Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...



Recommended Posts

New York Post


Michael Goodwin


Is Joe Biden the second coming of Herbert Hoover?: Goodwin
By Michael Goodwin
November 13, 2021 9:27pm  Updated

When it comes to politicians, most Americans are slow to reach a boiling point. But Joe Biden is testing their patience with his cold-hearted fumbling of inflation.

After first denying it was a widespread problem, then saying the surge in prices was “transitory,” the White House is now searching for a new response. The effort needs work. Lots of work.

“Reversing this trend is a top priority for me,” President Biden belatedly claimed Wednesday, after his Labor Department reported the consumer price index rose 6.2 percent in October over the same period last year, the biggest jump in 30 years. 

Fuel oil prices soared 12.3 percent and are up a staggering 59 percent in a year. Meat, poultry, fish and eggs rose 1.7 percent for the month and 11.9 percent year over year.

Those are punishing numbers, and a separate report underscored that workers are falling further behind. After inflation, real wages fell 0.5 percent because, while wages are rising, the cost of nearly everything is rising faster. 

But if stemming this destruction is “a top priority,” Biden has an odd way of showing it. In a head-scratcher, he again urged quick passage of his signature legislation, Build Back Better, which is still being written and fought over by his party. 

It has an announced price tag of nearly $2 trillion, and a real one that is much higher, leading most economists to argue the bill would almost certainly push prices even higher, especially in the short term. On what planet is that a solution to inflation?

Inflation graphic

The consumer price index rose to an unprecedented 6.2 percent in October. 

Worse, because the measure is stuffed with handouts, far-left climate frills, increased regulations and higher taxes, there are warnings it could also trigger an economic slow-down, resulting in stagflation, the dreaded combination of increasing prices and slowing growth. Think Jimmy Carter.

Biden hasn’t scolded the public for wallowing in malaise yet, but his late and lame attempt to show he feels your pain recalls another one-term president, George H.W. Bush. Trying to persuade voters early in his 1992 bid for re-election he was focused on lifting the nation out of the recession doldrums, Bush mangled a speech by reading the cue card his staff gave him: “Message: I care,” he insisted.

In Biden’s case, it’s not even clear everybody on his team cares. Press secretary Jen Psaki, who last month brushed off supply-chain problems as the “tragedy of the treadmill undelivered,” was off-key again Friday. 

“Our view is that the rise in gas prices over the long term makes an even stronger case for doubling down our investment and focus on clean energy options,” she said in response to a question. 

There you have it — rising pump prices are good news. Imagine the celebration when gas hits $10 a gallon!

Presidents get in serious trouble for all kinds of reasons, but one that’s almost guaranteed to be fatal is evidence they don’t care about something the public is very worried about. 

Donald Trump, despite his accomplishments, was not able to shake the belief by many voters he initially didn’t take the pandemic seriously enough. Biden’s team recognized the weakness and portrayed their candidate as the epitome of empathy. 

Now it’s Biden who looks unserious about a major public concern. Pushing the most expensive piece of legislation in history and calling it a solution to inflation is a foolish rebranding of a radical wish list he never should have supported. His failure to change course in response to new circumstances suggests he’s on autopilot. 

With most polls already showing his approval ratings about 10 points underwater, the president doesn’t have room for error, as election results proved in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere.

Indeed, Biden’s response to inflation fits a pattern of refusing to heed warnings. On the fatal, chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, he rejected advice from military commanders and allies to go slower and keep some troop presence there. 

He created the border crisis by rejecting advice, including from the president of Mexico, that his policies and comments were effectively inviting migrant caravans to make the trek north. 

Similarly, the inflation warnings came early, with Larry Summers playing the role of Cassandra back in February when he warned about the pitfalls of Biden’s earlier $1.9 trillion bailout. The former top economic adviser to President Obama was rebuffed, but a growing chorus now believes he had it right. 

Summers is still making the case, charging last week that Biden’s team has been “behind the curve” all along on inflation.

“They said it was transitory; it doesn’t look so transitory,” he said on television. “They said it was due to a few specific factors; doesn’t look to be a few specific factors. They said when September came and people went back to school, that the labor force would grow, and it didn’t happen.”

The problem might be in Biden’s head. Soon after his election, he grew infatuated with the fantasy that his social transformation plans would make him the new FDR. 

But less than a year later, the string of failures and growing doubts about his ability suggest a different presidential role model: Herbert Hoover. 

