Will Joe Biden Get Any Questions In The Final Debate About Hunter Biden’s Foreign Pay For Play?

The supposedly independent Commission on Presidential Debates unveiled the topics for Thursday night’s primetime match-up. The topics were announced late last week after a series of bombshell revelations from the New York Post expanded public knowledge of the Biden family’s corrupt overseas business activity while in the upper echelons of U.S. government.

The debate, moderated by NBC’s Kristen Welker — who celebrated Christmas with the Obamas and whose family has donated thousands to Democrats including Joe Biden — will feature questions on “Fighting COVID-19,” “American Families,” “Race in America,” “Climate Change,” “National Security,” and “Leadership.”

After former Clinton White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos refused to ask Biden a single question during ABC’s town hall last week about the fresh evidence implicating the former vice president in his son’s foreign business dealings, one has to wonder if the Democratic candidate already being protected by big tech, legacy media, and the debate commission will be forced to finally address the controversy.

On Wednesday, the New York Post dropped its first round of blockbuster reporting that revealed incriminating evidence against the former vice president on a laptop suspected of belonging to Hunter Biden obtained from a computer repair shop in Delaware.

Emails published by the Post show Joe Biden lied when he claimed repeatedly that he never spoke business with his son, “or with anyone else.” Now-public correspondence shows that Hunter Biden introduced his vice president father to a senior adviser for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter served on the board. Hunter had no prior experience in the industry yet received upwards of $50,000 a month in excess compensation.

“Thank you for inviting me to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together,” Burisma consultant Vadym Pozharskyi wrote to Hunter, whose father at the time was the “public face” of the Obama administration’s policy towards Ukraine.

Twitter and Facebook immediately weaponized their monopolistic power over the 21st-century public square to suppress the story.

On Thursday, the New York Post dropped round two of their reporting on content found in the computer that showed Hunter Biden stood to rake in $10 million a year for “introductions alone,” from a Chinese businessman with deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The story was, of course, subjected to big tech censorship again.

The debate commission revealed its debate topics the next day. Foreign policy, which the Trump campaign claims had been the previously agreed focus following internal deliberations with Team Biden and the debate commission, wasn’t among them.

Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepein demanded the commission feature foreign policy as a primary topic for Thursday night’s event. That has become custom for the third presidential debate, although this week’s is technically the second to actually occur, after last week’s was canceled.

“We write with great concern over the announced topics for what was always billed as the ‘Foreign Policy Debate,’ in a series of events agreed to by both the Trump campaign and the Biden campaign many months ago,” Stepein wrote, noting that many of the topics on the next debate’s docket had already been addressed at length in the first debate moderated by Chris Wallace. “For the good of campaign integrity, and for the benefit of the American people, we urge you to rethink and reissue a set of topics for the October 22 debate, with an emphasis on foreign policy.”

It’s unlikely they will, given that the commission run entirely by Biden supporters has already been making decisions to the Democrat’s benefit such as flanking Trump with demands for a virtual debate that ultimately ended in canceling it. The second debate was also supposed to be moderated by a former Biden intern who exposed his own bias on Twitter when he publicly consulted fired former Trump White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, now a vocal NeverTrumper, on how to handle the president.

Scully initially claimed he was hacked before admitting it was a lie a week later. C-SPAN suspended Scully indefinitely. The town halls that took place instead paraded Biden supporters as “undecided voters,” and each failed to offer substantive dialogue on American foreign policy from the candidates, a major area of success for the Trump administration. Trump has brokered Middle East treaties culminating in the explosion of peace in the region.

Whether Biden will be pressed on Hunter Biden Thursday night is certain. The Trump campaign has already promised it. Whether it comes from the debate moderator as it should, however, remains the open question. Whether the moderator will step in to protect Joe Biden on stage remains an even bigger one.

When the Democratic nominee was finally pressed on the charges of corruption now plaguing his campaign, at least from conservative media reporting what legacy media has attempted to delegitimize despite hyping up the pee tape Steele dossier, Biden lashed out at the press, calling the report a smear campaign.

“I have no response,” Biden said. “It’s another smear campaign, right up your alley.”

With new allegations of corruption roiling the campaign, reporters reverted to softball coverage, asking Biden what kind of ice cream he got on Sunday.

One could easily imagine how the same reporters would behave if the roles were reversed and it was Trump exiting the North Carolina food joint while facing the same kind of accusations.

Possibly to avoid any more questions about the content revealed on his son’s laptop, the Biden campaign called a 72-hour cessation of campaigning Monday while not disputing the authenticity of the reported emails.

Source

How Trump’s EPA Administrator Is Tackling Long-Neglected Toxic Sites

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler joins Staff Writer Tristan Justice to discuss the EPA’s recent successes in using its Superfund Program to clean up contaminated, hazardous sites in the U.S. to improve community health.

