What a loser. US President Joe Biden holds a press conference in Hanoi on September 10, 2023, on the first day of a visit in Vietnam. Biden travels to Vietnam to deepen cooperation between the two nations, in the face of China’s growing ambitions in the region. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Biden Says He “Just Follows Orders” During Vietnam Conference.
President Joe Biden appeared in a press conference where he said “I’ll just follow my orders here.”
On Sunday, the 46th president spoke at a conference in Hanoi Vietnam and met with General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Biden stood at the podium and read his prepared remarks while looking at his notes for the majority of the time.
After the speech, the Democrat delivered a press conference where he opened up another discussion by reportedly making a joke about the Vietnam War and asking for questions from reporters.
Biden stated that he would take questions from five reporters, but he could not locate the paper list of particular reporters he was supposed to call on that was prepared by White House officials.
He then proceeded to say that he will just “follow his orders from staff.”
At the end, Biden declared that he was “going to bed,” appearing more irate and mentally disoriented.
Due to Biden’s senile mannerisms, his critics have frequently called him “Sleepy Joe,” and online users have commented and poked fun at the press conference footage.
“I’ll just follow my orders here. Uh — Staff, is there anybody that hasn’t spoken yet? I ain’t calling on you! I told you, I only have five questions!” He shouted.
In the months since the coup d’etat that ousted James O’Keefe from Project Veritas earlier this year, the conservative group has spiraled out of control as it weathers mass layoffs and board member resignations under the leadership of Hannah Giles, who took the helm in June, Mediaite reported.
“Her actual journalism experience is murky.”
Mediaite (no doubt chortling about it) obtained audio from an August 22 meeting between Giles, Project Veritas board president Joe Barton, and several staffers. At the meeting, held just days after 23 staffers were fired and two resigned, Giles can be heard explaining that the organization is in financial ruin.
“It’s devastating,” Giles said. “I’ve got to get back into the bank accounts to see what’s real and what’s not real because I have been getting presented with things that were not making sense and then when I’m presented with okay there’s only a thousand dollars left in the 501(c) (3) and I thought we had until October. We did a half a million dollar transfer and that was this period. But, like, we’re bankrupt.”
Giles continued to paint a bleak financial portrait of the well-known conservative nonprofit that raked in $22 million of donor cash in one recent year.
“The bills that are owed and everything, and there’s lawyers threatening to like, to force us into bankruptcy, and come take all this stuff,” Giles said. “So, I do not want us, I do not want to declare bankruptcy or go into bankruptcy, but we have to imagine that’s where we’re at so how do we get to the point where we’re clawing our way out of that situation?”
“So, we’re under water?” one staffer asked. Giles responded: “Yeah.”
A recently departed Project Veritas staffer told Mediaite they believed Giles had mismanaged the organization since taking over in June. They said former CFO Tom O’Hara made clear that Project Veritas faced a grim outlook – which was ignored by Giles. The former staffer said O’Hara was “upfront about the dire state” the company is in, and cautioned Giles of the strong possibility that they were on the brink of bankruptcy.
“Since July, he was trying to convince the board to start considering a wind-down period in order to give employees enough notice — this was ignored,” the source said.
Another ex-staffer told Mediaite that Giles “lacked leadership skills” and suggested the board “did not do their due diligence” when they appointed her. “Her actual journalism experience is murky,” they said.
After O’Keefe’s exit in February of this year, Project Veritas launched an investigation into his use of funds. The Washington Post reported this week on an audit conducted by a law firm hired by the group which accused O’Keefe of using company cash for personal expenses – including $12,000 to charter a helicopter for a trip to Maine for a sailing trip, hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-end car service, and thousands on DJ equipment among other luxury items.
O’Keefe’s lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, told Mediaite that when O’Keefe was “forced out of Project Veritas in February of this year, they had between $6-8 million in their bank accounts. James had access to none of it. Six months later it’s apparently all gone. Instead of nameless sources blaming James for spending that money and bankrupting Project Veritas, perhaps their CEO and board of directors can let us all know how they blew through it all.”
Note: Mediaite is still trying to tar O’Keefe as a thief in their original article. He has since created a successful new investigative outlet: https://okeefemediagroup.com/ — TPR
The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.
That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.
So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”
Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.
Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.
“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.
“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”
The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.
The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”
The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.
Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.
1st amendment wins again. President Biden getting his COVID-19 shot. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File)
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
Fifth Circuit just unanimously affirmed Judge Doughty’s injunction against White House, CDC, FBI and others — giving Americans and #FreedomOfSpeech a major win against censorship, totalitarianism, and Biden. #FirstAmendment
By now, you have likely heard of the 12-year-old boy who was told that he may not display a Gadsden Flag in school because it has “origins with slavery.” Of course it absolutely does not have origins in slavery; it is a symbol and flag from the Revolutionary War era.
