness."

"Although that works well for certain things, when you’re dealing with a pandemic, which doesn’t know the difference between the border of New York and New Jersey, or Florida and Georgia, or Texas and Oklahoma ... you have to have a degree of consistency in your response," he explained.

"What we’ve had was a considerable disparity with states doing things differently in a non-consistent way. There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that, unfortunately for us, the United States has been the hardest hit country in the world, but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response," he said.

Fauci referred to social distancing, avoiding crowds and wearing masks as things that have been politicized. In a different time period, he said, Americans would have been more apt to following public health guidelines and requirements. 

Even though Pfizer and Moderna have released millions of doses of their vaccines, Fauci warned about being complacent. In fact, he said people should continue with public health measures, like wearing masks, practicing social distancing and washing your hands, even though the vaccine is here. That's because herd immunity needs to be developed, not just in the United States, but around the world. 


"Until we get that veil of protection, then we are constantly going to be challenged," he said.

Fauci is losing his credibility, just as his counterpart, Dr. Deborah Birx, recently has. Just last week Fauci admitted to fibbing with the numbers needed to create herd immunity. He based his numbers "parly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks," the New York Times reported.

The BBC's Lie of Biblical Proportions

In the year of the pandemic, it's no wonder that horrible things continue to come back in ways that are threatening and objectively wrong.  This year, maybe because of the virus and people being stuck at home with nothing better to do, a gross lie has resurfaced as it does every year at this season, undermining truth and the foundation of Judaism and Christianity.  

Each year around Christmas, efforts to propagate this malicious lie get stronger and more brazen. It’s part of a slanderous campaign of deception, whose end goal is to erase Jewish history from Israel, and Israel from the map.  Denying and trying to erase the centrality of Judaism to Israel, and the State of Israel, is bad, and ridiculous, enough.  But doing so also denies the origin of Christianity, and is why Jews and Christians should be alarmed and concerned.

This year, the ante was raised as the lie was spread by none other than the BBC.  Yes, the British Broadcasting Corporation, a global media entity that seems to never miss a good opportunity to spread lies and malice about Israel, since the days of the good ol’ British occupation.  

The BBC’s recent lie is a libel—of biblical proportions.  So, what did the BBC do that was so egregious?  In two different programs this month, they referred to Jesus as a “Palestinian.”  It’s a lie and complete distortion of reality.

The New Testament is unambiguous, and rich with accounts of Jesus being a Jew. It describes his lineage, his participating in countless Jewish rituals, debating and preaching Jewish law, participating in worship in the Temple, and the Last Supper being a Passover seder.  When one propagates the lie of Jesus being a “Palestinian,” it is not just historically inaccurate, but denies the very foundation of Christianity.  

That really should be enough to disprove and dispel the lie, and prevent what one would think of as rational people from spreading it.  But there are no shortage of people who have no compunction about undermining Christianity, much less advocating any hateful story about the “Palestinians,” especially if its one that discredits and blames others for all their problems.

So, if the New Testament account were not good enough to dispel the lie of “Jesus the Palestinian,” historically there’s irrefutable evidence as well.   The fact is that it wasn’t until a century after the crucifixion of Jesus, in the year 132, when the Jews fought Roman occupation (known as the Bar Kokhba Revolt), that the term "Palestine” was applied to the Land of Israel. Only after the Romans defeated the Jews in 135, did they rename the Land of Israel “Palestina” to punish and humiliate the Jews. The Romans hijacked the proper Jewish (and biblical) name, Judea, replacing it with the name of an ancient enemy of the Jews as if to complete the vanquishing of the Land and the People.

So, if the name “Palestine” only came into being 100 years after his crucifixion, it is not possible that Jesus was a “Palestinian.” Period.  Not only that, Jesus never would have even heard that term.  

What made the BBC think that this was true, or maybe even knew it was a lie they could get away with?  The reality is that since the birth of the PLO, marking the beginning of the Palestinian national movement 56 years ago this week, hijacking of truth (as well as used in terrorism) has become part of the “Palestinian” tradition. It’s also an appropriate tradition that this lie is peddled around Christmas which is also the week of the PLO’s birth in 1964.

The successor of the PLO that grants “legitimacy” to their national aspiration, the Palestinian Authority, gives voice to their national aspiration, like the PLO, not by building their own society, but by undermining Israel and its legitimacy.  Accordingly, there’s very little that the PA does from inciting, celebrating, and funding terrorism, to promoting the myth of Jesus as a “Palestinian” that is not meant to undermine Israel.  Over the years, Palestinian Arab leaders and the PA itself have referred to Jesus as: “the first Palestinian,” a “Palestinian messenger,” “the great-grandfather of the Palestinian people,” and perhaps most egregiously, “the first Palestinian martyr (shahid).”

By hijacking Jesus this way, they (unwittingly) ascribe to him characteristics of being a “Palestinian terrorist.” Indeed, the Arabic “shahid” is commonly used posthumously to “honor” those who have died in propagating terror or a broader Islamic jihad, or holy war. It also represents someone who sacrificed his or her life for their Islamic beliefs, and in the “Palestinian” case, for fighting Israel and murdering Israelis.  While they have no qualms undermining Judaism and Christianity, they would never have the audacity to call Jesus a Moslem, because Islam didn’t come into existence until several hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.  And while heresy against Judaism and Christianity is just fine, they’d never commit the heresy of calling Jesus the first Moslem, centuries before Mohammed was even born.

I’ve written about this before, but the BBC piling on to the “Palestinian Jesus” myth brings the lie to a new low. If Palestinian Arabs (and the PA) want to be taken seriously, and equally seriously aspire to build a culture and society of their own, they would be well advised not to base their claims on fundamental lies that only serve to take down another society, not to mention the two original, and biblically based, monotheistic faiths and their adherents.

People of faith and good conscience need to use every means and media possible to debunk the lie of the “Palestinian Jesus.”

 

The Worst People In Media 2020

 

This year was a disaster in just about every respect, but nothing compares to the overall disaster that is the media. Informing the public and seeking the truth took a backseat to agenda pushing and straight-up advocacy. While everyone in the media soiled themselves this year, to one degree or another, some people are just so awful they deserve special recognition.

Joy Reid. Liberals fail up. There’s really no other explanation as to why this conspiracy theorist who only takes a break from lying to make a complete fool of herself would get a new show on MSNBC. The fraud who lied about her blog being hacked to cover up her history of homophobia had been relegated to an unwatched weekend slot, but now she’s back in the big leagues. Why? Why not? When you have no standards, when you set the bar so low it’s laying on the ground, anyone can clear it. How else could anyone explain elevating someone so blatantly stupid, not to mention racist? Maybe next year we’ll finally get an answer from the FBI about who posted all those homophobic and transphobic things on her old blog? Don’t hold your breath.

Jake Tapper. Tapper lives in his own little world where he’s the smartest man living in his head. Conservatives get excited every couple of months when he accidentally commits a tiny bit of journalism by asking a semi-tough question of a Democrat (which is rarely, if ever, followed up by pressing the issue) or delivers a monologue on a 90 percent issue. But at his core, and in his work, he’s every bit the liberal activist who made his name writing about a date he had with Monica Lewinsky at the height of the scandal that haunts her to this day. He parlayed that date into a job at the left-wing blog Salon, then a book about trying to “steal” the 2000 election. He wormed his way up to ABC News, then his own show on CNN. There he sits, playing his scripted role in spreading the Russia Hoax lie like a loyal puppy, all while claiming to be the last honest man in Washington, DC. Naturally, he’s “won” many awards from his fellow travelers for his “reporting.” Expect him to recede further into his liberal hole during the Biden administration, soft kisses for access and choir-preaching will likely win him even more plaques with his name on them.

Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo. These two people share half a brain that only works a quarter of the time. Their shows are interchangeable, with neither better than the other at reading DNC talking points. Their nightly “hand off” from one show to the other would embarrass kindergarten students, yet these highly paid adults droolingly beclown themselves nightly, unware of their own failings. These two are the yin and yang of stupid. Fredo gave us one of the videos of the year, when he asked where it said protests have to be peaceful and a dry ramen noodle munching kid pointed out to the law school graduate the words “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” in the First Amendment. You’d think people who do news for a living would follow the news.

There are others: human Weeble Brian Stelter whining daily about Fox News while ignoring the lies and bigotry of his own network. Christiane Amanpour admitting journalists won’t be reporting on Hunter Biden and comparing the Trump administration to Kristallnacht. Your choice of Gupta on CNN or MSNBC attacking anyone skeptical of the decrees of President Fauci as the ramblings of people who aren’t epidemiologists while neither are, etc.

But the biggest media loser of the year is Matt Drudge. His traffic collapsed, his ideology exposed as simply about himself, Matt was exposed as a fraud in the book, “The Drudge Revolution.” He made a lot of money, probably, but it came at the cost of all respect for him. He took the fine art of career suicide to a new level when he embraced the business model of the Huffington Post and pandemic porn.

Good riddance to 2020, and good riddance to each of these people.

Oh, they’ll still be around, to a lesser degree – liberals will continue to prop up each of them because they still have a few threads of the “useful” part of useful idiots, but they won’t be taken seriously anymore. The wider public now sees what they so desperately tried to hide, and there’s no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Our Upside-down Postelection World

After Nov. 3, the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed. Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones?

Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea. The time for gotcha questions has come and gone. Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks?

The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop. The new postelection truth is that it's no big deal to bring out new vaccines in nine months.

Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election -- on a strictly partisan vote, for political reasons other than the Constitution's "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" -- is now a terrible idea.

Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China. An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding President Joe Biden -- using a 22-month, $40 million blank check.

It would be unprofessional for university psychologists and physicians from a distance to diagnose, in pop fashion, the mental faculties of a President Biden.

Certainly, there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment. That would almost constitute a coup attempt.

Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start "memorializing" his private conversations with Joe Biden on FBI devices. He might then leak such memos to the press -- just in case he were to be fired for secretly investigating Biden for "Chinese collusion" and then lying about such a probe.

What happened to the Logan Act? Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail. Wouldn't it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president? How has it suddenly become a defunct, ossified relic?

Leaking classified material would be about the worst thing government officials could do. Imagine if a Trump holdover, burrowed into the new Biden administration, released a transcript of Biden's private conversations with the Mexican president or the Australian prime minister.

Such a breach of trust would be almost as bad as a turncoat anti-Biden mole seeking to resist presidential directives. Imagine if this anonymous staffer were given an op-ed in the New York Tines to claim that a cadre of old-time Democrats were shocked by Biden's cognitive decline and resisting his directives.

Is extending security clearances to former high-level officials turned cable-TV pundits still a bad idea? Who would wish to see, for instance, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe issuing warnings each night on Fox News? With a wink-and-nod hat tip to his "confidential sources," Ratcliffe could spin conspiracy theories that Biden is facing bombshell disclosures about his family misadventures with the Chinese.

Is it still important that we keep the tradition of retired high-ranking military officers -- all subject to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- not disparaging the president? Who would want former Pentagon officials, some of them serving on the boards of military contractors, warning us that Biden should be removed because of cognitive challenges? Certainly, generals and admirals should not compare a President Biden's policies to those of Mussolini or the Nazis.

At least "dark money" no longer exists. The old idea of right-wing billionaires pouring money into candidates' political campaigns was supposedly a dangerous practice. It would be far more civic-minded for left-wing billionaires to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of nonpartisan state bureaucracies entrusted with guaranteeing the sanctity of national elections.

And apparently after, not before, an election is the proper time to announce critically important news.

Like the rollout of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine?

Like a $900 billion stimulus package?

Like a revised upward Fannie Mae report on the economy?

Like the ties between a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and a suspected Chinese spy?

Like a federal investigation of Joe Biden's son and his possible profiteering with rich Chinese elites affiliated with China's government?

To keep track of our brave new American world is easy.

Just consider everything said to be bad by the "Animal Farm" media before Nov. 3 as now good. And remember that everything said to be good two months ago is now actually bad.

 

How Nancy Plans to Get Rid of Trump Once and for All

It's no secret that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) loathes President Donald Trump. She's been a thorn in his side since day one. That's why it's not surprising that she has a plan to boot Trump out of the Oval Office, one way or the other. 

Over the weekend Pelosi met with various leaders to discuss the $900 billion Wuhan coronavirus relief plan, which both the House and the Senate passed late Monday night. The bill is currently sitting on Trump's desk to be signed into law.

During those discussions, the House speaker said she should would take drastic measures to remove him from the White House, even if she had to do it herself.

“I’m counting down the hours ‘til he’s gone,” Pelosi told her leadership team this weekend, according to a report from POLITICO. “I plan to pull him out of there by his hair, his little hands and his feet.”

President Trump, his campaign, and his legal team have been focused on alleged voter fraud that took place during the 2020 presidential election last month. They have also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The campaign is effectively asking the high court to review lower court decisions in the Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case.

According to the petition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court illegally changed the state's voting by-mail laws by extending the deadline ballots could be received and counted. The only way that can legally be changed is for the state legislature to pass legislation extending the deadline, something the Pennsylvania legislature failed to do. Instead, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar extended the deadline three days later.

The Trump campaign also took issue with ballot counting and challenges that took place during the count. They claim Republican challengers who were allowed to be in the room had to be six feet away, which made it impossible for them to adequately validate each ballot being counted. 

Outside of the legal track, there are plans for a challenge in Congress. A handful of congressmen and women have said they plan to step forward when the House convenes to certify the Electoral College's decision to name Joe Biden as the next president on January 6th.

Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), one of the members leading the fight, said he believes Trump's path to victory is no longer in the courts but rather in the House of Representatives. As the House moves to certify the election results, they most go state-by-state. All it takes is one representative and one senator to object to that state's results. The congressman says those states that are called into question should be thrown out. If that happens in enough battleground states then neither Trump nor Biden would hit the 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College. That would mean the House would pick the president. 

Under the Constitution, according to Brooks, should the House have to pick the president, each state gets just one vote. That one vote is based on what party controls the state House. The GOP runs 26 state Houses, meaning the Republicans pick who will be the next president.

 

Is Church “High Risk, Low Reward”?

 

Some leftist government officials, in the name of trying to fight the spread of COVID-19, have come down hard on churches.

For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared (5/7/20), “We’re looking at the science, epidemiology, looking again at frequency, duration, time, and looking at low risk-high reward, low risk-low reward.” [Emphasis added]

He has defined abortion clinics as essential. But churches were categorized as non-essential. Christian legal groups have had to fight with the governor to be able to practice religious freedom, which the Constitution guarantees. Newsom was not alone in his attempt to hamstring the churches.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam mandated that only ten people could attend church. But not to worry, said the Theologian-in-Chief of the Old Dominion state: “For me, God is wherever you are. You don’t have to sit in the church pew for God to hear your prayers.”

In November, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear ordered a halt of in-person worship services---even after having been hit with a federal judge’s restraining order earlier this year for doing the same.

All of this leads to an interesting question: What, if anything, do churches contribute to society? Are churches just “high risk, low reward”?

I spoke recently on the radio with Dr. Byron Johnson, Director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor.

Johnson told me, “Churches are phenomenally important to society. The bulk of volunteering in America is done by people that come from places like churches. Americans give more than a billion dollars a day to charities. A significant portion of that comes from people that sit in pews of congregations.”

