With these rising prices, farmers are making real money for the first time in years, and most Americans want farmers to earn a fair living for their sweat and hard work. Grain prices affect the cost of beef, pork, turkeys, and chickens. It is simple economics: higher grain prices result in higher meat prices. What the US government should be doing is incentivizing crop production, not curtailing it. We should also be expanding US cattle and hog herds and turkey and chicken flocks in order to keep food prices stable while also exporting to meat-importing countries. Taking even marginal land out of agricultural production is a mistake. [Note: a lot of land previously considered to be “marginal” has been improved for productive cultivation over the years through diligent hard work.]

Finally, other grain exporting countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Australia will be enticed to plant more acres to meet world demand if the US sets aside additional acreage in CRP. Maybe that is one unspoken purpose behind the Hologram’s CRP push – another America Last policy. Good for foreign farmers; not so much for American farmers. And if the Hologram regime’s 30×30 Plan (and CRP) goal is to help “halt climate change” in response to the “climate crisis panic porn” being purveyed by CNN by taking US acreage out of production, how is that goal achieved if other countries merely make up the difference?

This letter was sent to the Judiciary Committee while Congress is considering the highly controversial H.R.1 – ”For the People Act of 2021.” Below is an excerpt from that letter:

Sadly, the public discourse about Georgia’s new voting reforms has not been civil, fair, nor honest. Politically motivated attacks against the new law have generated much heat, but little light. We do not challenge the goodwill of the vast majority of the participants in this needlessly overwrought drama playing out. But we take great issue with the manner in which opponents of these reforms have operated. It has become clear that even well-intentioned critics of the law simply have no idea what the law is. It is clear they have no idea how favorably Georgia’s new law compares with most other states – including President Biden’s home state of Delaware. And it is clear they have no idea that a majority of Black voters across the country support the key provision under attack by critics – the simple requirement that voters be able to identify themselves when voting.

This is the same simple requirement needed to pick up baseball tickets or board a plane – activities hardly as important as voting. Instead, critics of the law have substituted passion for reason, hysteria for judgment. They have launched a despicable smear campaign against supporters of the law and economic reprisals against the state of Georgia – punishing the very people they claim to champion. They have tarred with the brush of racism people whose only sin is a desire for confidence in our elections. It’s time to end these campaigns of misinformation, division, and hate. People of goodwill must find ways to expand voter access for all Americans, strengthen the security and integrity of our election process, and do so in a way that sees civil, respectful discourse between those who disagree.

While Georgia’s new voting reforms aren’t really controversial at all — except to people who want to cheat — H.R. 1 on the other hand institutionalizes cheating that, of course, favors the Democrats. Critics say Georgia’s new law disenfranchises Black voters by asking them for a photo ID to identify themselves.

H.R.1 bans voter ID laws. Instead, all a voter will have to do is give a sworn statement that they are who they say they are at the polls. It also bars states from checking with other states for duplicate registrations within six months of an election. It bars removing former voters from the rolls for failure to vote or to respond to mailings. //

The most egregious part of H.R.1 is the provision that strips state legislatures from drawing their own congressional districts. Instead, “independent ” commissions will draw district boundary lines. Mid-decade readjustments are banned under H.R.1. In order to reduce representation in rural and traditionally Republican areas, prison inmates are counted as residents of their last known address — even if they are serving a life sentence!

Georgia’s new voting reform laws are not discriminatory and will ensure integrity in Georgia’s elections. H.R. 1, on the other hand, will do the exact opposite in Georgia and the other 49 states. We must not get distracted by the Democrats’ head fakes in Georgia while they maneuver the federal takeover of our election system. We must stay vocal and diligent because our country’s future depends on it.

How does Price know when the conversation was or that it had “already been disclosed?” Does he know the date of the conversation and what was discussed? Why would Zarif be “astonished” if this information was already publicly available?

Moreover, classified information is still classified information even after media might report on it, and it’s not clear exactly what is alleged to have been discussed about the ops.