This level of ignorance—especially from an ‘educator’—ought to be embarrassing…but it should not be particularly surprising. There is a lot to know in this life, and no matter how much one learns, it’s just a few more drops in the ocean of things there are to learn. Add to that the fact that public-school teachers—in spite of the endless hagiolatry our society heaps upon them—are not generally an especially impressive lot. They are, in the aggregate, a little more educated and intelligent than the average, of course, but that is not saying all that much.
This woman had no knowledge of the Gadsden Flag. I’d bet money she’s never heard the name Christopher Gadsden. Chances are she is not particularly well-versed in American history, unless that is her speciality (and even then…). All she knows is that people she does not like—people whom she’s been told not to like—tend to fly and display this flag. Thus, it must have its origins in slavery. After all, everyone she does not like is afascist, a racist, a white supremacist, or literally Hitler.
Back in the late 90s, I had a somewhat similar experience…
One day, I was idly humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic when I was stopped and informed (just like that 12-year-old boy) that this song had its origins in “slavery.” This was a work environment and the person was a colleague, so I kept it cool and just pointed out—a little frustrated, of course—that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written by an abolitionist and was popular in the Union.
Obviously the colleague knew enough to associate the song with the Civil War, but that was it. Her left-wing programming and intersectional status kicked in from there and filled in the blanks: Civil War…being hummed by a white guy…………slavery.
This wasn’t even particularly conscious. This was more a kind of programatic confabulation. Same thing with the teacher. She did not know where the flag comes from, but she’s a good Baizuo, so she filled in the blanks of her ignorance with a Baizuo’s kind of “knowledge.” My colleague did the same, but from the standpoint of an aggrieved victim.
This colleague was a very sweet person. I really liked her, and she liked me too. I have not seen her for more than 20 years, but I still think of her fondly. But what she did that day was uncool. If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know that truth has begun to mean less in such matters than the identity groups of the people involved. Truth is what The Party says it is. Truth is found in the personal narrative of the ‘victim.’ Grievance trumps reality, and people have lost their jobs for exactly this sort of thing. Under a different set of circumstances, getting caught in that web might’ve cost me my livelihood. All over a grievance that had been fabricated out of thin air.
An experiment conducted at Dartmouth (and repeated in similar studies elsewhere) demonstrated that for some people, feeling aggrieved comes all too easily. You can read for yourself and watch the video below, but the gist is simple:
Study participants had a disfiguring scar drawn on their faces and were told to go out into the world, interact with people, and then report on how those people treated them. Unbeknownst to the participants, however, the scar was removed prior to them going out into public. In spite of the fact that there was no disfigurement, the participants claimed that they experienced discrimination because of their appearance.
This was just one experiment. Imagine being told, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, that you are a victim solely because of your identity, that that will never change, and that even when people are not discriminating against you, they secretly are.
What the left has done to people is vicious. These are precious human beings who did not need or deserve to be psychologically programmed in this way.
Last week Noam Dworman of Comedy Cellar USA, on his Live at the Table podcast, interviewed Washington Post columnist Philip Bump. It was a debate, with Bump invited because he’s “most associated with pouring cold water on the Hunter Biden story,” as Noam put it.
The show went viral as Bump, semi-reprising the performance of Russiagate champion and Guardian reporter Luke Harding walking on an interview with Aaron Mate, left abruptly after conceding Hunter’s line, “unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary” was evidence. To be fair the show had run long, but Bump insisted earlier that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part, so it wasn’t a timely exit — not that I’m unfamiliar with interviews that go sideways.
I know Noam and my name got dragged into this somewhat absurdly (Bump said I had “an agenda,” as Noam brought up tapes between Petro Poroshenko and Joe Biden I’d referenced), but didn’t want to say anything. Then a subsequent show also went sideways, for much the same reason. More on that in a moment. Back to Bump v. Dworman:
Many exchanges in the podcast stand out, not in a good way. Bump repeatedly tells Noam his problem is that he’s not accepting his, Bump’s, versions of things. At about the 56-minute mark, Bump chides Noam for bringing up things that have been “debunked.” When Noam asks, “What’s been debunked?” Bump says, “I’ve written about this!” He adds, “It’s been debunked in the sense that I’ve already addressed this, and presented the counter-arguments to it.”
At about 1:05 in the video above, Noam brings up “the issue of the press. The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden…” To which Bump interjects [emphasis mine]: “But you don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and telling you you’re wrong about these things and you don’t listen.” About five minutes later Noam again brings up media, and Bump says, “But again, you’re attacking the press, because you refuse to listen to what we’re saying.”
Nearly an hour into the show Bump began complaining he’d been set up, and I know what he was thinking, having of course also been in the position of being invited to an interview with someone who perhaps wants to make an ass of you. I actually don’t think that’s Noam’s game, but even if it were, the answer isn’t to keep repeating, “How can we talk when you keep insisting I get down from this high horse I’m on?”
Bump acts like he and his paper haven’t gotten all sorts of thingswrong in recent years, implicitly rejecting the notion that people like Noam have reason to question anything “already addressed” by papers like the Post. If you need an explanation for declining ratingsand circulation of mainstream press outlets, this vibe is it.