The GOP incumbent in 1932, Hoover was widely admired for his relief work in Europe after World War I but proved to be no match for the onslaught of the Great Depression. As the economy collapsed, voters rejected him in a landslide, handing Roosevelt victory in 42 of the 48 states.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Ann Coulter feed-32x32.png

In his prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger drew so many well-earned rebukes from the judge that some speculated he was intentionally going for a mistrial.

Nope. He was fighting like a banshee. He just had a really bad case.

Of course, it was his own decision to charge the then-17-year-old Rittenhouse with murder for shooting three psychopathic criminals who were attacking him at the BLM/antifa riots in Kenosha last year. (That, by the way, is a more accurate summary of the evidence than anything Binger said.)

In his closing argument, Binger decided to ignore his loser case and argue an entirely different case, for which no evidence had been adduced. Binger posited that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter” — like at Sandy Hook Elementary or Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Forget that Rittenhouse was not at a grade school, but in the middle of a riot that did $50 million in damage to the town of Kenosha. Forget that rioters were beating up random people they encountered, including a 71-year-old man protecting a mattress store from being looted, who had his jaw and nose broken by a water bottle filled with concrete — hurled by “unarmed” protesters.

Name one “active shooter” in history who strolled about with a gun for hours, not shooting anyone — until he was chased, cornered and assaulted. Rittenhouse had a gun not because he was violent, but because the “protesters” were, as the evidence abundantly demonstrated.


But according to Binger, the collection of mental patients, domestic violence offenders and pedophiles attacking Rittenhouse were “heroes,” just trying to stop the “active shooter”!

Thus, Binger said:

“I want you to keep in mind that we’ve all read stories and heard about heroes that step in to stop an active shooter, or to give their life to save others. In fact, many people in Wisconsin went out and got carry and conceal weapon permits just so that they could be there in case there was an active shooter, and wanting to stop them.”

Yes, apparently Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz were in Kenosha that night to feed the hungry and minister to orphans when, out of nowhere, Rittenhouse — WHO ONCE POSTED SOMETHING JUVENILE ON TIKTOK! — decided to start randomly shooting innocents!

If Binger had tried to introduce — what do we call it again? — evidence that the men attacking Rittenhouse were Boy Scouts doing good works, the defense could have introduced the bales of evidence that were being withheld from the jury. The colorful backgrounds of Rittenhouse’s assailants were properly kept out of evidence, inasmuch as he wouldn’t have known about their multiple prior crimes when he shot them.

But it’s pretty sleazy for a prosecutor to rely on the jurors’ ignorance of excluded evidence to paint a picture he knows to be false of the men who attacked the defendant and their pure-as-snow motives.

The first degenerate criminal Rittenhouse shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, out on bond for domestic battery, had been released from a mental institution that very day. He was a convicted felon — for anally and orally **** five boys ranging in age from 9 to 11 years old.

Luckily for Binger, the jury was not told any of that. So he was free to fantasize about the humanitarian impulses surging through the pedophile mental patient when he lunged at Rittenhouse, shouting “F**k you!” (attested to by two witnesses). Rosenbaum, Binger told the jury, was only trying to “stop the defendant from pointing his gun or shooting anyone.”

Yes, and then he planned to collect alms for the poor.

So concerned was Rosenbaum with keeping everybody safe that he screamed at the defendant and other armed civilians, “If I catch any of you f****** alone, I’m going to f****** kill you.” (That’s according to two witnesses at trial.)

Anthony Huber, who swung a skateboard at the head of the fallen Rittenhouse, was also a convicted felon for two separate instances of domestic violence, including holding a knife to his brother’s stomach and threatening to “gut” him “like a pig.”


But the prosecutor made damn sure that the jury would never hear about that, not asking a state witness about Huber’s character, specifically in order to prevent the defense from introducing evidence of his violent crimes. This allowed Binger to tell the jurors in closing that Huber was merely “trying to be a hero and stop an active shooter and protect others.”

Yes, “protection” is practically Gut-You-Like-a-Pig’s middle name!

Gaige Grosskreutz is the one who admitted under oath that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot until Grosskreutz pointed a Glock at his head. (“Admitted” in the sense of: There was video, so to say otherwise would have been perjury.)