Meanwhile Kerry claims, not that the information was already out there, he claims he never had the conversation at all.

So which is it? Did he have the conversation that didn’t mean anything or didn’t he?

According to his own comments in 2019, Kerry said he met with Zarif in 2018 “three or four times” to discuss the nuclear deal and other issues.

As we’ve previously said, why was he meeting with the Iranians at all at that time, when he didn’t represent our government and was trying to save the nuclear deal, which was against the U.S. position at the time? What did he say in these admitted conversations and what were the “other issues?”

It isn’t just the revelations about Israel, that’s bad enough. But what he’s already essentially admitted to, the conversations about the nuclear deal, needs serious investigation and is an even bigger issue. He’s never been held to account for it and now he’s on the National Security Council as Biden’s “special envoy” on climate. Joe Biden needs to answer up on this, and the answer can’t just be more avoidance.

Meanwhile, and not a small point, Iranian surrogates were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq over the years and Iranian-backed militias have been attacking American targets in Iraq.

Final point? If Kerry isn’t telling the truth and Iran knows it or has audio tape, he’s now compromised.

A group that exists to “reform LA jails” doesn’t need $600 a night hotel stays to “meet” about how they plan to do that.

But this shows the kind of grift that Black Lives Matter and other activist outfits are perpetrating on people. I certainly wouldn’t give money to these people, but there are a lot of otherwise well-meaning individuals who have and do. They should probably reconsider that choice immediately. Behind every Marxist is a raging capitalist who wants the lavish lifestyle to stop with them. Cullors fits that bill to the letter.

In a more sane media environment that wasn’t so completely in the tank for BLM, there would be serious investigative reporting going on to expose this. As it stands, that job is left to smaller, right-wing outfits like The Daily Caller. It shouldn’t be that way, but here we are.

One new study found that radiation exposure didn't genetically harm future generations, while another offers insights into how radiation causes thyroid cancer. //

On this day in 1986, workers ran a safety test at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine. But the test went awry, starting a fire in a reactor and leading to one of the largest nuclear disasters in history. Smoke from the fire and a second explosion launched radioactive elements into the atmosphere, scattering them over the surrounding fields and towns. Now, 35 years later, scientists are still uncovering the extent of the damage and starting to answer questions about the long-term legacy of radiation exposure on power plant workers, the people in the nearby community, and even their family members born years later.

the Supreme Court today agreed to hear the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, a major 2nd Amendment case that will address the question:

Whether the state’s denial of Petitioner’s applications for Concealed-Carry Licenses for Self-Defense violated the Second Amendment?

Interestingly, that is not the question as posed in the Petition. In the Petition the Court was asked to answer the following question:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense? //

the question as posed in the Petition asked for an interpretation of the breadth of the Second Amendment’s pre-emption of state regulation, whereas the question as reformulated by the Court focuses on what New York has done and whether that act violates the Second Amendment — a question that can be answered without sweeping away all other state-imposed limitations on gun ownership and possession.

The language chosen by the Court suggests a narrower analysis of the specific New York’s firearm permitting process, and seems to focus on the specific applications made by the Petitioners within the framework of the statutory limitations created by New York going back to a point in time prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment. //

Deciding the applicable “standard of review” — particularly if the Court decides that “strict scrutiny” is the proper standard — would then be a basis to send the case back to the Second Circuit without addressing the foundational issue of how broad are the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. It would also cause a likely “reset” of other cases recently decided or currently pending in other circuit courts. A decision establishing the “standard of review” would “rewrite the rules” in a meaningful fashion on how lower courts should evaluate state restrictions on gun ownership and possession. Such a “reset” of lower court cases would allow the Supreme Court to again put off resolving the more controversial issues about how far the Second Amendment should reach in prohibiting state regulation of firearms. //

DannyBhoyo13
4 hours ago
From what I gather, the Supreme Court narrowing the question under dispute give them another opportunity to punt on decision concerning, “shall not be infringed.” //

Romeg
4 hours ago edited
The Right of Self-Defense PRE-EXISTS the creation of ANY State since it is a Natural Right that is part and parcel of being a natural person while The State is an artifice, a creation of mankind whose 'just powers' derive from those who created The State. Having thus been created and granted such powers as it has and not having been granted, expressly, the right to LIMIT natural rights, The State, therefore, LACKS the power to grant unto itself the power to LIMIT the Natural Rights of those who created IT.