What else does church do for society? Since 2001, Gallup polls have conducted annual “November Health and Healthcare Surveys.” The results of 2020 showed a drop in overall mental health for Americans. Not surprising, in light of the lockdown.

Disrn.com reports (12/13/20) that church-goers were one exception: “… frequent church attendees were the only group in the U.S. that did not experience a mental health decline in 2020….Forty-six percent of Americans who regularly attend religious services said their mental health is ‘excellent,’ an increase from last year's 42 percent.”

The Journal of the American Medical Association-Psychiatry published an article (5/6/20) on the potential impact of church attendance decreasing the number of “deaths from despair.”

The researchers found that church attendance does indeed help lower the frequency of deaths from despair (including from drugs, alcohol, and suicide). They conclude: “…attendance at religious services at least once per week was associated with a 68% lower hazard of death from despair among women and a 33% lower hazard among men compared with never attendance.”

They add, “The findings suggest that frequent attendance at religious services is associated with lower subsequent risk of deaths from despair.” Go to church and you’re less likely to kill yourself. Or others, for that matter.

Of course, the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, Whose birth we celebrate at this time. Christmas is a reminder that a manger in Bethlehem 2000 years ago once contained a baby that was fully God and fully man, who went on to live a perfect life and offer Himself as a sacrifice on behalf of sinners, so that those who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Being assured of heaven in the next life has a positive impact on how we live this life. Church-going involves offering gratitude and sacrifices of praise for the ultimate Christmas gift---the Savior Jesus Christ.

One man of note personally viewed attending church a high priority in his life, even if his schedule was hectic, and the roads were muddy, and getting there was a challenge.

George Washington, the father of our country, was a devout church-goer, back in a day when it was much more taxing to attend. He normally went to the Anglican/Episcopal Church. However, when the Commander-in-Chief was leading the rebellion against the head of that denomination, King George III, Washington became more ecumenical in his worship practices.

He visited Christian churches of all kinds, including Presbyterian ones. The Morristown Presbyterian Church in New Jersey has a stained glass window of Washington receiving communion at that church, an event that occurred during the War. After the War, until his death, he regularly attended church---making Christ Episcopal Church in Alexandria his home church for the last decade of his life.

In Washington’s case, church attendance may have been “high risk” only in the sense of the difficulty of getting there and back. But as is often the case, it was “high reward.”

If only some of our modern political leaders would learn from George’s example. Contrary to the opinion of today’s secular leaders, church tends to be high reward for the attenders and society at large.

Monday, December 21, 2020

'They Believe That Socialism Is the New Way of Life': Nikki Haley Blasts Democrats Ahead of Runoff Elections

Former Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Nikki Haley joined the coalition of Republicans campaigning for incumbent GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler as the high-stakes runoff elections quickly approach. 

Haley told supporters on the campaign trail that the Democratic Party is “not your grandparents’” party any longer:

"If the Democrats win the Senate, you're not ready, Bernie Sanders will be your Senate chair. That’s why this matters, ladies and gentleman, the Democratic Party is not your grandparent’s Democratic Party,” she said at a campaign stop with Loeffler. “This is the Democratic Party that believes you cancel anyone that doesn't agree with you. They believe that you defund the police and stop taking care of those that serve us. They believe that socialism is the new way of life.”

After campaigning in Georgia on Sunday, Haley continued to encourage Republicans to “fight back” against the far-left policies embraced by Democrat candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, and reminded voters that “all eyes” are on Georgia.

“These liberal policies...they’re going further and further to ‘defunding the police,’ canceling anyone who doesn’t agree with you--they want socialism to be the way of the future, and they want to turn over your healthcare and lives to the government,” Haley said of Ossoff and Warnock on Fox and Friends on Monday morning. “It’s everything that we’ve worked hard not to do. It goes against our freedoms. And Republicans need to fight back...It’s not just ‘all eyes are on Georgia,’ the American public is really counting on every person in Georgia to get out and vote.”

Republicans remain united around Perdue and Loeffler as control of the Senate is on the line in the January 5 runoff elections.

 

Were Voting Machines Part of a Cyberattack? Trump Believes So.

 

President Donald Trump on Saturday said a cyberattack that impacted the U.S. Department of Treasury and Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Informations Administration (NTIA) could actually be broader in scope and include voting machines.

He also claimed that Russia or China could be behind the cyber attack.

"The Cyber Hack is far greater in the Fake News Media than in actuality. I have been fully briefed and everything is well under control. Russia, Russia, Russia is the priority chant when anything happens because Lamestream is, for mostly financial reasons, petrified of discussing the possibility that it may be China (it may!)," Trump tweeted. "There could also have been a hit on our ridiculous voting machines during the election, which is now obvious that I won big, making it an even more corrupted embarrassment for the USA."

The president concluded his tweet by tagging the Director of National intelligence, Daniel Ratcliffe, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

On Friday night, Pompeo told conservative radio host Mark Levin the Russians are likely the culprits behind the cyberattack. 

"This was a very significant effort, and I think it's the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity," Pompeo said, according to CNN. "I can't say much more as we're still unpacking precisely what it is, and I'm sure some of it will remain classified."

According to a spokesman from the National Security Council earlier this week, hackers from a foreign government have monitored email traffic at the Department of the Treasury and NTIA. There were concerns that other government agencies were impacted and breached since it reportedly involved the use of Microsoft Office 365. Hackers allegedly tricked Microsoft's authentication protocols. Since then it has been reported that software management maker SolarWinds was likely infiltrated. Cisco, Microsoft and VMware have all said their software was impacted, CNBC reported.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said it could "take weeks, if not months" to dig deeper into the attack and "determine the total number of agencies affected by the attack and the extent to which sensitive data and information may have been compromised."


So far we know the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, national laboratories in Sandia and Los Alamos, New Mexico and Washington, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Department of Energy's Richmond, Virginia field office all had potential hacking activity as well, POLITICO reported. 

"At this point, the investigation has found that the malware has been isolated to business networks only, and has not impacted the mission essential national security functions of the department, including the National Nuclear Security Administration," Department of Energy Spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said in a statement. "When DOE identified vulnerable software, immediate action was taken to mitigate the risk, and all software identified as being vulnerable to this attack was disconnected from the DOE network.”

Government officials believe the group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 29 (APT29) – commonly referred to as "Cozy Bear" – was responsible for the attack. The group are Russian hackers that are associated with the Kremlin, Yahoo! News reported.

Why Rachel Maddow Came to Tucker Carlson's Defense

 


MSNBC host Rachel Maddow went to bat for Fox News' Tucker Carlson during a recent interview on Mediaite's "The Interview" podcast.

Maddow argued that her former MSNBC colleague is actually who he portrays himself out to be on cable news and that he is indeed the same person he was when he hosted "Tucker" on MSNBC from 2005 to 2008 before moving to Fox News.

"I think the thing that Tucker gets a knock for that he doesn't deserve is this idea that he's evolved and changed in some radical new direction. Tucker has always been that guy. He is legitimately that guy. He is not faking it. He comes by his beliefs and his convictions and even his ton of voice, quite naturally, he is not putting it on," Maddow told Mediaite's Aidan McLaughlin.

The MSNBC host stated that if viewers rewatched the early episodes of Tucker on MSNBC, they would see that he really is "the same guy" as he currently is today.

According to Maddow, the reason Tucker Carlson gets so much attention is because the Republican Party and conservatives, in general, are "latched onto" his point of view. In other words, she believes viewers tune into Carlson's show so they feel vindicated by someone who also shares their own beliefs.

"The Republican Party and conservatives are latched onto that point of view now and like it, or at least have, I think broadly speaking through the Trump years," she explained. “A president got into office who articulated many of the most controversial things that Tucker has long advocated and that were most sort of hot in terms of riling people up and attracting controversy and attracting attention.”

