zee on Are nastiness and vindictivene… Sassy on Nasrallah, speaking from his b… Sassy on Today in worse than useless… Jay on Nasrallah, speaking from his b… Jay on Former Comey FBI General Couns…
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
Monthly Archives: January 2022
People in Ontario haven’t repeatedly endured some of the world’s most severe and longest pandemic lockdowns because of the unvaccinated.
As of Saturday, 82.16% of the eligible population in Ontario had been fully vaccinated, slightly higher than the national average of 81.86%, and Canadians are among the most vaccinated people in the world.
The lockdowns keep happening because of the almost non-existent surge capacity of Ontario hospitals, a problem that has been known about for decades and which governments of all political stripes ignored.
A Japanese conglomerate has found that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin is effective and safe for the treatment of the coronavirus Omicron variant, according to a phase III clinical trial.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reportedly fled his residence at Rideau Cottage this morning, sneaking past a small fringe minority of 50,000 racist truckers while wearing the perfect disguise: blackface.
Having already established his cowardice by fleeing Ottawa before the arrival of the truck convoy, Justin Trudeau now proves the wisdom of the ancient observation that bullies are often cowards. Rather than address the demand that vaccination mandates for truckers who cross the U.S. border back into Canada be suspended, Trudeau is flipping the bird and escalating
Holy fuck: The View Hosts Clash with Whoopi Goldberg After She Claims ‘The Holocaust isn’t About Race’
Whoopi Golberg clashed with The View co-hosts after she claimed that “the Holocaust isn’t about race,” while discussing book censorship in schools.
The hosts pointed Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel Maus, noting that a Tennessee school district removed it from their curriculum.
“This was the plan with these anti-history laws that started being passed. These CRT — alleged CRT laws — started being passed,” Sunny Hostin said of the progression of censorship in schools. “I don’t think people saw far enough into the future. You start banning discussions about race, and then you start banning discussions about the Holocaust, then you start banning discussions about the LGBTQ community. That’s where it started, and this was all very planned in my view.”
Hostin went on to condemn parents who have taken issue with discussions of race because it makes their children “uncomfortable,” arguing that discomfort can help students learn how to empathize with others.
“If you teach a white kid what happened to his friend who happens to be black, he might feel terrible about what happened. That doesn’t mean he feels bad that he did something,” Joy Behar added. “This is the confusion they’re creating I believe.”
Sara Haines went on to highlight colleges and universities, pointing to a conversation The View hosts had with Van Jones, in which he argued that students should be prepared for pushback on their beliefs.
“If you’re going to do this, then let’s be truthful about it, because the Holocaust isn’t about race,” Goldberg added, prompting some confusion from her fellow hosts. “No. It’s not about race.”
When Behar noted that Nazis “considered Jews a different race,” Goldberg continued to insist that the Holocaust was not about race and instead about “man’s inhumanity to man.”
“But it’s about White supremacy,” Navarro pushed back, also noting that Nazis targeted Romas and other demographics.
Goldberg went on to say that the Holocaust was about “two White groups of people,” prompting Haines to emphasize that World War II Nazis did not see Jewish people as White.
“But you’re missing the point. You’re missing the point. The minute you turn it into race, it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s how people treat each other. That’s the problem. It doesn’t matter if you are Black or White, because Black, White, Jews, Italians, everybody eats each other,” Goldberg continued.
“So is it — if you are uncomfortable if you hear about Maus, should you be worried — should your child say, oh my God, I wonder if that’s me? No. That’s not what they’re going to say. They’re going to say, I don’t want to be like that.”
Three military doctors say medical billing code data captured by Defense Medical Epidemiology Database shows sharp spikes in miscarriages, myocarditis, cancer diagnoses, Bell’s palsy, female infertility.
According to the data found by the military doctors, there was also a nearly 300% increase in cancer diagnoses, from a 38,700-per-year average in 2016-2020 to 114,645 in 2021.
Imagine for a moment what might happen if an oil company – say, Exxon Mobil or Chevron – announced plans to put dozens of offshore drilling platforms on the Eastern Seaboard, smack in the middle of where endangered North Atlantic right whales congregate. If that were to happen, it’s easy to imagine that America’s biggest environmental groups would express their outrage and immediately begin filing lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other federal rules to protect the whales and stop the industrialization of their habitat.
Enough for the imagining. Let’s cut to the reality of the proposed 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project, which aims to do just this: put dozens of offshore wind platforms smack in the middle of where endangered North Atlantic right whales congregate.
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation did not raise a single penny for the first six years of its existence. It couldn’t.
