Satire? You Decide
Half Dome
Boris Turns to the Queen
Editorial of The New York Sun:
“…Prime Minister Thatcher’s speech at Bruges, Belgium. That’s where, in 1988, the Iron Lady warned that Britons had not “successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”
Mrs. Thatcher came to view as “the greatest issue before our country” the question of whether Britain would “remain a free, independent, nation state. Or whether we are to be dissolved in a federal Europe. There are no half measures, no third ways — and no second choices.” She wanted to look westward to America and to the freedom countries imbued with such values as the English and Scottish enlightenments.
No wonder Mr. Johnson turned to the British sovereign. He campaigned for office on the vow, as the BBC reminded, to do whatever it takes to secure Brexit. So, in seeking the prorogation of Parliament, he is doing just what he promised. President Trump was smart to signal his support for Mr. Johnson. He’s one of the few non-British leaders to have expressed confidence that Britain will get over any rough spots and go on to greater glory…”
2020 Vote Looks Like 1972 — With No Watergate
More sage commentary from Mr. Black
CONRAD BLACK:
“…It is not too early to speculate on what the national political press, and especially the high-brow conservative Never Trumpers, are going to do after this president is comfortably reelected. The Washingtonp-New York-Los Angeles press threw everything they had against candidate Trump, nominee Trump, and the president, and they have lost everything they had.
All surveys show that their audience/readership is sinking and their commercial economics are shriveling, and no reasonable person can fail to be disgusted with the endless malicious slanders and distortions by the Lemons, Maddows, Scarboroughs, Blitzers.
It is exquisite that Mr. Trump has used the hard-left social press to outmaneuver the traditional media kingmakers and now nods approvingly as Senators Warren and Sanders and their allies attack the new media cartel, whose leading figures are almost as hostile to the president as are those seeking the Democratic nomination against him next year…
…The 2020 election is shaping up as a 1972 rerun, with no Watergate to enable the crucifixion of the victorious Republican president. The Democratic party will learn the lesson and engineer a course correction, as it did after the great Reagan sweep of the 1980s…”
Satire? You Decide
61% Welcome Public Scrutiny of Big League Reporters
Rasmussen Reports:
“…The New York Times and others are complaining that allies of President Trump are targeting hostile reporters by exposing controversial social media postings from their past. But most voters consider these reporters fair game for public criticism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters think reporters at major news organizations like CNN, Fox News and the New York Times are public figures who deserve the same level of scrutiny as the people they cover. Just 19% disagree, although just as many (20%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just over half (51%) say it is appropriate for elected officials to criticize specific reporters and news organizations. Thirty-nine percent (39%), however, view such criticism as a threat to freedom of the press. This compares to 48% and 45% respectively in February 2017 after Trump began criticizing specific news organizations that were targeting him. Ten percent (10%) remain undecided.
Rasmussen Reports bases its surveys on likely voters – those who have a history of voting in recent elections – as opposed to registered voters in general, many of whom historically don’t go to the polls.
A plurality (47%) of voters continues to believe that ideologically speaking the average reporter is more liberal than they are. Just 19% think that reporter is more conservative than they are, while 22% consider them ideologically about the same. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. This is consistent with findings in surveys for the past several years…”
Democratic Controlled Government at Work, Just not on Real Problems
California’s homeless crisis engulfs its capital as Sacramento’s business owners tell how they confront naked junkies and streets covered in feces, urine and syringes – with no solution in sight
Click over if you want read about the disaster. On second thought don’t, it’s ugly.
Democratic Congressional Staffers Morph into Antifa
DHS bars Dem staffers from visiting border facilities after ‘rude’ and ‘disruptive’ behavior
Brooke Singman:
“…The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has barred Democratic staffers from the House Oversight Committee from visiting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a planned trip this week after committee staff allegedly were “disruptive” and refused to follow instructions during their last trip, Fox News has learned.
Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., had sent his staff to visit border facilities for “oversight inspections” last week and planned to send staff again to view Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and CBP centers.
But sources told Fox News that DHS has revoked access to CBP facilities for the upcoming visit, citing staff behavior that “interfered” with law enforcement operations — including refusing to leave one site after their scheduled window, skipping some tours and being “rude” to officers. A DHS official said that ICE visits will still be allowed this week, but with a two-hour time limit. One of those visits took place on Tuesday.
“Due to the operational burden placed on the field by their refusal to comply with instruction during last week’s STAFFDEL [staff delegation visit], CBP pulled the trip in which more site visits were to take place at CBP and ICE facilities this week,” a senior DHS official told Fox News in an email Wednesday. “DHS communicated to the committee that due to their conduct, CBP could not support visits from the committee this week.”
A Democratic source suggested the visit is being nixed due to concerns about what staff were learning from detainees about conditions on the ground…”
Lawfare Expects McCabe Arrest – That Explains Why CNN Hired Him….
An interesting analysis. Worth clicking over.
