Category: Progressive Racism

Categories
Uncategorized Biden Pandemic Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others.

The Deeply Flawed Narrative That Joe Biden Bought

“Never underestimate Joe’s ability to f*ck things up.” Former President Barack Obama shakes hands with Joe Biden after Biden spoke about the Affordable Care Act, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 5, 2022. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Views: 28

Left critics and self-hating Democrats believe that Obama was a Republican-indulging compromiser. So did Biden and his appointees, who were determined to outdo Obama using narrow Democratic control of Congress. Why they blew it.
by Bill Scher

This is a piece from a new source for me called the Washington Monthly.  Many of the articles are left leaning, but this one does make some sense. I’ll highlight some of the comments I agree with. Most of this article is Bullshit. But I felt all should see how the left thinks.

In July 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank banking bill. Its passage marked his administration’s third major legislative accomplishment, joining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act. The former, known as “the stimulus,” helped cut short the Great Recession. It also powered a clean energy revolution. From the beginning to the end of the Obama administration, wind power capacity tripled and solar power capacity increased by an astonishing 2,500 percent. The ACA, or “Obamacare,” expanded health insurance coverage, helping to reduce the percentage of uninsured Americans from 14.7 in 2008 to 9.2 in 2021. To fund expanded coverage, the ACA imposed new taxes on the wealthy, which, in concert with subsequent tax code changes, subjected the richest 1 percent of households to their highest tax burden since 1979. And Dodd-Frank’s reorganization of the financial regulatory system, according to the financial reformers at Better Markets, succeeded in “making a financial crash much less likely.”

At the same point, 486 days into his administration, Joe Biden’s scorecard is not as full. His biggest victory is the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Biden signed was significant as well, but his failure to extend the law’s poverty-fighting child tax credit expansion beyond December 2021 mars its legacy.

From the new book This Will Not Pass by the New York Times reporters Alex Burns and Jonathan Martin, we know that Biden had hoped to surpass Obama’s legislative output and impact. The president is quoted as saying to an adviser, “I am confident that Barack is not happy with the coverage of this administration as more transformative than his.” (And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is quoted as having told a friend, “Obama is jealous of Biden.”)

But 16 months into Biden’s presidency, it seems unlikely to be as transformative as Obama’s. It may succeed in many respects; great foreign policy achievements may be in store; a burst of bipartisanship could dampen our polarization. But the window for sweeping progressive legislation appears to be closed. Any last-ditch “reconciliation” bill this year, somehow earning Senator Joe Manchin’s approval and a barely sufficient 50 Senate votes, will have to be much smaller than the Build Back Better bill, meant to be Biden’s crowning legislative achievement. Truly ambitious party line legislation beyond this year would necessitate a Republican collapse, allowing Democrats to control Congress despite high inflation and Biden’s poor approval ratings.

The value of comparing these two administrations is not to settle some presidential pissing contest but to determine how best to enact progressive change.

We learn from This Will Not Pass that the Biden administration was heavily influenced by critics of Obama’s conciliatory approach, some of whom came from within that administration itself. According to Burns and Martin,

The people [Biden] had put in place at the highest levels of the White House largely aligned with [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer and Pelosi in their view of congressional Republicans. Mostly veterans of the Obama administration, they were haunted by their party’s last experience governing in an economic crisis, in 2009, when a newly inaugurated Democratic president and his top staff had spent months pleading and horse-trading for Republican support on various essential priorities and come away with little to show for it. [White House Chief of Staff] Ron Klain was among the Biden aides who [were] clear-eyed about the early missteps of the Obama administration …

The Obama administration, Klain believed, had moved too slowly in its early days to address the recession, and it had done too little to explain to the public what it was doing … Klain fretted that there was a risk Democrats would make the same mistakes again: allowing a drawn-out negotiation over dollar figures and time-tables to overshadow the real benefits the administration wanted to give voters.

Such a narrative became popular in progressive circles, driven by pundits like the New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman. In January 2009, Krugman deemed Obama’s $775 billion stimulus proposal “not enough” to deal with an estimated $2.1 trillion of lost production in the Great Recession. Five years later, Krugman called the stimulus, despite its positive policy elements, a “political disaster” that ended up “discrediting the very idea of stimulus.” Krugman also criticized Obama in August 2009 in response to reports that he was “backing away” from a “public option” during health care negotiations: “It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased.”

