Appeals court stays Biden vaccine mandate for businesses

An appeals court ruled on Saturday to temporarily halt President Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandate for businesses with 100 employees or more.

The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed Texas’s challenge to the mandate requiring employers with over 100 or more employees to get vaccinated or undergo frequent testing directly with the court.  

The [illegitimate] Biden administration announced that it would issue the law through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in September. Companies who meet the criteria are required to get their employees fully vaccinated by Jan.4, or workers must test negative for the virus once per week.

OSHA’s rule includes sending agents to inspect businesses to determine if they are abiding by the mandate. If a business is found to not be in compliance, a company could be fined $136,532.

Paxton argued in the announcement of Texas’s challenge that the mandate goes outside of OSHA’s “limited power and specific responsibilities” and is “flatly unconstitutional.”

The appeals court ruled there are "grave statutory and constitutional” issues with the OSHA rule. 

Paxton took to Twitter Saturday to celebrate the ruling by the court.

“Yesterday, I sued the Biden Admin over its unlawful OSHA vax mandate,” Paxton tweeted.

“WE WON. Just this morning, citing 'grave statutory and constitutional issues,' the 5th Circuit stayed the mandate. The fight is not over and I will never stop resisting this Admin’s unconstitutional overreach!” he added.

Paxton’s legal challenge followed at least 26 states that came out against the administration’s vaccine mandate.

Several coalitions of states filed four challenges to OSHA’s rule

The states alleged the Biden administration does not have the authority to issue the public health order and argue it will lead to staffing shortages and economic blowback.

“Its unlawful mandate will cause injuries and hardship to working families, inflict economic disruption and staffing shortages on the States and private employers, and impose even greater strains on struggling labor markets and supply chains,” a filing from a coalition of attorneys general led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmittthe alleged.

The White House referred The Hill to the Labor Department when asked for comment. 

The Labor Department was not immediately available for comment

The Biden administration initially announced the rule after several major pushes by the federal government to convince the public to get the jab on their own. (read more)

Excess Deaths Point to Depopulation Agenda

[...] The examples are everywhere across the Internet. You don’t have to look very far. Wherever mass vaccinations took place, there, too, morality has risen. And–once again–these are not Covid deaths. These are mainly heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, circulatory diseases and neurological issues; the same vaccine-induced ailments we were warned about by the physicians and scientists who’ve been telling us the truth from the start. Turns out they were right after all.

Simply put, the vaccines are increasing fatalities, not reducing them. They are making matters worse not better. They are perpetuating the crisis not ending it. And that is why the red line in the chart is pointing upward. It’s an indication that the death toll will continue to rise as long as we continue to do what we are doing now, inoculating millions of people with a cytotoxic pathogen that triggers blood clots, inflammation and autoimmunity. (read more)

Illegal Alien, Freed into U.S. by [Illegitimate] Biden [Regime] After Lying About His Identity, Charged with Murdering Father of Four


An illegal alien charged with murdering a 46-year-old man in Jacksonville, Florida, was released into the United States by President Joe Biden’s administration after lying about his identity.

Yery Noel Medina Ulloa, a 24-year-old illegal alien from Honduras, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder in the death of Francisco Javier Cuellar, a father of four children. Prosecutors are also seeking a first-degree murder indictment.

On October 6, eyewitnesses called the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office after they saw Ulloa walking down a road covered in blood. When police arrived, they set up a perimeter and quickly found Ulloa before retracing his steps back to a residence.

When police entered the residence, they found Cuellar in the living room, dead.

One witness questioned by police said Ulloa had called him to state that he murdered Cuellar because the man had hit him and later texted the witness to write that he “killed Uncle Francisco,” referring to Cuellar.

Eventually, police recovered surveillance footage in the living room of the residence where they state that Ulloa can be seen repeatedly stabbing Cuellar to death and beating him with a piece of furniture. When police searched the wooded area near the residence, they found a bloody knife.

Ulloa, who turned 24 last week, duped Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when he showed up at the U.S.-Mexico border months ago, claiming he was an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) named “Reynel Alexander Hernandez,” according to a Univision interview with Ulloa’s mother.

“When he entered [the U.S.] he told me, ‘Mommy, I didn’t go in with my name,'” his mother, Wendy Florencia Ulloa, said, adding that he explained, “‘I went in with the name of another person because right there at the shelter they helped me.'” (read more)

Intimate Violation: the NSA Is a Giant Pinkmeth Full of Creepy Peeping Toms

Why women, most of all, must learn to encrypt their private communications.

Snowden on “the fringe benefits of surveillance positions”

[...] Although Snowden is politically correct with his singular “they”, this really is a women’s issue.  In what sounds like a stereotypical locker-room atmosphere, those 18- to 22-year-old enlisted men won’t, just won’t be passing around some dude’s penis pics:  They will be getting their jollies off violating the intimate communications of women.

This is why I say that the NSA has degenerated into a giant Pinkmeth.  For those who don’t know—Pinkmeth was an underground site, which did unauthorized publication of sexually explicit material.  Some of it was so-called “revenge porn”, uploaded by ex-boyfriends and the like; but much of it was hacked and stolen from the email accounts of ordinary, non-famous women, from photos set to “private” on photo-sharing sites or on social media, and so forth.

Before it was taken down in a series of police raids that also hit some other nasty things, I used to show Pinkmeth to women, to illustrate for them in graphic terms why they should care about their communications security.  It was a highly persuasive argument.  Then, I realized that the NSA is much worse:  The NSA is a Pinkmeth with a multi-billion-dollar annual budget, above the law and immune to police raids, which for safety’s sake you must assume has access to all unencrypted communications everywhere all the time.

And asking what particular kinds of photos you do or don’t have in your own communications stream is missing the point:  Do you want those kids of perverts to snoop on any of your private communications?

The NSA is creepy and disgusting.  Use end-to-end encrypted communications, so that you can stay out of its dragnet!

[...]

Edward Snowden:  A simple example that everybody can relate to is:  You’ve got young enlisted guys, 18 to 22 years old.  They’ve suddenly been thrust into a position of extraordinary responsibility, where they now have access to all of your private records.

Now, in the course of their daily work, they stumble across something that is completely unrelated to their work in any sort of necessary sense.  For example,—ah, an intimate nude photo of someone in a sexually compromising situation—but they’re extremely attractive.  So what do they do?  They turn around in their chair, and they show their co-worker.  And their co-worker says:  “Oh, hey, that’s great.  Send that to Bill down the way.”  And then Bill sends it to George, George sends it to Tom—and sooner or later, this person’s whole life has been seen by all of these other people.

It’s never reported.  Nobody ever knows about it, because the auditing of these systems is incredibly weak.  The fact that your private images, records of your private lives, records of your intimate moments have been taken from your private communication stream, from the intended recipient, and given to the government without any specific authorization—without any specific need, is itself a violation of your rights.  Why is that in a government database?

Alan Rusbridger:  And you saw instances of that happening?

Mr. Snowden:  Absolutely, yeah.

Mr. Rusbridger:  You saw—

Mr. Snowden:  It’s routine enough,—depending on sort of the company you keep, it could be more or less frequent.  But these are seen as sort of the fringe benefits of surveillance positions.

Mr. Rusbridger:  You said that the auditing is not that good, [inaudible] to pick up on the sharing of that kind of information.

Mr. Snowden:  A 29-year-old walked in and out of the NSA with all of their private records.  What does that say about their auditing?
(read more)

Titania McGrath: Mxnifesto review – Twitter activist misfires on all cylinders

Andrew Doyle’s Twitter creation – played by Alice Marshall – takes predictable aim at Greta, Meghan and trans athletes with jokes that just aren’t funny

Titania McGrath, the “radical intersectionalist poet and Twitter activist” created by Andrew Doyle and played by actor Alice Marshall, is back with a new “mxnifesto”. The show, originally staged in 2019, has been rewritten to include developments from the intervening years, during which Doyle has become a regular on GB News. The show takes aim at predictable targets: Greta Thunberg, trans athletes, Meghan Markle and Nish Kumar.

Tonight, we’re part of an educational seminar. “If you’re unsure which opinions to have, this is the workshop for you,” McGrath tells us.

Doyle says he created the character as a way to challenge the erosion of free speech and the degradation of political debate. There are deep wells of potential material – the censorious Twitter culture found on both left and right, the tendencies to wilfully misread social media posts and double-down rather than admit mistakes. McGrath only skims the surface. Doyle himself performing standup as the support act engages with his chosen topics more successfully and provides bigger laughs.

Barely a minute into McGrath’s section, the show attempts to provoke with a “joke” using outdated ableist terms. Is the punchline McGrath’s faux pas or are we supposed to find the idea that you’d avoid these phrases amusing? What are we laughing at? It’s a question raised again when a photograph of a trans athlete is presented as a punchline, and when we’re invited to mock McGrath’s defence of Shamima Begum.

It’s not always clear whom the character is parodying – does a wealthy slam poet dressed in Zara-style office-wear conjure the grains of truth that make great satire? The recurring joke is that she’s a hypocrite (a supporting character even spells this out in case we missed the message), but it quickly feels repetitive.

Some jokes – on remainers patronising working-class people and the tweeness of anti-Trump protests – do land. But many do exactly what the show accuses online activists of, reducing complex topics to nuance-free quips. There’s a surprising number of Hitler jokes too, Godwin’s law IRL. In these ways, it does bring Twitter to the West End.

I hesitate to give this one star. A show that skewers the terminally offended will no doubt wear it as a recommendation. And yet, here we are. Don’t mistake this for courting controversy, it simply isn’t very funny. (read more)

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939
by W.H. Auden

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

Mother of "Skirt Wearing" Rapist in Loudoun Blames Victim for Being Sexually Assaulted

The mother of the 15-year-old boy at the center of the Loudoun County school rape spree has come out and slammed the young victim of the assault, claiming she was "willing" and that her son isn't to blame for the rape.

The Loudoun County School Board came to international attention in October when a father revealed his ninth-grade daughter had been sexually assaulted in the girl's restroom at her school by a male student "wearing a skirt." The assault took place at Stone Bridge High School in May, and was followed by a series of controversies including the father being violently arrested when trying to confront School Board members about the assault at a public meeting.

The boy would be promptly transferred to another school where he would later be arrested for sexually assaulting yet another young female student – this time confining the girl in an empty classroom and molesting her.

In October, the teen was found guilty of rape in the first case after being charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio. He is awaiting trial on the second assault.

Today, the mother of the boy came forward to speak with the Daily Mail about the incidents, but rather than showing any empathy for victims – she slammed them while defending her son.

"He's a 15-year-old boy that wanted to have sex in the bathroom, with somebody that was willing," she stated, seemingly neglecting the fact her son had been convicted of rape, "And they're twisting this just enough to make it a political hot button issue."

She went on to blame the victim in the first case for her own sexual assault, saying "If I was in a position where I was about to be raped, I would be screaming, kicking, everything ... You're 15. You can reasonably defend yourself. You're not just going to sit there and take it."

The woman admitted that her son has run into trouble prior to either of the sexual assaults he committed this year, including sending nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. But even when confronted with those details which had been uncovered by reporters, she pushed back unapologetically.

"What are they trying to do? Did they hire an investigator to dig up everything and ruin him for the rest of his life?"

The boy's mother said that he had sodomized the girl in the first incident "by accident," going on to claim that "[he] said he was intending for vaginal and it ended up for 10 seconds as anal."

The boy allegedly identifies as "pansexual" and enjoys gender-bending using his clothes, but allegedly does not identify as transgender according to his mother. A recent photo revealed of him shows him wearing a skirt, as well as a leather choker that says "kitten." In the photo he is standing in front of a number of pride flags – including ones for pansexual, asexual, and LGBT people. The photo was first published by the Daily Mail, but was apparently removed in an updated version of their article. (read more)

The man who lost Virginia for the Democrats

This is the 15-year-old who committed multiple sexual assaults in Loudoun County. Note "kitten" choker, rainbow socks and, of course, head tilt.

(read more)

[Racist,] Progressive Democrats Rage At ‘White Women’ Over Virginia Election Drubbing

“They vote for their interests, which is preserving whiteness at all costs. When push comes to shove, many white women in this country have historically shoved people of color out of the way,” Daily Beast columnist and CNN/NYT contributor Wajahat Ali raged.

A red wave swept through Virginia Tuesday with the election of Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. nominee Winsome Sears, Attorney Gen. nominee Jason Miyares, and the Republicans who helped take back the House of Delegates. For conservatives across the country, was the political reckoning they’d longed to see happen to Democrats since Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election a year ago.

Conservatives in other southern red states breathed sighs of relief and contentment. In their minds, Virginia was finally a lovely shade of red again, back in the fold – and home where they belonged.