The foundation wasn’t even registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a charity. But after George Floyd’s murder in May of 2020, tens of millions of dollars were given to this organization from major corporations and celebrities. And now, no one even knows where all that money has gone. Even worse, there doesn’t appear to be anyone in charge of the organization who can provide that information.
New York actor and comedian Michael Rapaport posted another online video Sunday from his local Rite Aid on the Upper East Side — this time saying the store is closing down because of incessant shoplifting.
The post was an update to a video Rapaport put on Instagram last week flipping out about a purported shoplifter brazenly walking out of the Manhattan Rite Aid with bags full of stolen goods.
A grand jury subpoena was issued 17 months before the 2020 election for Hunter Biden’s bank transactions involving the Bank of China, a corruption watchdog has found, raising concerns that damaging material about then-candidate Joe Biden was hidden from voters.
Video: Participants of the Freedom Convoy picked up trash following Saturday’s huge protest at Parliament Hill in Ottawa
As police were abandoning East Precinct, Seattle officials drafted plan to give station to a Black Lives Matter group
At the height of Seattle’s racial justice protests in 2020, then-Mayor Jenny Durkan’s administration drafted legislation to transfer the Police Department’s East Precinct building to a Black Lives Matter activist organization and researched relocating the station’s operations, newly released documents show.
That June, as cops lobbed tear gas from behind barricades, and protesters on the streets surrounding the precinct called for the Police Department to be defunded, Durkan’s office behind the scenes briefly contemplated handing over the multimillion dollar property that had become the focus of the demonstrations.
Enes Kanter Freedom Posts List of NBA Players Sponsored by Chinese Companies with Ties to Slave Labor
For far too long, NBA players who enjoy lucrative overseas contracts with Chinese athletic apparel manufacturers using slave labor have mainly remained anonymous.
Good Lord: “Before I told my friends at Warner Bros about my desire to leave the SPOTIFY platform, I was reminded by my own legal forces that contractually I did not have control of my music to do that.”
Black Lives Matter transferred millions to a Canadian charity run by the wife of its co-founder to purchase a sprawling mansion that had once served as the headquarters of the Communist Party, public records show.
M4BJ, a Toronto-based non-profit set up by Janaya Khan and other Canadian activists, snagged the 10,000 square foot historic property for the equivalent of $6.3 million in cash in July 2021, according to Toronto property records viewed by The Post.
Khan is the wife of Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter Global Foundation Network and a self-avowed Marxist.
She resigned from the group last year, a month after The Post revealed that she had spent $3.2 million on homes in Georgia and Los Angeles. Khan-Cullors vigorously denied that BLM donations were used to buy the homes.
The purchase of the Toronto property, named the Wildseed Centre for Art and Activism, came to light amid mounting concerns over the US activist group’s lack of transparency in its finances.
In Canada, the purchase was criticized by two senior members of the group who resigned earlier this month over the building’s funding.
“For BLM Canada to take money from BLM Global Network for a building without consulting the community was unethical,” tweeted Sarah Jama earlier this month. “For BLM Canada to refuse to answer questions from young black organizers goes against the spirit of movement building.”
“They’re not looking for, you know, leaders to be clones. There’s a strategic concept they use that loosely translated means ‘big help with a little bad mouth,’ and what that basically means is, you know, if somebody says occasionally things about the Uyghurs or about human rights, they may get irritated about it, but that’s not a big deal. What they want the elites to do is ensure that they get access to Western capital, and they get access to Western technology. And as long as the elected officials and corporate executives don’t interfere on that, they’re very happy to help these elites get rich, because they’re helping them in such an important way,”
“The Government of Canada is… working hard to establish a ‘January 6th narrative’ whereby they will claim that the convoy is attempting to overthrow the state and then respond with both targeted and mass arrests”
UK: Children as young as seven are to be told they are not ‘racially innocent’ because they view ‘white at the top of the hierarchy’
Greenwald: The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship
American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by “liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).
For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of “hate speech” to mean “views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech.” Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.
Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.
When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont’s heating system and Putin’s sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being “Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is “disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID’s origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.
This “disinformation” term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of “disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.
The data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.
Democratic officials have used the pretexts of COVID, “the insurrection,” and Russia to justify their censorship demands. Both Joe Biden and his Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, have “urged” Silicon Valley to censor more when asked about Joe Rogan and others who air what they call “disinformation” about COVID. They cheered the use of pro-prosecutor tactics against Michael Flynn and other Russiagate targets; made a hero out of the Capitol Hill Police officer who shot and killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt; voted for an additional $2 billion to expand the functions of the Capitol Police; have demanded and obtained lengthy prison sentences and solitary confinement even for non-violent 1/6 defendants; and even seek to import the War on Terror onto domestic soil.