It never occurred to the Founders to apply the language of the Second Amendment to the states since, first off, The Constitution of The United States establishes the Federal Government and the Bill of Rights, which includes The Second Amendment thereto, LIMITS the powers of The Federal Government. But for the Natural Right of Self Defense which presupposes the right to Keep and Bear Arms, the American Revolution would have been lost before that first shot was fired on April 15, 1775 and NO STATES would exist as the consequence. They would be Provinces akin to other former elements of the United Kingdom.

If NO STATE can invade a woman's privacy for the sake of protecting the life of another human being then how, in G*d's Name, can it have the power to tell one of its citizens that unless you can demonstrate some special need, you don't have the right to arm yourself for your own protection?

The language is plainly on display in the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States: "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Maintenance of a Free State*, The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

*Free State, in the context of this amendment, does NOT refer to any political subdivision. Rather it refers to the CONDITION of being Free, as in the language of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4: 10-14, to wit:

"10-But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye have revived your thought for me; wherein ye did indeed take thought, but ye lacked opportunity. 11-Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. 12-I know how to be abased, and I know also how to abound: in everything and in all things have I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. 13-I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me. 14-Howbeit ye did well that ye had fellowship with my affliction."

Andy Warhol famously remarked in the 1960s that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” What a failure of imagination. He simply couldn’t foresee the advent of cellphone cameras, GoPros and the vast digital sewage processing plant otherwise known as YouTube. Once upon a time, home movies were just that, but easy access to all the world’s eyeballs now means that anyone—and I mean anyone—can produce their own reality show and probably attract an audience of viewers too busy to actually attend train wrecks in person. //

David Gagliardi
October 7, 2020 at 11:15 pm
I tell all my students that in a retractable gear airplane an off runway forced approach is always gear up. The instant the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane. //

Jim Holdeman
October 7, 2020 at 5:05 pm
Having practiced many times a loss of power via pulling the throttle back to idle, I thought I was prepared enough to handle a total loss of power. However, when the real deal happens in a complex airplane, the reality of total loss of thrust with a wind-milling prop compared to all the common practice is quite a shock.

The descent profile in an attempt to maintain best glide speed is extremely steep. Far steeper than can be replicated in practice emergencies. Depending on throttle position and airplane manufacture, you also have not only a stall warning blaring when you get too slow but the gear horn as well while the gear is still in the wells. These noises are really amplified when the engine truly goes silent vs this 210 with the engine still running.

It makes an interesting cocktail of sensations as the emergency progresses. The sense of denial is astounding, paralyzing at first. Once that is overcome, the next sensation for me was the initial chirp of the stall warning and how loud it now was. I already knew I was slowing down by sound and control feel. However, even when a thought I had really pushed the nose down enough, within seconds I learned quickly…that was not enough. Having pushed the nose down a second time with a real heavy, fast, and long throw push, I had to do my best to trim for that much nose low attitude required, at the same time while searching for a suitable landing site. I was so busy and also dealing with the amazement of how nose low I had to be just to maintain something within 20 mph of published best glide speed that flying the airplane took a lot of attention away from looking for a field to land in.

Since I was flying still way short of best glide speed but well beyond stall speed, I had to make a decision of two potential landing sites based on a descent angle I have never seen before. One was much better than the other. But, it was very uncertain I would make the good one based on this new descent profile. If this was a practice engine out with idling engine, I would have had the good field made easily.