But for so-called “woke” Democrats, a storm was brewing. Understandably, they didn’t feel too good about how things turned out in Virginia, especially considering the state (in particular NoVa [Northern Virginia] Democrats) helped propel Joe Biden to the White House. Predictably, they blamed “whiteness” for their Tuesday drubbing.

Further enraging frustrated leftists who were trying to figure out what went wrong was exit polling showing that white women, in particular, were essential to Youngkin’s victory:

Virginia 2020 —> White women
50% Biden (D), 49% Trump (R)

Virginia 2021 —> White women
57% Youngkin (R), 43% McAuliffe (D)

A 15-point swing to the GOP with this group.

(via @NBCNews Exit Polls)

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 3, 2021

That tweet from Kapur, an NBC News political reporter, set off a firestorm of angry denunciations of “#whitewomen” (which trended for a good bit of the day Wednesday on Twitter) from the same progressives who’d previously told us that a woman’s opinion was sacrosanct and thus should never be questioned:

White women voters are footsoldiers of white supremacist patriarchy.

In Virginia, white women swung back towards the GOP by 15 percentage points compared to 2020, h/t @rerutled https://t.co/dw8neoH5EL

— Mona Eltahawy (@monaeltahawy) November 3, 2021

Of all the misogynists, #whitewomen are the most confounding.

— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) November 3, 2021

Sunny Hostin Says White Women Voted For Youngkin So They Could Pretend Slavery Didn’t Happen https://t.co/pJRReGFk8W

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2021

White women reporting for duty. https://t.co/1JPOlVeJe3

— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) November 3, 2021

I'm assuming #whitewomen is trending for all the wrong reasons? Annnnd yup.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) November 3, 2021

Ali spent some 20 or so tweets going off on the people who voted for Youngkin, at times ripping white women and then “whiteness” in general, at one point stating that “whiteness remains undefeated” and “whiteness wins again.”

He further expounded on his thoughts in a Daily Beast piece that was headlined “You Damn Karens Are Killing America”:

It makes sense. They vote for their interests, which is preserving whiteness at all costs. When push comes to shove, many white women in this country have historically shoved people of color out of the way. These suburban, PTA moms were “segregation’s constant gardeners” who helped keep Jim Crow alive; they upheld white power at the expense of Black and brown women as they marched towards suffrage; and they even came out to derail the Equal Rights Amendment, thanks to the advocacy of conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly, who argued that (white) women, and their (white) families, were better under the current, unequal system that promoted patriarchy and white supremacy.

I mean he could have saved himself and readers a lot of trouble just by writing “white women suck” and leaving it at that.

Oddly enough, he didn’t seem dissuaded when it was pointed out to him (and others with similar rants) that those same white women helped elect the first black female Lt. Gov. in the state as well as a Hispanic AG, another first for the state, I believe:

#whitewomen voted for this woman.

So you can take your bullshit argument and shove it up your ass. You don't know WTF you are talking about. pic.twitter.com/Evg4mjBq7C

— HalosRamsFan (@HalosRamsFan) November 3, 2021

In Ali’s defense, maybe he wasn’t aware of this inconvenient bit of information since certain national news outlets didn’t find it relevant enough to mention in their reports on “historic firsts”:

By the way, the words "Winsome Sears" and "Jason Miyares" appear nowhere in this article.

Bang up journalism, USA Today. https://t.co/xkPBean6yy pic.twitter.com/DuTY5DQB1s

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) November 3, 2021

USA Today has since fixed their rather stunning omission, but only after prodding from a Fox News media reporter.

As to the rants from Ali and all the rest, it just goes to further prove the point made by Fuzzy here that no matter how badly their agenda gets rejected by voters, leftists just never learn. It’s never their fault when they lose. It’s either voter fraud or “racism/sexism/etc.” from voters that are to blame, in their view. It also proves a point conservative women have long made about how Democrats really don’t give a damn about respecting a woman’s opinion unless she has the “correct” opinion and votes the “correct” way.

Having said all that, though I’m not a Virginia voter (North Carolina girl here), I am one of those “white women” who Ali and his ilk on the left frequently blame for this country’s ills when election results don’t go their way. But this “white woman” distinctly remembers Ali, along with CNN host Don Lemon and Lincoln Project co-founder Rick “Confederate cooler” Wilson mocking southern voters back in January 2020 in a laugh-filled segment where the words “boomer rubes” were uttered using a fake southern accent.

Wilson’s group admittedly tried to sabotage the Virginia gubernatorial election with a despicable last-minute tiki torch stunt. Ali enthusiastically applauded similar efforts to persuade voters against supporting Youngkin, who had the clear momentum going down the home stretch.

They failed. Bigly.

Y’all know that saying about “karma” and how it’s a “b*tch”? Yeah. That. (read more)

Rittenhouse Trial Day 3: State’s Own Witnesses Damage Prosecution, Reinforce Self-Defense Narrative

The prosecution’s narrative of guilt looks profoundly weaker, and the defense narrative of self-defense looks profoundly stronger, than was the case yesterday.

[...]

How State Witnesses Testify In a Trial of Legal Merit

Before I dive into the individual testimony of state witnesses Richard McGinnis, a videographer for the Daily Caller news organization, and Ryan Balch, a manufacturing worker and former Army Infantryman, it’s worth reminding ourselves what their testimony ought to have looked like, had this been a normal criminal prosecution based on actual legal merit.

As two state witnesses, not defense witnesses, both McGinnis and Balch would be expected to provide testimony that contributed to the prosecution’s narrative of guilt and undermined the defendant’s legal defenses.  In this case that largely boils down to attacking and destroying Kyle’s legal defense of self-defense, at least with respect to all the felony use-of-force and reckless endangerment charges in this case.

Kyle Rittenhouse is presumed innocent, and that means that his shooting of the three men, and the reasonableness of his conduct otherwise the night of August 25, 2020, is presumed to be justified as lawful self-defense, unless the state can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove Kyle’s claim of self-defense in its entirety.  The prosecution merely needs to disprove any one of the four elements that make up that claim of self-defense. These four elements are cumulative—meaning, every one of the four is required—so if even a single one is disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, Kyle’s legal justification of self-defense collapses entirely.

To those who are new to self-defense law, or would just like a quick refresh on the concepts of the elements of self-defense, here are those four elements, and how the state would typically be expected to disprove them.

Innocence:  The state might attempt to prove that it was Kyle who was the initial unlawful aggressor in any of the confrontations he was in that night.

Imminence: The state might attempt to prove that the attacks Kyle was defending himself against were neither actually in progress or immediately about to occur.

Proportionality: The state might attempt to prove that the attacks on Kyle did not present as apparently deadly force in nature—readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury—and therefore that his own use of deadly defensive force was excessive.

Reasonableness:  The state might attempt to prove either that Kyle lacked a genuine belief in the need to act in self-defense, or that this belief was irrational and not objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

And, of course, whichever element (or elements) the state sought to target in its attack on Kyle’s claim of self-defense, it would need to disprove beyond any reasonable doubt.

This is necessarily the mission of Assistant DA Binger in this prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse, and how that mission would be accomplished.  And, it needs to be accomplished during the State’s presentation of evidence—obviously, after the state has rested and the defense gets its turn, it’s not as if the attack by the defense is going to make the state’s narrative stronger.

So, as I listen to the State present its witnesses, and subject them to direct examination or questioning, what I’m looking for is the building out of that narrative of guilt, that destruction of self-defense, the substantive attack on one or more of those elements.

What is this testimony, this line of argument, attacking exactly?  Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, or Reasonableness? That’s really all that matters.  Any testimony or argument that doesn’t have one of those elements as its target, that does not substantively undermine and disprove one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, is nothing but wasted effort and time.

What I saw over the first two days of this trial was a bunch of testimony that contributed nothing substantively to degrading any of those four elements, and thus nothing to disprove Kyle Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense.  There was simply no substantive evidence that undermined any of those four elements of Kyle’s self-defense claim.

What I saw from the State’s witnesses today, however, was far worse.  Not only did their testimony—the testimony which is supposed to be the building blocks for the destruction of the claim of self-defense—not undermine Kyle’s self-defense, much of today’s testimony actually strengthened Kyle’s claim of self-defense.

And perhaps even worse, ADA Binger’s attempts to badger the witness’s testimony into something that might in one’s wildest imaginings resemble a tool to bludgeon self-defense resulted only in him appearing intellectually desperate, and in his witnesses becoming visibly resistant to his badgering.

In the case of Balch, in particular, ADA Binger was even brought to the extremity of suggesting to the jury that Balch—Binger’s own witness, whom Binger himself had called to the stand to testify—was nothing more than a petty liar.

So, let’s dive in.

State Witness Richard McGinnis Resists Hostile Badgering of ADA Binger

Richard McGinnis is a videographer who works in support of journalists for the Daily Caller news organization, essentially securing the video and photo content that the journalists use to guide, buttress, and flesh out the news stories they write about notable events.  This is his profession, and he has frequently over the years engaged in his craft in the midst of violent protests, including in Seattle, Portland, New York, Washington DC, and elsewhere.

That was precisely what McGinnis was doing in Kenosha on the night of August 25, 2020, having flown into town for that purpose the previous day.  He would spend the nights of August 24 and 25 wandering around the streets of Kenosha pursuing his craft, and on the night of the 25^th one of his primary subjects was no other than Kyle Rittenhouse.

As it happens, also captured by McGinnis was Ryan Balch, the second “star” state witness of the day, who worked alongside Kyle to present as an armed presence on the streets of Kenosha for the purpose of protecting property and persons. I’ll address Balch’s testimony separately.

Much of McGinnis’ testimony centered around video he had made while following Kyle and Balch around Kenosha the night of the 25^th, including capturing interview-like conversations with them.  Also important was McGinnis’ presence in close proximity to Kyle when Joseph Rosenbaum launched his ill-fated attack on the 17-year-old.  This event was not video recorded by McGinnis, but was nevertheless observed personally by McGinnis.

Because of the importance of the McGinnis video of Kyle and Balch, it was played repeatedly and at length by ADA Binger—but to what purpose, I could not imagine, because it did nothing to further the State’s core mission of disproving any one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  If anything it served to present Kyle as polite, caring, and non-confrontational.

Repeatedly we see Kyle walking down the street, alongside Balch, with neither man presenting  in a threatening manner in the slightest. To the contrary, they are each continually calling out to see if others—whether their own colleagues or protestors alike—are in need of medical attention (Kyle’s primary purpose for being present in Kenosha that night).

At one point a protestor screams at Rittenhouse, “F-YOU!”  Kyle’s response? “I love you, too, ma’am.”  When Balch recounted this event from the witness stand, someone in the courtroom actually laughed out loud.

At one point in the McGinnis video we see Kyle and Balch encounter a group of “punk rockers” with fire extinguishers, who are acting as a fire brigade, and one of them reports having been “shot.” Kyle immediately attempts to offer medical care, only to discover the person had been shot with a rubber bullet with no great affect.  Kyle, Balch, and the “punk rockers” end up laughing and joking about the whole affair, with everyone being very friendly.

A few moments later Kyle, with McGinnis recording beside him, comes across a group of four young black men, and this encounter is quite different.  The group immediately displayed hostility towards Kyle and McGinnis.  Kyle, seeing this, does not engage or threaten in any way, instead he simply turns and walks away, calling out once again for anyone who might need medical care.

That this group of four young men was genuinely threatening became incontestable when McGinnis described his own efforts to chat with them.  He testified that one of the men immediately stepped forward with a rock in a raised hand in a manner McGinnis could only interpret as an intent to bash the rock into his skull.  McGinnis immediately jumped backwards to secure his safety, and then offered the men an alcoholic beverage he carried in his backpack specifically as tribute to be offered to diffuse such hostile encounters.

ADA Binger noted that McGinnis had used the word “menacing” when he spoke in an interview after Kyle’s shootings, and repeatedly attempted to badger McGinnis into testifying that he meant this term to apply to Kyle himself, that McGinnis found Kyle to be personally menacing.

First, this is hardly credible, given that McGinnis chose to follow around the armed Kyle and Balch for quite some time the night of the 25^th—he didn’t do the same, for example, with the actually menacing group of four young black men he’d encountered.

Second, McGinnis consistently responded to Binger’s badgering suggestions by making clear that the word “menacing” was intended as a description of the circumstances generally, as in any potentially violent protest environment, not of Kyle personally.

In other words, Binger wanted McGinnis to testify that he was using menacing to refer to Kyle as “threatening”—instead, McGinnis made clear, he was using “menacing” to mean simply the “increased risk” of being in an environment where guns were being carried around by people, generally.

ADA Binger also attempted to get McGinnis to testify that there was something highly unusual and unreasonable about someone at a protest openly carrying firearms.

