When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I just want to take a moment to reflect on this fact:
The president of Russia is proposing that a live, unedited, uncensored, genuine conversation between two national leaders be broadcast to the world.
And my personal suspicion is that the president of America will not allow this to happen.
I realize that a lot of folks here were not born until after the Cold War™ was over. But please try to appreciate that this is literally the bizarro-world version of what I grew up with.
I just want to take a moment to reflect on this fact:
The president of Russia is proposing that a live, unedited, uncensored, genuine conversation between two national leaders be broadcast to the world.
And my personal suspicion is that the president of America will not allow this to happen.
I realize that a lot of folks here were not born until after the Cold War™ was over. But please try to appreciate that this is literally the bizarro-world version of what I grew up with.
I think it's all part of what is now just called Clown World.
Wait, what's that you say? The Washington Post is being critical of Biden?
And it only took them 50 days to run a softball story about how he won't talk to them -- because news isn't news if it doesn't personally involve the writer.
Maybe they should investigate why? Like maybe something to do with being a puppet with a non-functioning brain whose fairy magic worse off and he returned to his original child's toy form?
Shouldn't they just run a completely made-up story about him running his name through the dirt, using unnamed sources? That used to be par for the course...
The president of Russia is proposing that a live, unedited, uncensored, genuine conversation between two national leaders be broadcast to the world.
Because Putin knows -- unlike what the Washington Post won't admit -- that Biden does not have the mental capacity to do so, and it would be incredibly embarrassing for the United States for the President if he agreed.
And my personal suspicion is that the president of America will not allow this to happen.
It's is my personal suspicion is that the President's handlers, namely President Harris [whom Biden has now mentioned twice this week], will not allow him to do so.
NEW YORK TIMES: “BIDEN QUIETLY URGING MEXICO TO DO MORE TO STOP MIGRATION”… JUST A FEW WEEKS AFTER HE ENDED TRUMP-NEGOTIATED DEALS THAT WERE DOING JUST THAT
by Kevin Ryan
The New York Times today revealed that the Biden administration is “quietly pressing Mexico to curb the stream of migrants coming to the United States, urging it to take in more families being expelled by American authorities and to step up enforcement at its southern border with Guatemala”. According to the Times, Mexican officials say Biden asked President López Obrador whether more could be done to help solve the problem.
The irony is that one of the first things the Biden administration did when it came into office was to scrap several deals that President Trump had negotiated with Mexico in which the country was doing exactly what Biden is now seeking:
The Biden admin ended the Migrant Protection Protocols, known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Under the agreement, which Trump negotiated with Mexico, migrants seeking asylum were sent back to Mexico with appointments to appear in immigration court at a specific port of entry. Mexico agreed to provide all appropriate humanitarian protections for the migrants as they awaited their immigration proceedings. Biden ended this agreement.
Biden also ended the “asylum cooperative agreements” with Central American countries that allowed migrants to claim asylum from within those countries rather than marching to the U.S. border to do it.
The Times article also reveals that under the Biden administration, “coordination has broken down” between American and Mexican officials. “During the last years of the Trump administration, American officials would notify their Mexican counterparts before expelling migrants across the border, and would orchestrate the crossings at a handful of well-staffed border checkpoints, [Mexican officials] say. Under the Biden administration, they say, Customs and Border Patrol agents now deposit migrants at some of the most obscure, understaffed checkpoints, leaving their Mexican counterparts scrambling when they discover dozens of migrants walking in from the United States.”
By ending the above deals, the U.S. now finds itself facing a wave of migrants and a humanitarian disaster, and looking for leverage to get Mexico back to the negotiating table. The New York Times even said “the two presidents discussed the possibility of the United States sending Mexico some of its surplus vaccine supply”, though officials claimed there is no quid pro quo.
Remember when they made fun of Trump for slowly walking down wet slippery metal ramp not a few months ago? I believe even suggesting he was suffering from a stroke?
Media: President Biden checked his shoe laces while. ..twice checked his lac....no three time checked his laces while climbing into Air Force One this morning...
Media: He didn't trip...he fell...he fell into the arms and hearts of all Americans
TRUST THE SCIENCE, UNLESS YOU CAN'T COMMIT TO THE SCIENCE, THEN CHANGE THE SCIENCE.