It was extremely hard to turn away from the good field ( the airport perimeter) and aim for the poorer landing site that was at least attainable from my present glide path. Now the question is when to put down the flaps…and make the decision gear down or gear up. And from the several attempts at a restart, the throttle was now positioned at idle adding the gear horn to the atmosphere. Since I saw what appeared as grass, I elected to put the gear down. The amount of forward yoke required as the gear came down now made me very thankful I took the lousy but still reachable field. Now I wondered if I would have enough elevator authority to flare. The grass turned out to be about 3-4 ft tall. As I flared with a mighty pull (through all the down trim pressure) that went to the up elevator stop, the main gear went into the tops of the grass, slowing me down way faster than expected, with a hit hard on all three. I rolled about 50 feet and hit a ditch perpendicular to my path the tall grass was hiding. The nose gear was sheared off and over I went in a split second on my back, stopping instantly.

This happened several years ago. This particular week, I was the third of three Bonanza crashes due to total power loss. I was the only non-fatal. I am a praying man. And I have seen prayers answered many, many times. God understands airplanes very well including good pilot training. I can emphatically say, His voice said” fly the airplane”. That very loud command clearly over-riding all noise, confusion, headset radio background chatter, etc, instantly snapping me out of my paralyzing denial funk. Many might try to make the claim my excellent training supplied that voice. If you are a praying person, you will know God’s Voice. His Voice is unmistakable.

Secondly, this airplane had only lap belts on a non adjustable seat. By all rights, and the law of physics, my head should have been buried into the panel with my upper torso shoved into the throw over yoke. My legs did hit the bottom of the panel bruising them just above the knee. I suffered a cut to the top of my head from the speaker grille when it came loose. A lost my glasses and my cell phone from my pocket from the sudden stop and being flipped over. The most painful and scary part after I stopped was how to get out of the lap belt and not break my neck and/or shoulder when hitting the ceiling. No matter how I tried to stretch, I could not reach the ceiling with the lap belt holding me upside down. So, I knew I was going to fall the last 12 inches directly on my head. I did not get hurt but it was another hard, awkward, hit for my body. Next, I had to figure how to get out of the airplane. The top of the cabin was slightly crushed preventing me from opening the door. So, I had to crawl to the back of the airplane and try to read upside down how to open the rear side windows. Once a figured that out and pulled the pin, I kicked out the window and crawled out. Total time of the event from start to finish was estimated to be about 35 seconds. I was at 3,500 feet when the engine quit making noise. I could see the airport.

Lastly, the first responder was a member of the local helo/medivac team who had just left the hangar and was walking to his car. He heard the engine quit, saw the entire event, lost sight of me in the tall grass until he saw the tail go over and then disappear again. I could not believe, he was standing there in front of me as soon as I got out of the airplane. Since I had lost my glasses, he had to get fairly close to me for me to recognize him as someone I knew.

At the time of the accident, I had 400 hours TT and 1.5 hours in a Bonanza. I had to fly between a tree line and a power pole going to a shed, while still clearing a 6 foot fence that looked to be not a whole lot larger than my wingspan, to plop down in that tall grass. That was not my extraordinary skill combined with a lot of time in type. God snapped me out of my denial, helped me through the trees, lines, and fence. And made sure I did not become implanted into the panel and the yoke. There was no fire. I don’t remember doing it but I did cut the mixture and ignition before touchdown. My total distance from touchdown to inverted stop about 80 feet from and estimated touchdown of 50-60mph. I walked away, the airplane never flew again. Yes, God intervened.

I did not get spared the fright, the denial, the new sensations, the sudden stop. I flew again about a week later. It was a very scary initial flight to overcome what I now know as…total, abject fear. I do not want to experience that kind of fear again. It took me several hours to get comfortable again in an airplane. 10 years later, I own a Bonanza. However, for me, there is no question God intervened to allow me to perhaps tell this story as an encouragement and/ or education for someone else.