McGinnis answered, no, he’d often seen people with firearms at protests  But just handguns, not AR-15s, suggested Binger? Usually handguns, but sometimes rifles, McGinnis answered.  But surely not the combination of rifles and a medic kit, followed up Binger?  No, conceded McGinnis, he couldn’t say he’d seen that combination before.

It was, frankly, all nonsense.  If McGinnis had seen such a combination before, presumably Binger would have continued to narrow the characteristics he was defining until he managed to exclude this specific defendant form McGinnis’ prior experience.  I suppose the next variation would have been, “But surely not the combination of rifle, medic kit, and the first name ‘Kyle’?”

At some point, McGinnis and Kyle had become somewhat separated. Then McGinnis saw the now-familiar Kyle run by with a fire extinguisher, and decided to follow to see what was going on.

As it happens Kyle was running down Sheridan to put out a fire reportedly occurring in a Car Source parking lot down the street.  As Kyle approached the lot, he also happened to be gaining ground on Joseph Rosenbaum, who was ahead up the street. Rosenbaum was accompanied by Joshua Ziminsky and his wife, Mrs. Ziminsky, with whom he was apparently friends.

Joshua Ziminsky was carrying a Glock pistol which he would shortly fire into the air, thus triggering subsequent events resulting in the death of Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the maiming of Gaige Grosskreutz.

As Kyle reached the edge of the Car Source lot, Rosenbaum concealed himself among four cars, then emerged behind Kyle and initiated his charge of Kyle.  McGinnis was still running down Sheridan to catch up with Kyle, and so ended up behind Rosenbaum as events proceeded.  Also roughly behind Kyle and Rosenbaum was Joshua Ziminsky, who was on the sidewalk near the group of four cars that Rosenbaum had been hiding in.

As Rosenbaum chased the isolated Kyle across the lot, Joshua Ziminsky raised his pistol and fired a shot in the air.  The fleeing Kyle, hearing the shot behind him, turned to look in that direction, and saw Rosenbaum charging at him, screaming “F-YOU!” at the top of his lungs.

Much of this was confirmed both by the observational testimony of McGinnis, as well as by various video recordings, including the FBI aerial infrared video recording, and so the events are effectively indisputable.

McGinnis personally observed the charge of Rosenbaum on Kyle, and described the attack in some great detail.  Rosenbaum was in a hunched forward running position, as one would be running as fast as one could.  Kyle was desperately fleeing towards the far side of the Car Source lot—and was shouting “friendly, friendly, friendly!” while doing so.

These cries of friendly did not dissuade Rosenbaum’s continuing charge.  When Kyle turned slightly back towards Rosenbaum, even as Kyle continued to retreat, placing his rifle well within Rosenbaum’s view, the sight of the rifle did not dissuade Rosenbaum’s charge. Indeed, Rosenbaum would charge until he was close enough to lunge with outstretched arms for possession and control of Kyle’s rifle.  Kyle was still holding his rifle at a low ready, approximately at a 45-degree angle to the ground.

McGinnis actually stood from his witness chair to demonstrate these aggressive attacking motions by Rosenbaum—and he did so at the request of ADA Binger!

At the last moment, however, Kyle turned slightly away, so that Rosenbaum’s outstretched hands failed to grasp control of the weapon, and that’s when Kyle fired four rounds in 0.76 seconds.  As Rosenbaum made his final, diving lunge, Kyle had the rifle leveled at Rosenbaum, but this still meant at a downward angle, given Rosenbaum’s low position—so the rifle was not, for example, level with the street when fired.

Now, one of those four rounds, the one the medical examiner will purportedly claim was the fatal shot, ended up striking Rosenbaum in his back.  This was almost certainly a consequence of the manner in which Rosenbaum chose to attack the rifle-armed Kyle, using a low diving lunging motion.

ADA Binger, however, was determined to have McGinnis testify that Kyle had simply shot Rosenbaum in the back–as if in an act of cold malice he had shot Rosenbaum in the back as Rosenbaum was walking away from Kyle. Or that Kyle had intentionally shot Rosenbaum as he was helplessly falling to the ground, and no longer a threat of any sort.

ADA Binger helpfully suggested, When the defendant shot Rosenbaum, he was already falling?  No, not “falling,” answered McGinnis. It was just his charging speed and lunging motion was carrying him forward.

Binger objected, but you gave a television interview in which you said that the defendant shot Rosenbaum as he was falling?  McGinnis answered, I don’t remember ever saying that. Is that a direct quote?

Of course, Binger had the interview recording—and now he used it to effectively treat McGinnis, his own cooperating witness, as if the videographer were a hostile witness, implying that McGinnis was lying to the jury, under oath.

McGinnis explained that the shots happened very quickly, that Rosenbaum was lunging, for all he knew it was the first shots that caused the falling motion, rather than the falling motion preceding the shots.

McGinnis may not know this, but the first two rounds did, in fact, hit Rosenbaum’s thigh and pelvis, and likely did compel Rosenbaum’s fall.

Well, you’re saying that now, said Binger, but wouldn’t your memory be better a mere three days after the event, when you gave this interview, than it would be now.  This is how one treats a hostile witness whose current testimony in court one is seeking to impeach.

Binger tried again:  Your statement in this interview is different than what you’re telling us now, you said in the interview that Rosenbaum was falling when the defendant shot him.

McGinnis answered, I would not say that the defendant shot Rosenbaum as he was falling, I would not use that word, “falling,” I’m not saying that.

Binger: but you said in the interview—

McGinnis: I’m not saying that now!

At this point Judge Schroeder had had enough, and interrupted Binger’s questioning of his own witness, telling Binger effectively that he was not to tell the witness what the witness was saying.

McGinnis, for his part, denied any inconsistency between his interview statement and his court statement.  Kyle shot Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum was lunging forward to grab control of Kyle’s rifle, was shot, and then ended up face down on the street.

At that moment the proceedings mercifully took a break for lunch, but that didn’t help poor ADA Binger any.

Binger kept up his direct examination of McGinnis, now focusing on the supposed reckless endangerment charge in which McGinnis is the purported victim.  In the criminal complaint there’s a sworn claim that some object—presumably a bullet fired by Kyle—had actually struck McGinnis in the leg.

McGinnis would have none of that in his testimony, however.  He clarified that he wasn’t even sure if the sensation was the result of the impact of an object, or just a sensation resulting from the sound of the gunshot, or what, but when he looked he hadn’t suffered any physical injury of any kind.

Those are the highlights of direct examination by Binger of his own witness. There is much more, of course, including a lengthy series of softly asked questions about McGinnis’ efforts to provide care to the fatally shot Rosenbaum, none of which has any relevance to Kyle’s self-defense claim.

Note that all the substantive testimony by McGinnis on direct was either not relevant to Kyle’s self-defense claim, not damaging to that claim, or actually helped Kyle’s claim of self-defense.  And that was before the defense got their hands on McGinnis in cross-examination.

Which is what happened next.

State Witness Richard McGinnis Cross by Attorney Mark Richards

All Richards really had to do was get McGinnis to repeat his substantive relevant testimony from direct, because it was all helpful to Kyle’s claim of self-defense. But Richards managed more than that.

In your police interview, Richards noted, you indicated it was not only Rosenbaum pursuing Kyle, but that there were other people whom Kyle was attempting to evade.  In other words, Kyle was threatened by multiple pursuers.

Ultimately, this would turn out to more a matter of McGinnis perceiving the attention of others focused on Kyle, among people who had already been traveling down the street in a direction towards Kyle, rather than additional people charging at Kyle as Rosenbaum had.  Nevertheless, either the jury bought the suggestion of increased threat to Kyle or it was a wash—helpful, or neutral.

Richards also touched back on the “menacing” point, which was drawn from another interview McGinnis had done shortly after the events of that night.  When you say “menacing,” you mean the circumstances, right, not Kyle in particular?  McGinnis answered, I meant the situation, if anything the people on the roof, not so much the people on the ground (where Kyle was).

And in that interview where you mentioned “menacing,” that interview was 26 minutes long, and you said the word “menacing” once.  Yes, agreed McGinnis.

Richards also had McGinnis step through the final series of events that resulted in Kyle shooting Rosenbaum. Kyle was fleeing across the parking lot, seeking safety, but coming upon what appeared to McGinnis to be a dead end.  A shot came from behind Kyle, fired by Rosenbaum friend Ziminsky, and when Kyle looked back he saw Rosenbaum charging at him. Kyle shouted “friendly, friendly, friendly!” and Rosenbaum screamed “F-YOU!” Kyle had the gun at a safe, low-ready position when Rosenbaum dove for the gun, hands outstretched to seize control of the weapon, and that’s then Kyle finally fired four rounds.

There’s more good stuff in the cross, but those are the highlights.

Re-Direct of McGinnis by ADA Binger

Perhaps the highlight of the McGinnis testimony, however, occurred during Binger’s re-direct questioning of him.

Binger had been very unhappy when McGinnis was allowed to suggest during cross-examination that it had been the intent of Rosenbaum to seize Kyle’s rifle.  Binger objected at the time, but Judge Schroeder overruled the objection.

Now on re-direct, Binger rather heatedly challenged his own witness:  You can’t read Rosenbaum’s mind, right? You can’t know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn’t that right?

McGinnis paused a moment, and replied:  “Well, he said “F-you, and then he reached for the weapon.”  So, maybe not entirely guesswork.

Again, there’s more, but those are the highlights.

State Witness Ryan Balch Shows Rosenbaum as Violent Lunatic

Ryan Balch first met Kyle Rittenhouse the night of August 25^th, when both of them showed up to Kenosha and the Car Source lot to attempt to protect property and provide medical care to the injured.

Both men came armed with AR-style rifles, but that was about the only similarity.  Whereas Kyle was a 17-year-old lifeguard who had fired his rifle on one previous occasion, Balch was a former Army Infantryman who had done a tour in Afghanistan, a tour in Iraq, and had put 10 or 15 thousand rounds through the AR rifle he had owned for years (in part because he uses the rifle competitively).

Once again, Balch’s testimony—from, I remind you, a STATE witness—was extremely helpful for the defense, and extremely harmful to the prosecution.

For example, Balch would testify that although he’d come to Kenosha wearing a plate carrier (body armor), and carrying an AR-15 and a Glock pistol, it turned out he never actually had to use any of that stuff—the mere presence of armed persons like himself and Kyle proved sufficient to prevent the kind of catastrophic rioting, looting, and arson the city of Kenosha had suffered the previous night.

In other words, Kyle showing up to Kenosha with a rifle was a social good, not the act of a maniacal gun nut intent on murdering people.

When Binger asked Balch for his impression of Kyle that night, Balch replied that Kyle seemed like a young and impressionable kid, interested in other people and a life guard, seeking to provide medical care to anyone who might be injured.  He also described Kyle as presenting as vulnerable, as someone who protestors might identify as a target and attack.

In contrast, when Binger asked Balch for his impression of Joseph Rosenbaum that night, Balch replied that every time he encountered Rosenbaum he was being hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner, always having to be restrained from violence by others. Indeed, Balch said he was approached by other protestors who wanted to ensure him that Rosenbaum was not one of them, not a member of their group. These other protestors wanted no misunderstanding that there might be an association with the hyper-aggressive Rosenbaum and themselves.

The ultimate high point, however, came—and again, I feel obliged to remind you, this is while the STATE is engaged in direct questioning of THEIR OWN WITNESS—when ADA Binger asked Balch to describe an encounter between Kyle and Balch, on the one hand, and Rosenbaum on the other, that took place shortly after Kyle had put out a dumpster fire started by Rosenbaum.

Balch testified that Rosenbaum came right up to the pair, “got right in my face,” yelling and screaming, and murderously pledged “if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to f’ing kill you!”

Worth recalling, I think, that this murderous threat from a hyper-aggressive and patently violent Rosenbaum came only a short time before Kyle, running for his life, would hear a gunshot behind him and see a charging Rosenbaum screaming “F-YOU!” at the top of his lungs and lunging for control of Kyle’s rifle.

If that sounds to you like a pretty sound basis for a shooting of Rosenbaum in self-defense, I’d have to agree.

To this absolutely catastrophic testimony, ADA Binger could do little but flail.

Did you actually see Rosenbaum actually injure anybody?

No, though I did see him set fires.  A dumpster, lots of other little fires, all up and down the street.

Then, remarkably—besides the fires you saw him set, did you see him set any other fires?

I mean, seriously, Binger?

Did you ever see Rosenbaum with a weapon? No. Gun? No. Knife? No. Bat? No. Club? No. (Binger has become quite fond of this particular laundry-list question.)

Of course, I would suggest that at the moment he was shot, Rosenbaum was actually in the process of arming himself with a gun—with Kyle’s gun—when Kyle’s bullets stopped him.