Grosskreutz is a career criminal with police records for domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, two DUIs, felony burglary and two charges of carrying a firearm while intoxicated. All this was kept from the jury. Assured that jurors had no knowledge of Grosskreutz’s anti-social past, Binger told them that when Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse and pulled a gun on him, he was “running to try and help.”

The deranged individual called “Jump Kick Man,” who did a dropkick directly at Rittenhouse’s head, was never identified so, sadly, his undoubtedly exciting rap sheet is unavailable.

But he’s a hero too!

Here’s Binger’s version of the freaks and felons making near-simultaneous runs at Rittenhouse, as he sat, where he’d fallen, in the middle of the street:

“And that crowd was full of heroes. And that crowd did something that honestly I’m not sure I would’ve had the courage to do. If I see a guy running up the street with an AR-15 and I hear he just shot somebody, my first instinct is not to approach. Anthony Huber was different. Jump Kick Man was different. Gaige Grosskreutz was different.”

This is the prosecutor calling stranglers, burglars and elderly abusers “heroes”!

The only monster in this sea of angels, according to Binger, was Rittenhouse. The prosecutor alerted the jury to Rittenhouse’s sick and dark past: His TikTok account has the profile name “4doorsmorewhores” and the tagline, “Bruh, I’m just trying to be famous.”

I repeat my admonition to white kids NOT to listen to rap or hip-hop or adopt any aspect of black gangsta culture. It will only get you in trouble. On the other hand, there’s no evidence Rittenhouse violently attacked family members, burgled homes or raped little kids. (At the same age, Grosskreutz was beating up his grandmother. That’s the prosecutor’s “hero.”)

Democrats are defunding the police, destroying officers’ lives whenever they try to arrest a black man who’s not in the mood, and installing prosecutors who refuse to bring charges against violent, marauding lunatics.

The left has already crushed the Proud Boys. They’ve been publicly “disavowed” by loyal, dependable Donald Trump. (He’s definitely got your back, Deplorables!) Two sit in prison in New York for whupping antifa butt — after they were attacked. Since then, the Proud Boys have been forced into quiescence because, out of 30,000 members, a few dozen turned up at the Capitol on Jan. 6 — as civilians, not Proud Boys, which had officially directed members to stay away from D.C. that day.

Any positive comment about Rittenhouse on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter led to an immediate suspension. GoFundMe refused to allow Rittenhouse’s friends to raise money for his defense. People who did contribute were hunted down, doxxed and fired. The same people who wanted to give Guantanamo war criminals civilian trials think an American who refused to acquiesce in his own murder didn’t deserve legal representation.

Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial so that no one will dare stand in the way of the left’s shock troops ever again.


Link to comment
Share on other sites




Big Tech Unleashes a Sophisticated New Weapon in Their War on Online Anonymity
Revolver News

November 19, 2021

After years of steadily accumulating power, 2021 is the year that Big Tech well and truly flexed its muscle. Gone are the days of banning mere Twitter pundits and demonetizing YouTube channels. In 2021, Big Tech silenced the sitting US president. They stopped the elected chief executive of the world’s largest economy and most powerful military from communicating with the American people. He lost the ability to tweet, post videos, or even send out a mass email.

The past year has shown that no celebrity or official is so powerful they are beyond the reach of the tech ban hammer.

Yet with all the focus on censorship of big names, conservatives risk forgetting about an all-important right in today’s tech-dominated age: The right to anonymous speech. Revolver readers don’t need to be told that it’s more dangerous than ever in America and the West more broadly to voice an opinion at odds with the official, regime-sanctioned one mandated in Washington.  A wrong word, or any word mentioned to the wrong person or in the wrong venue can destroy a career, a reputation, a livelihood. As America becomes an increasingly unfree society under the reign of the Globalist American Empire, the right to speak anonymously, as Revolver itself does on most articles, is crucial.

Yet at this very moment, anonymity is also in more danger than ever. In the UK, anti-anonymity activists are capitalizing on the stabbing death of Conservative British MP David Amess to curtail online privacy.

British MP’s death intensifies calls for end to online anonymity

LAST FRIDAY, DAVID AMESS, a 69-year-old British member of parliament, was stabbed to death while hosting an open house for his constituents at a church in Leigh-on-Sea, a town in southeastern England. Ali Harbi Ali, the 25-year-old son of a former advisor to Somali’s prime minister, was later arrested and charged with Amess’s murder. In the aftermath of the incident, Mark Francois, another MP, asked for an amendment to the country’s Online Safety Bill—a proposed law that has been making its way through the legislative process for several years—that he called “David’s Law,” which would bring an end to online anonymity by forcing users of social platforms and other services to reveal their real identities.