If faced with this situation again, I would have open the cabin door, and really think twice about putting down the gear in an off airport landing. Under normal pattern power or even idle power, the pitch change in a Bonanza is noticeable requiring some nose up trim but certainly not dramatic. But after dealing with the reality of how far one must push the nose over to maintain flying speed with all loss of power from cruise, I was unprepared for the amount the second push forward required close to the ground when the gear was on its way down followed with the quick need for a mighty heave for the flare. I never used any flaps. The airplane was already coming down fast and I had all I could to flare.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, now President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, briefed Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on hundreds of Israel’s covert attacks on Iranian interests in Syria, according to leaked audio reported by The New York Times on Sunday. This revelation echoes reports that Obama officials saved the life of terrorist and Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani by notifying Iran about an Israeli plot to assassinate him in 2015.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v. Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state. Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), hand over their donor lists. This demand threatened to reveal the identities of donors, potentially subjecting them to threats and harassment. //

“The justices appreciated very well that membership and donations to an organization are protected by a right to privacy in association, not just a right to associate,” Kathleen Sullivan, legal counsel for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said on a press call after the oral arguments on Monday.

She noted that the justices cited many friend-of-the-court briefs written by ideological opponents of AFP and TMLC that nonetheless support these conservative organizations’ rights to donor anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) proved particularly noteworthy in this regard.

Many of the justices cited the key legal precedent NAACP v. Alabama (1958), in which the Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s order that the NAACP hand over a list of its members. Alabama issued this order during the era of segregation when the Ku Klux Klan held tremendous power in the state. The Court rightly upheld the NAACP’s organizational privacy.

“In particular, the justices seem to understand that what is not controversial today may be controversial tomorrow,” and that views that are now commonly-held were controversial in the past, Sullivan noted. //

Justice Clarence Thomas “explained that the government used confidential census data information to locate Japanese citizens for internment,” Bursch noted. “Sotomayor noted that donors may not have faith in California” because the state had leaked the records of more than 1,700 donors. //

When California’s lawyers argued that most non-profits would not object to providing donor lists, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “That’s not how the First Amendment works.” She noted that speech zones on college campuses may violate the First Amendment even if most students support speech zones.

The Washington Post positively gushed over Trump’s pick for the official portrait.

His portrait of Trump has both artistic and historic merit, Ureña said. “I like the composition of the photograph,” she said of Dukovic’s image. “It is an angle we don’t often see. You get a little bit of the other side and what’s behind the desk.”

The photograph’s historical details include flags along the wall representing the five branches of the armed forces, a portrait of Andrew Jackson and one of Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Duplessis that the museum loaned to the White House. These reflect Trump’s interests and influences, Ureña said. The photograph was taken the day before Trump officially announced he would seek reelection, adding to its historical value, Ureña said.

“We want to not only depict the individual,” she said, “but also bring as much history as much context as possible.”

Someone should check on the staff writers to see if they’re okay and not under duress of any kind. We are just not used to this.

Now, leaked tapes of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are exposing just how the terrorist nation responded to the killing. Further, it shows how much of an idiot our current president is. //

Mike Pompeo
@mikepompeo
Our Administration’s exquisite strike on Qasem Soleimani had a massive impact on Iran and the Middle East. You don’t have to take my word for it. Ask ⁦⁦@JZarif⁩. President Biden still thinks it was a mistake. #AmericaFirst #AbrahamAccords //

What the tapes reveal is an Iran where Zarif is a nobody, with Soleimani and the IRGC basically running the show, including regarding relations with Russia. //

In other words, the death of Soleimani was a massive blow to Iran’s ability to project strength to its allies and to continue terrorist attacks in places like Iraq. Joe Biden, being the idiot that he is, opposed the attack on Soleimani just as he opposed the attack on Osama Bin Laden. The one consistent in our foreign policy the last forty years has been Biden being continually wrong about it. //

The Jerusalem Post notes exactly how this will be spun, and I think they are dead on.