At this point Binger’s direct examination of Balch seemed to go off into some netherworld of irrelevant background information that appeared to have zero relevance to anything of substance in this case.

And it went on like this interminably.  At one point the defense finally objected, noting that many of the question currently being asked had already been asked forty minutes earlier.  Even Judge Schroeder was getting tweaked.  Where is all this going, he asked Binger, who gave a rather non-responsive reply.  Why would an of that be relevant, asked the judge, and Binger gave another non-responsive reply. At that point Schroeder figuratively threw up his hands and just decided to have the court take break.

[...]

Attorney Richards Had Mercifully Brief Cross of Ryan Balch

Thankfully, as we now approached the end of the day, Attorney Richards had a mercifully brief cross-examination of Balch—I mean, almost all of the very, very lengthy direct questioning of Balch by ADA Binger had been to the benefit of the defense, so what more was there for the defense to elicit from this witness on cross-examination.

Richards did, however, want to address this impeachment attempt by ADA Binger, and he did so swiftly and concisely.

Are you lying to this jury under oath right now, he asked Balch. I am not, Balch answered. And this FBI report, this is not a document you get to review carefully, and then swear to under oath, is it? No.  In fact, you just chat with the FBI agents, they take some notes, and then they go off and write up this report in the manner they recall and with the things they think most important. Yes.

[...]

Conclusion

In yesterday’s wrap-up I wrote:

Granted, we’re only two full days into the state’s case here—but I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that seems capable of meeting their burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  And I’m beginning to wonder if we ever will.

Well, today was day three of the trial, and not only does that statement remain true, but if anything the prosecution’s narrative of guilt looks profoundly weaker, and the defense narrative of self-defense looks profoundly stronger, than was the case yesterday.

OK, folks, that’s it for tonight.  Join me again tomorrow morning at Legal Insurrection for our LIVE real-time streaming of the trial proceedings, as well as our real-time commenting on trial events as they occur.

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Until next time:

Remember

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

(read more)

Why We’ve Decided to Tell You the Criminal Records of the Men Shot in Kenosha

Update: The homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum & Anthony Huber in Kenosha last summer, began Nov 1st. The trial is expected to last two to three weeks.

We’ve decided to tell you the criminal histories of the three men, including Joseph Rosenbaum & Anthony Huber who were involved in the Kenosha shooting in Wisconsin. Here’s why.

We think the public is entitled to know all of the context to properly understand what unfolded that night. The Kenosha County District Attorney has charged Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, with first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting death of Anthony M. Huber; with first-degree reckless homicide in the shooting death of Joseph D. Rosenbaum; and with attempted first-degree intentional homicide for wounding Gaige Grosskreutz. Read the criminal complaint here. Rittenhouse’s attorney says he acted in self-defense when attacked by what the lawyer called a vicious mob. You can read the lawyer’s statement here.

(Note: See some of our other exclusives here, including video of arson suspects starting a Kenosha business on fire, and an eyewitness who says he saw a man with a walkie-talkie directing carloads of people right before the arson fires broke out. We also found shell casings Kenosha police missed at the first Rittenhouse shooting scene. Wisconsin’s largest newspaper, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, argued that readers shouldn’t get to know the shot men’s criminal records. Read our column explaining why they’re wrong here.)

---

Gaige Grosskreutz, Joseph Rosenbaum & Anthony Huber Criminal Records Explored

The media have largely sanitized the criminal histories of these three men. Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender who was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated and was armed with a handgun when shot. You can read their criminal records in full later in this article.

Newly released documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal. See those documents here.

Here’s a video that shows Rosenbaum acting aggressively shortly before the shooting. He’s in the red shirt.

Turns out the man Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed last night in #Kenosha was Joseph D Rosenbaum, a convicted sex offender of sexual conduct with a minor

Here is video I shot of him begging to be “shot” in front of a gas station minutes before his death pic.twitter.com/tUfUGWX3io

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) August 27, 2020

To be clear, we don’t think the criminal history of everyone shot and killed is relevant in crime stories. We also don’t believe that anyone deserves to be shot because they have a criminal history, and that’s true of these three men. We also acknowledge that human beings are complex, and the men surely had good aspects to their personalities.

What makes their criminal histories relevant for the public to at least consider: The three men who were shot had placed themselves in the midst of a scene of violent unrest that, for days, included lawless anarchy (there were arson fires in the area that night too), and the suspect is on video saying earlier that he was there to prevent damage to people and property. All three men were confronting Rittenhouse when shot and two were trying to grab his gun; in the first case, Rittenhouse was running away, and in the second situation, he tried to but fell. That’s from the criminal complaint.

Rosenbaum was also caught on video using a racial slur earlier that night. “Shoot me (n word),” he says in the video. Multiple eyewitnesses told Wisconsin Right Now at the scene that they believe Rittenhouse was arguing with men who were starting an arson fire before the shootings because he was upset about the fire. Video does show a dumpster fire.

This is what triggered this skirmish

A Good Samaritan put out a trash can fire that rioters were about to push into police squad cars

Rioter were then triggered by it and went after the gas station in retaliation pic.twitter.com/zbnf1IcRZM

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) August 27, 2020

The witnesses believed this ignited the argument between Rittenhouse and the first victim. The complaint does not explain what authorities believe instigated that first argument. It’s certainly consistent with Rittenhouse’s behavior earlier in the night, though, as he was seen cleaning up graffiti, protecting a used car lot (used car lots had already been targets of serious vandalism and arson), and walking around with a medic bag.

Newly uncovered video of Kyle Rittenhouse shows him helping an injured protester after she was struck in the foot with a projectile. In another video he told the cameraman that he brought a medical kit, which is the bag he was carrying. No malicious intent. Exactly the opposite. pic.twitter.com/rsmzKPe1xg

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) August 28, 2020

“A person with the red shirt was arguing,” Delreno Jackson, one of those witnesses, said in an interview at the scene. Rosenbaum was wearing a red shirt that night. Jackson said that a garbage can was thrown after the shooter was upset that Black Lives Matter protesters were lighting a fire. We observed the garbage can lying toppled over in the street inside the crime scene tape. Video does mention a man in a red shirt being in a confrontation with Rittenhouse in the earlier shooting.

The criminal complaint alleges that Rosenbaum was trailing Rittenhouse, threw a plastic bag at him, initially tried to engage him, advanced toward him, and was trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun when he was shot. It says that Rittenhouse, 17, was trying to evade Rosenbaum. The New York Times says a gunshot fired by an unknown person was heard right before Rittenhouse fired. Others were also chasing Rittenhouse at the time, video shows.

Kyle Rittenhouse pre-shooting interview: Explains he was there to help protect local businesses. Even brought a medical kit to help anyone injured by the rioters. pic.twitter.com/ClfloxHyoR

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) August 27, 2020

Some believe Rittenhouse has a self-defense argument, which would make the perceived or real dangerousness of men confronting or trailing him more arguably relevant.

The complaint says Huber was also trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun and his skateboard made physical contact with Rittenhouse right before Rittenhouse shot him. Rittenhouse fell after being chased down the street, and photos and videos show him being struck with the skateboard as multiple people come toward him.

Videos prove Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased and about to be attacked by rioters when he shot the perpetrator in self defense pic.twitter.com/rRDf6pl2gX

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) August 26, 2020

Huber’s loved ones have called him a hero, a narrative widely circulating online. Was he? Could the truth be complicated? Is it at least possible that Huber thought he was confronting an active shooter (which would certainly be a heroic act) because he didn’t see what happened in the earlier shooting with Rosenbaum, but Rittenhouse thought he was being attacked, first by Rosenbaum and then by Huber and others? Huber’s shooting occurred seconds after another unidentified man jumped at and over Rittenhouse, who fired at him, but missed, the complaint says. “Get his ass,” someone shouted around this time.

Grosskreutz was moving toward Rittenhouse when shot and holding a handgun, the complaint says.

Another view of Kenosha militia shooting #kenoshaprotest #KenoshaUprising #KenoshaShooting #Kenosha pic.twitter.com/UryWLeZlT7

— Protest, USA (@fascistanista) August 26, 2020

There are certainly questions about why a 17-year-old had also injected himself, without parental supervision, into a scene of criminal unrest, carrying a gun he wasn’t old enough to lawfully display. We would print Rittenhouse’s criminal history too, but the only thing that comes up for him in Wisconsin courts is two traffic tickets (and the extradition case in Illinois.) People are spreading the criminal record of another Kyle Rittenhouse around the Internet, but that man is much older and isn’t him.

For all of these reasons, we have decided not to censor the men’s criminal histories. You can decide how relevant you think they are, if at all: (read more)

New Kyle Rittenhouse Witness Could Clear Him of Murder

Daily Caller Reporter Richie McGinniss Tells Tucker Carlson About Kenosha Shooting That Left One Dead

EXCLUSIVE: The Key Witness From The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

“Kyle was first attacked in a parking lot, with no justification, by Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36 year old registered sex offender from Waco Texas. Rosenbaum is on video chasing Kyle on foot, and was filmed earlier in the evening verbally accosting Kyle at a gas station. Kyle was then cornered by Rosenbaum between parked cars, and Rosenbaum lunged at Kyle to attack him. That is when Kyle shot in self-defense, striking Rosenbaum in the head. Kyle then came around the cars, and stood over Rosenbaum to check on him. Looking around, he noticed a very large crowd of protesters approaching the parking lot, and wisely took off running down the street to get to police.

“And as usual, no one in the crowd had the common sense to ask what happened or why. The crowd immediately began chasing Kyle down the street yelling “Get him! Get his a**!” As he ran through protesters, Kyle was a threat to absolutely no one; running with his rifle pointed downward and saying nothing. It’s obvious in the video he was simply trying to get to a safe location away from the mob posing more and more of a threat to him.He tripped and fell down in the street. One protester immediately threw a flying kick to Kyle’s head while he was down, and Kyle fired, I believe hitting him in the stomach. Next, the so-called peaceful hippie Anthony Huber attacked Kyle with his skateboard, knocking Kyle onto his side. Kyle rolled onto his back with Huber on top of him and shot Huber off of him, striking him in the chest. After shooting Huber, a third protester started to attack Kyle, and Kyle raised his weapon towards him. The protester paused for about a half-second and lunged at Kyle. Kyle shot to repel that attacker off him, hitting the protester in the arm. No one else posed a threat to him anymore, and he calmly got up, walked, and then jogged down to police down the street with his hands up.I’ve watched these videos over and over again for hours, frame by frame. That is what happened. Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself from the very beginning when the whole incident started. It was Joseph Rosenbaum who started this whole thing at the gas station, by picking on a 17 year old kid just trying to protect property from those maniacs.”

— Robert Barron

The Feds Will Not Be Able to Control the Reaction

OSHA Will Publish Emergency Temporary Standard for Vaccination Mandate in Federal Register Tomorrow, Mandate Begins January 4 – Overview and Links
 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DoL), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has finalized the formal process to require employers of more than 100 employees to mandate vaccination as a requirement for employment in the United States.

[OSHA Summary Here] – [OSHA Details pdf HERE]

[Federal Register Notice HERE]

While the OSHA rules appear to have been finalized, the official publication in the Federal Register is scheduled to take place tomorrow November 5, 2021.

The OSHA Rule is being authorized by the Dept of Labor under an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS).  The ETS will go into effect on December 5, 2021, with the final vaccinations and testing in place by January 4, 2022 (sixty days after registration).  There is NO END DATE to the rule.  I repeat, despite the rule being filed under an emergency “temporary” standard, there is no end date for the rule to expire or be reauthorized.

As published, the rule affects employers with 100 or more employees that are not (1) federal contractors or (2) health care facilities (those are subject to different regulations).

Employees who work from home; and/or have no contact with other employees; and/or have contact with customers; and/or work outside; are exempted from the OSHA requirements as published.

♦ Employers have two options: (1) Mandatory vaccinations with exemptions for disabilities and sincere religious beliefs; or (2) Weekly testing and face coverings for unvaccinated employees. (If unvaccinated employees work outside, they do not have to mask).

That means if you are not vaccinated, for whatever reason, you must wear a mask in the workplace and visibly identify yourself as unvaccinated.

♦ Employers are required to:

(1) Create and implement a Covid safety plan.

(2) Collect proof of vaccination for employees. Employers cannot just ask employees – they need to see their official vaccination record or other evidence.

(3) Provide paid time off for vaccinations and side effects.  Employers must provide four hours of paid time off for each employee to be vaccinated and also need to provide a reasonable amount of time off if someone has a bad reaction.

(4) Continue with quarantine policies as set forth by the CDC. Anyone who tests positive must quarantine, even if they are fully vaccinated.

