Did We Truly Appreciate What We Had?
Everybody Says I've Got Great Balls Of Fire!
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
US eases ban on security investments that finance Chinese military companies
I wonder if this was a Hunter Biden Suggestion...
The Biden administration has reversed Trump-era restrictions and reauthorized most US investments in companies owned or controlled by the Chinese military, according to a Treasury Department notice.
In mid-November, then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting American investments in Chinese companies linked to the country’s military, forcing US stock exchanges to delist companies.
Reversing the previous president’s action, Biden has moved to authorize most investments in companies “whose name closely matches, but does not exactly match, the name of a Communist Chinese military company” until May 27, according to the Treasury notice. However, the new general license does not allow transactions with subsidiaries of Chinese military companies that are currently banned by the US.
The move had been anticipated, as Biden administration officials have been critical of Trump’s measures, which forced the US stock exchange to remove Chinese companies from its listings, including the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Sinochem and ChemChina.
While the Biden administration has reversed the restriction on US investments, the State Department appears set to continue US government criticism of Beijing on a number of issues, particularly...
Well That Didn't Last Long.....
There's Probably Plenty Of Sheep That Are Still Drinking The Kool-Aid...
Democrats Vote To Reinstate Trump As President So Impeachment Trial Is Constitutional
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trump has been reinstated as president so Democrats in Congress can be sure the impeachment trial will be constitutional.
Trump will resume serving as president effective immediately so that Democrats can vote on the article of impeachment filed against him.
"We must make Trump president again so we can constitutionally impeach him again," said Chuck Schumer. "It's the only way to be sure. Normally, we don't care about the Consitution, of course, but when you're talking about impeaching Trump, we have to make sure we get it just right."
Democrats everywhere approved of the move, saying they have had nothing to live for since Trump left office last week.
"I had all these protest signs and nothing to protest," said Portland-area BLM activist Jacob Brier excitedly as he got on his gas mask. "We tried firebombing the local DNC headquarters, but it just wasn't the same. Sure, we could protest Biden starting new wars, but it's more fun to protest war under a...
Journalists Mobilize Against Free Speech
A new generation of media crusaders clamors for government control over what you see, hear, and read—and for banning their competition
American journalism once thought of itself as being inherently and institutionally pro free speech. Visitors to the Newseum, the media industry’s temple of self-glorification on Constitution Avenue in Washington, were once greeted with the First Amendment inscribed across 74 vertical feet of lofty marble. The Newseum has been closed since late 2019, its operators having discovered the hard way that the public doesn’t share the media’s heroic level of regard for itself.
The museum was an anachronism in more ways than one: The idea that journalists themselves look upon the constitutional right to free expression with quasi-religious awe is nearly as quaint as the idea the media could be the basis for a major D.C. tourist attraction. A publicly beloved press that earnestly believes in free speech now feels like it belongs to some fictive era of good feelings. These days, the American public distrusts the media more than it ever has.
Confronted with this crisis of legitimacy, today’s corporate media increasingly advances ideas that would delight would-be power trippers of any party—like establishing novel forms of government control over what you can see, read, and hear and identifying people with a broad range of unpopular or unapproved views as domestic terrorists. Public discourse is now a “conflict space” with social media serving as an “information warzone,” the public intellectual Peter W. Singer declared in an essay published a few days after the alternately scary and farcical Trump riot on Capitol Hill, seamlessly adapting a framework of state-level physical violence to a discussion of constitutionally protected speech.
In recent years the United States has seen more severe acts of political violence and deadlier riots than the events at the Capitol—but American guarantees of free speech apparently should not survive the shocking image of Nancy Pelosi’s office being ransacked. The notion that free expression is sedition’s handmaiden or that the prevention of treason should be a higher goal than the open exchange or exposure of allegedly dangerous arguments are not controversial views anymore; they pop up frequently, among putatively liberal-minded commentators in The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Media skepticism toward free expression actually began long before the Capitol riot – and before Trump was elected. The New Yorker’s Kalefa Sanneh anticipated the rising ambivalence toward the existing First Amendment regime when he likened “speech nuts” to “gun nuts” in a 2015 essay. Today, support for the mainstream American free speech norms of earlier, less-Trump-addled times is increasingly cast as a kind of sinister eccentricity, as when Slate declared in the days after the Capitol assault that “We have come to a moment in which one half of the country is fighting to be free of crippling, life-ending acts of stochastic terror, while another half of the same country is chillingly preoccupied with their right to just talk shit.”