The leaked tapes lead to one of several conclusions. They seem to cater to a Western worldview that depicts Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani as “moderates” who are confronting the “hardliners” in the IRGC and Supreme Leader’s office. This leak appears timed to encourage this view as the US considers re-entering the Iran Deal. //

This is how Biden will try to pivot after the leaking of these tapes. They will claim that Soleimani was actually a detriment to peace, even though Biden opposed his killing and removal from power, and that it is now safer to make a new “deal” with Iran. Biden, in a laughable fashion, will actually try to use his own past idiocy as proof his current idiocy is acceptable.

This isn’t some anonymous claim made up by a political enemy and because of that, Kerry doesn’t get to play both sides of the fence on this. Given that, let’s assume Zarif is lying and that Kerry never actually shared intelligence with him.

If that’s true, then Kerry has just backed himself into a corner. He can’t simultaneously say not to believe Zarif, the supposed “moderate” in Iran, while at the same time stumping for a return of the Iran deal and lauding his previous work on that front. That extends to the Biden administration as well because they have chosen to employ Kerry as some kind of climate czar. If they are going to not fire Kerry and instead buy his denials here, then they are now in the position of enforcing the assertion that Iran is led by liars who can’t be trusted.

Do you know what you don’t do with liars who can’t be trusted? You don’t sign nuclear agreements with them. //

I see no reason to believe John Kerry on this front. In my view, Zarif had no incentive to lie in the leaked tapes as he was talking to someone he trusts. Further, we already know that Kerry was colluding with the Iranians during the Trump years, advising them on how to get around U.S. policy. It should surprise no one that he would share intelligence with Zarif.

For whatever reason, John Kerry has, time and again, chosen to basically operate as a foreign agent at the behest of the Iranians. Someone should probably figure out why sooner rather than later before something really dangerous happens.

The Washington Post’s lead “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler issued a hit piece against Sen. Tim Scott on Friday targeting him for his black heritage.

Using the guise of a “fact-check,” Kessler spent nearly 30 paragraphs analyzing census documents and other records to try to counteract Scott’s claims that his grandfather left elementary school to pick cotton and “never learned to read or write.”

While the article sets out to prove Scott wrong, it confirms the narrative that the senator has repeated in his book and from the political podium multiple times. While Scott believed his grandfather, Artis Ware, dropped out of school in third grade, Kessler claimed to have uncovered that Ware may have left school in the fourth grade, a slight inconsistency which even Kessler admitted could occur because the records are old.

Despite the slight difference in his grandfather’s age when he left school, Kessler glossed over the fact that Ware worked “55 hours a week” in cotton fields at a young age in order to attack Scott for amplifying his family history “for political consumption.” //

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
HT @ellie_bufkin
"Some enterprising Black families purchased property as a way to avoid sharecropping and achieve a measure of independence from White-dominated society." Could this read any more like "Scott's uppity black family dared not be beholden sharecroppers?"

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the New York Times on Sunday that tourists will need to have received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine to travel to any of the 27 member states of the European Union. “All 27 member states will accept, unconditionally, all those who are vaccinated with vaccines that are approved by E.M.A. [European Medicines Agency],” von der Leyen said.

The three vaccines being deployed in the United States — Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson — have been approved by the E.M.A. European regulators also gave the go-ahead on the AstraZeneca vaccine, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is still reviewing it for approval.

The specifics of how American tourists will have to provide proof of vaccination are still being worked out. Officials in Brussels told the Times a “low-tech solution” will suffice as the United States and international governments work out the kinks of delivering a program “acceptable and readable in the European Union, and vice versa.”

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has charted his own course based on the real science, not science according to the Left. This was seen in his decisions to re-open the state’s economy in September 2020, keep schools open, how he protected residents in long-term care facilities, and prioritized Florida’s elderly (and most at-risk group) in the state’s vaccine rollout.

It’s not that DeSantis has been given good advice from advisers. According to Jayanta Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, the Florida governor does the research himself and actually understands the literature.

During an interview with "The Tom Woods Show," the professor said he’s "never met a politician like him" and called DeSantis "extraordinary."