“We accomplished in four years what they did in eight years,” Wheeler said, referring to the Obama Biden Administration. “And it’s because we’re focusing more on the results. For four years, the program just looked at activities.”

[embedded content]

According to Wheeler, the key to implementing these big clean-up projects comes when the EPA partners with “states, local governments, the community, and the industry who is responsible.”

“We’re reprioritizing, we’re focusing on what the real environmental impacts are to where people live to get those sites cleaned up. And we’re working with the community groups in the industry, we’re bringing them to the table. We’re working out the differences instead of letting them play it out in court for years.”

While the conversation focused mostly on the EPA’s site clean-up initiatives through the Superfund, Wheeler did not hesitate to point out some of the flaws in the Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden’s proposed environmental agenda, especially concerning fracking.

“You don’t have to ban something if you regulate it to death,” Wheeler explained. “And the Obama administration was regulating [fracking] to death. So you can say I’m not going to ban it, but you can put enough policies in place where it’s not feasible to do it.”

Listen here:


Source

No Arrests Made After Violent Antifa Attack Hospitalizes Pro-Free Speech Demonstrators In San Fransisco

A pro-free speech, pro-Trump, and pro-police demonstration turned violent at United Nations Plaza in San Francisco over the weekend when a group of several hundred so-called anti-fascists began attacking and throwing projectiles at protestors and police. Despite multiple attacks caught on camera, no arrests were made.

The protest, organized by “Team Save America” and Philip Anderson, was intended to “protest Twitter which it said squelches conservative speech.” Those who attended the protest in the name of free speech also expressed support for President Donald Trump and the police by wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and waving “Thin Blue Line” and U.S. flags.

The protest began peacefully, but as Anderson mounted the stage to begin his speech, anti-fascists dressed in black “surged the area, outnumbering and attacking those gathered,” according the Associated Press. They also began throwing plastic and glass bottles at the pro-police Trump supporters.

Among those injured was Anderson, who suffered a knocked-out tooth from Antifa who attacked him “for no reason,” a Trump supporter, and at least three San Francisco police officers who were assaulted and injured with pepper spray and caustic chemicals. Multiple people were taken to the hospital.

During the attack on Anderson, people can be heard screaming “pray about it” and yelling racial expletives as he walks away holding his mouth.

According to the Associated Press, Anderson said he “called the counterprotesters hypocrites and said they are the reason why he’s voting for President Donald Trump.”

“I love America, I love this country, and I love free speech,” he said.

The San Francisco Police Department’s response to these attacks looked drastically different compared to Phoenix law enforcement responding to a similar protest Saturday. AZ Central reports that nearly every attendee of a protest against police in downtown Phoenix was arrested “after police say the group marched in the road, knocked barricades into the road, and threw smoke bombs at officers.”

Eighteen people were arrested and were facing charges “including aggravated assault on an officer, riot, criminal damage, unlawful assembly, hindering prosecution, resisting arrest, and obstructing a road.”

The riot was first announced on social media, but only 30 minutes after it began, it was declared an unlawful assembly as protestors threw devices emitting smoke at officers.

“Phoenix PD underestimates the power of the people. March with us to occupy Washington Street and remind PD who they serve. We will not stay silent. Until we get justice, Phoenix will have no peace,” the digital flyers advertising the event stated.

Phoenix Police Department spokesperson Sgt. Ann Justus said that it was “due to the ongoing criminal activity and assault, the Phoenix Police deployed less-lethal munitions in order to safely make arrests.”

Source

Study: Biden Will Raise Taxes On 80 Percent Of Americans, Cut Annual Income $6,500 Per Household

A new study shows that Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden’s proposed economic plan would significantly hurt the long-term American economy if implemented.

While many mainstream media outlets claim Biden’s plan will target the wealthy and save the middle-class money, the 50-page study released by the Hoover Institution shows different results.

“Economists have paid too little attention to the economic effects of the Biden plan,” said Casey B. Mulligan, professor of economics at the University of Chicago. “Our report, which focuses on taxation, health insurance, regulation, and energy policy, suggests that these effects are potentially very large indeed.”

The study conducted by a group of financial and economic experts including Mulligan, former Chief Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Kevin Hassett, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers since 2017, demonstrates how Biden’s plan will hurt everyone.

“We conclude that, in the long run, Vice President Biden’s full agenda reduces full-time equivalent employment per person by about 3 percent, the capital stock per person by about 15 percent, real GDP per capita by more than 8 percent, and real consumption per household by about 7 percent,” the report stated.

If Biden’s proposed changes are implemented, the economists warn that, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s projections, 2030 may yield “4.9 million fewer employed individuals, $2.6 trillion less GDP, and $1.5 trillion less consumption in that year alone.” The economists also note that the median household income in 2030 would fall by $6,500 despite Biden’s promises to prioritize the middle class.