She explained that Carlson does a better job articulating some of President Donald Trump's ideas than the president himself does, which is why he is popular amongst those on the right.

“It’s a powerful thing to hear somebody with Tucker’s delivery and capability as a TV communicator articulating the same ideas that the president — forgive me — is sort of braying about on Twitter, all caps, misspelled, and all those things,” Maddow said. “But you put those two things together and it can resonate in a way that moves people and becomes in that case, I think, a very powerful political force.”

Maddow stated that not only has Tucker Carlson been doing the same thing since the early 2000s but so has she.

"If you look at me on Tucker's show in 2005, or whenever that was, and you look at Tucker in 2005, we're still the same people but I think the appetite for what we bring, to offer, has waxed and waned over the years with our cable news fortune," the MSNBC host said.



The reason so many Americans enjoy Tucker Carlson is because he has a way of breaking down complex stories and situations in a way that everyday Americans – those who are not constantly consumed by what is taking place in Washington, D.C. – can understand. He connects the dots between what elected officials have said in the past, what they are currently doing and their plans for the future. Tucker has a way of asking rhetorical questions that get viewers asking critical questions. That is why so many tune into his show.

The Current and Coming War with China

 

There was a time where there appeared to be a lot of hope for China and its relations with the West.  However, the current Chinese leadership has chosen a course so boldly and clearly, that, barring a major change in policy has put it on course for war with the West.

There was hope in the not so distant memory for China.  Economic openness was coming and the government, while essentially fascist rather than communist, for a long while turned at least a bit of the other cheek as Christianity exploded in that nation.  Some thought the explosion of Christianity, with economic freedom, would make a new day for China.  However, China chose another path in persecuting the church on a level not seen since Mao, tightening their controls on their people, and continuing their one child policy.

To embrace Christianity and classical liberalism would be to admit the fault of the slaughter in Tiananmen Square, a stretch for any thousands year old civilization let alone one that has yet to embrace the ethic of self-reflection, a prostrating nature, and forgiveness of others.

China, like many European nations, actively embraces secular leftism…with a healthy dose of retaining thousands of years of behavior regarding superiority and deception.  This its leaders did instead of choosing the entrepreneurial spirit and Christian life.  The one child policy of China, which mimics the embrace of abortion but on a more public scale, has only hurt China to where millions of naturally aggressive young men do not have the positive outlet of creation’s beauty that tames them in marriage.  When there are tens millions of more men than women of the same age in a nation, those men will strike out with vengeance.

It was to China’s own detriment to have made these choices for allowing Christianity and classical liberal economic and government policies would have not only ensured the survival of that nation but also led it to the predominant place in the world.  People in America take note.

Regarding war, those who say, “But there is so much to lose by a major war” are only partially correct.  There is much to lose for China in war with the West but that has seldom stopped an aggressor in the past, especially one that displays qualities of a dying nation.  Such fears of war did not even stop the nations of Europe as nation after nation piled into what became known as The Great War.  Human nature is quite frail and makes for a poor deity in stopping said nature.

Many will continue to criticize President Trump after he has left office but his contribution to the debate on China is already enshrined.  Before him, it was not much of a debate at all with politicians of all stripes talking tough about China but embracing, or rather cow towing, to China once in office.  It was the same regarding moving the American embassy to Jerusalem and a host of other issues.  Trump’s warnings about China were reminiscent of Churchill, though his critics and the establishment of his own party will never give him that credit.  Having someone in such great authority telling the truth about China and its ambitions is something we will miss sooner than we thought.

In many ways we already are at war with China, the most noticeable being cyber and economic.  Time will tell whether this war gets hotter.  Barring a course-altering event, such as the Islamic nations of the world teaming up against China to combat its persecution of the Uyghur and other Muslims, China’s war with the West will only get warmer.  Woe to any public figure who denies the reality that it is upon us.

Monday, December 14, 2020

When 2-Year-Olds Are Thrown Off Airplanes, You Know America Has Changed

You may have seen the video of the family thrown off a United Airlines airplane because the 2-year-old daughter would not wear a mask. Though the family wore masks and the father promised to cover his daughter's face with a mask that he placed on her face, it made no difference. Though the child was completely asymptomatic, and though it is exceedingly rare for a child to transmit COVID-19 to an adult -- that is why Sweden kept its schools open all spring and summer, with its students not wearing masks -- the airline had its orders, and the flight attendant duly obeyed them.

As I watched the video, I wondered what the flight attendant thought. For example, did he think this was absurd, not to mention cruel? Did he know that 2-year-olds present virtually no health risk? Did he wonder why adults can sit without masks inches from other passengers while eating but a 2-year-old seated only next to family needed a mask?

Or did he think he was performing a noble service in kicking a family off an airplane because their 2-year-old wouldn't wear a mask?

I hope he thought he was enforcing an idiotic rule and had no choice. Then there is hope for him and for America. Otherwise, he's an irrational automaton, among the scariest people in any society.

Does United Airlines think it's enforcing a rational and humane policy, regarding 2-year-olds as dangerous disease spreaders?

Here is what we can assume:

United Airlines has made the calculation that if it doesn't enforce every directive from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two bad things will result: 1) People will be too scared to fly United; 2) If anyone gets COVID-19 after a United flight on which a 2-year-old was allowed to fly without a mask, the airline will be sued.

Regarding children and mask-wearing, the CDC website states, "Masks should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2." The CDC capitalizes "NOT."

So, while the CDC is adamant children under the age of 2 must NOT wear a face mask, a child who just turned 2 constitutes a mortal danger to others on the plane -- and must be ejected from the plane if she just won't cover her face.

Welcome to America in 2020.

It is not overstated to declare the year 2020 the year it became legitimate to question whether America could still declare itself either "the Land of the Free" or "the Home of the Brave." Maybe it really is time to replace the national anthem with some other song that doesn't have us singing what so many of us no longer believe in. When half of America sings those words, they are no longer referring to themselves or what they want America to be. About half of us -- more or less, the half that voted Donald Trump for president -- still believes that America should be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. But half of us, including the entire elite-- the major media; the entire educational system from elementary school through graduate school; national, most state and all major city bureaucracies; and the Democratic Party -- neither value freedom nor seek to be brave.

When I see Americans walking outdoors with masks on, my first reaction is to mourn the death of reason and my second is to wonder what college they attended. Because one of the many other awful things colleges do to most of their students is make them afraid: afraid not only of dying if they pass another human being while walking their dog but also of dying from global warming, and afraid of any ideas not inculcated into them by their school. That's why they and most of their professors object to conservatives speaking at their school. To the brainwashed, different ideas are frightening and make them feel "unsafe" (hence, "safe spaces" at so many colleges).

When viruses killed the equivalent of about 165,000 Americans in 1968 and about 225,000 in 1957 (numbers adjusted based on the current U.S. population), healthy Americans did not quarantine; no one hid behind masks; no school closed; no store or restaurant went out of business. Why? Because people understood that viruses and death are tragic parts of life, and it never occurred to them to deprive children of their studies, their friends and their childhood. It didn't occur to Americans that because some people contracted a virus and died, 99% of the population should stop living and earning livelihoods. In that America, the news media were not singularly dedicated to frightening Americans. And most important, the left had not yet succeeded in ruining the country; after all, far fewer Americans went to college at that time, and high school and elementary school teachers still viewed their vocation as a call to teach, not indoctrinate.

All of this explains how we got to the place where United Airlines could throw a 2-year-old girl off an airplane while presumably half the passengers supported her eviction and the other half was cowed into silence.