(5) Any employee who is hospitalized or dead due to the vaccine must be reported to OSHA and registered as a workplace injury/death.

(6) Employers must be prepared to be audited and prove vaccination records, if asked.

(read more)

Democrats Will Not Stop Their March Into Madness – Modern Leftists Have No Capacity For Introspection, They Will Get Worse

The problem with modern Democrats is that they believe in what they are doing….

There’s a lot of celebration on the side of the everyday commonsense electorate, as voters last night in the November off-year election have rebuked their policies in almost every municipal election held.  However, do not fool yourself into believing the election outcome will cause Democrats to pause in their efforts.  The radical leftists who now control Democrat policy priorities do not have any inclination to reverse course; instead they will double down.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  Anger is a very visible response from the leftists whenever their policies are rejected.  The modern political left do not view rejection as a rebuke of their ideology, instead they view rejection as a need to push harder.  From their perspective they need to reeducate their target; to force a change in thinking from incorrect thoughts to correct thoughts; and the only acceptable path is to push harder.

This approach is based on a cognitive inability to reflect or contemplate that their ideology is flawed.  Because they put the emotion of their views as the motive for their effort, they are incapable of changing direction.  From the perspective of the modern political left, if they were to change direction, they would be rejecting the foundation of their own personal value.  They cannot do that.  It’s not they that are wrong -ever- it’s you.

Those who do not adhere to the insane ideological goals of the far left, are viewed as the problem that must be overcome.  Their emotional attachment to ideology is why these avowed and ideological followers cannot be redeemed or coerced into reasonable positions with any logical argument.  Instead, you must be re-educated to see their worth, to value their ideology… you, the person or group who stands in their way, will always be viewed as the problem.

Failing to accept the fundamental set of core beliefs within the modern political left is a flaw on the side of those who engage in the battle for ideas.  It doesn’t matter how good your ideas and policies are, even when you deliver results to prove your accuracy, this specific opponent will always revert to attacking the success based on their view of your wrongthink.

Arguing with a political leftist in the hope he can be convinced to change direction is futile.  They are disassociated on a mental and emotional level from any semblance of a capacity to consider they may be wrong.   This is why you can never let up in the fight against them.  Even in victory, the blue-collar working-class common sense approach must be relentless.  The modern left has to be destroyed on such a scale as their dangerous ideology is reduced to burning embers; however, do not trick yourself into believing it will ever be fully extinguished.

History has taught us that even when the professional political left are seemingly wiped out, enough will remain waiting for another Obama type personality to blow them gently into a state of re-ignition…. and the cycle will start again.

Right now as you read this…. in the background of every place they gather, those political activists who were handed a resounding defeat yesterday are discussing how to attack again.   In defeat you can fully expect this insane crowd to become even more entrenched, even more vitriolic, even more crazy.  You will see it with even bigger demands on their Big Tech allies to crush voices of communication against their enemy.

They will demand more censorship, more deplatforming of their opposition; more silencing of voices, more demonetization of content platforms by their corporate allies.  They will go even harder in the totalitarian direction.  This is what they do.  This crowd is like the scorpion in Aesop’s fable about the frog crossing the river.  They are incapable of not stinging… it’s what they do.

We are The Last Refuge because we accept the political left as they are, not as we wish them to be.

Yes, celebrate the victories…. but do not get drunk at the party and fall asleep, or you will find yourself a quick victim to their counter-attack; which, I promise you, they are deeply planning right now.

The problem for Republicans in the era before the rise of Donald Trump was/is they did not/do not believe their own message.

Candidate Donald J. Trump knew the Republican Party was incapable of succeeding, because they did not fight for what they claimed to believe.  So, Trump started to fight for GOP issues; visibly fight against the ideological left with common sense promises, policies and brutally obvious solutions.   We all saw the response from the professionally Republican class in their rebuke of Trump’s style of fight, which I must emphasize was the only effective approach to destroying the political left in the past three decades.

Conversely, Democrats do believe their message; even when that message is fundamentally toxic to the survival of this nation.  Democrats believe in what they are doing, and they will never retreat from their doing it.   The modern political left is intent on destroying the foundation of this nation.  That is their mission, and this fight must be viewed through the urgency of a prism where we accept this is a zero-sum game.

Accepting this dynamic is why I have warned, repeatedly, not to invest too heavily in the outcome of the Virginia race.   The biggest assembly of those who consider themselves to be Republican would like nothing more than to absorb the strength of the MAGA movement into their top-down party system.

To achieve this goal they will use Virginia to sell a narrative that moderation, genteel sensibilities, and reaching gently toward suburban ‘soccer moms’ is the future of the Republican Party.  It’s not.  If that approach was successful there never would have been a need for a Donald F**king Trump !

You cannot comply your way out of tyranny any more than you can negotiate your way out of the gallows.   If you are considered the enemy of the modern leftist movement, they will seek your destruction.  The only way to fight this adversary is with brutal hand-to-hand combat where you never, ever, concede an inch.

For God’s sake, if you need a reference point, 27% of them are willing to put an untested vaccine into the arms of their children without hesitation to protect against an illness that is non-existent.  Do you really think it’s possible to rationally debate them?

Instead, we meet Obama’s “Yes we can“, or Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better“, with a much stronger and unapologetic “Fuck Joe Biden“….

That’s how we defeat the insane communists! (read more)

Parents Unhappy With Woke Takeover Of Education Win Big In School Board Elections

Parents unhappy with the woke takeover of their local education systems won big on Tuesday when they ousted progressive school board members and beat out pro-critical race theory candidates in multiple districts across the nation.

In Southlake, Texas, Andrew Yeager, a father concerned with the top-achieving school district’s drastic “cultural competence action plan” — which aims to shame people, especially white people, based on their race — won the seventh spot on the Carroll Independent School District’s school board on Tuesday in a landslide victory against his opponent Stephanie Williams. Yeager’s win was quickly maligned by NBC News as the result of faux outrage over a mild “diversity” plan, but the new school board member’s victory actually indicates that referendums inspired by the woke school board’s affinity for critical race theory and radical gender ideology are working.

Yeager’s win follows months of parent activism in the district after lawbreaking school officials and other community members tried to institutionalize teachings and trainings that are guilty of “racializing every possible interaction” inside and outside the classroom. While parents who were uncomfortable with this were heavily targeted by corporate media outlets such as NBC News, which happily amplified the narrative that anyone opposed to the “equity” curriculum is a racist, they quickly assembled the Southlake Families PAC which aimed to “strengthen our mutual goals of academic excellence, transparent accountability, fiscal responsibility and upholding character, integrity, a strong work ethic and leadership in our community.”

Now that Yeager is elected, board members who were backed earlier this year by the PAC, which is “unapologetically rooted in Judeo-Christian values,” hold a 4-3 majority in the district which can be used to spike any further attempts to push institutional racism down students’ throats.

Similar victories occurred across the nation where parents and community members who were unhappy with the wokeification of their children’s classrooms stepped up and offered to do something about it. In Douglas County, Colorado, four candidates running to fight back against the county school district administration’s embrace of critical race theory and masking for students who are already at extremely low risk of dying from COVID-19 won spots on the school board. Their victories quickly flipped the board majority in favor of members who aim to “prioritize kids first in all decision making.”

Four more conservative candidates opposed to forced masking and radical race and gender ideology also beat out progressive incumbents and new opponents to win positions on two different school boards in Kansas. Similar wins also occurred in Wichita, Kansas; Morganton, North Carolina; Ankeny, Iowa; Tredyffrin-Easttown School District in Pennsylvania, and many more.

Parents’ frustration with the education bureaucracy not only played a huge role in pushing Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin over the finish line to the governorship in Virginia but appears to be growing into a movement that could continue to influence statewide and even national elections in the future. Ballotpedia reported that more than 84 school board recalls have occurred this year against at least 215 members. That’s nearly three times the amount of school board recalls that occurred in 2020 and four times the amount of school board recalls that occurred in 2019. (read more)

Let The Record Reflect These Are The Highly Paid Clowns Who Falsely Blamed Virginia Wave On Racism

After the election of minority Republicans to statewide offices cratered the Democrats’ narrative that systemic racism drove the GOP’s red wave Tuesday, left-wing members of the pundit class have clung to their talking points.

“Whiteness remains undefeated,” wrote Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali, after Republicans captured the Virginia governor’s mansion with businessman Glenn Youngkin. Youngkin’s victory was joined by fellow Republicans Winsome Sears, a black Jamaican immigrant and former U.S. Marine who was elected the state’s new lieutenant governor, and Jason Miyares, a Cuban-American elected as Virginia’s next attorney general.

For those GOP trying to dunk on this tweet, let me repeat: whiteness wins again. They won't get it.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) November 3, 2021

The GOP triumph flipping a state that’s become reliably blue over the past decade — where Republicans haven’t won statewide since 2009 — came as a product of conservative campaigning on salient cultural issues. The center of that platform included vehement opposition to the state-sanctioned racism embedded in K-12 curricula and labeled critical race theory.

In Ali’s world, the election of a black woman as Virginia’s first female lieutenant governor can be racist too, as long as it goes the wrong direction.

Totally normal picture. Phew, you got me. Owned and humbled. Republicans will shoot that CRT, coronavirus, prescription drug costs, and income inequality away. Also, no one is racist because, look, they voted for a POC woman! All cleared up. Everyone can now rest in peace. https://t.co/v1Nne9wQfL

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) November 3, 2021

Read and watch the elite pundits paid to analyze American politics below blame white supremacy, and even white women, for an election outcome they can’t handle, in a contest where Democrats staged a race hoax in desperation to prove their false narrative.

It’s not the messaging, folks. This country simply loves white supremacy.

— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) November 3, 2021

Two things can be true: 1) Youngkin voters are racist. 2) Democrats stayed at home. The latter does not change the former.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) November 3, 2021

The argument that white supremacy & racial resentment couldn't have helped power Youngkin to victory in VA because the Republicans elected a black lieutenant governor – Winsome Sears – is as convincing as saying Trump isn't a racist because he made Ben Carson his HUD secretary.

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 3, 2021

Yes, Glenn Youngkin ran a racist dog-whistle campaign against CRT.

Yes, Terry McAuliffe ran a bumbling campaign against Youngkin.

But if Ds had passed the #BuildBackBetter bill last week, McAuliffe would have won.

Manchin’s obstruction did Ds in.https://t.co/MZjlZv0LMp

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) November 3, 2021

I’m so fucking sick of this country being dragged into the dark ages at the whims of scared, gullible, stupid, racist white people.

— Rob Sheridan (@rob_sheridan) November 3, 2021

White backlash is a real thing, but it’s not the far right who does the backlashing. It’s the self-identified white “moderates”, “centrists”, “suburbanites”, “swing voters” (and their various other euphemisms) who rush to defend white supremacy when they feel threatened.

— Bree Newsome Bass (@BreeNewsome) November 3, 2021

Coddling and normalizing white supremacists is how we got Trump and how we get more Trump. Dems didn’t fight hard enough in Virginia and lost the turnout wars bcs Trump and his white supremacist insurrectionists & his Russian asset thugs have not been held accountable.

— Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) November 3, 2021

Glenn Youngkin race baits his way to victory over feckless Democratic establishmenthttps://t.co/cF3PWxomR4

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) November 3, 2021

CNN’s @brikeilarcnn: Some of @GlennYoungkin’s messaging was “dog whistle racism” @KirstenPowers: “1,000 percent" pic.twitter.com/Taa2RhhMqK

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 3, 2021

Garbage hot take by racist Nia-Malika Henderson on CNN: "We see the enduring power of the culture wars and the Republicans are better at playing this game because it's essentially white identity politics."

This thinking is why Virginia is going so well for Republicans. pic.twitter.com/9YRnpbxlSM

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) November 3, 2021

MSNBC's Joy Reid says "Education" is "code for white parents don't like the idea of teaching about race." pic.twitter.com/Y6QMAnklRy

— Tristan Justice (@JusticeTristan) November 3, 2021

MSNBC's Joy Reid, with dangerous rhetoric that'll get Republicans hurt: "Republicans are dangerous…[T]his isn't a party that's just another political party that disagrees with us on tax policy. That at this point, they're dangerous. They're dangerous to our national security." pic.twitter.com/5NiWIbn1Qk

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 2, 2021

MSNBC in full meltdown mode. pic.twitter.com/MtBKJjYxC0

— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) November 3, 2021

“Glenn Youngkin had 18 months to convince people that he was not a…horns out of his skull racist,” Jason Johnson says. "It only works if you have been able to present yourself as neutral…that's not something that a lot of Republicans are very good at." https://t.co/xqrRjeyRDA pic.twitter.com/LLleWTPHHH

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) November 3, 2021

Glenn Youngkin’s successful closing argument in Virginia was a promise to stop the teaching of Black history and ban the book “Beloved” by Toni Morrison.