In the study, the economists’ main findings center on three conclusions. First, that for Biden to achieve the “ambitious plans to further cut the nation’s carbon emissions,” 1.3 million net additional energy workers will need to be added into the transportation and electrical industries.

“Biden’s plans are ambitious,” says Mulligan. “Unless people drive a lot less, the electrification of all or even most passenger vehicles would increase the per capita demand for electric power by about 25 percent. Simultaneously, more than 70 percent of the baseline supply (i.e., electricity generated from fossil fuels) would be taken offline and another 11 percent (nuclear) would not expand.”

The study also concludes that “labor wedges are increased by proposed changes to regulation as well as to the ACA.” Because of the subsidations, the study found the average marginal tax rate on labor would rise by 2.4 percentage points.

“Labor falls primarily due to new and high implicit taxes associated with more generous health insurance assistance delivered in the framework of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),” the study reads.

“Our quantitative findings for the ACA should be no surprise given what had been found for previous efforts in the U.S. and other countries to expand health insurance coverage,” the study adds.

Lastly, the study concludes that Biden’s plan “reduces capital intensity by increasing average marginal tax rates on capital income.”

“Biden’s plan to raise personal income and payroll tax rates would push their federal rates from below 40 percent to, often, above 50 percent, and these are on top of state income taxes,” the study states, which would hurt small businesses, their employees, and consumers substantially.

While Biden and his VP Nominee Kamala Harris previously promised that they will not “raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $400,000,” they have also promised to repeal the tax cuts made by President Trump, which gave 80.4 percent of all taxpayers a cut and 91 percent of the middle quintile a cut.

“On Day One, Joe Biden will repeal that tax bill. He will get rid of it,” Harris said during the vice presidential debate in early October.

Source

We Gamed Out The 2020 Election And Found Our Constitution Can Handle The Madness

There is no shortage of polls or pundits predicting the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. But “outcomes” include more than simply election results. Who is gaming out how America — and the world — will respond? We are.

While national polls suggest an edge for former Vice President Joe Biden, the winner isn’t determined by national polls. It is determined by who wins the Electoral College. Victory is won in the states.

Scaring Voters into Mail-In Increases Election Uncertainty

Due to the political stoking of fears of contracting COVID-19, a massive push has been made, mostly by the left, to encourage voting by mail. This significantly alters the calculus on Election Day and completely upends the post-election period.

Most states and local election officials aren’t prepared to process, validate, and count large number of mail-in ballots. In six swing states (totaling 74 Electoral College votes)—Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — no mail-in ballots may be counted before Election Day.

Since reports indicate a far greater interest in voting by mail for Democrats than Republicans, it’s likely that President Trump will be winning these states by large margins on Election Day, only to see that margin shrink in the days and weeks after Election Day. Indeed, that is precisely the narrative being crafted by leading organs of the mainstream media.

Further, voting by mail doesn’t result in the same success rate as does voting in person. The Washington Post reported that some 534,000 ballots were rejected during the 2020 primaries, either because they arrived late, the voter’s signature appeared invalid, or other failures. A separate analysis published in the Post found that as many as 4.9 percent of mail-in ballots fail to result in a counted vote. Depending on the state and the share of the vote by mail for each major party, the 1 in 20 ballots that fail to convert into a vote could be determinative.

Uncertainty Can Fuel More Rioting

Adding uncertainty to what is a routine exercise in vote counting (the 2000 contest in Florida being an exception) is this year’s urban unrest. An election night featuring competing claims of victory, confusion, and early calls by the media, only to be reversed on the receipt of newer data, may lead to post-election violence unlike any seen in more than 150 years.

Purportedly aiming to make sense of this fraught election year, in early August, the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) released a report suggesting that President Donald Trump would not likely leave office without an unprecedented struggle. The TIP, a self-proclaimed “bipartisan” group of some 100 people, was entirely composed of those firmly opposed to President Trump.

Their purpose wasn’t so much gaming out plausible post-election scenarios as to generate breathless propaganda suggesting that no matter the outcome, President Trump would refuse to leave the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, Inauguration Day. He flatly contradicted such propaganda in his NBC town hall last week, saying that he wants the election process to be fair and that he will abide by verified election results.

TIP’s effort marks a lost opportunity, one that the Claremont Institute in partnership with the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) sought to remedy with our own simulation of election night and what might be a highly charged and competitive aftermath — a contest after the contest.

For the task, Claremont and TPPF assembled a team of 35 people, and over the course of seven days, these constitutional scholars, along with experts in election law, foreign affairs, law enforcement, and media, decided how they would react to fast-moving events. The operation was coordinated by a retired military officer experienced in running hundreds of wargames.