Democrats stole the Nov. 3 election

 

While watching TV election returns after 10 p.m. on Nov. 3, you saw Democrats stealing an election. The media was reporting Trump was leading everywhere. Democrat vote counting centers stopped counting, dismissed poll watchers and started bringing in mail-in ballots.

Those ballots were packed 500 to a box addressed to counting centers. All were Biden only with no down ballot votes. Supervisors backdated or signed any not dated or signed. On Nov. 13, Trump's legal team has 923 “whistleblower” affidavits testifying to felony violations with time, date and names of vote thieves in five states.

Some whistleblowers are outraged Democrats.

From China, With Love

WASHINGTON -- Sanctimony is proving to be a bad look for Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., since Axios reported on his ties with a suspected Chinese spy. Fang Fang, also known as Christine Fang, insinuated herself with a number of up-and-coming U.S. politicians between 2011 and 2015. Swalwell was the biggest fish.

The Chinese national's efforts, Axios reported, included raising money for Swalwell's 2014 reelection campaign. Fang also helped place at least one intern in Swalwell's House office.

According to Axios, Swalwell did nothing wrong and was unaware Fang may have been working for Beijing until U.S. intelligence officials alerted him in 2015. Swalwell cut off all ties with Fang, who left the United States.

Problem: If you judge Swalwell by the standard he applied to President Donald Trump, he shouldn't hold public office. Swalwell frequently met with an operative of a foreign government who was helping his campaign. When Trump campaign dons had one meeting with a Russian national with ties to the Kremlin, Swalwell called that collusion.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report concluded Trump's campaign did not collude with Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference in the 2016 election. Didn't matter. Swalwell still saw "strong evidence of collusion."

Of course, House Republicans have started to demand that Swalwell surrender his seat on the House Intelligence Committee. As I write this, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no such concerns.

I wonder why a national security apparatus that did not warn Trump about Russian mischief in 2016, even after he won office, nonetheless did warn Intelligence Committee member Swalwell and other elected officials in Fang's orbit in 2015. And unlike the Russian probe, there were no press leaks at the time.

Swalwell's reaction to the Axios story has been telling. On CNN, the California Democrat argued the story initially was leaked as he was working to impeach Trump. (It took a year to report the story out.)

Swalwell is peddling a dangerous conceit -- that others seek to discredit him because he is so upright.

After railing against Russian mischief, Swalwell apparently believes China's meddling doesn't count as news.

Axios' Jonathan Swan scoffed at the suggestion the Trump team was behind the leak. "Does anybody remotely familiar with Trumpworld actually believe they would dump oppo & then spend *more than a year* waiting for the reporter -- a widely-respected China correspondent -- to report out a nuanced story?" Swan tweeted. "Give me a break. They would wait a week then launder it w a friendly."

Swalwell's office isn't talking, but sent me the statement sent to Axios: "Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person -- whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasn't seen in nearly six years -- to the FBI. To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story."


Swalwell used to be my congressman. I met him in 2012, apparently shortly after Fang, who was on the lookout for politicians with a future, befriended him.

In a daring move, the then-city councilman for Dublin, California, challenged entrenched but out-of-touch incumbent Rep. Pete Stark, a fellow Democrat whom Esquire rated among the 10 worst lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Swalwell won that David versus Goliath contest.

Within a decade, Swalwell ran for president -- briefly, as he got out of the Democratic primary in July 2019 -- even as he had to know this story would come out and he'd have to have better answers.

Now Swalwell is the politician who seems out of touch. He runs onto cable TV at the drop of the hat to condemn Trump for colluding with Russia, and it turns out he was an unwitting tool for China. So he ought to have a little humility.

 

Is a National Split Inevitable?

 

Is America “trending towards secession”? Conservative radio legend Rush Limbaugh got into some hot water last week for daring to attempt to answer that question. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably heard about it. From Media Matters to Geraldo Rivera to every left-of-center blue-check Twitter account, critics were basically accusing the legendary broadcaster of treason, even though he never explicitly endorsed the concept himself. 

It’s a far cry from only four years ago, of course, when the “Calexit” movement made news as a novel concept put forth by lovable, if a bit rambunctious, leftists frustrated at the election of Donald Trump. Obviously, when a liberal wants to secede, it’s perhaps a bit misguided but understandable, but when a conservative even broaches the topic, it’s a treasonous reintroduction of slavery, or something.

The blatant media double-standard notwithstanding, what should we make of Limbaugh’s observations?

“I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,” Limbaugh said Wednesday, responding to a question from a listener about conservatives being able to win national elections after Trump. “I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York, especially if you’re talking about votes?”

“There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs,” he continued. “We can’t be in this dire of a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way. I know that there’s a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that that is where we’re headed whether we want to or not.”

Limbaugh later in that particular monologue and also the next day made it abundantly clear that his preference is to “find a way to unite and win.” It’s certainly my preference too, but then again our generations and those before it grew up in an America where Manifest Destiny, the concept that the United States’ growth from the Atlantic to the Pacific was justified and inevitable, was praised in history class as a noble thing. I remember studying each acquisition, from the Louisiana Purchase to the Mexican Cession to the purchase of Alaska, as amazing, hard-fought, and even miraculous wins for the Good Guys. The left now views them as something else entirely, but I don’t care. The thought of ceding any of this land, won fair and square over many decades with the blood, sweat, and tears of our ancestors, to a bunch of godless communists hellbent on destroying everything they touch is anathema to every fiber of my being.

Even so, Limbaugh is obviously correct about the ongoing cultural divide. Many have argued that this country has been experiencing a bloodless “civil war” for years, one between producers and takers, between freedom-lovers and those who would invoke tyranny to accomplish their evil ends. The difference could not be more evidenced by the divide between the 75 million who voted for Trump versus the (allegedly) 80 million-plus who voted for Biden. On every major issue, from policing to tax policy to immigration to judicial activism to the Second Amendment to abortion to whether or not there are 16 genders, the difference is night and day. “How can these people be so ignorant?” each side asks while looking at the other side like they’ve got three eyes and two noses.

Several years ago, Dr. John Gottman proved unequivocally that one behavior had an astoundingly predictive effect on whether or not a marriage would last. That behavior is “contempt.” 

“Contempt is fueled by long-simmering negative thoughts about one’s partner, and it arises in the form of an attack on someone’s sense of self,” Gottman writes. “Inevitably, contempt leads to more conflict—particularly dangerous and destructive forms of conflict—rather than to reconciliation. It’s virtually impossible to resolve a problem when your partner is getting the message that you’re disgusted with them and that you’re condescending and acting as their superior.”

Sound familiar? If "contempt" isn’t right smack dab in the middle of the ongoing political and cultural wars, I don’t know what is. All of which leaves two key questions: 1.) If America is already split apart ideologically, will geography eventually follow? And 2.) If a geographical split happens at some point, is it possible to do so peacefully?

In a section of his book titled, “American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup,” George Mason University School of Law professor F.H. Buckley argues that such a split could occur, constitutionally even, with no bloodshed at all. 

“Instead of the Civil War, think of the ‘velvet divorce’ of the Czechs and Slovaks in 1993,” Buckley writes. “Distinct in religion, language and culture, they had been combined in a country created in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Slovaks were conservative and agricultural while the Czechs liked avant-garde plays and rock music. Czechoslovakia suffered through Nazi and Soviet rule, and then split apart into Slovakia and the Czech Republic upon the fall of communism. The two new countries, both Western and liberal, solved questions about their border, the division of assets and assumption of public debt through negotiation, and they’ve since maintained the friendliest of relations.”

Buckley argues that since the stakes “have been lowered” significantly since the 1860s when secession meant the literal continued enslavement of millions, such a measure indeed could be a “reasonable way to resolve unbridgeable partisan differences.”