Obama revealed his real-time response to such complaints in his memoir, A Promised Land. Attempts to include a public option were dropped toward the end of the process at the behest of moderates in the Democratic caucus, enraging many progressives. Obama wrote,

I found the whole brouhaha exasperating. “What is it about sixty votes these folks don’t understand?” I groused to my staff. “Should I tell the thirty million people who can’t get covered that they’re going to have to wait another ten years because we can’t get them a public option?” It wasn’t just that criticism from friends always stung the most. The carping carried immediate political consequences for Democrats … all the great social-welfare advances in American history, including Social Security and Medicare, had started off incomplete and had been built upon gradually, over time. By preemptively spinning what could be a monumental, if imperfect, victory into a bitter defeat, the criticism contributed to a potential long-term demoralization of Democratic voters—otherwise known as the “What’s the point of voting if nothing ever changes?” syndrome—making it even harder for us to win elections and move progressive legislation forward in the future.

I find Obama’s explanation sensible. Yet inexplicably to me, many Obama administration veterans favor the Krugman view. Even more bizarre, Biden, after pushing back on progressive Obama critics in the 2020 primaries, surrounded himself with such critics once in office. The result was a Biden administration less attuned than his Democratic predecessor’s at determining what could be achieved with the Senate votes available.

Yes, Obama had more Senate Democrats to work with than Biden’s 50. Obama began his presidency with 58 Democrats. In late April 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties to make it 59. In early July 2009, Al Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic senator following a grueling recount. Then the number was knocked back to 59 in February 2010 after Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won the special election to succeed the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy.

With such a big majority, you might think that Obama could have plucked just about anything off the progressive wish list and made it law, using budget reconciliation—the procedurally complex filibuster-proof process Biden used last year to pass the American Rescue Plan with just 50 Senate Democrats. But Obama’s big majority included a sizable and stingy moderate faction, and not just in the Senate. In 2009, the House had 255 Democrats, but 49 were moderate Blue Dogs, more than enough to deny Pelosi a majority.

As Michael Grunwald explained in his history of the 2009 stimulus, The New New Deal, Obama “had to make sure Blue Dogs in the House and centrist Democrats in the Senate didn’t jump ship,” because even before the inauguration, “they were already sounding alarms about runaway spending.” In December 2008, then Vice President–elect Biden was compelled to publicly state that the emerging package “will not become a Democratic Christmas tree.” That effectively cut off any talk about using reconciliation for the first major bill of the Obama administration. And when a Senate version of the stimulus grew to $930 billion, a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats came together to scale it back to $780 billion.

Following the February 2009 passage of the Recovery Act, Democratic leaders wanted reconciliation available for the rest of Obama’s agenda, but fellow Democrats stymied them. When putting together the budget resolution—the parliamentary precursor to a budget reconciliation bill—Democrats agreed to include health care and education as eligible for the reconciliation process. But a Republican motion explicitly denying the same privilege for any climate change bill was embraced by 26 Senate Democrats and passed overwhelmingly—an omen that the Senate was not going to be hospitable to any ambitious climate change bill.

Even though health care made the cut, Democrats said at the time that the reconciliation option was a last resort. Reconciliation bills can only include budget-related provisions, and many health care reform proposals wouldn’t qualify (a procedural obstacle that fatally compromised Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare using reconciliation in 2017). Then Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad said, “Virtually everyone who has been part of these discussions recognizes that reconciliation is not the preferred way to write this legislation. But the administration wants to have a reconciliation instruction as an insurance policy.”

In turn, Obama calibrated his legislative agenda to meet the limits of what the 60th vote would allow. For the Recovery Act, after helping to limit the price tag, the 58th, 59th, and 60th Senate votes came from Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and—before his switch—Specter. (Senate Democrats were united in support, though eight House Democrats broke ranks.) For Obamacare, the 60th vote came from Democrat-turned-independent moderate Joe Lieberman, who refused both the public option as well as a Medicare buy-in option for those turning 55. For Dodd-Frank, it came from Scott Brown (offsetting the loss of progressive Democrat Russ Feingold), who demanded that a proposed tax on banks be stricken from the bill. It was.

Student loan reform did piggyback on a reconciliation package used to finish up the Obamacare process, accommodating changes sought by the House weeks after Senate Democrats lost their 60th seat. Fifty-six Senate Democrats passed that follow-up bill, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.