Here’s What We Found

The Claremont-TPPF effort produced a detailed roadmap of the likely challenges at the state level, how those might be adjudicated in state and federal courts, how domestic unrest and foreign adventurism might intensify, and, in the unlikely event that the Electoral College cannot determine a winner, how a president and vice president could be constitutionally determined.

The team foresees three basic scenarios, one of which was gamed out in detail:

  • A clear victory for President Trump, winning 32 states and 322 Electoral College votes, better than the 304 Trump won in 2016, but, due to the massive use of mail-in ballots, especially in the six states in which counting cannot commence until Election Day, victory likely won’t be formally declared until days or weeks after Election Day, as Trump would only have 248 electoral votes known for certainty.
  • A clear victory for Vice President Biden, winning 26 states and D.C. for a total of 342 Electoral College votes. Again, because of the six states that cannot count mail-in ballots until Election Day, even in this scenario, victory won’t be known for certain, as Biden may only have 268 electoral votes late into election night.
  • An ambiguous result, with the final election results of several states delayed and subject to intense court fights resulting in a struggle right up to the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress where the ballots of the electors are unsealed. Uncertainty could extend even beyond this as decisions for both the presidency and vice presidency are battled out in Congress and before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The team carefully simulated the last scenario. The key takeaways from the effort included:

  • Regardless of the outcome, the winner isn’t likely to be known on election night.
  • The large number of mail-in ballots may prove hard to validate in many states, as systems have not been prepared to process the ballots and count them, while tremendous pressure will be brought to bypass safeguards against fraud and produce results.
  • When employed, the legal system will be up to the task of adjudicating disputes over election results.
  • There is a significant chance for unrest, stoked by a dominant corporate media in which the American people have lost trust; internet giants actively deciding what information to allow the public to see; domestic opponents to America’s constitutional system, and by foreign powers, mainly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia.
  • There is a heightened danger of international adventurism by the PRC and Russia, the leaders of which, misperceiving the nature of American governance, may think the post-election uncertainty gives them opportunity for military action. This would be a grievous error on their parts.
  • If the contest doesn’t produce a majority (50 percent plus 1) of the votes of seated electors by Jan. 6, there are clearly established constitutional procedures to determine a victor.
  • There are two areas of uncertainty at the late stage of a contested election:
    • Each house determines the final election results of its membership. This means the Democratic majority in the U.S. House might decide not to seat duly elected Republican members to prevent the Republicans from holding a 26-seat majority in the state delegations if they, with one vote per state, are used to determine the president if no candidate has the needed absolute majority of seated electors’ votes. Given that the majority’s power to determine the membership of the body, House or Senate, is absolute, the sole check on the use of this political power is the potentially dire consequences of its abuse.
    • Should the results be undetermined through Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, the Succession Act would suggest that the speaker of the House would become acting president until one is determined and, if the House cannot decide, then elevating the vice president, even if selected out of the Senate.

The Claremont Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have released the results of our joint efforts in the “79 Days Report” for the 79 days from Election Day to Inauguration Day, with ample citations provided to the Constitution, statute, precedent, and history. The team asserts that America has a well-established “transition integrity” procedure — the Constitution.

It is the participants’s earnest desire that this scholarship will illuminate the path for both state elected officials and local election officials as they struggle through what may likely be the most difficult period of their careers.

We hope that our work will reassure the American people that our system of government is resilient. It was crafted by the Founders to withstand crises and to emerge through the turmoil with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, that shall not perish from the earth, but endure to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our children.

Source

Joe Biden Tells Mom He Supports Transgendering Eight-Year-Old Kids

At presidential candidate Joe Biden’s TV town hall last week, the mother of “two girls, eight and 10” whose “youngest daughter is transgender” asked if he would reverse President Trump’s supposed “dangerous and discriminatory agenda” against trans people. Biden’s response? That he will “flat-out just change the law.”

Biden continued, “The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, you know, ‘I decided I want to be transgender. That’s what I think I’d like to be. It would make my life a lot easier.’ There should be zero discrimination.”

[embedded content]

Greenlighting the “transition” of eight-year-olds in the name of non-discrimination to advance your political career has to be one of the most cynical political moves of this presidential contest. Biden is a supporter of the Equality Act, legislation House Democrats passed in 2019.

That bill’s form of “nondiscrimination” against transgender people would require ending sex-based privacy protections in prisons, homeless and abused women’s shelters, locker rooms, sports teams, and bathrooms, including for children in schools. It would ban all forms of therapy for confused children that do not push them to behave as the opposite sex. It would also likely allow medical professionals who profit from surgically and chemically altering children to continue to experiment on them in the name of transgender rights. That is because the bill would codify making it “discrimination” to treat people based upon their actual biology.