How chilling, to be preoccupied with one’s individual rights—or at least to not understand that the legitimacy of one’s constitutionally guaranteed freedoms depends on the “moment” that “we” might be “in.” Sanneh wasn’t quite so sneering, and in the end he predicted that custom would override any late-breaking sense of national emergency: “Perhaps America’s First Amendment, like the Second, is ultimately a matter of national preference,” he mused. In any case, Sanneh wasn’t calling for anyone to suffer criminal penalties for protected speech.
Sanneh’s seeming lack of enthusiasm for fining or jailing people who disagree with him is getting less common among members of a media class determined to show that “enemies of the state” are its enemies, too. In a 2019 Washington Post opinion piece, Richard Stengel, the former managing editor of Time magazine and co-author of The Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela’s now-classic autobiography, argued that the U.S. was in need of hate speech laws, contending that “the First Amendment ... should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.” As the Biden administration’s transition team leader for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, he will no doubt find plenty of support for his vision for state-regulated speech among a long list of regimes that journalists once professed to abhor.
Here’s a look at other outlets and media figures who have gone into hall monitor mode, revealing themselves to be skeptics of the very system of law and custom that enables their profession to exist in the first place:
Here’s The Full List Of Every Lie Joe Biden Has Told Since Occupying The White house...
As Lying Joe Biden assumes the Oval Office, The Federalist will continue its rigorous coverage of the new White House, keeping the administration accountable with substantive fact-checking throughout Biden’s tenure.
Biden Trashed President Trump’s Early China Travel Ban As Xenophobic Before Signing His Own
When President Trump implemented a travel ban on China in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, then-candidate Joe Biden railed against the executive action as “xenophobic” claiming such restrictions do not work.
Less than a year later, Biden has implemented his own travel bans on South Africa, Brazil, Great Britain, and 26 other European countries in the second week of his presidency.
Biden Team: Trump Vaccination Plan ‘Worse Than We Could Have Imagined’
After Biden staffers lied telling CNN there was “nothing for us to rework” in terms of a vaccination distribution plan, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted there was a plan at the podium during a Jan. 25 briefing they just won’t give credit.
Psaki told reporters the plan from the Trump White House was “much worse than we could have imagined.”
Below is the chart outline for the distribution process under Operation Warp Speed, which produced not one, but two coronavirus vaccines in record time.
Lying Biden spent the entire campaign last year running on a platform to shut down the novel coronavirus, only to back away from the signature pledge on day three of his White House tenure with a bold admission.
“There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months,” Biden said on Jan. 22.
Biden Claims Federal Government Never Acted with Urgency to Combat Pandemic
Joe Biden claimed the federal government failed to “act with the urgency” that was necessary to combat the coronavirus pandemic, apparently neglecting to mention the Trump White House’s Operation Warp Speed that produced two viable coronavirus vaccines by the year’s end.
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn also pointed out that Congress passed trillions in stimulus, providing funds for pandemic efforts and economic recovery.
Biden Team Tells CNN Trump Offered No Plan for Vaccine Distribution
Sources within the Biden administration told CNN they inherited no vaccine distribution plan from the previous White House.
“There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch,” one source reportedly told CNN’s MJ Lee, except there was, as outlined in Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, included below.
The Biden team’s statements were also contradicted by the National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Anthony Fauci the same afternoon.
“We’re certainly not starting from scratch, because there is activity going on in the distribution,” Fauci told reporters.
Biden White House Claims Elites ‘Celebrating’ Is Exception to Mask Edict
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki justified Biden’s decision with his family to forgo face masks at the Lincoln Memorial after signing an executive order requiring them on all federal lands.
“He was celebrating a historic day in our country. … We have bigger things to worry about,” said Psaki, whose dismissal of the face mask as an insignificant issue was contradicted by the White House edict passed hours earlier.
Though Biden has received both shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stipulate that vaccinated people are to continue wearing face masks, citing a lack of research showing whether those vaccinated can still spread the virus. While Biden likely did not need to wear a face mask, considering he was outside and adequately distanced from others, the absence of a mask flies in the face of Biden’s executive order, in which “celebrating” is not listed as...
Sources within the Biden administration told CNN they inherited no vaccine distribution plan from the previous White House.
“There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch,” one source reportedly told CNN’s MJ Lee, except there was, as outlined in Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, included below.