Some progressives never cottoned to the horse trades required to win those votes and partly blamed watered-down legislation for the poor Democratic performances in the 2010 and 2014 midterms and even Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. The Biden presidency offered the opportunity to prove the alternate theory of the case. Don’t strain for the 60th vote. Use the reconciliation process. Go big with 50 votes. Don’t even bother with Republicans.

But whatever the merits of reconciliation, basic legislative competence still requires accommodating the determining vote, be it the 60th vote in regular order or the 50th vote in reconciliation.

Biden simply did not do that in his pursuit of a wide-ranging Build Back Better bill. In December, he didn’t rush to take Manchin’s $1.8 trillion offer, apparently because it left out an extension of the expanded child tax credit. As Biden hesitated, Manchin announced his opposition to the entire bill and revoked the offer. Biden was understandably reluctant to give up on a program that had successfully slashed child poverty and had the makings of a signature policy achievement. But it was politically foolish to presume that the one-year expansion of the credit—slipped into the American Rescue Plan reconciliation measure—would be extended indefinitely without first securing Manchin’s support.

Krugman and others charged Obama with having “wasted time” by trying for months to win Republican support for the Affordable Care Act, support that never materialized. But Obama wasn’t just chasing Republicans; he was also chasing Senate Democrat moderates. However long it took, he found the votes he needed. Notably, Obamacare (and the student loan reform that rode along with it) was an anomaly. Every other bill Obama signed into law was passed thanks to mathematically necessary Republican support. It’s far more accurate to charge Biden with having wasted time on Build Back Better, as he spent months trying to wear down Manchin and ended up with nothing. Biden took less time getting the 60 Senate votes needed to pass an infrastructure bill precisely because he let those moderates who held the determining votes take the lead on negotiations.

Getting the historical narrative correct matters. Democrats should have been telling a positive story of Obama’s presidency, one where landmark laws made America better, and he became the first Democratic president to win reelection with more than 50 percent of the popular vote since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Instead, Democrats told a narrative that lacked historical perspective, blaming an inevitably imperfect legislative record for midterm losses, even though such defeats are common for the president’s party. Amazingly, Joe Biden, of all politicians, a figure who has lived through decades of Washington history, got suckered into accepting a flawed narrative. No wonder his legislative strategy was similarly flawed.

 

 

 

Loading

288
Post Views: 391
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Crime Drugs Economy Education Elections Faked news How funny is this? How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do. The Courts

Ding Dong the wicked witch is gone.

Gif. tigerdropings.com

Views: 48

Friday the 13th was Jen Psaki’s last day as the Bagdad Ali of the White House. I want to thank Joel B. Pollak for this list.

Yes some — particularly in the establishment media — have called her the “best ever,” perhaps because the job of explaining Joe Biden’s failures is simply so difficult. Here are some of the most memorable moments of her tenure, for better or for worse:

17. COVID and masks. Despite sanctimonious lectures about pandemic precautions, Psaki somehow managed to contract COVID twice. She also struggled to explain the White House’s double standards on wearing masks on federal property.

16. “Circle back.” Psaki drew mockery from conservatives over her repeated promises from the podium to “circle back” with reporters when she did not know the answer to questions — or perhaps when she knew, but preferred not to answer.

15. Hoaxes. Psaki repeated some — not all — of the famliar liberal hoaxes about Trump, most notably the “bleach” hoax, insisting — despite glaring evidence to the contrary — that he had told Americans to inject bleach to cure COVID (he did not).

14. Defaming Kyle Rittenhouse. In the midst of the Rittenhouse trial, Psaki criticized “vigilantes with assault weapons.” After Rittenhouse was acquitted, she refused to walk back Biden’s false claim that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist.”

13. War on “misinformation.” Psaki vowed her briefings would fight “misinformation,” and defended — to her last week — the Biden administration’s “disinformation” office. But she herself spread disinformation about Russia, and Hunter Biden.

12. Space Force snub. Psaki appeared to snub the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces when she mocked a reporter’s query about whether Biden intended to continue Donald Trump’s addition to the military. She later clarified that she supported it.

11. Major dog cover-up. When Biden’s dog, Major, was accused of biting a Secret Service agent, Psaki downplayed the incident. Later, documents suggested that Psaki misled the public about the real threat the dog posed to agency staff.