Eight-year-olds do not have the capacity to reasonably determine their own sugar intake, screen time, and bedtime. So why are some parents, some doctors, and now a presidential candidate advocating for their ability to choose permanent, life-altering medical treatments? That’s exactly what it means when an eight-year-old “decides to be transgender.”

We’re not talking simply about children rejecting superficial gender stereotypes. In 2020 we all know that women can be successful SCOTUS nominees, and men can be accomplished artists and bakers. Affirming the confusion of a “transgender” child is something altogether different. Something that sets children up to be lifelong customers of Big Pharma and cosmetic surgeons.

Let’s take a look at the trans activist’s prescribed path for an eight-year-old who wants to “transition,” shall we? While some trans children do not participate in all these activities, Biden’s platform makes way for all of them to be open to children, and indeed the preferred path for such children, despite their dangerous, damaging, and life-altering effects.

First, for little girls who want to “present” as boys, parents can purchase “little packers” (or crochet their own) to give their elementary-school daughters the appearance of a penis. Boys will likely visit websites offering tutorials on how to “tuck and tape” their actual penises, which can result in complications such as urinary trauma, testicular pain, and testicular torsion.

As they develop, girls will be encouraged to wear chest binders to compress their breasts, which can lead to compressed ribs and collapsed lungs. Strange how Chinese foot-binding and Victorian corsets are deemed regressive, yet “progressives” cheer when kids bind their sexual organs.

While their bodies are being shaped externally by prosthetics, tape, and binders, doctors will go to work altering trans kids’ bodies internally through puberty blockers. Puberty, a sign of healthy human development, is the great enemy of the trans movement.

Trans children are encouraged to take puberty blockers, usually Lupron, which induces a state of sickness in their healthy body. Lupron is a synthetic hormone primarily used to treat prostate cancer in men, and it has a long list of side effects. Shockingly, Lupron has not been approved for use in children. So the eight-year-old Biden encouraged to “transition” will be subjected to an experimental treatment that increases his chances of memory loss, stroke, cardiac arrest, cancer, and skeletal problems.

But wait, there’s more! It’s not enough to just “block” puberty in this healthy eight-year-old, transgender protocols drown him in cross-sex hormones as well. Girls will be prescribed (or simply pop over to their local Planned Parenthood to pick up) high levels of testosterone, and boys will be put on estrogen.

According to the American College of Pediatricians, “cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.” A “transgender” eight-year-old will need to consume these cross-sex hormones for life.

Of course, the ultimate expression of this eight-year-old’s transgender path is “gender affirmation surgery” in which doctors amputate healthy, fully-functioning organs. Despite the waves of “detransitioners” sharing their stories of how these “treatments” have not improved the mental health or suicide rates among trans-identifying individuals, double mastectomies are still being conducted on girls as young as 13.

It’s not “discriminatory” to tell a child that he doesn’t need prosthetics, tape, binders, puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, amputation, and cosmetic surgery to be his true self. And it’s very likely child abuse to tell him that he does.

What if, instead of encouraging an eight-year-old and his mother to mutilate his body, Biden encouraged this boy to love his body regardless of whether he plays with Barbies, prefers pink, and eschews crew cuts? After puberty, this eight-year-old would very likely embrace his maleness, as is the case with 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls who experience gender confusion.

Most trans children will end up being happy and secure in their authentic sex as adults if gender activists, doctors, and presidential candidates would simply allow them to develop normally.

Source

White House Expert Scott Atlas Censored By Twitter

Social media company Twitter finished its week of apparently politically motivated censorship on its platform by banning tweets regarding the efficacy of masks from Scott Atlas, a member of the White House scientific team battling the coronavirus.

Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, not only had his tweets removed, he was banned from tweeting until he deleted the tweets that Twitter for unclear reasons objects to. Here are the tweets in question:

In an email to The Federalist, Atlas outlined the evidence behind his tweet.

In the deleted tweet, I cited the following evidence against general population masks:

1) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel.

2)  Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.’

(https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/)

3) The WHO:  ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’  (http://bitly.ws/afUm)

4) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article).

I also cited an article giving detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread:  https://t.co/1hRFHsxe59

Notwithstanding this evidence regarding arguably the most important and contentious debate raging in American society — the constant mandate of masks — it appears some 20-something with his pronouns in his Twitter bio just pushed a button and erased scientifically accurate information. For some reason, which hopefully Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey can explain when he is dragged before the Senate, Atlas was silenced by the tech giant.

This comes the same week that Twitter blocked New York Post articles alleging improprieties involving presidential candidate Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma revealed by a laptop now held by the FBI. For good measure, Twitter also banned the New York Post’s official Twitter account from the platform.

Universal masking is a subject of scientific dispute, and just happens to be a contentious political argument in the midst of the 2020 presidential election. Under the dubious policy of stopping the spread of disinformation, Twitter has silenced an expert on the matter for what seems to be politically motivated purposes.