But sure, tell us this isn’t about racism.

— Bill Prady (@billprady) November 3, 2021

Actually you’re playing word games Eli. Racists happily voted for Trump who appointed Ben Carson and Nikki Haley to high positions. You need to stop thinking of racists as just KKK members. Plenty of ‘ordinary’ Americans have racially resentful views. Stop being so reductionist. https://t.co/f9ANV5M8TR

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 3, 2021

White women voters are footsoldiers of white supremacist patriarchy.

In Virginia, white women swung back towards the GOP by 15 percentage points compared to 2020, h/t @rerutled https://t.co/dw8neoH5EL

— Mona Eltahawy (@monaeltahawy) November 3, 2021

Here's my column on #whitewomen who went for Youngkin and the fake CRT scare in Virginia. Hope you can read and share. https://t.co/9kDKlmXaIH

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) November 3, 2021

Lots of reasons for Virginia election results—including bad Democrat candidate messaging—but the truth that must be told is that too many white parents still don’t want their kids to be told the truth about racism; and the Republicans used and ran on that—and it worked.

— Jim Wallis (@jimwallis) November 3, 2021

(read more)

And the only thing that breaks the tension between the L’s and the G’s are the B’s in the backseat. That’s right. There you go. Everybody scream out when you hear your letter. If there’s one thing that the L’s and the G’s agree on, is it’s that the B’s are fuckin’ gross.

— Dave Chappelle, Sticks and Stones

I Was Told I Have Career Advantages ‘as a Black Woman.’ Here’s How I Replied.

For senior company executives, appointments to public boards are one way to ease into retirement with purpose and prestige. But in a recent conversation I had with a 60-something white man, he lamented that the board opportunities he had expected and looked forward to are unlikely to materialize for him.

“There’s no chance now, for the next 20 years,” he said. “All they want are women. Edith, you must be in great demand — as a Black woman.”

The statement struck me as a perfect illustration of what holds women and people of color back. First, there’s the suggestion that my race and gender are the relevant credentials for me to get a board appointment — the kind of microaggression that I, like so many people of color, have had to deal with all through my career.

Even more galling was his implied complaint about the injustice of it all: How can a well-respected white man with solid experience lose out to women or people of color?

The truth is, having board members with different backgrounds is important, and that is now being recognized, not ignored. My board credentials, by the way, are also solid. I have worked for more than 35 years in financial services, and I was the first Black woman to be a partner at Goldman Sachs. I got that promotion in 2000 — 131 years after the company was founded. I headed the firm’s human resources department for a decade. I’ve run multimillion-dollar, client-facing businesses with large teams of people reporting to me. I’m now on the boards of Amazon and PepsiCo, and I’ve been on the boards of Slack and Etsy. The executives and boards of these companies prioritized diversity of experience as critical to their organizations’ success. My identity as a Black woman is part of that experience.

[…] “Listen to what you just said,” was my immediate reaction to the person who made the comment about his lost opportunities. You’ve had it your way for decades. It has taken years to get to the point today where corporate leaders are seriously considering equality of opportunity for people of color, I explained.

Implicit in my professional acquaintance’s observation is the assumption, which I have also heard articulated by younger white men, that giving women and people of color equal opportunities will mean lowering the bar — that we are not quite as qualified and the businesses that hire us will suffer. This is ostrich thinking that ignores the privilege that has allowed white men to dominate the leadership ranks of almost every institution in the United States for centuries, whether or not they were the strongest candidates. And it’s just plain incorrect. There is an enormous body of research that shows teams made up of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities or genders perform better. [Yeah, look at the Balkans, tribal nations with Sunni/Shiite factions, Paris & its surrounding African slum suburbs, Sweden's "refuge" crime wave, American urban black combat zones, and the occupied West Bank. Ain't diversity grand?] (read more)

Love in the Time of Corona

Dating Profiles in the Coming Years

#1: Only took the first two doses, no boosters. Looking for someone with children from a previous marriage or is open to adoption.

* * *

#2: Took the third shot. Following rigorous treatment plan to protect my remaining immunity (estimated at 28%). I stay indoors and away from people during the winter to prevent catching cold. Heart is still in decent condition. Expect to live several more years. Looking for someone in similar situation for companionship.

* * *

#3: Lost my wife and children after making them take all the shots. Not sure why I didn't suffer the same fate, now living with the guilt. Working on my faith. Seeking a partner who understands so we can pick up the pieces together.

* * *

#4: Took the shots, but was fortunate and only have moderate effects, all treatable. Still wear a mask some of the time, but recognize it's a mental illness. Going for therapy, ready for relationship with someone supportive.

* * *

#5 Took zero shots, and never even took a PCR test! Deluged with offers. Please do not take it personally if I don't respond.

(read more)

The Lessons of Virginia

The last 5, 10, and 20 years have brought on all sorts of surprising and unexpected events. The Virginia election wasn't really one of them.

In an era when politics is supposed to present you with unexpected plot twists, Virginia was suspenseful, but not shocking. It didn't have to come out this way, but neither did it break any established patterns. The lessons of the election and the campaign are timeworn.

But implementing those lessons can be a lot harder than grasping them.

Glenn Youngkin had a clear message that addressed people's needs, that combined a political insurgency with optimism, and he stuck with it, avoided media distractions, and just kept hammering the same points home over and over again.

It's harder than it sounds, but it's also basic marketing, public relations, and campaigning.

Youngkin[, the globalist with Deep State ties,] understood that people were angry and frustrated, but that they also wanted hope, he deftly wove between cultural and economic issues, did his best to be non-threatening to suburban women, and effectively used his wife in the campaign, while at the same time inspiring and energizing his base. It was a tough juggling act and yet he regularly made it seem easy.

That's the difference between a candidate who can go the distance and one who can't.

In 2022 and 2024, there will be Republicans lining up to try and exploit the public backlash and they would be smart to learn those lessons without slavishly copying them because they're not Youngkin, DeSantis, or Trump, and they won't be running for office in the same places.

What specifically worked in Virginia may not work in quite the same way elsewhere.

But where Republicans fail in so many competitive elections is at connecting with the voters. It's not a fatal blow to a Democrat whose marketing campaign comes from the same media that tries to distance voters from the idea of even supporting Republicans. The media will aggressively market Dem candidates and, if the Republican candidate doesn't seem to be much of a threat, ignore his existence, and if he is, spend the campaign attacking him in every possible way. Republicans who get caught up in reactively responding all the time, lose.

People are angry and frustrated. They're looking for a voice to express their anger and pain. And the issue may not even be the issue. How many of the parents agitated legitimately about critical race theory were really upset about school lockdowns and financial trauma[ and a boy wearing a skirt raping a girl in a high school restroom] ?

It doesn't really matter.

Effective politicians understand that issues are often a vehicle for channeling internalized outrage. They offer them a chance to be heard. In their own ways, both Youngkin and Trump did that. Successful candidates in competitive races will have to find their own way to allow the people to be heard. (read more)

There’s no sugarcoating this loss for Democrats in a state Biden won by 10 percentage points a year ago [by cheating].

… The Manchins and the Sinemas and the Jayapals, by making the perfect the enemy of the (very) good, have handed an advantage to an illiberal faction that is stoking White nationalism….

Youngkin’s victory confirms a depressing reality: Trumpism succeeds as a tactic even in the absence of Trump. Though Youngkin nominally distanced himself from Trump (he didn’t mention Trump often or attend events where Trump spoke on his behalf), he ran a classic MAGA campaign, raising racial fear and animus among White voters by scaring them about crime and the phantom menace of critical race theory.

Fear and Loathing at Oberlin

Totalitarian tenderfoots.

You don’t hear a heck of a lot about Oberlin College, the liberal arts college in Ohio, but on Wednesday Hugh Fitzgerald wrote here about an esteemed member of its faculty, Mohammad Jafar Mahallati who, despite revelations about his past involvement with the diabolical regime in Tehran, has enjoyed the unanimous support of Oberlin’s top administrators. Mahallati, reported Fitzgerald, served as Iran’s ambassador to the UN in the late 1980s, where, among other things, he promoted “genocidal antisemitism,” denounced the Baha’i people (hundreds of whom “have been executed or murdered” in Iran), and helped cover up the mass execution of political prisoners. At Oberlin, he teaches Religion, Islamic Studies, and Middle East and North African Studies.

This wasn’t Oberlin’s first time in the spotlight this month. A couple of weeks ago the college got a good deal of social-media attention after Peter Fray-Witzer, one of its 3,000-odd students, took to the Oberlin Review to pen an ardent j’accuse. You see, an e-mail had gone out from Josh Matos, “the area coordinator for Multicultural and Identity-Based Communities,” informing students that radiator installations were scheduled to take place in the “Women and Trans Collective,” a dorm in which Fray-Witzer resides. Being “very averse to people entering my personal space,” especially when those people are “strangers” and “cisgender men,” Fray-Witzer was rendered “angry, scared, and confused” by the news of this unwanted intrusion, which would damage the “feeling of safety and protection” ordinarily provided by the Collective. Why, asked Fray-Witzer, couldn’t the installation have been scheduled during the summer?

Three score and seventeen years ago, men Fray-Witzer’s age stormed the beaches of Normandy. Now this. American colleges once taught young people to deal with challenging ideas and experiences. Now the most expensive of them - Oberlin is America’s 11th costliest college, beating Yale at #18 and Stanford at #50 - are padded playpens where their pampered students, the presumed leaders of tomorrow (is Fray-Witzer, by any chance, the child of Harvard law professor Sharon Fray-Witzer?) expect to be protected from the slightest hint of distress. And when they graduate they become - well, they become those totalitarian tenderfoots who were protesting Dave Chappelle’s latest comedy special outside of Netflix the other day.

No wonder Fray-Witzer’s tantrum went viral. “Ponder the rotted roots of an ideology,” commented Glenn Greenwald, “that convinces highly privileged and wealthy students at elite colleges that the guys who come to fix their radiators are their oppressors, and that the ones whose family is paying $80k/year are the oppressed.”

I’ve never been to Oberlin, but the campus looks beautiful in photographs, with lovely old buildings and leafy grounds. Is Fray-Witzer, this sensitive flower, an outlier there? In search of an answer, I looked through recent copies of the Oberlin Review. The impression I got was of a college absolutely overrun by spoiled whippersnappers who do nothing but whine about the Eden into which they’ve been undeservedly plopped. In one article, Eric Schank pillories the school administrators for failing to recycle and eliminate the use of plastic. (To his credit, he does spell “minuscule” correctly.) In another, Elizabeth Aduwo gripes that “a lot of white writers...write as if people of color don’t exist….They create worlds without race or, better yet, worlds where the only race is white.” (Of course, the equally PC flip side of this complaint is that when whites write about blacks they’re engaging in “cultural appropriation” and purporting to depict lives about which they actually know nothing.) In still another article, Aishwarya Krishnaswamy grumbles about how international students such as herself are treated at Oberlin:

When international students first arrive on campus, we are invited to an orientation to be more “American,” covering topics like tipping culture, politeness, double-meanings, and whatnot. While I appreciate the intention to make us feel more comfortable, I’m perplexed by the lack of an analogous orientation for domestic students on how to treat students from a different country. While I’m here to adapt, there is a delicate balance between adaptation and assimilation.

(Of course, if the college hadn’t offered the orientation, she’d probably be bellyaching about that.)

And Reginald Goudeau wailed about not having been paid on time for his gig as a Review columnist. Paid! To write for a college newspaper! A million years ago, I wrote for my own college newspaper, and if anybody had handed me money for it I’d have fallen into a dead faint. Among the columns for which Goudeau expected a paycheck were rants about Oberlin’s allegedly inadequate mental-health resources, about “how little this school listens to Black students,” about how Oberlin’s COVID policies disproportionately harm “Black and POC individuals,” about the commodification of Juneteenth, and about “the intersectional oppression of racism and misogyny” experienced by black women at Oberlin. Reading Goudeau’s repeated complaints about racism and overwork, I couldn’t help thinking of the accounts by Heather MacDonald (in The Diversity Delusion) and Kenny Xu (in An Inconvenient Minority) of the frustrations experienced by underqualified black students who get into highly selective colleges because of affirmative action, and who’d have been better off at less selective institutions.

To be sure, in comparison with many a major research university, a liberal-arts college like Oberlin tends to be awash in easy-A courses in “soft” subjects. Yes, you can pursue studies in biology or chemistry or math, if you insist, but you can also spend four years bouncing from one course to another with titles like “Actors, Stars, and the World Stage,” “Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender Identities,” “Queer Poetry,” “Queer Gestures - Dance and Performance,” and even “Chinese Queer Cinema.”