10. Border denial. Psaki made it clear she did not want reporters to ask about the crisis at the southern border, chastising reporters for “maddening” questions about it. She claimed Biden’s policy was more “moral” and “humane” than Trump’s.

9. Refusing to condemn protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes. It took Psaki days to condemn violence after a draft opinion reversing Roe was leaked, and she actually encouraged the arguably illegal protests outside the homes of justices.

8. Dismissing the idea of free COVID tests. Psaki initially scoffed at the idea of sending free COVID tests to every American as too costly to undertake. A few days later, mid-omicron wave, the administration belatedly began doing so.

7. “Don’t Say Gay’ demagoguery. It was Psaki who started the false — yet effective — claim that Florida had passed a law that literally prohibited people from saying “gay.” The law actually restricts sexual instruction of any kind to K-3 children.

6. Doocy. Among many examples of the Biden administration failing to respect the press, one of the worst was Psaki saying that Fox News made Peter Doocy — one of the few critical voices in the press corps — sound like a “stupid son of a bitch.”

5. Defending inflation. Psaki test-drove several excuses for inflation, first claiming that it was transitory (“inflation is going to come down next year”), then trying to put a positive spin on it as the by-product of an otherwise wonderful economy.

4. Admitting Biden skipped D-Day. Among other clean-up jobs, Psaki had to explain Biden’s unfortunate failure to commemorate the anniversary of D-Day in 2021. She told reporters that the historic occasion was still “close to his heart.”

3. Vacationing while Afghanistan fell. Psaki and many other members of the administration had to be called back from summer vacation when Afghanistan began to fall to the Taliban, a failure that has since defined perceptions of the president.

2. Hunter Biden dodges. Psaki repeatedly (and successfully) dodged questions about Hunter Biden, his laptop, and his connection to his dad’s finances, claiming they were a private matter or the under the purview of the Department of Justice.

1. Baby formula. Psaki’s advice, when asked what parents should do if worried about their babies amid a national shortage of baby formula, was to “call their doctor.” Neither she nor the White House had any solace to offer American families.

One example when Psaki called it right: she did, finally, admit that communism is a “failed ideology,” as Cubans protested in the streets against their oppressive regime. But that, sadly, is all the Biden administration was willing to do to help them.

Loading

261
Post Views: 436
Categories
Politics Faked news Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts

Did Alito and Barrett Claim That America Needs a ‘Domestic Supply of Infants’? Fake News.

Debunking Fake News. (Photograph by Erin Schaff/Getty Images.)

Views: 28

Article was originally here.

A viral tweet claims that Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito justified overturning Roe v. Wade in the leaked draft majority opinion because “the US needs a ‘domestic supply of infants.’”

Twitter avatar for @DrGJackBrownDr. Jack Brown @DrGJackBrown

BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito’s Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption.

May 7th 2022

In a reply to the tweet, the tweet author shared a screenshot from the opinion showing the line in question.

Twitter avatar for @DrGJackBrownDr. Jack Brown @DrGJackBrown

Addendum:

Image

May 7th 2022

The draft was written by Alito, not Barrett and Alito as the tweet suggests. The section of the opinion from which the quote is pulled is a footnote, with the line not being written by Barrett or Alito, but coming from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention paper on adoption. The line reads: “[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand of a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

This paper is cited in a paragraph summing up arguments from pro-life Americans, specifically being cited in a sentence noting that a newborn put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a home. The footnote appears in the following section, following the italicized portion (italicization added):

“Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of un-married women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,42 that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases,43 that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance44; that States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously45; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home46.”

From the context of the footnote, it’s clear that the CDC quote appeared in the footnote only to highlight the fact that unwanted babies put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a family—not, as the tweet implies, that domestic birth rates need to increase to meet adoption demands. What’s more, the paragraph in which the footnote appears is about the arguments of pro-life Americans, taking place in a summary of the public debate surrounding abortion. Immediately preceding the above paragraph is another summing up the beliefs of pro-abortion Americans, which reads:

“Defenders of Roe and [Casey v. Planned Parenthood] do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question, but they do contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Without the availability of abortion, they maintain, people will be inhibited from exercising their freedom to choose the types of relationships they desire, and women will be unable to compete with men in the workplace and in other endeavors.”