Twitter, which claims to be a neutral platform and enjoys legal protection as such, has once again proven that not only does it have an editorial agenda, it has a political one. You see, the information overlords at Twitter dot com will decide what information and what facts the masses like you and me are allowed to consume on their platform.

That would be fine if they were a publisher and treated as such legally, but for now they are not. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act gives Twitter special protection to engage in censorship, but after this week of obviously politically motivated silencing, many in Congress are looking to stripping the company of that protection.

Twitter’s reasoning behind banning information that questions the efficacy of masks is as opaque as a smile behind one. Like much of the traditional media, it seems to believe that the American people are too stupid to confront and analyze actual information, and instead must be spoon-fed instructions like toddlers. You don’t have to know why you must cover your face everywhere you go, you just have to do it!

This is enough; it was well past enough already, frankly. Twitter is now censoring important and much-needed scientific information that the American people need to make informed decisions about their health. If Dorsey wants to be a mask busybody while he parties maskless with Beyonce and Jay Z on a yacht, so be it. The mask rules don’t apply to him. But the laws of the United States should and must.

Twitter is no neutral platform. This fact is as obvious as a punch in the mouth, which is exactly what Congress needs to give it. Free speech is as central to the American experiment as any concept is, and as foreign to Twitter as could be.

It would be a shame if screen captures of Atlas’s tweets somehow found their way onto Twitter, I know @Jack would be dismayed — if he’s not in Indonesia engaging in fasting and spiritual development.

Source

The Biden Emails Prove Impeachment Was A Sham

Remember January? I know it feels like several lifetimes ago, the before times of life as we used to know it. But think back to the biggest story of those chilly days. It wasn’t the Chinese virus slowly spreading to our shores or the Democratic presidential primary. No, it was the impeachment of the president of the United States. This week’s bombshell New York Post story on Hunter Biden now shows what many of us suspected: The impeachment was a ridiculous sham.

The basis for the impeachment, for those whose recollections are understandably shaky, was that President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch investigations into the energy company Burisma for the purely political purpose of hurting Joe Biden. Central to that allegation was the argument that Trump and the United States had no legitimate interest in seeing Burisma investigated. If the trove of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop are accurate, and they have not been disputed, then this argument falls to pieces.

Pam Bondi, working for the Trump defense team, said this back during the national ordeal about the Democratic House managers’ constant attempts to call allegations against the Bidens “baseless”:

In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times? The reason they needed to do that is because they’re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that’s why we have to talk about this today. They say ‘sham.’ They say ‘baseless.’ They say this because if it’s OK for someone to say, ‘Hey, you know what? Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles.

And here we are. If these emails are accurate, then it is as clear as is the summer sun that Hunter Biden was absolutely selling access to his father and the Obama administration in exchange for his lavish salary. This was literally at the heart of the Trump defense, and it really is a silver bullet. What reasonable person would even suggest that the president of the United States may not push allies to investigate legitimate corruption involving the executive branch of the federal government?

House Republicans this week sent requests for information to the FBI to see if they were in possession of these emails at the time of impeachment. It is an important question that the American people deserve an answer to. To borrow a phrase from another show-stopping trial of the century, if the email’s legit, you must acquit. As far as I know, there is no way to reverse an impeachment, but if there were one, now would be the time.

Remember, “Impeachment is forever”? It was the big catchphrase right before “Don’t touch your face” shot up to No. 1. When was the last time you even heard a Democrat say the word impeachment? If this black mark on Trump’s presidency is so very damning, then why isn’t the Biden campaign making a big deal about it? Or frankly, talking about it at all? The reason, of course, is that even back in January, Democrats were concerned that should Biden win the nomination, some of these chickens could come home to roost. Now they have, and my goodness, they are laying some heavy eggs.

What Trump must make clear in the final weeks of the election is that not only was his impeachment a giant lie, a despicable ploy by desperate Democrats, but it was also a massive cover-up on behalf of Joe Biden. It is time for what we naively thought would be the biggest story of 2020, namely impeachment, to make its way back into this election — not as Democrats intended as a negative for Trump, but as his ultimate vindication against charges we now know to be baseless, crude, and deeply cynical.

Source

Study Shows Remdesivir, Gilead’s Fast-Tracked Coronavirus Treatment Drug, Fails To Mitigate Deaths

A new study out Thursday shows remdesivir, the only antiviral therapeutic approved for treatment of the novel Wuhan coronavirus, does not prevent deaths in COVID-19-infected patients.

The study, conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) tracked more than 11,300 adults across 30 different countries to examine the mortality rate benefits of the drug manufactured by Gilead. President Donald Trump was administered the medicine following symptoms related to his infection with the virus.

According to researchers in a paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon drugs, when administered either separately or in a combination, “appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.”