Given the climate prevailing in the American liberal faction, this authoritarianism is anything but surprising. For those who convince themselves that they are not battling mere political opponents with a different ideology but a fascist movement led by a Hitler-like figure bent on imposing totalitarianism — a core, defining belief of modern-day Democratic Party politics — it is virtually inevitable that they will embrace authoritarianism. When a political movement is subsumed by fear — the Orange Hitler will put you in camps and end democracy if he wins again — then it is not only expected but even rational to embrace authoritarian tactics including censorship to stave off this existential threat. Fear always breeds authoritarianism, which is why manipulating and stimulating that human instinct is the favorite tactic of political demagogues.
A public city school teacher posted an Instagram story Saturday that appeared to encourage violence against police mourning the murder of detective Jason Rivera, drawing outrage from members of New York’s Finest.
Christopher Flanigan, who teaches math at Coney Island Prep in Brooklyn according to his LinkedIn page, posted an overhead shot of thousands of officers lining Fifth Avenue for Rivera’s funeral Friday St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The post was captioned, “5/30/20: NYPD SUV drives into a crowd of protestors. Ideal conditions for reciprocity.”
The incident Flanigan referenced happened in the wake of the George Floyd police murder, when an NYPD vehicle drove through a group of Brooklyn protestors that were demonstrating the Minnesota man’s death.
Then-Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said cops did not use the vehicle in a forceful manner. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio called footage of the incident “troubling” but also blamed protestors for not moving out of the way. No injuries were reported.
Flanigan — who was profiled by NY1 for his musical tributes to first responders in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic — was reached by The Post by phone Saturday night, but abruptly hung up before he could be asked about the content on his private Instagram account, which was shared with officers by a concerned follower, sources said.
Police officers who learned of the teacher’s IG story were upset that he apparently advocated another unprovoked attack on officers that were mourning a colleague that was ambushed during a domestic call.
A New York City actress was fired from her theater company for mouthing off about the inconvenience of street closures for slain cop Jason Rivera’s funeral — a vile online rant she quickly deleted after it went viral.
“We do not need to shut down most of Lower Manhattan because one cop died for probably doing his job incorrectly. They kill people who are under 22 every single day for no good reason and we don’t shut down the city for them,” said Jacqueline Guzman on the clip, which appeared on TikTok under then handle @vinylboobs.
In secret meetings two years ago this month, members of Congress were briefed on what the rest of America would soon learn: A deadly virus was spreading rapidly overseas and headed for the United States. Some lawmakers acted immediately—not in the public’s interest, but in their own. They sold stocks weeks before markets crashed, when the scale of the threat posed by the novel coronavirus became broadly known. A global pandemic was unfolding, and these lawmakers were fretting as much about the health of their financial portfolios as about the health of their constituents.
Congress thought it had already fixed what looked alarmingly like insider trading by its members. In 2012, lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to enact a bill known as the STOCK Act, banning themselves from using information they learned on the job for personal financial benefit. The law required sitting members—along with their staff and public officials in other branches of the government—to make more specific and timely disclosures about their financial transactions. Although the law helped the public spot conflicts of interest, it was unable to prevent them. “Members hear all kinds of news that essentially may amount to insider trading, but it’s almost impossible to enforce insider trading and to prove what happened when,” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a Democrat who has been pushing for years to restrict stock trading by members of Congress, told me.
The Justice Department investigated several senators for their 2020 stock dumps but filed no charges. The allegations of pandemic profiteering did, however, have major political repercussions and helped Democrats win their narrow Senate majority last year. Among those who found their transactions under federal scrutiny were both Republican senators from Georgia, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler (they both denied any wrongdoing), who lost in special elections last January. The Democrat who defeated Perdue, Senator Jon Ossoff, is now leading a new push to ban members from trading individual stocks altogether.
“There’s widespread bipartisan disgust with America’s political class, and stock trading by members of Congress is egregious and offensive,” Ossoff told me last week.
Legislation that he’s introduced along with Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona would require members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children to either sell their individual stocks or place them in a blind trust. (A bipartisan companion bill was previously unveiled in the House.)
The proposal is, not surprisingly, popular with a public that loves to look down on its lawmakers: Nearly two-thirds of all respondents, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, backed the idea of banning members of Congress from trading stocks, according to a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult. Yet the bill is likely to be least popular among the people who actually have to vote on it. If Congress has struggled in recent years to tackle the nation’s most complex challenges, its track record of policing itself is arguably even worse. Republicans made little effort to pass ethics legislation when they last ran Washington, and although House Democrats did advance a major anti-corruption bill as part of its initial voting-rights push last year, they quickly jettisoned its major ethics provisions in a (thus far unsuccessful) bid to win passage in the Senate.