Following both summaries, the opinion continues:

“Both sides make important policy arguments, but supporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States. They have failed to make that showing, and we thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected officials.”

Loading

218
Post Views: 354
Categories
Sexual Abuse Progressive Racism Reprints from others.

Time for states and real women to stand up for the children

Time is now for states to stand up for real women and babies.- Photo-Fox News

Views: 49

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Noem pledges to ‘immediately’ call the legislature to defend unborn children from abortion.

Strong women like Governor Noem are pledging to lead the fight against those sniviling women who are using a bad hair day as an excuse to abort the children. But hopefully no more.

Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., responded to the alleged draft of a forthcoming Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization striking down Roe v. Wade with a pledge to convene a special session of the South Dakota legislature to limit abortion should the Court’s final ruling strike down the 1973 precedent.

The draft, which the Court refused to confirm or deny and which appears to date back to February, would reverse Roe v. Wade and allow the states to make their own laws on the hot-button issue of abortion. Since this is a draft, reported by Politico, and not an official signed opinion, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Drafts circulate and change.

https://twitter.com/govkristinoem/status/1521303498545061889

Loading

207
Post Views: 315
Categories
Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others.

Justin Trudeau Gets Wrecked After Daring to Lecture the EU Parliament About Democracy.

Justin Bitch Slapped. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Views: 40

The lack of self-awareness among the global elites is stunning. After Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau cracked down on protestors in his own country and sent his henchwoman, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, to freeze the assets of protesting truck drivers and their supporters, he traveled to Brussels to speak to the European Parliament. His theme was the threats to democracy posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the growing distrust of governments in the West in the face of economic uncertainty.

From the National Post:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is making a plea to European leaders to come together as democracies in the face of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and tackle rising uncertainties citizens have about the future.

Trudeau said economic frustrations are threatening the stability of the world and driving a deep uncertainty about the future and distrust of government.

He also said democracies face a new threat from Russian President Valdimir Putin and his attack on Ukraine, which Trudeau called a violation of international law with the targeting and killing of civilians in hospitals and residential buildings.

Trudeau said the war in Ukraine poses a security threat not only to Europe, but to western democracies and the world.

“Putin’s attack on Ukraine is an attack on the values that form the pillars of all democracies. We have a responsibility to make the case to people about why these values matter so much — not just to Ukrainians but to us all,” Trudeau said in his remarks.

You can almost hear him speaking earnestly in his near-whisper, can’t you? Luckily, a few EU parliamentarians offered him more than a mirror. During his allotted time to speak at the meeting, Mislav Kolakusic, a Croatian member of the European Parliament (MEP), criticized the Canadian government’s hardline approach to protests by truck drivers in Ottawa.

After Trudeau waxed poetic about democracy, Kolakusic held nothing back: “Freedom, the right to choose, the right to life, the right to health, the right to work for many of us are fundamental human rights for which millions of citizens of Europe and the world have laid down their lives to defend our rights and the rights of our children which we have acquired over the centuries.”

 

He continued, “Many of us, including myself, are willing to risk our own freedom and our own lives. Unfortunately, today, there are those among us who trample on these fundamental values.”

Croatians are all too familiar with authoritarian rule in the modern age.

Speaking directly to Trudeau, he added, “Canada, once a symbol of the modern world, has become a symbol of civil rights violations under your quasi-liberal boot in recent months. We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block the bank accounts of single parents so that they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes.”

Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes issued a statement announcing his decision not to attend Trudeau’s speech.  It was just as brutal as Kolakusic’s comments: “You can’t come and teach democracy lessons to Putin from the European Parliament when you trample with horse hooves your own citizens who are demanding that their fundamental rights be respected.”

In another paragraph, he asserted that Trudeau is no better than Putin. “When you, a politician from the ‘west,’ implement in your home methods of repression and the trampling of the rights of your own citizens, who demand their rights be respected, as Putin does at home, you are no better than him.”

Terhes went on to criticize Western leaders more generally. “These imposter leaders of today’s west have brought the world into the chaos we find ourselves in today, precisely because they have strayed from the values that made the ‘west’ a free and prosperous world.” He added, “The departure of western leaders from these values (individual liberty, respect for rights and freedoms, etc.) not only made them lose their moral ascendancy but allowed the rise of tyrants like Putin.”