Remdesivir was given emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in May after a study from the National Institutes of Health found the drug produced modest benefits in coronavirus-stricken patients. The National Institutes of Health also includes seven doctors paid by the drug’s producer on its coronavirus panel. The approximate cost for remdesivir runs about $3,100 a patient.

Some medical experts, including those at Gilead, have shared skepticism of the WHO’s findings. Infectious disease expert Dr. Peter Chin-Hong at the University of California, San Francisco told the New York Times that the reality of conducting a cross-national study over dozens of health care systems and inconsistent protocols makes the data difficult to deem conclusive.

Dr. Andre Kalil at the University of Nebraska told the Times that the absence of a placebo group in the WHO study was a major flaw. Kalil also criticized researchers for allowing health care providers and patients to know which drugs they were given.

The “missing data,” Kalil told the paper, “cannot be fixed by a large sample size, no matter how large it is.”

Gilead also released a statement upon the study’s release, taking issue with drawing conclusions based on the initial data’s release without undergoing the academic scrutiny afforded by peer review.

“We are concerned that the data from this open-label global trial have not undergone the rigorous review required to allow for constructive scientific discussion, particularly given the limitations of the trial design,” the company said. “The trial design prioritized broad access, resulting in significant heterogeneity in trial adoption, implementation, controls and patient populations and consequently, it is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the study results.”

Source

Why The Left Needs Us All To Believe The United States Is Racist Forever

That America is a racist country is the great self-evident truth of the left and of the ruling class whose moral opinions are shaped by it. This truth is self-evident in the sense of being readily apparent to them, as evidenced by the countless disparities in life outcomes between blacks and whites. No explanation for these disparities is ever required. Their mere existence is proof of racism.

The disparities between Asians and whites, between Indians and whites, and between Nigerian immigrants and whites all go studiously ignored since these groups generally outperform whites in income and educational attainment. Also ignored is the role that the pathologies of inner-city black culture — fatherlessness, crime, nihilistic alienation, and the exaltation of thuggery — play in producing and sustaining disparities.

America’s racist nature is also self-evident in the philosophical sense. It is an axiomatic truth: the predicate (racism) is contained in the subject (America). In the same way that all bachelors are, by definition, single, so is America, by definition, racist.

Formulated as such, the self-evident truth of American racism cannot be refuted. It is impervious to counterarguments, data, and historical developments. Believers in American racism don’t care about your facts. In 1991, Derrick Bell, one of the founders of critical race theory, declared that blacks had made no progress in America since 1865. He made this claim with a straight face at Harvard University, where he had been a tenured professor for two decades. In 1865, Harvard did not admit black students.

In 2020, the claim that America is fundamentally racist is a lie. But it is a lie tenaciously defended by those on the left who most benefit from it: the Democratic Party, its progressive allies in the academy, the intelligentsia and the media, and black political leadership. As the ultimate arbiters of all racial controversies, the left have positioned themselves to occupy the moral high ground in America — the most important strategic position in any political conflict.

Using Racism as a Smokescreen

The accusation of racism is their most powerful political weapon. Playing the race card allows them to detract attention from their own corruption and the radical ideas they espouse. Whatever faults they have, at least they’re not racists like Donald Trump, the Republicans, and their base of deplorables. The right is thus constrained to fight the enemy on the enemy’s own terms. Republican claims that “Democrats are the real racists” inevitably fall flat.

The national obsession with racism is also obviously beneficial to those who work in the diversity and grievance industries. It is perhaps most useful for corporate and financial elites, who use it to distract Americans and direct their ire away from urban oligarchs like themselves toward the nebulous forces of racism. Corporate America is afraid of socialism, not of Black Lives Matter. The anti-capitalists hate the rich and corporations. The anti-racists do not; they can readily be bought off with performative wokeness and a sprinkling of diversity hires in the C-Suite.

Well-intentioned Americans of all races must understand that these powerful constituencies have a vested interest in keeping America “racist” forever. No set of attainable conditions would ever lead them to admit that America is no longer racist. No sooner would the reparations checks be issued than new demands would arise.

None of this is to deny that America was racist for centuries, that the legacy of racism is still with us, and that some racism endures to this day. But the Constitution of the United States is colorblind, and America’s Declaration of Independence proclaims that “all men are created equal.” There are no racist laws or regulations on the books anywhere in America — not at the federal level, not in any of the 50 states, and not in any of the 19,502 incorporated cities, towns, and villages.

The Actual Reality of ‘Racist’ Police

Since 1964, America has also had a Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in both the public and private sectors. In explicit violation of the legislative history and text of the law, the act has been interpreted by the highest court of the land to countenance so-called “affirmative action,” i.e. racial preferences to benefit blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics). America thus finds itself in the paradoxical position of being a purportedly white supremacist nation that officially sanctions and practices discrimination against whites.