The proposed ban on stock trading by lawmakers has upended the expected ideological divide. A co-sponsor of the House measure is conservative Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a former top aide to Senator Ted Cruz. The bill has also won the backing of two groups that usually defend unfettered access to the free market, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which emerged from the Obama-era Tea Party. Carrying the libertarian flag instead is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose husband, Paul Pelosi, has made millions in stock trades that have become fodder for amateur trackers on social-media platforms such as Reddit and TikTok. “We’re a free-market economy. [Members] should be able to participate in that,” Pelosi told reporters earlier this month, sounding more like Ayn Rand than a San Francisco “socialist.”
The last significant ethics legislation to clear Congress was the STOCK Act a decade ago. Even that bill, however, passed only after party leaders watered down a tougher initial proposal, and within a year of its enactment, Congress quietly acted to roll back one of its key transparency provisions.
The need to regulate stock trading by lawmakers is obvious to the bill’s supporters, who on this particular issue know well of what they speak. Members of Congress are privy to market-moving information before the general public on a near-daily basis. That is especially true in times of crisis, such as a major military buildup or the onset of a global pandemic, when the stock market is more volatile and lawmakers frequently receive classified briefings from senior government officials. They might not be able to discuss what they heard in public, but until the passage of the STOCK Act, it wasn’t clearly illegal for them to make money off it. House and Senate votes are themselves occasionally market-moving events, and lawmakers are usually the first to know whether a measure will pass or fail. One of the authors of the STOCK Act, former Democratic Representative Brian Baird of Washington State, told me that in moments of dark humor during major floor votes, a colleague would joke to him (and he emphasized that he was indeed joking): “We could make some money off this vote, right?”
In 2012, the authors of the STOCK Act believed an outright ban on stock trades was “a bridge too far,” Baird told me. But the pandemic-trading scandals propelled calls for new legislation, and more recent disclosures, including a lengthy investigation by Business Insider, have given the push added momentum. So, too, has Pelosi’s brush-off, which prompted the bill’s backers to redouble their efforts. “I fervently disagree with her,” Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia told me. Spanberger, a Democrat, first introduced legislation with Roy more than a year and a half ago. “There’s many professions where there are limitations placed on what someone can do financially. This requirement is an absolutely reasonable one for those of us who choose to enter this profession.”
The proposals would allow members and their families to keep control of investments in diversified mutual or index funds, U.S. Treasuries, and bonds. Kelly told me that in addition to preventing insider trading by lawmakers, requiring members to step back from active control of individual stocks would ensure that they aren’t taking votes on legislation based on how it would impact them financially.
Adding to the pressure on Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has suggested that Republicans might implement a ban if they win back the majority this fall. Pelosi last week softened her stance, telling reporters that although she remained personally opposed to the proposal, “if members want to do that, I’m okay with that.”
The developments over the past month have created a dynamic reminiscent of other successful drives for new congressional ethics laws, Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen and a longtime government-reform advocate, told me. “The prospects are very good,” he said. “Sometimes we have to embarrass Congress into doing the right thing, and it works once the public gets involved.”
Yet the supporters of a ban on lawmaker stock trading still have a ways to go. Public support for a bill can mask broader private opposition, and the leaders of this most recent effort are mostly members with relatively little experience in Congress. The STOCK Act ultimately passed with near-unanimous votes, but Baird told me that during the years when he was first pitching the bill to colleagues, many took offense at the mere suggestion of impropriety. Others wanted their investments to remain private, and some just didn’t want the added inconvenience of having to disclose them. “I thought naively that this would be such an obvious right thing to do that when I raised it with people, they’d respond, ‘Gosh, I didn’t know that. We should fix it,’” Baird chuckled ruefully. “Well, the response was anything but.” After the STOCK Act’s passage, Baird said he found himself in an elevator with an aide to a high-ranking Democrat who didn’t realize he was speaking with an author of the bill. “I gotta go home and fill out my effing paperwork for the goddamn STOCK Act,” the staffer complained.
Kelly told me he didn’t have much sympathy for members who opposed ethics legislation because of the hassle of complying with it. “If you don’t want the hassle, find something else to do,” he said. “There are plenty of folks who could do this job.” His retort epitomized the challenges that Kelly and his allies face. They are asking their colleagues to vote for a bill that won’t require sacrifice by their constituents, only by themselves. “Frankly, I don’t mind whose feelings I hurt when I make that case,” Ossoff said. “My colleagues need to hear it, and I think they are hearing it.”