Then Terhes articulated something Americans are noticing about the current global skirmish: “Between the Russian imperialist tyranny, promoted by Putin, and the neo-Marxist tyranny pretending to be progressivism promoted by the likes of Trudeau, in which people are deprived of their rights and freedoms, becoming objects of the state, I do not choose any.”

Of course, if you suggest that something seems off with the conflict, you will be called a Putin stooge. Just ask Tucker Carlson or Tulsi Gabbard.

Terhes was just as plain-spoken during the crackdown in Ottawa. “He’s exactly like a tyrant, a dictator. He’s like Ceaușescu in Romania,” he said. “If even you doubt, if you raise doubts about the [COVID] vaccines, you’re outcasted.”

Hopefully, Trudeau returned home demoralized. Maybe he will send Freeland after his detractors in Brussels. It is probably too much to expect that President Biden will receive similar truth bombs from members of the EU Parliament during his attendance at a meeting of NATO. However, with the two-tiered justice system that is obvious to anyone to the right of Hilary Clinton, the blatant corruption of the Biden family detailed on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and a corporate media and oligarchy intent on burying stories critical of our regime, how far are we from a Western oligarchy similar to the one Putin oversees?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1506826131579682816

Loading

270
Post Views: 402
Categories
Corruption How sick is this? Progressive Racism

WOKE: NYC’s “Chief Medical Officer” :Mocking Designation for White Moms

Views: 33

By Samantha Chang for Western Journal  March 25, 2022 at 8:05am

The left’s rhetorical war on women and white people has infested the “objective” field of medicine and is escalating to absurd lengths.

In the latest salvo, the clownish chief medical officer of New York City referred to pregnant women as “birthing people” and specifically marginalized white moms with this dehumanizing designation.

Dr. Michelle Morse is New York’s first “chief medical officer,” and she was specifically chosen for this new post because of her focus on pushing “racial equity.”

That’s PC speak for “whatever helps black people.”

“Dr. Morse’s experience has combined the best of public health, social medicine, anti-racism education, and activism,” Health Commissioner Dr. Dave Chokshi said in a February 2021 news release announcing her appointment.

“Health equity requires leaders who propel change and I am grateful that she has joined the Department to help us create a healthier, more equitable, city,” Chokshi said.

On Wednesday, Morse made the case for taxpayer-funded doulas (that’s like a midwife without the health care training) targeting pregnant black and brown women.

The far-left activist claimed minority women need free doulas because the mortality rate of black mothers in New York is higher than for white moms.

Naturally, Morse blamed this alleged disparity on sham systemic racism and not on the post- and pre-birth health habits of white vs. black mothers.

In her bizarre tweets, she specifically referenced “Black and Puerto Rican mothers” while dismissing white moms as “non-Hispanic White birthing people.”

“Mortality rates of birthing people are too high, and babies born to Black and Puerto Rican mothers in this city are three times more likely to die in their first year of life than babies born to non-Hispanic White birthing people,” Morse said.

Numerous Twitter users slammed Morse for her degrading categorization of pregnant women as “birthing people.”

Many also called Morse out for her shady dig at white moms.

Morse’s racist tweets promoted New York Mayor Eric Adams’ multimillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded program to provide free doulas in 33 minority neighborhoods.

In a news release Wednesday, Adams — who once mocked white cops using the racial slur “crackers” — said the program was part of an effort to help black and Hispanic mothers.

“All three initiatives are part of Mayor Adams’ mission to reduce health inequities in New York City, particularly amongst marginalized Black and Latino/a families and pregnant people,” the release said.

“Maternal and infant health inequities are rooted in generations of structural racism and disinvestment,” it said.

“In New York City, Black women are nine times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than white women, and their rate of infant mortality is more than three times higher. For Puerto Ricans, the infant mortality rate is twice that of white New Yorkers.”

While many Americans are struggling with soaring grocery and gas prices, some of our tax dollars are being used to help only certain groups under racist Democratic leadership.

A birth doula remains with the mother during birth, offering relaxation and breathing technique support, as well as comforting services like massage, and assistance with labor positions; however, doulas are not medically trained, and cannot deliver babies. A doula is not a substitute for having a woman’s partner at the birth. Doulas encourage participation from the partner, and offer support and reassurance to the partner as well.

https://www.medicinenet.com/doula_vs_midwife/article.htm

Comment: so these non-medically trained people are going to lower mortality rates how?