Expect more talk of secession coming from the right, especially if the radical socialists win those two Georgia Senate seats and go on to pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, and jam through every leftist wet dream from defunding the police to the Green New Deal. Already, the chairman of the Texas Republican Party is on board, and a Twitter poll (real "science," I know) from conservative writer Matt Walsh with 52,000 respondents showed over 60 percent agreeing to “support a plan to break up the United States so that the Left and Right can live in separate countries.” 

Now that they’ve won electorally, of course, the left stands firmly on the side of unity, at least for the time being. Such talk is “treason” now, don’t you know, not because they ever had any respect for America’s borders and the freedom residing therein, but because they need producers, taxpayers, serfs to work their newfound socialist utopia. You see, their vision of America is more Panem than City on a Hill, and it takes a whole lot of proletarians to keep the elites – of which they fully intend to be a part – fat, comfortable, and happy in their walled-off enclaves. No, it’s not like pre-1865 chattel slavery, but it’s servitude nonetheless, and it’s something the left is surely willing to go to war to keep. (And yes, I’m aware of all the levels of irony).

A national split in my lifetime would be an awful, painful thing to see, even if it happened without bloodshed. It would, however, be far preferable to living under a Democratic Socialist, one-party state. While most Americans right now truly aren’t wishing for any sort of hot OR cold civil war, national divorce, or even peaceful separation, it’s hard not to see something along those lines on the horizon if things keep going the way they’re going. Admitting this isn’t ‘treason,’ it’s reality.

Tuesday, December 08, 2020

What Biden's First 100 Days Might Look Like

 

The Biden-Harris administration will confront "a pandemic, an economic crisis, calls for racial justice and climate change. The team being assembled will meet these challenges on Day One."

So declares the transition team of Joe Biden, to echo what he's defined as the lead items on his presidential agenda. And if this is his agenda, then how our presumed 46th president will proceed suggests itself.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now close to its apex, with a million new cases and a death toll in excess of 10,000 each week. We appear to be near the crest of the "second wave."

Biden's emphasis, as he has signaled, will be on slowing down the spread of the virus by universal masking and locking up and shutting down sectors of the American economy.

Yet, even as the worst of the pandemic appears directly ahead in December and January, the last six weeks of Donald Trump's presidency, the light at the end of the tunnel may be sighted within Biden's first 100 days.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which have proven 90-95% effective against the virus, begin to come on line this month. By the end of Biden's first 100 days, May 1, the beneficial effect of scores of millions of vaccinations should be visible to all, and the pandemic should be seen as irretrievably receding.

At least, that is the hope and expectation. And the media would naturally attribute the new dawn not to the triumph of Trump's Operation Warp Speed but to the new president.

Biden's response to the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will almost surely be along the lines of what Congress is now debating, contingent upon whether Mitch McConnell is prepared to accept what comes over from the House.

A trillion-dollar package seems baked in the cake, as the country would not long tolerate congressional inaction if the pandemic were still raging through the population as it is today.

As for racial inequality, the pandemic has exposed, deepened and widened it. The surge in shootings and killings in major cities during the pandemic is hitting the Black communities hardest.

The decline in test scores at schools where kids have been kept away from formal classes since March is most pronounced among minorities. Black and Hispanic workers in service industries are a disproportionate share of the victims of the pandemic.

If half a century of social progress after the civil rights revolution of the '60s and eight years of the first Black president have failed to reduce racial disparities in income, wealth, employment and incarcerations, does anyone believe Joe Biden has the solution?

As for climate change, John Kerry, the new climate czar, will begin his tenure after a year of the deepest reductions in carbon emissions in recorded history.

By Dec. 31, U.S. carbon emissions will have fallen 9% from the end of 2019. Emissions from cars and aircraft fell 4% in 2020, from power 2.8%, and from industry .6%. On the flip side, forest fires reduced the 9% cut in carbon emissions by fully one-third.

Yet, it is in foreign policy where the traps appear.

The drawdown in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, to 2,500 by Jan. 15, will leave us with the smallest contingent since the U.S. plunged into that country to remake it more in our image in 2001.

And the troop drawdown comes at a time when the Taliban control the largest swath of Afghan territory since being overthrow 19 years ago. The possibility of a collapse in Kabul, chaos ensuing and the country disintegrating early in a Biden presidency cannot be ruled out.

Would Biden be willing to preside over an American defeat similar to that in Vietnam in 1975?

But the truly formidable challenge for a President Biden will be China, which is not the China of 2016 that Vice President Biden recalls.

While the U.S. refuses to recognize China's claims to disputed islets in the East and the South China Seas and has committed itself to defend the Japanese and Philippine claims, Beijing has not backed away from its claims and, indeed, has grown increasingly bellicose in making them.

The U.S. has also been thickening ties to Taiwan.

Yet, what many Americans see as a democratic island of 25 million whose defense is a moral obligation and strategic necessity, China sees as a breakaway province, and signals in every way that it would fight a war rather than let Taiwan go.

These issues are likely to be decided in this decade. And it is hard to see how the U.S., 7,000 miles away, with a slowly shrinking share of the world's economic and military power, would prevail indefinitely over a China that has the advantages of proximity and population, and whose power is steadily rising in relative terms to that of the United States.

The Many Layers of the Deep State

 

1. Ignorant Youth – A blameless group indoctrinated to either hate America or over-focus on her faults. Students rarely hear about the greatness of America and what we've done for the world, let alone our own citizens. These youth eventually join the Democrat/progressive machine that seeks to rewrite our history and to make our populace subjects of the state and not much more.

2. Brainwashed Teachers – Today, teachers from kindergarten to grade 12, invariably lean left. Those who graduated college in the last 20 years were indoctrinated by activist professors. Veteran teachers have had to endure ‘white fragility’ re-education lectures, hear that they are guilty by virtue of their physiology, and learn that sucking up  to the cause leads to redemption. Yay, BLM and Antifa!

3. College Professors – Above 90% of college professors vote Democrat year after year. No good comes from this level of conformity; diversity of political thought on campus is not tolerated. The few professors who lean right keep a low profile, as to not make waves, and do not discuss issues with their indoctrinated academic peers.

4. University Committees – Individual professors could be autonomous if not for the academic committees and higher ups: deans, provosts, chancellors, department heads, directors, regents, etc. Group think infects campuses everywhere; bone-headed resolutions appear everywhere, from Berkeley to Cambridge. Students and the larger community are told, say, that Israel is evil and, "We must divest from Israel." "Republicans are evil," part of the great unwashed. We tolerate them, but not for long.

5. Rank and File Government Workers – At the local, state, or federal level, those entering government learn that surviving requires one to toe the line. Merely walking the halls, standing in elevators, and being in earshot of their peers reinforces the Democrat/progressive/liberal/socialist party line. The rank and file on all levels overwhelmingly vote and donate to Democrats. 

6. Agency Heads – Cabinet secretaries, under secretaries, deputy directors, legal counsel, and other long-term, high-ranking GS level bureaucrats rule Washington. These people, primarily Democrats, also some Republicans, have been in office for too long and represent the essence of the swamp. Beyond the administrative, judicial, and legislative branches of government, they know that the ‘fourth branch’ is their own bureaucracy. Agencies can slow walk any program, document, or mandated action for months or years, for what should have taken days or weeks.

7. Lobbyists – These swamp creatures aren't officially part of government; they are paid by advocacy groups to influence elected officials. Lobbyists from the left, right, and middle are highly compensated to advocate for a cause, often contrary to the effective functioning of democracy.

8. The Court System – Judges in America wield great power. While the Trump Administration placed 300+ district-level judges, there are over 370 more judgeships across America. Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench, yet they do. Impacted by the mainstream media, even conservatives judges are coaxed into the middle, if not the left (See Justice John Roberts). 