CDC SAYS SIX FOOT STUDENT DISTANCING REQUIREMENT ISN’T NECESSARY AFTER ALL
by Kevin Ryan
One of the main reasons for continuing school closures and hybrid classes was the need to keep students six feet apart from each other. Just last month, the CDC released updated guidance saying the 6-foot distancing was necessary to keep kids safe. That announcement frustrated many schools looking to reopen but who didn’t have the space to achieve six-foot distancing, and it further emboldening teachers unions that continued to hold out.
But today the CDC has again revised its guidelines, and now says that three feet of distance between students is sufficient. The agency published new research that found that schools that didn’t have the six-foot distance requirement still had very limited viral transmission, even in areas with high community spread.
The change finally removes one of the main justifications for school closures, and lays the groundwork for districts to reopen full-time for in-person classes. It’s vindication for experts and critics of the six-foot policy who say it was arbitrary and not supported by science. But it comes too late for millions of students who missed out on months of classes because of it. Evidence is mounting that remote instruction has led to learning gaps and stress that can affect the well-being of children.
However, today’s guidance update is sharply opposed by the country’s two large teachers’ unions. “We need to make sure that before we do any changing or easing up of the mitigation strategies that we are making sure we have evidence from those diverse populations,” Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said.
The CDC still recommends six feet of distance between students and their teachers, but says three feet is fine between students as long as masks are worn.
The new guidance is applicable for elementary schools, no matter what the infection rates are in the surrounding community. For middle and high schools, the three foot distance is also fine, except for schools in regions experiencing the highest level of community transmission, where six feet is still recommended.
The agency also removed a recommendation that schools install physical barriers such as sneeze guards, partitions, or tape. The barriers have been a jarring presence in the classroom, and many experts have questioned their need.
Look at that Joe more misinformation about covid, feel free to explain why I should trust these Dr and scientists about the vaccine if they're wrong about everything else.
Look at that Joe more misinformation about covid, feel free to explain why I should trust these Dr and scientists about the vaccine if they're wrong about everything else.
I'm reminded of a family road-trip a few years ago. I drove from Chicago to Kentucky to meet up with the family who drove the RV up from Florida.
Day #1 was at Mammoth Cave National Park. Amazing place. Definitely worth a visit.
Day #3 was the Museum of Creation, which is basically a giant edifice devoted to attempting to disprove science and demonstrate that the Bible is right about everything. Interestingly, it was here that I first saw people wearing MAGA hats in real life.
Anyway... Aside from learning that 9/11 was caused by man's disobedience to God, and that it's only OK to marry your sister or your daughter if God tells you to, there was one lecture by a fellow who strongly implied (but did not explicitly claim) to be a paleontologist, but is actually the author of a number of children's' books and videos. He taught us that dinosaurs and man existed side by side, way back at the beginning of the universe about 6,000 years ago. The proof of this is that several different human cultures all independently came up with stories about dragons, and the typical description of a dragon also happens to fit several species of dinosaurs. Also, Noah would have taken juvenile dinosaurs, or even dinosaur eggs, on the ark, in order to conserve space and food. Because God told him to.
I'm not making any of this up, or even embellishing in any way. What I am writing here is literally, and nearly-verbatim, what they tell people at this place. https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/ (There's a heck of a lot more false information there than just dinosaurs, but that's the relevant section to this post.)
Where I'm going with this is something the fellow said towards the end of the lecture. I remember it word for word. "These scientists, they're always changing their minds about everything. But the truth of god's word never changes."
My niece, bless her, was as confused by this as I was. Despite the brainwashing she gets every day from the religion-based Abeka home-schooling curriculum, she is aware of the existence of the scientific method, and of the fact that scientists, as a broad generalization, tend to be open-minded about adapting or even abandoning ideas and hypothesis based on the discovery of new information. (At least, in an ideal world. Obviously some scientists falsify data in an effort to win awards / grant money / tenure / etc. Much like politicians and election officials, actually.)
It's a reassuring message, though, for people who are not capable of emotionally dealing with change or uncertainty. Just say that this book right here contains the absolute, unchanging, and complete truth, and that's all you ever have to worry about. No need to ever adapt to changing ideas.
So our fascist governors put us under unconstitutional lockdowns and crashed the economy, for a maybe? Sounds like we need to start ignoring the scientists until they fully understand what they are talking about.
The Court found Project Veritas demonstrated "a substantial basis in law and fact that the Defendants [The New York Times] acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not" and Project Veritas should be permitted to "conduct discovery."
The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden. The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that Defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Veritas alleged actual malice by providing facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants’ alleged disregard for the truthfulness of its statements. Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, Veritas’ submissions were sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions, and further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues raised.
03-18-2021, 09:49 PM
3