Loading

265
Post Views: 408
Categories
Crime Opinion Progressive Racism The Courts

Winning. Former Cop Found Not Guilty of Wanton Endangerment in Raid That Left Breonna Taylor Dead

American Hero found Not Guilty. Photo-GP.

Views: 14

Justice was served. A Kentucky jury on Thursday cleared a former police officer of charges that he endangered neighbors when he fired shots into an apartment during the 2020 drug raid that ended with Breonna Taylor’s death.

The panel of eight men and four women delivered its verdict about three hours after it took the case following closing arguments from prosecution and defense attorneys. Hankison was shaking and visibly relieved after the verdict. Taylor’s sister, Juniyah Palmer, shook her head.

Asked what might have swayed the jury, Attorney Mathews replied, “I think it was absolutely the fact that he was doing his job as a police officer. … The jury felt like you go out and peform your duty and your brother officer gets shot, you got a right to defend yourself. Simple as that. “

Loading

206
Post Views: 300
Categories
Uncategorized Corruption Opinion Politics Progressive Racism

Stop the gerrymandering lies.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Bob Brown/Richmond Times-Dispatch via AP)

Views: 12

Stop the gerrymandering lies. RCP recently did an article where former governor Christie pointed out what gerrymandering looks like from the left. A few years back I pointed out how gerrymandering was done to create phony minority districts. A few blacks here, a few browns there, and you have a gerrymandering minority district.

We have this from RCP.

New York’s new district lines, signed off by the Democratic legislature and governor, are so comically contorted they’ve generated jokes and criticism from the right to the far left. The shape of Rep. Jerry Nadler’s newly crafted district – New York’s 10th – is downright serpentine, so much so that it was quickly dubbed the “jerrymander,” which brings this issue back to its historic roots

The Atlantic put it this way: “[The redrawn district] slices down the west side of Manhattan, takes a ferry ride across the East River, cuts a horseshoe-shaped path through a half dozen neighborhoods on its way to Prospect Park, then wraps around a cemetery containing the earthly remains of Boss Tweed and Horace Greeley before swallowing a huge section of central and south Brooklyn.”

Nadler’s new district is the most egregious example, but there are plenty of others across the Empire State. And some Democrats argue that some district lines in New York are drawn to protect moderate Democratic incumbents with others gaming the systems against Republicans. That is debatable, but regardless, a “jerrymandered” district like Nadler’s isn’t a good look for a party that has railed against GOP gerrymandering as a crime against the Constitution in places like Ohio.

The Princeton group labeled the New York map as particularly egregious; noted that new lines in Illinois and Maryland have benefited Democrats. The Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman has given a recent edge to Democrats in the great gerrymandering sweepstakes of 2020.

“For the first time, Dems have taken the lead on @CookPolitical’s 2022 redistricting scorecard,” Wasserman tweeted in early Feb. “After favorable developments in NY, AL, PA et. al., they’re on track to net 2-3 seats from new maps vs. old ones.”

Both sides are raising millions of dollars for their redistricting legal battles. A CNBC report last week, citing internal GOP fundraising invitations, said Republican “megadonors” want to raise at least $3 million to fight the New York maps alone. The report didn’t mention that the NDRC has raised $10 million since 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Loading

226
Post Views: 377
Categories
Crime Politics Progressive Racism

OUTRAGE! GoFundMe Seizes C$10 Million of Trucker Protest Fundraising, Will Give to “Charities” Instead

Views: 42

GoFundMe says it won’t be giving the C$10 million ($8 million USD) raised to support the truckers protesting COVID-19 mandates to the organizers anymore, saying it will instead work with the organizers to send the funds to “established charities verified by GoFundMe.”

“To ensure GoFundMe remains a trusted platform, we work with local authorities to ensure we have a detailed, factual understanding of events taking place on the ground,” the fundraising platform said in a statement on Feb. 4.

“Following a review of relevant facts and multiple discussions with local law enforcement and city officials, this fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term 8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment) and has been removed from the platform.”

GoFundMe added that it has “evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity.”

John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) which is providing legal representation for the organizers, told The Epoch Times that the linking of protesters to violent or unlawful activity is unfounded.

“I would like to see what evidence there is,” Carpay said. “That’s political spin.”

Carpay said the organizers have maintained that the protests are peaceful.

“It’s a constitutional freedom to protest peacefully,” Carpay said.