"We had a two-hour conversation, about COVID policies, this is in September of last year … and he had read all the papers I referenced and not just my just my articles, lots and lots of other papers," said the doctor, who also has a Ph.D. in economics. "He knew all the details, it was a remarkable conversation. And then we had this like roundtable on September 25th ... and with DeSantis leading it, and the next day he lifted most of the restrictions all across Florida."

Bhattacharya explained the governor has "intellectual bravery" and is willing "to take a stand." Moreover, if DeSantis wanted to go up against any other governor—or epidemiologist, for that matter, he could, the doctor argued.

"I mean, most, most epidemiologists don’t know the literature as well as he does," Bhattacharya said. "I mean, I just, I don’t have the words… I’ve just been, I’m still stunned by it, I didn’t know anything about him actually, before, you know, basically before September really. I’ve just been very impressed."

First thing, there's this picture of Nikki Haley and Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner going around Twitter, and people are going "Ugh." She's terrible. She's the worst.

rightwingsavages
@rightwingsavag2
If you could summarize the downfall of the @gop in one photo what would it look like? And why is it this photo? //

And I want you to assume whenever I say Nikki Haley that there's an exclamation point (Nikki!) because she is Jeb! in a skirt. And Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is also Jeb! in a skirt. Apparently, he's running in the California recall because we need more novelty acts.

You can’t win, but that’s all part of the plan.

Reason, rules, processes – these are the foundations of a free society, which is why the cultural left is so dead set against them. A citizen needs to be able to rely on clear rules and fixed processes to vindicate his rights in order to have any rights. But the rights of free citizens – your rights – are an obstacle to the Lil’ Stalins who yearn to rule over us. If the liberal establishment can create a society where you can’t appeal to facts, evidence, or law, then – until the peasants' revolt – its poobahs can wield undisputed, undiluted authority. That’s their dream, a country where you live in terror of them because you can never be sure that what you are doing or failing to do is suddenly going to be criminalized. //

If you can’t rely on the law or the evidence, then you are at the mercy of the whims of the liberal elite. Sure, the cop did the right thing, and the evidence is indisputable that he did the right thing, but it doesn’t matter at all. The cop is wrong and subject to all sorts of sanctions not because he violated any rule but purely because it is useful for him to be guilty of something.

The Rule of Law has become the Rule of Power, which the bad guys possess for the moment. And they are so arrogant about it that they do not even bother to make a straight-faced argument against cops saving black children’s lives. Hey, it’s just a routine kid knife fight – no biggie. We all remember back in the day, hacking up other suburban teens with machetes and scimitars, and how the cops never bothered us. Not allowing black teens to be gutted is worse than Jim Crow – it’s Jim Eagle. Heck, it’s Jim Rodan.

And we all know if that punk planted a shiv in the other girl’s gut on the bodycam tape, the cop would be lynched for not stopping her. You can’t win, which is the idea.

You can’t have a society where normal people can’t possibly prevail by obeying well-established rules. You’re not wrong because you did something wrong but because you're being wrong is handy for the people who hate you. //

This is how our oppressors like it. But this is not how we like it. Normal people can only take getting bopped on the noggin by the southpaw monkey in the Nairobi Trio for so long before they hit back. You cannot have an enduring status quo where one side is firmly bound to rules and obligations while the other gets to make it up as they go along. Eventually, you will inevitably reach a breaking point. And that’s coming. Then the bad guys are going to miss the rules that they still expect to protect them.

Reducing the size of the police force will reduce the number of interactions between the police and the citizenry — but not necessarily between the criminals and the citizenry.

According to a story from Forbes back in February,

A new survey of crime data in 34 of America’s biggest cities found a 30% increase in homicides in 2020, a jump researchers describe as having “no modern precedent” and link tentatively to the coronavirus pandemic and racial justice protests that started over the summer.

