#TDS

Says more about Fauci than Trump

If principles were so high on Dr Fauci’s agenda, why didn’t he resign and publicly out Trump for all his wicked ways at the time he felt silenced? Was he enjoying the limelight of being in a position of power and privilege too much to do so?

Vice wrote that Fauci feels “liberated” now he works for President Biden.

Fauci said,

I can tell you I take no pleasure at all being in a situation of contradicting the president so it was really something that you didn’t feel that you could actually say something...”

Yet Fauci previously said of Trump,

The president [Trump] has listened to what I have said and to what the other people on the task force have said…when I have made recommendations he has taken them. He has never countered or overridden me…

Which is it? The second comment hardly sounds like someone muzzled by a crazed tyrant.

Don’t forget that Fauci was originally against masks as a preventive and then for them when it was politically expedient to do so. So inconsistency is a hallmark.

Now that Trump has gone, is Fauci jumping on the “trash Trump at any opportunity” cancel culture bandwagon because he’s now got a new master who welcomes criticism of his predecessor and allowed him to keep his job? Sounds like it.

Was Fauci worried that Trump might win the election and resigning early would have left him with egg on his face? Or did he just hedge his bets like he has done with so much of his advice?

Vice’s article says way more about who is really telling fibs. But of course, we can’t expect any journalistic integrity from the left wing media to call him out on his conflicting remarks.

Media fawns over Biden – video montage

https://fb.watch/397ra_VLZt/

While it comes as absolutely no surprise, the media gushed and fawned over President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Take a look at this nauseating video montage welcoming the new White House occupant.

We honestly wonder how the media will cope as they wean themselves off 5 years of complete derangement. Listen to the contrast of how they sent off Trump today.

Can Americans live on a diet of news filtered through rose-tinted glasses?

Reality Check – Impeach!

MRCTV’s Britt Hughes discusses the double standards applied by the Democrats on impeachment.

Can Trump be impeached after he leaves office?

According to J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.”

One wonders whether Speaker Pelosi might show the American people the same urgency with issues that actually matter to them. Is this a preview of the “servant’s heart” mentality Arnie Schwarzenegger spoke of in his woke video this week?

At the very least she didn’t wait for collectors item pens with her signature embossed to arrive like she did at the time of the first impeachment.

The Dems have only one wish for a successful impeachment – to guarantee they never have to contend with someone with 74m supporters.

America’s cultural revolution and the long march back to equality

Within 48 hours of the confirmation of the electoral votes, unelected tech giants displayed once again how they can dictate terms to the democratically elected leader of the free world and his followers.

The First Amendment might as well have been written in invisible ink.

Now other platforms are following suit, laying the groundwork to ensure directly/indirectly there will be little effort to help unite the country by restricting/cancelling access to conservative sites.

Who is inciting who exactly?

Three quotes to reflect on before we begin:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again,”

and

History is written by victors.

The left is in raptures over Trump’s expulsion from Twitter. Of course they have no issues with cancelling those who don’t share their ideological views. Yet if you question their rights to free speech, hell hath no fury. After all everything that parses their fingertips is good, clean and wholesome. If you say otherwise you’ll be cancelled. Got it?

Yes, the argument will be made that privately run social media companies have the right to police those who may damage site integrity and promote the collective safety of subscribers. Have they been asleep at the wheel for the last 4 years? Even terrorists have been allowed to tweet without sanction.

The problem is that the unelected and unqualified overseers making those determinations to suspend others have shown time and time again they back the side not the principle. OJ Simpson on justice anyone?

A great example is Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth (@yoyoel), an avid anti-Trumper. Several days after the 2016 election he proudly tweeted, “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.” We should sleep soundly at night that he also referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “a personality-free bag of farts.” Surely there is no risk of conservative bias with the integrity team at Twitter…sleep soundly!

Black conservative Candace Owens proved just how biased Twitter is when she was suspended for replacing the word ‘white’ with ‘black’ and ‘Jewish.’ She proved the point with respect to the incendiary tweets made by the NYT’s then latest recruit, Sarah Jeong. Never let racism get in the way of the decision making process!

Facebook recently threatened to de-platform conservative comedian JP Sears for satire.

Now, Google has decided to remove conservative forum, Parler, from its Android store presumably just because Trump has endorsed it. So will every single thing that he has supported be shutdown or targeted? Watch out Goya!