He also said that it’s his understanding from people on the ground that people can move freely in Ottawa, and for example in a recent case an emergency vehicle was able to “rapidly race through the streets because the trucks were neatly parked off to the side.”

“They’re not obstructing the daily lives of people in Ottawa, and they’re committed to peace and non-violence,” he said.

The Epoch Times reached out to GoFundMe for comment but didn’t immediately hear back.

Epoch Times Photo
Trucks parked in downtown Ottawa as demonstrators continue to protest COVID-19 mandates and restrictions on Feb. 2, 2022. (Jonathan Ren/The Epoch Times)

GoFundMe had earlier put a freeze in withdrawal of the funds as it undertook a review “to ensure it complies with our terms of service and applicable laws and regulations.”

Keith Wilson, a lawyer from JCCF representing the organizers, had said earlier at a Feb. 3 press conference that GoFundMe has been “bombarded with an orchestrated social media and other campaigns to try and shut [the fundraiser] down.”

Ottawa police have made a few arrests while the protesters remain in Ottawa. On Feb. 1, the Ottawa Police Service announced that it had charged one man with mischief under $5,000 and another man with carrying a weapon to a meeting. Police charged another man from Quebec while in Ottawa on Feb. 2 in relation to “threats and comments made on social media.” Police say there have been no injuries or riots during the protests.

“I have it on very reliable information that people from the movement were not associated, and that offences related to property damage, and just an assault this morning, committed by agitators were witnessed and reported by a trucker and one of our volunteer security personnel, which was reported to the police and handled by the Ottawa Police Service,” said Daniel Bulford, a former RCMP officer who worked as a sniper to protect the prime minister and is now helping the protest organizers, at the Feb. 3 press conference.

Preliminary data shows there has been a decline in police-reported street crime since the protest began in downtown Ottawa, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

In the week prior to the protest, there were 31 police calls for crimes such as robbery, assault, drug trafficking, public drunkenness, and other crimes in the Ottawa district the protest is set up, but there were only three reports of street crime since the protests began, Blacklock’s Reporter said.

In a Feb. 4 post on Twitter, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson thanked GoFundMe for “listening to the plea made by the City and the Ottawa Police to no longer provide funds to the convoy organizers.”

“I’m hopeful that limiting their access to … funding and resources will restrict their ability to remain in Ottawa,” Watson said.

GoFundMe had earlier allowed withdrawal of C$1 million by the organizers to be used for expenses such as fuel and food for the protesters. The fundraising platform said in its Feb. 4 statement that donors may submit a request for a full refund of their donation until Feb. 19.

The trucker convoy demonstration initially started as a protest against the federal government’s requirement for truck drivers crossing the U.S.-Canada border to have COVID-19 vaccination, but became a large movement as many across Canada opposing various COVID-19 mandates and restrictions joined the protest.

The convoy converged in Ottawa on Jan. 29, and many protesters have remained in the city, parking their trucks and vehicles by Parliament Hill. Sounds of horn honking by protesters can be heard throughout the day.

The protesters say they will remain in the nation’s capital until the government removes COVID-19 mandates.

The organizers have now set up an alternate donation site on GiveSendGo, which they say will ensure the money gets to the protesters. The donation site had raised over $175,000 in just a few hours after its creation.

Cancel GoFundMe for illegally stealing money donated for the truckers!

Next, they will be seizing money for people who didn’t get the jab.

Loading

227
Post Views: 316
Categories
Uncategorized Progressive Racism

Another leftist apologizing after their hate speech. Whoopi goes after the Holocaust Jews.

During an episode of “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg said the Holocaust “is not about race, but about man’s inhumanity to man.” Getty Images for Audible

Views: 17

Well we have another loon from the left who puts out a statement of hate speech or  Antisemitism, and guess what? They apologize, Did I say that? Did my comments offend you? For those who disagree with my hate, I apologize.

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg caused chaos on ABC’s “The View” Monday when she insisted that the Holocaust was “not about race.” 

While discussing a Tennessee school district’s recent ban of the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel “Maus,” about a Holocaust survivor, Goldberg argued that the genocide was broader than a race-based injustice.

“The Holocaust isn’t about race. No, it’s not about race,” Goldberg, 66, said repeatedly. “It’s about man’s inhumanity to man.”

 

Loading

231
Post Views: 359
Verified by MonsterInsights