9. Politicians – From senators, to representatives, to governors, all the way down, even many in the GOP, embrace socialist doctrine in one form or another. Dislodging 20 to 30 year swamp creatures, or in the case of Joe Biden, 47 years, is a huge task. They feed from the gravy train of inside information. No one wants to depart because the rewards are lucrative. Their loyalty isn't to any president or party, but to what keeps them in office and feeling ultra-important while doing so (see Mitt Romney).

10. Three Letter Agencies – The alphabet soup group includes the FBI, NSA, CIA, IRS, DoJ, EPA, SBA, etc. The infiltration of swamp creatures within them is vast and deep. These agencies are often headed by two-faced leaders who are corrupt in private and virtuous in public. Their deputies and staff are often far worse.


11. Technocrat Kings – The billionaire boys club seeks to rule the world. Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, etc. each believe that they’re God’s moral gifts to humanity. They lean left because embracing socialism helps decimate America and supposedly leads to a “one-world global government,” led by enlightened leaders, (such as billionaires) who become the elite ruling class while everyone else becomes a serf.

12. Globalist Visionaries – You could hardly call George Soros a visionary, he's more demented than anything. He is among the global scoundrels who fervently believe in dissolving all nations and all borders. Then, one grand “Central Authority” will prevail with themselves at the very top. This vision fuels the American Left, including the dimwits in BLM, and Antifa, who barely know why they riot, but figure it's got something to do with a ‘global vision.’

Swamp Fans

Other entities and groups keep the swamp in place – unions that benefit from Democrat capitulation, recipients of government largesse including welfare, non-profit associations, quasi-government groups, community groups, and all others who believe that government ought to take care of everything, including themselves.

Congressman Eric Swalwell in trouble

 

UPDATE: Not only did the spy fundraise for Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell, she was also sleeping with him. 

***Original post***

A Chinese Communist Party intelligence operative successfully infiltrated a number of Democrat congressional campaigns in California and even served as a fundraising bundler for Congressman Eric Swalwell. Axios has the scoop

A Chinese national named Fang Fang or Christine Fang, targeted up-and-coming local politicians in the Bay Area and across the country who had the potential to make it big on the national stage.

Through campaign fundraising, extensive networking, personal charisma, and romantic or sexual relationships with at least two Midwestern mayors, Fang was able to gain proximity to political power, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials and one former elected official.

Among the most significant targets of Fang's efforts was Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Fang took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official. Swalwell’s office was directly aware of these activities on its behalf, the political operative said. That same political operative, who witnessed Fang fundraising on Swalwell's behalf, found no evidence of illegal contributions.

U.S. officials believe Fang's real reason for being in the U.S was to gather political intelligence and to influence rising U.S. officials on China-related issues.

Fang also made serious inroads with Democrats Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard and Swalwell both ran for president in the last election cycle.

Chinese espionage and influence campaigns are a serious, increasing national security threat.  In 2018, it was revealed a longtime driver for Senator Dianne Feinstein was a spy. His work for her spanned two decades and while she was the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 


The Chinese spy was Feinstein’s driver who also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community.

SHe even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator.

Former FBI agent and KPIX 5 security analyst Jeff Harp said he was not surprised.

“Think about Diane Feinstein and what she had access to,” said Harp. “One, she had access to the Chinese community here in San Francisco; great amount of political influence. Two, correct me if I’m wrong, Dianne Feinstein still has very close ties to the intelligence committees there in Washington, D.C.”


Saturday, December 05, 2020

Trump Pulls Most US Troops Out of Somalia

 

President Trump ordered a majority of U.S. troops to withdraw from Somalia by early next year, the Pentagon said Friday.

“The U.S. is not withdrawing or disengaging from Africa. We remain committed to our African partners and enduring support through a whole-of-government approach,” the Department of Defense said.

There are approximately 700 troops in the country to assist with the fight against terror group al-Shabaab.  

“While a change in force posture, this action is not a change in U.S. policy. We will continue to degrade violent extremist organizations that could threaten our homeland while ensuring we maintain our strategic advantage in great power competition,” the DoD statement continued.

The Pentagon said some of the forces will be relocated to neighboring countries, like Kenya, “to allow cross-border operations by both U.S. and partner forces to maintain pressure against violent extremist organizations operating in Somalia” while others could be reassigned outside of East Africa. 

“The U.S. will retain the capability to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations in Somalia, and collect early warnings and indicators regarding threats to the homeland,” the Pentagon said. 

The move comes after Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller announced last month the U.S. would be scaling down troops levels to 2,500 in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

“This decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security cabinet over the past several months, including ongoing discussions with me and my colleagues across the United States government,” Miller said. “I have also spoken with our military commanders and we all will execute this repositioning in a way that protects our fighting men and women, our partners in the intelligence community and diplomatic corps, and our superb allies that are critical to rebuilding Afghan and Iraqi security capabilities and civil society for a lasting peace in troubled lands.”

Thursday, December 03, 2020

Jennifer Granholm

 

  1. Jennifer M. Granholm was the Democratic Governor of Michigan from January 1, 2003 – January 1, 2011. She was succeeded by Republican Rick Snyder.

    Background

    Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, and is an honors graduate of both the University of California at Berkeley and Harvard Law School. She and her husband, Daniel G. Mulhern, have three children.[1]

    Honoring Millie Jeffrey

    On May 15, 2004, the Michigan Democratic Party held their annual Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner. At the dinner an iron sculpture representing equality, created by Wayne State University students was presented to the family of Millie Jeffrey. Jeffrey was a founder-leader of the Democratic Socialists of America. MDP Chair Melvin Hollowell stated that the Lifetime Achievement Award was given in tribute to "Millie's wonderful and enduring legacy of fighting for the equal rights of all people, particularly women." U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick and Governor Jennifer Granholm presented the award. The keynote speaker was former U.S. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt.[2]

    Obama "Transition Team"

    Granholm Obama.jpg

    In late 2008, Jennifer Granholm served on the Obama Economic Transition Team. Granholm was a strong advocate for federal aid to the automobile industry.[3]

    Political career

    Jennifer Granholm was elected governor of Michigan in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. She began her career in public service as a judicial clerk for Michigan's 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. She became a federal prosecutor in Detroit in 1990, and in 1994, she was appointed Wayne County Corporation Counsel. Granholm was elected Michigan's first female attorney general in 1998.

    Granholm serves as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee and is co-chair of the Health Care Task Force of the National Governors Association, and is chair of the Midwestern Governors Association.[4]

    Promoting the Van Jones vision

    Granholm and Jones, National Summit, 2009

    Gov. Jennifer Granholm took to the stage of the National Summit in Detroit in June 2009 predicting a green future for her state as a way to "replace a good chunk of those lost auto jobs."

    She repeated her oft-quoted statement that Michigan has "great bones" on which to build a green economy -- winds, waters, work force and work ethic, along with great research universities. She said Michigan's thousands of miles of freshwater coastlines are a natural home for wind power -- which for efficiency's sake should be built here too.

    Even Michigan's deep underground cave system, she said, heretofore used commercially only to store natural gas, could have a green future as a home for sequestered carbon dioxide.

    The final speaker in the open session was Van Jones, special advisor for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

    Jones said the good news was that "despite all the challenges, the real economic pain, the real ecological concern, there is a solution that will put people back to work that respects what our scientists tell us about the planet cookin'."

    The bad news, he said, "is that you're it -- our business leaders and institutions. We will have to invent our way out of this crisis. We cannot drill and burn our way out of it, and we cannot bureaucratize our way out of it."[5]

    Michigan Summit

    In May 2010, former Obama "Green Jobs Czar" and long time Marxist activist Van Jones was keynote speaker at The Michigan Summit, an annual "progressive" conference held in East Lansing on June 12th. The Summit is where people "join with savvy policy wonks, leading lawmakers, student scholars, movement professionals and hard working activists in confronting Michigan's toughest challenges with solutions that work for Michigan's families and communities." In a promotional e-mail, the Granholm Leadership Fund (GLF) said, "Jones' message is vital to remaking our economy so we all share in the prosperity, not just the privileged few."