Sundance (The Last Refuge):
“…The Lawfare group are the external influence agents for corrupt politically motivated lawyers working in government. The group fingerprints show up everywhere including among “beach friends” and legal schemes hatched from the premise of their assembly. Lawfare = use the law as a tool in warfare. [Adult Alinsky disciples.]
The Lawfare group is headed by Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes; and the group give resistance advice to ideologues inside government as well as outside organizations who are resisting (suing) the Trump administration.
So when Benjamin Wittes announces to his ideological resistance followers:
…”You should thus expect charges against McCabe to be forthcoming any day. And if such charges don’t happen, that doesn’t mean they weren’t planned but, rather, that some extrinsic event has intervened”… (link)
…readers can assume Lawfare leadership has known about McCabe’s risk position for quite some time. Remember, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker also works for Lawfare.
It is almost guaranteed Andrew McCabe and his lawyer Michael Bromwich are in daily conversations with their network of friends inside Lawfare. This same ideological network has vast affiliates throughout media. The pending indictment of Andrew McCabe would explain why CNN hired him.
Knowing the DOJ was likely to indict McCabe, CNN could help frame a narrative that serves both their interests. That narrative was already in the New York Times article describing the potential for the indictment.
When McCabe is charged the media narrative will be it’s because he took the job with CNN… Trump/Barr weaponizing the DOJ and trying to kill free speech etc. CNN doesn’t have to defend their action in hiring a known liar, they’ll instead frame McCabe as a victim, a fellow traveler to the larger cause of justice – whose indictment is evidence of how far Trump and Barr will go to destroy their enemies etc…”
Nitwit Running for President
Beto Says U.S. to Blame for Guatemala Drought, Not God or ‘Mother Nature’
TYLER O’NEIL:
“…Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman from El Paso, Texas, knows for certain that Guatemala’s drought is the result of carbon emissions more than one thousand miles away. He knows for certain that neither God nor Mother Nature is responsible for the drought because … science!
“And Guatemala suffering one of the greatest droughts in their recorded history, caused not by God nor by Mother Nature, but by you and me and all of us and our emissions and our excesses and our inaction in the face of the facts and the science and the truth,” O’Rourke told the crowd at the College of Charleston in South Carolina Monday evening…”
This could be another satire post. The number of stories that could be satire seems to be expanding exponentially as we enter political season.
Satire? You Decide
Obama Blows $15 Million on Mansion Doomed by Rising Tides He Failed to Slow
The former president seems unbothered investing $15 million in a property nominally threatened by global warming. Go figure?
Babylon Bee continues to crush it
CNN APOLOGIZES TO STALIN, MAO AFTER COMPARING THEM TO TRUMP
Is this satire?
Tweet of the Day
All My Loving (Beatles Parody)
Remy discovers the hysterical, shrieking crowds are here for the entitlements.
Written and performed by Remy.
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg.
Music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom.
LYRICS:
Does adulthood dismay you?
Vote me and I’ll pay you
You won’t have to grow up, it’s true
All your bills will be paid
Your adulthood delayed
And I’ll give all this money to you
Bob commuted to college
For discounted knowledge
So large debts he would not accrue
Lived at home, did some chores
Now he’ll also pay yours
Cuz I’ll give all his money to you
All this money
You will get from Bob
All this money
If I get this job
All your work wages risen
Your debts all forgiven
Your childcare will be paid for too
Want free parental leave?
Just takes one vote for me
And I’ll give all this money to you
All Bob’s money
I will give to you
All Bob’s money
If I win it’s true
All Bob’s money
All Bob’s money
All Bob’s money
I will give to you
Journalism
The Duke and Duchess of Climate are disappointed in you
Another part of the problem with climate science, it has been disfigured by politicization. Climate science has become a fetish for the global elite, western media, and the Democrat party. Worth clicking over for the whole article.
Washington Examiner Editorial:
“…It’s hardly the first time European royalty have displayed laughably elitist and clueless condescension. It’s not even the worst current scandal involving a British royal and a private jet. But the spectacle of a prince and a princess jetting around the globe in private jets (including a visit to Sir Elton John’s estate in Nice, France) while scolding the rest of us about carbon emissions is a telling one about the West’s elites and the climate change fight, and more beyond.
Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, living on inherited wealth, don’t have jobs in the same way most of us do. Instead, they are full-time do-gooders. The Duke of Sussex, as Harry is also known, recently spoke (barefoot!) at a green summit in Sicily. Like many of the guests, he arrived by private jet.
When the Times of London reported on the duke and duchess’s flight to Nice to visit Sir Elton and his husband, it was a bad look for the royal couple. It sure looks like hypocrisy to lecture one’s subjects about climate emissions while flying privately around the hemisphere…”
The great failure of the climate models
A good and brief summary of some of the problems with climate science. Worth clicking over to read the whole thing.
Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter:
“…Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.
Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be…”
MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE
JOHN HINDERAKER:
“…Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.
What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.
Mann says that his lawyers are considering an appeal. He can appeal to his heart’s content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false…”
Satire?
US students bash America while Hong Kong protesters fly its flag
Really getting hard to tell isn’t it.