These calls were surprising to some, since Amess’s death, at this point in time, doesn’t appear to have anything to do with online anonymity, or even the internet Francois, a former defense minister and a close friend of the deceased MP, said he wanted to name an amendment to the Online Safety Bill after Amess because his former colleague had become “increasingly concerned” about what he called the “toxic environment” online, and the amount of abuse directed at British politicians, especially women.

Damian Collins, a British MP and chair of the parliamentary committee reviewing the law, said he believes there is a “strong case” for requiring Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms to record the real identities of users, so that those who engage in abuse online can be more easily identified. “People would then understand that if they post abusive material, they could be traced back, even if they posted under an assumed name,” he told Britain’s Telegraph newspaper. [Columbia Journalism Review]

Amess’s killer was Ali Harbi Ali, the 25-year-old son of Somali immigrants. Ali wasn’t making anonymous online threats toward Amess before the attack, so this murder has exactly nothing to do with online anonymity. Instead, it’s just a classic example of the “heads I win, tales you lose” nature of modern diversity politics. David Amess, a conservative, was butchered by the radicalized son of a Muslim immigrant, but immigration and diversity are sacred, so the only politically acceptable response is a push to abolish the online anonymity that Britain’s dwindling body of conservatives depend on to speak freely without being censored, fired, or even killed.

But this new assault on anonymity isn’t restricted to the UK. It’s happening all over, and sadly conservatives are routinely playing along or even taking the lead. In May, Republican Congressman John Curtis of Utah began circulating draft legislation that would entirely abolish anonymity on social media platforms:

While most of these government efforts to end online anonymity have been widely covered in the media, America’s recent proposals have managed to stay out of the spotlight.

But despite flying under the radar, these proposals do exist in a discussion draft that was introduced by Congressman John Curtis in May.

The discussion draft aims to “require a provider of a social media service to verify the identity of users of the service, and for other purposes” and prevent anyone from creating a social media account without verifying their identity.

Not only does this discussion draft intend to make ID verification mandatory for anyone who wants to create a social media account but it also wants to force social media companies to report users to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whenever they suspect users have submitted fake IDs. Additionally, it contains a requirement for the FTC to submit these reports to the United States (US) Department of Justice (DOJ). [Reclaim the Net]

In Australia, lawmakers are considering the ironically named “Online Privacy Bill,” which would mandate age verification (and by extension, ID verification) for users of virtually any major online platform: Facebook, WeChat, Zoom, Reddit, Bumble, gaming websites, and so forth. In Canada, lawmakers are considering a law that would make tech platforms liable any time a minor encounters sexual material on their platforms unless rigorous ID-verification requirements are imposed; this law would essentially eradicate anonymity on any website with user-generated content.

In Austria, the ruling conservative party made a push against online anonymity in 2019. In Spain, the right-of-center People’s Party is making a push right now.

This is not an issue where patriots and critics of our corrupt Regime can afford to capitulate, or worse yet, collaborate in abolishing individual privacy. Protecting and expanding online anonymity should be a central priority of the modern right, especially in America.

Anonymity has played a crucial role in advancing liberty from the earliest days of the American experiment.

The United States was essentially founded by the 1700s equivalent of an online shitposting cabal. John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” uniting the colonies against the Townshend Acts, were published anonymously. Common Sense? Published anonymously. The Federalist Papers? An anonymous collaboration of John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. The anti-federalists “Brutus,” “Cato,” and the “Federal Farmer,” whose arguments were crucial in bringing about the Bill of Rights, weren’t just anonymous at the time; their identities remain uncertain and speculative to this day.

Read the Whole Article


Copyright © Revolver News

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Trans Assault on Freedom
Gender ideology is not about liberation – it is about coercion and control.
By Frank Furedi

November 20, 2021


Transgenderism has emerged as one of the most influential ideologies of our time. It is shaping people’s behaviour and thought in pursuit of a specific political objective – the erosion of the significance of biological sex. And it is undermining long-held cultural assumptions about what it means to be a man or a woman.

Above all, it is an intolerant, coercive force – and it has been thoroughly embraced by political and cultural elites in both the UK and the US.