    The Michigan Summit is sponsored by both major Michigan teachers unions (AFT Michigan and the Michigan Education Association), Michigan National Organization for Women, Michigan Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan, and others.

    GLF is a political action committee started by the governor in 2003 that raises money for "state and local candidates and other activities that build the Michigan Democratic Party and help the governor invest in the people and the policies that put Michigan first."[6]

    Relationship to socialist Millie Jeffrey

    Millie Jeffrey with Governor Jennifer Granholm the night of her primary victory, August 6, 2002

    On Millie Jeffrey's death in March 2004, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (described as Jeffrey's "protégé"), called her “our butterfly.” She was referring to the “butterfly effect”, a scientific theory which says that the smallest change in one part of the world can result in history-altering events someplace else.

    “She whipped up change in countless corners of our world and helped write entire chapters in the story of our nation and our state. She gave women across the globe – including me – a voice in politics and policy. And for an entire lifetime, she stood next to giants – Walter Reuther, Eleanor Roosevelt and Bobby Kennedy – and cast her own mighty shadow,” Granholm said.[7]

    Jeffrey was active in the elections of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and Michigan's first female governor,Jennifer Granholm.[8]

    "Passing the Torch"

    In celebration of Women’s History Month in March 2006, the Michigan Veteran Feminists of America presented the documentary Passing the Torch on March 25 on PBS (WTVS, Channel 56).

    The documentary, narrated by Lily Tomlin, explored Michigan women’s motivations to participate in "one of the most profound social movements of the 20th Century."

    Detroit-area feminists were active in the women’s movement of the late ’60s and early ’70s, and they joined the national VFA organization in the fall of 2000 to ensure the gains that they helped to make on behalf of women remain in place today. Through interviews and oral histories, the documentary recalls the struggles of these engaging activists to establish domestic violence shelters, pass legislation to promote more accessible child care and gain reproductive rights.

    Luminaries such as former Michigan First Lady Helen Milliken, Erma Henderson, the first African American woman elected to the Detroit City Council, UAW executive Millie Jeffrey, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Governor Jennifer Granholm "reminisce about the protest marches, consciousness raising sessions and the excitement they felt when opening doors that had been closed to women."[9]

    Helped by socialist Elizabeth Bunn

    Democratic Socialists of America member Elizabeth Bunn was the creator of the UAW's Woman-to-Woman campaign that helped elect Senator Debbie Stabenow in 2000 and Governor Jennifer Granholm in 2002.[10]

    EMILY's List

    Granholm was supported by EMILY's List during her campaigning.

    Democratic Party Super Delegates

    In February 2008 Michigan Democratic Party Super Delegates were;[[11]

    Charles Brown Mon, 25 Feb 2008

    Celebrating American Moslem Society

    Thirteen years of fund-raising and five years of bricks-and-mortar work have doubled the size of the oldest mosque in Michigan. The $1.8 million expansion of the American Moslem Society was with a banquet celebrated Friday May 15 2009. Gov. Jennifer Granholm. U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Dearborn Mayor Michael Guido and other officials and dignitaries attended, joining Detroit-area Muslims who trace their roots to Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and other countries. Keynote speaker was Dr. Jamal Badawi. "Everyone is accepted, here," Mahdi Ali, president of the society, told The Detroit News for a Wednesday story. "Please tell people that even if you are not Muslim, please come here on any day. And if you are just curious about Islam, come and sit in the new library and read our books in Arabic and English and Spanish for Muslims and non-Muslims and watch some of our videos.[12]

    The Justice Caucus

    Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Paul Stevenson, Administrative Co-Chair of The Justice Caucus

    At the 2010 Michigan Democratic Party Convention on August 28, 2010, The Justice Caucus awarded Granholm the "Spirit of Millie Award" honoring her contribution to Michigan's judiciary via judicial appointments. Granholm also delivered a speech at the convention on the subject of "My vision of justice".[13]

    Endorsed MichUHCAN

    As at Feb. 1, 2011, Governor Jennifer Granholm was listed as an endorser and ongoing supporter of MichUHCAN's Health Care Security Campaign Coalition.[14] The Michigan Universal Health Care Access Network is a state-wide network that promotes comprehensive health care for all and improved health outcomes by addressing the social determinants of health through education, strategy development and advocacy. The leadership of MichUHCAN is heavily dominated by members of Democratic Socialists of America.[15]

    Democrats for Public Education

    An energized resistance to ongoing attacks on education was on display at 2014's American Federation of Teachers national convention Los Angeles, July 11-14. Under the theme of "Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education," speakers and more than 3,500 delegates pledged to rebuff attacks by corporate forces on teachers, while also vowing to bring back equity in higher education for students and faculty.

    Political strategist Donna Brazile, self-described in her address as a "labor Democrat," teaches at Georgetown University and is presently organizing her fellow part-time faculty adjuncts into a union.

    Brazile described the recent Vergara v. California decision as "perverse," in its ruling that teacher tenure violates the civil rights of children. Social and economic inequality are the result of bad policies that have resulted in 22% of children living today under the federal poverty line, Brazile reported.

    "As a lifelong Democrat I am ashamed by attempts by some within in my own party ... who are trying to undermine public schools under the guise of reform," Brazile said. "Let me state this bluntly: the assault on public education is an assault on the principles of democracy and the foundation of our country."

    Brazile introduced Democrats for Public Education, a new organization to counter Democrats for Education Reform and other billionaire-funded organizations that pour money into charters and laws rolling back union protections. Former Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio and former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan will be working in partnership with Brazile in the new organization.[16]

    CAIR

    “It has been a pleasure working with the Council over the years to further our mutual understanding, and I look forward to continuing our progress in the years to come.” - former Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm (D) (March 2010).[17]

    External links

    References


  2. [1] Official biography, accessed june 2, 2010

  3. Wayne State University: Michigan Democratic Party taps Wayne State University for tribute sculpture to Mildred Jeffrey, May 5, 2004 (accessed on Feb. 24, 2011)

  4. [2] CQ Politics Blog November 10, 2008, accessed June 2, 2010

  5. [3] Official biography, accessed june 2, 2010

  6. [4] Great Lakes IT Report, Matt Roush, June 16, 2009

  7. [5] Michigan Capitol confidential , by Jarrett Skorup, may 26, 2010

  8. [6] CBS News Opinion, Thoroughly Marvelous Millie CBS' Lynch Reflects On The Life Of Activist Mildred McWilliams Jeffrey March 29, 2004

  9. [7] Millie jeffrey facebook page, accessed june 2, 2010

  10. [8] News from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Fall 2006

  11. Huffington Post DNC Michigan Superdelegates, Posted February 28, 2008

  12. http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg04301.html [Marxism-Thaxis] Democratic meltdown looming]

  13. [ Old Islam in Detroit: Rediscovering the Muslim American Past By Sally Howell]

  14. [http://www.justice4michigan.org/node/76 Justice 4 Michigan: Justice Caucus to Honor Governor Granholm's Contribution to Michigan Judiciary, August 20, 2011)

  15. MichUHCAN: MI Health Care Security Campaign Coalition (accessed on Feb. 1, 2011)

  16. MichUHCAN: About Us (accessed on Feb. 1, 2011)

  17. AFT meet, energized resistance to attacks on education by: MICHELLE KERN july 17 2014

  18. [https://www.cair.com/images/pdf/What-They-Say-About-CAIR.pdf What They Say About CAIR (October 2014)