While the boys and girls at the Oberlin Review have found things to nag about all over campus, they seem not to have been overly worked up about Professor Mahallati’s poisonous rhetoric about Jews and Baha’i or his past employment by a regime that executed gays and apostates. Yes, they printed a critique of Mahallati by an Iranian refugee, but framed it as “part of a broader conversation about allegations” against him; when the Oberlin poohbahs “cleared” Mahallati of those allegations, the Review article included a generous comment by Geology chair Amanda Schmidt, a Baha’i believer, who said that she’d gotten along with Mahallati very well and gushed that “the role of individuals is to love all people for the sake of God. Because if we look at individuals and try to love them for themselves … we’ll become disappointed in them, but if we love them for the sake of God, then we will see God reflected in all human beings.”

But back to Peter Fray-Witzer. After his (?) cri de coeur made Oberlin a worldwide byword for spoiled brattery, the Review published an article, signed by several students, that seemed to be responding to the clamor. Acknowledging that there may well be truth in the claim that “Obies” (as they call themselves) enjoy “immense privilege” and that Oberlin instills in them “an ultra-liberal ideology so detached from the ‘real world’ that students emerge too sensitive to function in normal society,” the authors suggested that “although Oberlin does not reflect the real world, it remains a better model for a just and equitable society than the one we currently live in” and that “there is something powerful in our college’s objective to be a safe space for anyone who asks for it.”

Sorry, kids, but no. It’s a hilarious mark of your utter insularity that you think your idyllic little oasis of luxury and entitlement, of absurd cosseting and coddling - with its safe spaces and “Women and Trans Collectives” and “area coordinators for Multicultural and Identity-Based Communities” - is any kind of model for an “equitable society.” Do you think that those radiator installers whom Fray-Witzer was complaining about think you’ve got something “equitable” going on there? Your parents pay $80,000 a year for you to attend Oberlin - $30,000 more than the average household income in Lorain County, where the campus is situated. Given the length of the academic year, that comes to something over $300 a night. For that kind of dough, you can book a room long-term at Claridge’s in London or the Adlon in Berlin.

Also, just how do you reconcile your view of Oberlin as a “better model” with its readiness to shelter a preacher of genocide?

I hate to break it to you, kids, but your college, like dozens of other such pricey, adorable places (Williams, Wesleyan, Amherst, Reed, etc.), is a Cloud Cuckoo Land kept afloat on a massive cloud of your parents’ cash, and if you don’t realize just how much of a utopia it is - a gated community for the young and entitled and hopelessly narcissistic, who are repeatedly told that they’re virtuous and egalitarian - it’s because you’ve lived your whole lives in a bubble of affluence and have yet to step out of it. The day you do step out of it, and not a day earlier, will be - if you’re lucky - the day on which your real education begins. My hope for all of you is that you’ll end up learning to do something useful (radiator installation?), and that you’ll learn enough to recognize your alma mater as a castle of indolence - and of, yes, indoctrination into a set of ideas, by turns preposterous and just plain evil, that have no connection whatsoever to objective reality or basic moral decency. (read more)

Kyle Rittenhouse Show Trial

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 2, 2021

— Selfless Thoughtful Human Delight (@SavageNoMore) November 2, 2021

— Ray Epps FBI (@SeaLevel18) November 2, 2021

100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced according to official Government data

[...] Conclusion

This investigation of VAERS data reveals several concerning findings which warrant further investigation, but it also leads to questions of why authorities within the USA which are supposed to monitor the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines have not discovered this themselves.

The data clearly shows that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign has been significantly more harmful and deadly than the influenza vaccination campaign. This fact alone begs the question as to how the FDA advisory committee could possibly vote Seventeen to Zero in favour of approving the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5 to 11.

One voting member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee admitted that it will not be fully known whether Pfizer’s vaccine is safe for 5 to 11-year-old children, until it begins being administered.

Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard University said – “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes”.

But the investigation of VAERS has also identified the specific batches of Pfizer and Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm across the USA, which leads to other extremely serious questions requiring urgent answers.

Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?

Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?

Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?

Could this just be a quality control issue? (read more)

This information about different safety profiles of different “lots” (batches of finished product of covid19 vaccines) is completely without precedent.

I’m thinking about it and I don’t yet have clear in my mind what the envelope of plausible / possible explanations are.

But the bottom line is that the majority of lots were associated with good short term safety, few hospitalisations & deaths, which is true for both the Pfizer & Moderna injections.

But in both cases, a small number of vaccine lots are associated with incredibly high rates of adverse events including deaths.

How can this possibly happen? Drug manufacturing is performed to exacting standards of control. The ‘active’ agent is made in batches. It cannot be guessed how many doses each batch makes, because no one has ever made commercial scale mRNA products before.

But each batch of what’s called “drug substance” is then used to formulate, fill, pack & label various lots of finished drug product.

Testing methods are developed for all of the manufacturing steps, together with standards for the results to be considered acceptable.

Something happened between drug substance & drug product which resulted in a small number of finished lots for distribution which were destined to kill huge numbers of people.

Possible explanations (not exhaustive):


There has been so much truly awful behaviour of “elites” that I’m simply not willing (as I would have historically) to dismiss the possibility that this has been done on purpose.

What I do know, and this is a test of whether there’s the slightest sign of integrity from these companies as well as the regulatory agencies,  is that all use of the affected produce must immediately cease, all batches of drug substance & lots of drug product should cease.

The materials should be recalled to a place of stable storage & an intense analytical investigation initiated.

Unless factors are found which adequately explain the huge differences in clinical adverse event profiles, administration to humans must not restart.

If the manufacturers do not exhibit sufficient control of drug product, the authorisation they hold from various regulatory authorities are utterly voided.

Just when you thought this debacle couldn’t possibly get any worse, it gets much worse.

Expect to hear more about this.

Meanwhile, who in their right mind would roll up their sleeve?

— Dr. Mike Yeadon

Was he a Pict? From pictus (Latin): painted one.

Welcome to Scotland! Joe Biden is flashed by large, naked Scottish man as [illegitimate] president's motorcade drives past his house to COP26 in Glasgowa

• [Illegitimate] President Joe Biden was travelling from Edinburgh  to COP26 in Glasgow
• Naked man stood in his front window and took pictures of [illegitimate] president's motorcade
• Today the president announced a [toothless] crackdown on harmful emissions of methane

President Joe Biden was flashed by a 'large naked Scottish man' as he travelled with his motorcade from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

The American leader had been en route to the COP26 summit inside his armoured Cadillac 'Beast' when the naked man took a picture of the president's fleet of vehicles from his front window, according to the White House pool report. 

The incident came as President Biden announced a crackdown on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas [found in trace amounts in our atmosphere], during his second day at the [doomed to fail] global climate summit in Glasgow.

The location of the incident has not yet been confirmed.

Last night President Biden's motorcade was spotted filling up at a petrol station in Edinburgh - where he is staying before taking the enormous convoy back and forth from Glasgow every day trailed by a helicopter.

Local man Gareth Mackie was stunned to spot The Beast and its decoy, plus at least two other huge SUVs which make up the 20-strong presidential motorcade.

But today critics pointed out at the irony of Mr Biden attending a climate change conference in Glasgow only to stay 45miles away in the capital. (read more)

How a change in media business model sparked the Great Awokening: References to racism and white supremacy SKYROCKETED after New York Times erected its paywall and rewarded their paying white liberal readers' enthusiasm for wokeness

• Terms related to ethnicity, gender, sexual, and religious orientation rose in frequency across dozens of US news publications throughout the past decade
• In a guest post on Common Sense with Bari Weiss, Batya Ungar-Sargon, explained that liberals are willing to pay for content that aligns with their beliefs and it resulted in divisive language becoming more common 
• Ungar-Sargon cited a study, 'Prevalence of Prejudice-Denoting Words in News Media Discourse: A Chronological Analysis' which analyzed 27million articles published between 1970 and 2019
• Divisive terms began trending at The New York Times after the left-leaning outlet implemented its paywall system in 2011
• 'The political and financial incentives of media organizations and journalists seem to play an important role in driving the 'agenda' set by the media,' the study said
• Across 47 of the nation's most popular news outlets, the frequency of the term 'white supremacy' grew by 2,862, the study showed
• Former President Donald Trump has been widely blamed for stoking division in the run to his bid for president and during his time in the White House
• But this research shows that language 'denoting racism, [and] homophobia' reached new highs in 2014 – long before Trump entered the political arena 
  

Liberal mainstream media outlets have stoked 'moral panic' with references to racism, white supremacy and homophobia skyrocketing after 2011 when the New York Times implemented a paywall and rewarded its white liberal readers' enthusiasm for wokeness, a political commentator says.

In a guest post on Common Sense with Bari Weiss, Batya Ungar-Sargon - an opinion editor at Newsweek - explained that liberals are willing to pay for content that aligns with their beliefs and it resulted in divisive language becoming more common.

After the New York Times implemented its paywall - five years before Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 - it gave readers what they wanted, with the number of times the term 'racist' was used between 2010 and 2019 growing 600 per cent. 

The growth in divisive language was uncovered in an academic study led by New Zealand computer scientist David Rozado. 

In 'Prevalence of Prejudice-Denoting Words in News Media Discourse: A Chronological Analysis', it also found that the frequency of the term 'white supremacy' grew by 2,862 from 2010 to 2019 in overall media coverage.

The study said that 'agenda setting' among media outlets can happen when 'certain core outlets drive the conversation for most other media,' dictating the topics that yield the most attention.

Former President Donald Trump has been widely blamed for stoking division in the run to his bid for president and during his time in the White House, but this research shows that language 'denoting racism, [and] homophobia' reached new highs in 2014 – long before Trump entered the political arena. 

It means Trump alone shouldn't be blamed for the rise in the terminology, according to Ungar-Sargon.

'The moral panic mainstreamed by the liberal news media had actually been underway for at least five years before Trump appeared on the scene,' Ungar-Sargon wrote. 

'It began around 2011, the year the New York Times erected its online paywall. It was then that articles mentioning 'racism,' 'people of color,' 'slavery,' or 'oppression' started to appear with exponential frequency at the Times, BuzzFeed, Vox, the Washington Post, and NPR.'

A New York Times spokesperson noted that the study does not include 'critical information about the context in which the terms are being used.'

'The New York Times reports on the most important stories of our era with rigor, fairness and accuracy,' Jordan Cohen told DailyMail.com. 'That includes a broad array of daily coverage that helps our readers understand this moment.'

Mainstream media outlets play a key agenda-setting role when it comes to public opinion, the 'Prevalence of Prejudice-Denoting Words in News Media Discourse: A Chronological Analysis' study said, citing previous research. 

'The 'agenda-setting' literature also finds that certain core outlets seem to drive the conversation for most other media, as writers across the political spectrum react to or strive to emulate coverage in prestige media outlets,' the study said. 

'Coverage trends in prestige outlets therefore tend to echo throughout the media landscape, irrespective of other outlets' ideological lean—and coverage trends in print, online, and television media tend to overlap considerably. The political and financial incentives of media organizations and journalists seem to play an important role in driving the 'agenda' set by the media.'

Ungar-Satya added in her column that she believed liberal news outlets played a key role in changing the media narrative.

'For a long time, the notion that America is an unrepentant white-supremacist state - one that confers power and privilege to white people and systematically denies them to people of color - was the province of far-left activists and academics,' she wrote. 

'But over the past decade, it's found its way into the mainstream, largely through liberal media outlets like the New York Times, NPR, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Vox, CNN, the New Republic, and the Atlantic.'

Published in July, the study by New Zealand computer scientist David Rozado, reached its findings after analyzing 27 million news and opinion articles published between 1970 and 2019 in 47 of the nation's most popular news media outlets.

Research found that the usage of certain words related to race, gender, and sexual and religious orientation skyrocketed between 2010 and 2019 across most new outlets, regardless of political leaning.

Usage of the term 'racist' grew 638 per cent at the Times during the nine-year timeframe, while the phrase 'white supremacy' ratcheted 4,196 per cent at the outlet.

The frequency of 'gender discrimination' rose 932 per cent throughout the years at the Times, and 'misogyny' grew by 951 per cent.

Similar trends were observed at The Wall Street Journal, where 'Islamophobic' was used at 680 per cent greater frequency, and 'white supremacy' usage grew by 5,931 per cent.

The Journal implemented its paywall in 2013.

Musa al-Gharbi, a study co-author, said research has shown that the way media frames issues such as crime and terrorism can affect public perception.

He and his colleagues tested the theory to see whether shifts in media discourse and prejudice and discrimination followed similar patterns.