In the UK recently we have seen Labour Party leader Keir Starmer criticise one of his MPs for daring to say that ‘only women have a ****’. And we have also seen Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer condemn a gay- and lesbian-rights group for criticising trans ideas, calling it a ‘hate group’.

Even members of the Conservative Party are now exponents of the trans ideology. Indeed, the prime minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, used her sole appearance at the Conservative Party conference to urge her fellow Tories to fight for the rights of trans people – a thinly veiled rebuke to those in the party who are concerned about gender self-identification. It is clear that transgenderism is the new orthodoxy among members of the political class.

For our cultural elites, transgenderism vies with environmentalism as the cause of the 21st century. As sociologist Michael Biggs notes, the ‘transgender movement has transformed cultural norms and social institutions at breathtaking speed’.

The ease and alacrity with which trans identity has been promoted, and conventional distinctions between men and women have been eroded, have surprised even trans activists. An American law professor sympathetic to transgenderism wrote of the ‘stunning speed’ with which ‘non-binary gender identities have gone from obscurity to prominence in American public life’, citing as proof the growing acceptance of ‘gender-neutral pronouns such as “they, them, and theirs”‘, ‘all-gender’ restrooms, and the ‘increasing number of US jurisdictions… recognising a third-gender category’ (1).

The UK and parts of northern Europe have proven no less hospitable to transgenderism – they, too, have welcomed the dramatic conceptual revision of the relationship between men and women. Gender self-identification has now seemingly trumped long-standing conventions. A biological male can now identify as a female in order to gain access to women’s toilets, refuges or prisons. Even hitherto girls-only institutions, such as the Girl Guides, are now open to boys who identify as female. In the National Health Service, transgender patients can choose to be treated in either male or female wards.

Little wonder that in many areas of life now, the boundary between man and woman appears increasingly illegitimate. To the extent it still exists at all, it is presented as artificial, even oppressive. And those who choose to transgress it are celebrated by the media as brave and inspirational role models.

Read the Whole Article

As George Orwell warned, taking control of language and redefining the meaning of words is the first step taken by those seeking to control people’s thoughts.

As Orwell put it in Nineteen Eighty-Four: ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’


Copyright © Spiked

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Corporate diversity is a menace to equality

Employers should not be hiring people based on their race or gender.

The politics of diversity is taking a turn for the absurd. This week, one of the world’s largest investment firms was forced to publicly deny that it had told managers not to hire white men.

The Sunday Times reported at the weekend that, as part of a new diversity policy, staff at State Street Global Advisors would have to get special permission to hire white males. On Monday a company spokesman dismissed this report as ‘factually incorrect’. But he did confirm that executives’ bonuses will be dependent on them hiring more diverse staff and they will be obliged to interview ethnic-minority candidates for vacant positions. Interview panels will also have to feature at least one woman, and ideally someone from an ethnic-minority background.

State Street is not banning whitey, then. But the fact that its approach to recruitment could have even been misinterpreted in this way shows how bizarre corporate diversity policies have now become.

More >> https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/10/corporate-diversity-is-a-menace-to-equality/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

Our History Is Being Stolen From Us by Woke Morons

Posted By pcr3 On November 24, 2021 @ 6:56 am In Guest Contributions | Comments Disabled

Our History Is Being Stolen From Us by Woke Morons

Thomas Jefferson’s Statue Removed from New York City Hall

Thomas Jefferson did not enslave anyone. He was born into a time when slaves were the long-established agricultural work force.

The slaves were enslaved by black Africans who fought slave wars between themselves. The most successful slaver was the Black Kingdom of Dahomey. It was blacks who enslaved blacks.

Thomas Jefferson was essential in creating freedom, not in removing it.

To falsify a country’s history is to destroy the country.

Obviously, the next step is to remove Washington’s name from the national capital.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/23/thomas-jefferson-statuue-new-york-city-hall [1]

Share this page
Copyright © 2020 PaulCraigRoberts.org. All rights reserved.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JakeHolman changed the title to JOE BIDEN'S DYSTOPIAN STATES OF AMERIKA ...


How Critical Race Theory Is Creeping Into More Schools
Carrie Sheffield, New York Post November 27, 2021

If the lies of critical race theory can creep into the classrooms of Missouri's Ozark Mountains, they're undoubtedly in your community — even if school administrators illegally try to hide it.…


Read Full Article »

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JakeHolman changed the title to DYSTOPIAN BIDEN NATION

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...