The other episode involved professor and frequent media commentator Dan Drezner, who laughs hysterically and at great length the instant it registers that Noam plans on countering a claim that Trump was a bad president. It’s at about the 52-minute mark:
Drezner is doing what Bump did, albeit with more humor: gagging in disbelief when a mainstream piety sent up the flagpole isn’t instantly saluted.
I think a lot of people in the world I once inhabited, in center-left media and academia, don’t realize they’ve slipped into a deeply unattractive habit of substituting checklists of unquestioned assumptions for thought. In the blue bubble Trump’s limitless evil is an idea with such awesome gravitational pull that it makes nuanced discussion about almost anything impossible. It’s why no one in media could suggest even the possibility he hadn’t colluded with Russia. He’s become an anti-God, of a faith that requires constant worship. When do we get to go back to being atheists?
Emails Show Tony the Fauch Was Aware of Wuhan Lab Funding.
By Luca Cacciatore | Wednesday, 06 September 2023
Newly released emails show that since at least January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci was aware of extensive research on coronaviruses conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
U.S. Right to Know obtained the emails via a Freedom of Information Act request. They show that the head of the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic was corresponding with other officials about the lab’s findings.
The institute, indirectly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through EcoHealth Alliance’s coronavirus research projects in China, has been at the center of theories on the virus’ origin.
Fauci was heading NIAID at the time of the now-released correspondence between him and his chief of staff, Greg Folkers, who informed Fauci that Wuhan discovered 52 novel coronaviruses related to SARS, the species to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.
The research also included the sampling of over 12,000 animals, the discovery of the Swine Acute Diarrheal Syndrome Virus, and the detection of the closest cousin virus to SARS-CoV-2.
Folkers said the Wuhan lab used genetically modified mice, whose organs were made close to humans’, to test some of the viruses. The novel coronaviruses reportedly caused SARS-like diseases in the mice.
In addition, the aide highlighted research from the University of North Carolina that found some novel coronaviruses could bind to human lung, heart, and blood vessel cells.
A spokesperson for the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability’s select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic told the Washington Examiner that the emails were concerning.
“Dr. Fauci’s involvement in downplaying the lab-leak theory continues to raise more questions and concerns regarding his actions. Americans deserve to hear answers from Dr. Fauci himself,” the panel spokesperson said.
An election worker verifies a ballot on a screen inside the Maricopa County Recorders Office, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York)
A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.
And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.
And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.
John Napper
Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.
Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.
“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.
But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.
And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”
Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”
Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”
But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.
Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”
In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.
It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.
“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”
And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”
So other documents can be helpful.
“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.
“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.
Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.
Napper was having none of that.
“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”
And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.
“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.
“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”
Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.
“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”
The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.
Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.
Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”
Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.
The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.
The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.
Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination “based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.”
The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
The former president, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges in four criminal indictments this year, blasted attempts to remove his name from his ballot using the constitutional clause on Monday, remarking that most in the legal field have already called those efforts a long shot and warned that they could prove to be tricky water to navigate.
“Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“Like Election Interference, it is just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s attorney, Jesse Binnall via email for comment.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani previously told Newsweek that it’s unlikely for the justices to side with Castro since Trump has yet to be charged or convicted of insurrection and rebellion.
“A conviction is not required under the plain language of the Constitution, but it’s telling that even those prosecuting Trump don’t believe that there is enough evidence to convict him or insurrection or sedition,” Rahmani said.
Other efforts to challenge Trump’s candidacy using the 14th Amendment have been unsuccessful. The case brought by tax attorney Lawrence Caplan in Florida was dismissed after the judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked standing and noted that the “injuries alleged” were not “particular” to the plaintiffs.
“An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual’s qualified to hold public office,” Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote.
Castro, however, argues that his case would have enough standing because he is directly impacted by Trump’s name being on the ballot since he is also running for the Republican nomination.
“Castro and Trump are not only competing for the same political position within the same political party but are also appealing to the same voter base,” the Supreme Court petition reads. “In fact, throughout his campaigning efforts to date, Castro has spoken to thousands of voters who have expressed that they would vote for Castro only if Trump is not a presidential candidate as they maintain political loyalty to Trump.”
“Castro will further suffer irreparable competitive injuries if Trump, who is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, is able to attempt to secure votes in primary elections and raise funds. Trump’s constitutionally unauthorized undertaking will put Castro at both a voter and donor disadvantage,” it said.
Castro, whose social media bios read “2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Suing Trump to Disqualify Him for January 6,” was a supporter of Trump until the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, at which point he became a fierce critic of the former president. Castro had donated to Trump’s campaign after his 2016 victory.
After all the COVID and Vaccine lies, will Americans comply to masking up? The majority will not. And if the MSM and their medical allies are truthful, they’ll report that those getting COVID, hospitalized, and dying will be the ones who got the eight jab.
I saw Tony the Fauch out spewing his bull again. But here is one of the few times he’s being truthful. Sort of. He states they really don’t work that well, but he says mask up anyway. A placebo effect?
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”