The Biden team’s statements were also contradicted by the National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Anthony Fauci the same afternoon.
“We’re certainly not starting from scratch, because there is activity going on in the distribution,” Fauci told reporters.
Biden White House Claims Elites ‘Celebrating’ Is Exception to Mask Edict
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki justified Biden’s decision with his family to forgo face masks at the Lincoln Memorial after signing an executive order requiring them on all federal lands.
“He was celebrating a historic day in our country. … We have bigger things to worry about,” said Psaki, whose dismissal of the face mask as an insignificant issue was contradicted by the White House edict passed hours earlier.
Though Biden has received both shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stipulate that vaccinated people are to continue wearing face masks, citing a lack of research showing whether those vaccinated can still spread the virus. While Biden likely did not need to wear a face mask, considering he was outside and adequately distanced from others, the absence of a mask flies in the face of Biden’s executive order, in which “celebrating” is not listed as...
Beijing Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’
Policing language AND facts now
The latest of Joe Biden’s THIRTY SEVEN executive orders signed in the first week of his presidency states that the term ‘Chinese virus’ or ‘China virus’ is now banned.
Yes, this is real.
The White House website confirms that Biden signed this EO.
CBS News reported ‘Biden to address racism toward Asian Americans during pandemic with executive action’.
The report notes that “The Biden executive order is also expected to direct federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine whether there are xenophobic references like “China virus” in any existing policies, directives or government websites published by the Trump administration.”
NBC News lists all the executive actions Biden has instigated thus far, with the last being the ban on the term ‘China Virus’. The report notes that “additionally, the order directed the attorney general to work to prevent discrimination and hate crimes.”
Given that literally anything is now being touted as a ‘hate crime’, that could mean...
The Left Keeps Accusing Conservatives Of “The Big Lie” – A Term Invented By Hitler As He Prepared To Persecute German Jews.
It’s been in your social feed, on your televisions, and in the newspapers a dozen or more times today alone: the term “The Big Lie,” used by an elected official, pundit, or columnist to describe any challenge to the official narrative about the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
For example:
- President Joe Biden has accused President Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Sen. Josh Hawley of a “Big Lie” ;
- Rep. Mazie Hirono went on Anderson Cooper to accuse the Republican senators of a “Big Lie“;
- Dominion Voting Systems has alleged a “Big Lie” in their lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani;
- Jake Tapper has used the term repeatedly on Twitter and on air to describe allegations of fraud in the 2020 election.
Historians Timothy Snyder, Fiona Hill, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat have affirmed this usage of the term. Snyder whimsically explained to NPR how a “big lie” works: “The big lie fills in this space which used to be taken up by a lot of little truths, by hundreds and thousands and millions of little truths,” Snyder said. “We’ve let that slip away. And then the big lie comes in and fills in the gap.”
But that’s not what “Big Lie” means, nor where it came from.
 |
| HITLER AND GOEBBELS |
Many attribute the concept of the “Big Lie” to Joseph Goebbels, who is popularly believed to have said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
But did Goebbels actually say that?
“We can find only one refereed scholarly article that cites the quotation, and with no reference. A [LexisNexis] Academic search provides three published articles employing the fabrication, two of which are from BusinessWorld, in the Philippines, and one from The Washington Times,” wrote Quentin Schultze and Randall Bytwerk in a 2012 paper published by the Institute of General Semantics.
“None of the three dozen books citing it on Google Books has a publisher with a reputation for editorial diligence.”
Schultze and Bytwerk discovered the earliest usage of the quote from a 2002 article raising questions about the commercial plane flown into the Pentagon. By 2006, Google searches returned 300,000+ results for the quote—and still no primary attribution. The quotation proved handy on both the left and the right, first to critique the...
But did Goebbels actually say that?
“We can find only one refereed scholarly article that cites the quotation, and with no reference. A [LexisNexis] Academic search provides three published articles employing the fabrication, two of which are from BusinessWorld, in the Philippines, and one from The Washington Times,” wrote Quentin Schultze and Randall Bytwerk in a 2012 paper published by the Institute of General Semantics.
“None of the three dozen books citing it on Google Books has a publisher with a reputation for editorial diligence.”
Schultze and Bytwerk discovered the earliest usage of the quote from a 2002 article raising questions about the commercial plane flown into the Pentagon. By 2006, Google searches returned 300,000+ results for the quote—and still no primary attribution. The quotation proved handy on both the left and the right, first to critique the...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)