Well, a critic might say, the laws may not be racist, but don’t police enforce them in a racist way? The overpublicized deaths of George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, James Blake, and others before them supposedly prove that a “legalized genocide of colored people” is taking place.

Yet none of the major studies of lethal shootings by police officers find evidence of racial bias. In fact, controlling for the very high black crime rate — African-Americans make up 13 percent of the population but commit more than 50 percent of homicides and about 60 percent of robberies — and the higher rate at which black suspects resist arrest, the share of blacks killed by cops is lower than one would expect.

Somehow, America remains a racist country even as elected officials in both parties openly pander to racial minorities, blacks in particular, while paying no attention to whites as a group. The Republican Party studiously ignores whites, busy as it is courting the “naturally conservative” Hispanic vote, while the Democratic Party increasingly adopts the anti-white animus of Black Lives Matter and the rest of the woke left. Because the demand for racism so completely outstrips the actual supply, we are left with unfalsifiable accusations of “dog-whistling” — non-racist statements that supposedly send covert racist messages.

Once every few years, it is true, a Republican will put his foot in his mouth and speak indelicately about race. Whenever this happens, the offender is universally condemned, with the loudest denunciations coming from the Republican Party and the conservative establishment, and the offender promptly apologizes. Such is the odd nature of “systemic” American racism, that racists are immediately denounced and eager to repent.

The New Unforgivable Sin

African-Americans occupy a larger place in the country’s collective imagination than any other group. They exert enormous cultural influence not just in America, but across the globe. At home, no group is more honored for its accomplishments, real or fake (no, a black man did not invent the lightbulb). The closest thing America has to a secular saint is Martin Luther King, Jr. Even the recent allegations that he may have been a serial philanderer who laughed as a woman was raped in front of him did not dent his reputation.

In the public square, at school, and at work, Americans are also increasingly compelled to profess devotion to the creed of Anti-Racism. The thought police are everywhere. No one gets canceled for abandoning their children, betraying the country, or committing any number of immoral, indecent, or criminal acts. There is only one unforgivable sin: to deviate from the accepted script when speaking of African-Americans — and to a lesser extent, any of the other protected identity groups.

Amid widespread sympathy for blacks, affirmative action policies, and the absence of racist laws, we are told that racism is nonetheless institutionalized — though there are no institutions of any significance in America committed to racism, let alone to white supremacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an alarmist fundraising machine for its now disgraced founder Morris Dees, keeps track of about 940 hate groups operating within our borders (more than a quarter of which are black separatists). By focusing on the number of groups, the SPLC can ignore their insignificant size, lack of funds, and complete marginalization in American life.

By the SPLC’s count, there are 47 Ku Klux Klan groups in America — but their total membership is between 5,000 and 8,000 (the Anti-Defamation League puts the total at 3,000). At its peak in the mid-1920s, the Klan had 6 million members (in a country with a third of our current population).

So much for the institutions of hate. Meanwhile, corporate America, the media, Hollywood, professional sports, philanthropic foundations, nonprofits, churches, the academy, the arts, and the military all vociferously denounce racism. All eagerly embrace the diversity agenda. All are obsessed with hiring and promoting people of color.

The Mind is the Last Frontier

And this brings us to perhaps the strangest feature of America’s purportedly racist society: the growing phenomenon of whites passing as nonwhites. Elizabeth Warren claims to be Cherokee, BLM’s Shaun King claims to be biracial, and a Jewish professor of African history at George Washington University is the new Rachel Dolezal. Needless to say, no Afrikaner ever pretended to be “colored” under apartheid.

Where, then, is racism to be found in America, if it is not in its law, its public rhetoric, and its institutions? Polls make it hard to find, too. Eighty-seven percent of Americans approve of black-white marriage, up from 4 percent in 1954. Gallup calls it “one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history.” When researchers asked teenagers to name the most famous Americans in history (excluding presidents), their top three picks were MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman.

The last frontier is now the subconscious. Because the quantity of racism is held to be constant throughout American history, the absence of racist sentiments in people can only mean that racism is hiding deep in the recesses of their minds.

With the help of Harvard University’s widely touted Implicit Association Test, everyone’s latent racism can now be brought to the fore. The test, of course, reveals no such thing. A peer-reviewed study found “little evidence to support [its] more provocative claim: that people possess unconscious racist attitudes.” Even Vox had to admit that “it might not work at all.”

In the end, all we are left with as the definitive proof of American racism today is “systemic racism,” the meaning of which boils down to: America is racist because, well, it just is. Racism somehow suffuses the whole even though it is not visible in any of its major parts. Whereas all other racist regimes in history openly proclaimed their racism, America has pulled off the amazing feat of purging its laws, institutions, and culture of racism — all in the interest, of course, of perpetuating racism.

Republished from RealClearPublicAffairs, with permission.

Source