While homicide rates calculated from this survey topped 2019’s numbers in every month of the year, the biggest increase came after the May protests, with homicides rising 37% compared to 2019 in June through August (the study notes that this increase is statistically significant even taking into consideration a typical increase in homicides over the summer months).

My time and experience as a participant in the mechanism of the criminal justice system left me with one lasting impression that is not something well enough understood by the citizenry at large.

A function of the freedoms we all enjoy as citizens of this great country is that, for the most part, the police in the United States are not empowered to arrest people in order to prevent crimes. Most exercises of police power in the United States come in the aftermath of crimes that have already been committed, and the arrest is the action that begins the process for establishing guilt and accountability for the illegal acts in the criminal justice system.

One aspect of this freedom is that it incorporates a “risk-reward” calculation in criminal activity — “Is the reward from the criminal conduct such that it is worth the risk that I might get caught and go to jail?”

There is an entire segment of the population of the United States that lives according to this calculation because for them crime is easier than work. It takes less time and is usually more financially rewarding for those who don’t want to learn skills valuable to employers. It leaves much more free time every day of every week to do what they want to do rather than what their employer requires them to do in order to earn a paycheck.

When the risk of apprehension goes down, the risk-benefit calculation weighs even more heavily in favor of criminal behavior as compared to finding a job.

“Defunding the Police” makes the “work” of those who choose crime over employment even easier and less risky. ///

Once crime gets bad enough that politicians have to act, they will swing the pendulum so far the other direction that it may get stuck there: arresting people people to prevent crimes, because the population is so fed up with crime that they will accept ANY solution to make everyday life more safe.

On Friday afternoon, Facebook began attaching a ridiculous fact check to my top-read Federalist article of last week titled, “There’s No Way Americans Can Trust The Jury’s Chauvin Verdict.” Anyone who wanted to share the article on Facebook was forced to do so with the opinion-based “fact check” attached, which means Facebook also likely throttled the distribution of the article on its platform. //

This is not a “fact check.” It is a disagreement about what the facts indicate. It is also the naked suppression of ideas based on partisan ideology, using the monopoly power of Big Tech to control what people are allowed to say and discuss. This is a direct attack on Americans’ ability to have a self-governing society, which requires the free expression of ideas, not massive private entities deciding what people are allowed to say and share.

I said nothing illegal and called for no violence. I merely expressed my opinion about a current event of major public attention based on information the “fact checker” could not dispute as false.

Also, the “fact check” isn’t even about my specific article! Facebook attached a “fact check” that specifically argues with another person expressing a similar opinion — “Derek Chauvin did not get a fair trial” — then used it also to throttle my article that no “fact checker” publicly reviewed, all in the name of preventing “misinformation.” That’s ridiculous. It’s an utterly absurd and compromised process. Nobody could believe it is fair or reasonable except extreme partisans. //

Facebook started choking this opinion after more facts emerged that support it. On April 22, an alternate juror in the Chauvin trial, who was included in all the jury duties and treated like the other jurors except for not finally voting in the verdict, told a local news outlet, “I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.”

She also noted that during the trial rioters came near her home and protesters blocked a local interstate she was driving on. This clearly reinforces the factual basis for the opinion I expressed about the Chauvin trial in the article Facebook choked: “Given the circumstances of the trial, however, it’s extremely hard to believe the jury was solely concerned with either truth or justice. It’s extremely hard, if not impossible, for any thinking person not to have a reasonable doubt about the outcome.”

This juror’s information came out the day before Facebook and USA Today colluded to suppress an opinion supported by these facts. They clearly did so not based on facts, but based on a competing opinion. //

The USA Today article’s entire argument is: “Three lawyers disagree with you, so you’re not allowed to express this opinion.” But the question is not whether “three legal experts” have some opinion. The question is why USA Today is privileging some people’s opinions over those of others, and why Facebook knowingly uses them to do so. Everyone knows the answer is controlling people by controlling their speech.

Everybody also knows that you can get three lawyers to say just about anything you want them to. Their entire profession is based on advocating specific viewpoints in exchange for money.