'This does seem to be the case - particularly with regards to perceptions around race and gender,' al-Gharbi told MailOnline.com.   (read more)

34% OF WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS LIED ABOUT THEIR RACE TO IMPROVE CHANCES OF ADMISSION, FINANCIAL AID BENEFITS

Key Takeaways

• 34% of white Americans who applied to colleges or universities admit to lying about being a racial minority on their application
• 48% of people who lied claimed to be Native American
• 3/4 of people who faked being a racial minority on their applications were accepted by the colleges to which they lied

Every year, aspiring college students complete admissions applications, with the hopes that their grades, extracurriculars, and recommendations will lift them above the pack, and earn them acceptance at the school of their choice.

However, some college applicants are misrepresenting their race in an effort to use their desired school’s diversity efforts to gain admission, or obtain more financial aid.

Intelligent.com asked 1,250 white college applicants ages 16 and older if they lied on their application by indicating they were a racial minority.

The survey found that 34% of white Americans who’ve applied to college falsely claimed on their applications they’re a racial minority.

The number one reason why applicants faked minority status is to improve their chances of getting accepted (81%). Fifty percent also lied to benefit from minority-focused financial aid.

Men are three times as likely than women to lie about their race on a college application. Forty-eight percent of male respondents claimed to be a minority on their college application, compared to just 16% of female applicants.

Lying also varies by age groups, with 43% of people 35-44 years old, and 41% of 16-24 year-olds admitting to faking a racial minority status when applying to college.

Those rates are lower for 25-34 year-olds (31%); 45-54 year-olds (28%), and people 54 and older (13%).

Native American most popular minority status to claim

Nearly half of all respondents who lied about their minority status (48%) identified themselves as Native American on their applications.

Thirteen percent claimed to be Latino, 10% claimed to be Black, and 9% claimed to be Asian or Pacific Islander.

Twice as many men as women claimed Native American heritage on their applications (54% compared to 24%). Meanwhile, one in four women (24%) claimed to be Latino. Women are also more than twice as likely as men to pretend to be Black (18% compared to 8%).

According to Intelligent.com Managing Editor Kristen Scatton, the prevalence of applicants who claim Native American ancestry is possibly due to the popular narrative that for many Americans, a small percentage of their DNA comes from a Native American tribe.

“For college applicants who are trying to give their application a boost by pretending to be a racial minority, they may seize on this notion that many Americans of European descent have some Native American DNA in their bloodline,” Scatton says. “However, research has shown that’s not all that common, particularly among white Americans. But applicants are banking on the fact that no college is going to ask them to provide a DNA sample to verify.”

Seventy-seven percent of people who claimed to be a racial minority on their applications were accepted by the colleges to which they lied.

While other factors may have played a role in their acceptance, the majority of applicants who lied and were accepted (85%) believe that falsifying their racial minority status helped them secure admission to college. (read more)

McAuliffe’s CRT Lie

The gubernatorial candidate denies the existence of critical race theory—but he promoted it in 2015.

Terry McAuliffe claims that critical race theory is “dog whistle” and has “never been taught in Virginia.”

But in 2015, when McAuliffe was last governor, the Virginia Department of Education instructed public schools to “embrace critical race theory” in order to “re-engineer attitudes and belief systems.”

McAuliffe has called opposition to critical race theory a “right-wing conspiracy” and slandered parents as “racist.” But his own administration, and subsequently, the Northam Administration, have extensively promoted critical race theory to all Virginia public schools.

Here is the full document that proves McAuliffe is lying:
(read more)

HERE’S THE MOVE – Joe Manchin Says NO DEAL, Pass the Preexisting Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and Then Give Details on the BBB Social Spending Deal
 
West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin held a press conference today to say he’s done with the insufferable chicanery within the legislative social spending bill, also called the “human infrastructure bill” or Biden’s “build back better” bill, or the “reconciliation bill”.

Nancy Pelosi has been sitting on the previously passed $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that was passed by the House and Senate {Go Deep} but has refused to allow a vote until a bigger social spending bill -constructed using the reconciliation process to radically change the U.S. by the AOC radical communists in congress- can be attached.  For months the debate over how far the communists can push the social spending package has been argued and debated, today Joe Manchin tapped out.

Manchin has done today what he was always likely to do, and two issues triggered today as his moment.  The cherry in his construct is Biden’s current location.

Now, lets get to the politics of why Manchin is making his move….

It is not coincidental that Manchin makes this statement today, as the NBC poll showing massive drops in support for Joe Biden is being discussed widely.  Manchin knows he is sitting in a spotlight of an inflection point; Manchin is politically astute and cunning to the ways of politics.  Manchin comes across as meek and mild-tempered, a man of reasonable disposition… but that doesn’t accurately portray his cunning.  This is his chance to make a big move.

Senator Joe Manchin also knows that Democrats are going to implode as the Obama allied communist puppet masters behind Biden have a one term agenda to exploit their control over the dementia patient currently occupying the White House.  Manchin knows the collapse of the Democrat Party is his opportunity; he also knows THE REALITY behind the released Marist Poll [data here] showing a majority of non-communist Democrats want nothing to do with the senile occupant of the White House.

Manchin is making a BIG club move by positioning himself as reasonable right now.

Manchin is testing his strength against the strength of Nancy Pelosi.

Manchin will likely be the #1 contender in 2024, he knows it.

Manchin is cunning.

Manchin is not only reaching out to ‘moderate’ registered Democrats….

Manchin is reaching the minds of registered Republicans

Manchin is a very worthy adversary…

At 1:00am on August 25th, Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats came to an agreement on a massive spending proposal.  The Senate previously passed a $1.5 trillion “infrastructure” bill, and a group of 9 House moderates -led by Josh Gottheimer- wanted to see it pass.  However, the far-left progressive caucus wanted their $3.5 trillion spending package which includes Green New Deal spending passed as part of the total budget agenda.

Representative Gottheimer’s group did not concur with the House $3.5 trillion spending proposal and saw no way for it to pass the Senate.

An internal deal was struck amid the Democrats for Gottheimer’s coalition to agree to advance a rules change with two conditions on that August 25th late night discussion {GO DEEP}:

(1) Pelosi would have to promise to bring the $1.5 infrastructure bill to a vote on September 27th; and (2) Any larger GND/”Human Infrastructure” bill  ($3.5 spending package) would need to be structured to pass the Senate.

Again, back on August 25th, the ‘moderate’ Marxists (for lack of a better term) could see that AOC’s progressive caucus spending bill was unlikely to pass the Senate in its current form.   To get the Gottheimer group on board, House Speaker Pelosi agreed to the two conditions, as negotiated.  To appease the AOC nuts, everyone agreed to tie both the $1.5 trillion infrastructure and the $3.5 trillion spending boondoggle together.

Fast forward through the next eight weeks. The Senate struggled to come to any agreement, as Senator Manchin (WV) and Senator Sinema (AZ), along with others, balked at the insufferable nature of the $3.5 trillion radical change blueprint that would remake the entire U.S. economy and end up with a massive $5+ trillion deficit.

Because the second point in Gottheimer’s deal (House bill must be able to pass the Senate) was not met, the entire process came unraveled.   Pelosi reneged on the promise to bring the $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill to a vote on September 27th.  As the deadline passed, Pelosi tried to save face -en process- by saying the vote would be likely on Friday October 1st, that never happened.  Deadlines came and went without progress.

With public support for the office of the President collapsing at an astounding rate, Joe Biden attempted to insert himself and his weak-sauce leverage at the last minute.  It didn’t help.   The $3.5 trillion spending priority quickly turned into a dead fish, rotting in blueprint outline form without ever making it to ‘reconciliation’ legislative language.

Today, Joe Manchin moved to put Nancy Pelosi and the communists in check.

Manchin has the support of the House Democrats and House Republicans but not the communists or AOC.

Knight took queen off the board….

Like a fox… (read more)

California Drove Truckers Out of Business. Now Store Shelves Are Empty

Democrat regulations are holding the entire economy hostage.

After a long cross-country flight, I made it out of LAX and into an Uber. I wasn’t in the mood to talk, but the driver was. And hearing that I was a journalist, he wanted to tell me a story. I’ve heard a lot of stories over the years, but this may have been the most important one I let go.

He hadn’t always been driving an Uber at 11:30 at night. Not all that long ago he used to have his own business with 7 trucks before he was bankrupted by California’s insane regulations.

I listened, but didn’t pay enough attention. The impact of California’s Democrat legislative supermajority on truckers was just another data point alongside what was happening to freelancers of all kinds and a lot of small businesses. Stories like this were everywhere and there was little interest in them even in conservative circles outside the tarnished golden state.

Back then we still lived in a world where you could walk into a thousand stores with fully stocked shelves. People ordered from Amazon and expected its burgeoning last mile delivery service to make products magically appear overnight. Just in time inventory systems were more efficient and any day now products would be delivered by self-driving cars or aerial drones.

2020 and 2021 have given this Big Tech fantasy world and the rest of us a good kicking.

The massive supply chain mess that’s leaving stores empty and orders unfulfilled doesn’t have a single point of failure, but dozens of them. China’s energy shortages, the overhyped predictive powers of Big Data, the fragility of the global economy, fuel costs, and welfare state worker shortages are all players. But California’s truck bans are a key link in the great failure chain.

While I was riding home that night, California trucking companies were going bankrupt at a rapid rate. Few outside the industry were paying attention or understood what that might mean.

2019 was described as a “bloodbath” for the trucking industry with 640 trucking companies across the country filing for bankruptcy in just the first half of the year. Thousands of truck drivers were left unemployed. Many went into the expanding last mile delivery business, some as contractors for Amazon. But California truckers and businesses had their own special woes.

Two years ago, Governor Newsom signed the Democrat supermajority's Assembly Bill 5 into law. While AB5 was billed as a crackdown on Uber and Lyft, forcing the companies to treat l freelance contractors as employees, the gig economy companies pushed Proposition 22 so that they were the only ones exempt from the law. (A Democrat judge has since illegally blocked the approved ballot measure while falsely claiming that it was unconstitutional.)

AB5 however was less about Uber than it was about outlawing freelance employees in order to force them into unions. The union power grab inconvenienced Uber and Lyft, but crushed freelance workers in a variety of fields including journalism. One of the fields was trucking.

Over the summer, the California Trucking Association actually went to the Supreme Court to fight AB5 and allow owners and operators to use independent contractors. The CTA listed 70,000 owner operators. In the years since AB5, Ubers have become scarcer and more expensive, which is what the law was actually designed to do, but the consequences to the trucking industry have been far worse albeit invisible to most people until now. While truckers are still protected from AB5, many in the industry are not willing to bet their future on SCOTUS.

AB5 was not only the assault on the trucking industry by California Democrats who were aggressively trying to unionize the industry and to impose environmental regulations on it.

Last year, the California Air Resources Board issued a press release boasting that it had taken a "bold step to reduce truck pollution". The bold step required switching to electric trucks.

"We are showing the world that we can move goods, grow our economy and finally dump dirty diesel," Jared Blumenfeld, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, sneered.

Jared and California certainly showed the world something.

While the ultimate truck ban was scheduled for 2045, an initial phase-in of 5% to 9% begins in 2024. Last year, California's DMV began refusing to register thousands of trucks with an estimated 100,000 trucks under threat. With "green" trucks costing $70,000 more, this was a non-starter for already troubled independent owner-operators and even larger companies.

That was part of the plan.

California Democrats and their environmentalist special interests had set out to crush the state’s ports and trucking industry. Had everything gone as planned, this would have been a slow and gradual process. Costs would have crept up and deliveries would have fallen off without an immediate catastrophic impact. But then the pandemic and its consequences arrived.

Business at California’s ports dropped during the pandemic. The loss of traffic convinced trucking companies and owner operators who were already battered by AB5 and the green truck ban that it was better to just downsize or pull out entirely. And when port activity rebounded, there was a huge hole in the delivery infrastructure that backed up the entire system.

Biden called for ports to operate around the clock, but that’s not going to magically bring back thousands of trucks or truckers. California Democrats still haven’t changed their regulations and without that, there’s no incentive or even legal structure that would allow trucks to operate.

The resulting disaster is likely to accelerate the ongoing shift of shipping from California ports. Democrats imposed their green shakedown not only on truckers, but on shipping. With companies moving to Texas, Houston was already becoming a more appealing alternative. It’s now at capacity as everyone is looking for alternatives to the California economic disaster area.

But much of our imports and exports still depend on the California bottleneck that begins with Communist China and ends in Communist California. The red-to-red pipeline has savaged our economy and wrecked imports and exports. Newsom’s survival and the Dem legislative supermajority which passes more extreme leftist regulations every session means that things will only get worse. A radical party that actively seeks to dismantle the economy is in power in Sacramento and its regulations have the ability to hold our entire economy hostage.

What happens in California unfortunately doesn’t stay there unless it’s waiting on a ship. (read more)