Will Apple join the cultural revolution? Are all Parler users foaming at the mouth Trump cultists? Or do some simply like to entertain a wider spectrum of opinions?

Is this merely targeted anti-competitive behaviour? A secondary boycott? Has Parler actually committed any crime? Has Google been unethically marshaling the content and traffic of another private company to form the determination that it needs to be publicly sacrificed? Would it help to appoint a Google overseer to sit on the board of Parler, like Chinese corporates are now forced to accommodate? Will Rumble be the next conservative site to be axed from Android?

Can’t the free market determine whether Parler has a right to exist rather than a select few politburo officials from Google?

We can be sure that if Parler wasn’t experiencing the explosive growth it has had to date, Google would not have seen a need to expunge the threat. Alas too many wanted to seek an alternative platform to exchange ideas. It’s day one, year zero. Black is white. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Got it?

One has to question the legal basis for allowing a hateful and venomous platform like Twitter to function on Google Android but an upstart alternative – which couldn’t hold a flame to the incumbent – needs to be taken out?

Is this the type of healing we’ve been promised by the incoming administration? Restore unity by sitting idly by and allowing the media to silence those that disagree with them?

What better way for Biden to stamp his leadership credentials on uniting a fractured nation than stating how important the 1st Amendment is for all Americans.

But why bother? The tech giants are firmly on his side. After the last 4 years, it is high time to make sure that a monster of their own creation never upsets the political apple cart ever again. We await the glowing support of the climate change agenda, Paris, WHO, discrimination-driven racial equity and the benefits of allowing a path to citizenship or 11 million illegal immigrants.

It does not matter that Trump recently tweeted a video to his followers to go home peacefully and respect law and order. That was deemed incendiary and subsequently blocked. Don’t believe your lying eyes because we will be told what we can and can’t consume. Obviously we aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves.

Clearly to Jack Dorsey’s mob, it was imperative to prevent any sensible commentary by Trump from seeing the light of day. We wouldn’t want anything to challenge the narrative. The tech giant had to ensure that he was portrayed in the worst possible light before cancellation. No right of reply. Voltaire would be rolling in his grave.

We don’t deny Trump has said many silly things over his term but compared to some of the bile that has never faced sanction, it is laughable.

We fear that such moves will only fan the flames of division.

It seems these platforms want to proactively create an atmosphere that allows for the incoming administration to clamp down even harder on supposed enemies of the state. What better way than to douse their opponents in high octane fuel while carelessly playing with matches?

We are always amazed that more haven’t seen the TED talk by a black musician, Daryl Davis, who befriended the KKK by simply ‘listening‘ to them. That was all it took to get so many to hand in their robes.

Note the word “listen.”

Sadly, social media platforms have long drowned out reasoned debate well before the commissars found the need to jail dissidents with sanctimonious edicts.

This is a dangerous precedent being set. By muzzling a country that is built on a constitution that enshrines free speech, it is playing with fire. We ain’t seen nothing yet. America will be decisively cut in two.

In closing we’ve long argued that Trump pulled the scab off the festering wound of deep seated division. He was the catalyst. Not the cause. With the incoming administration, failure to address the growing power of big tech will lead to more people taking the law into their own hands.

We don’t condone unlawful behaviour but will be the least bit surprised if those who feel the most marginalized think they’ve nothing to lose.

If we thought 2020 was a horrible year, 2021 could well destroy that myth but thanks to social media you’ll only be able to view the world through the rose tinted glasses of willfully dishonest propagandists.

The social media giants will do well to remember that “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.”

Sen Josh Hawley pushes back on publisher intimidated by the mob

Good on Senator Hawley pushing back on the publisher that caved to the mob by cancelling his book, ironically about the importance of free speech and the 1st Amendment.

Did the publisher, Simon & Schuster (S&S) have a contractual right to scrap his publication?

Do S&S get to make the legal call on ‘sedition’ as the reason for cancellation? If Hawley isn’t convicted of that crime, they would have no legal basis to make that call.

This is not the same as a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple based on their religious beliefs.

S&S have clearly done it to make their intentions known they don’t want to become modern day kulaks in the cancel culture world.

This is a clear call against free speech. We hope that Hawley is successful his plight and a braver publisher picks up the ball and runs with a book that shouldn’t be incendiary.

This is not new.

In Australia, fringe mobs like Sleeping Giants and Mad F*cking Witches pretend to represent the mainstream and have had success intimidating corporates to capitulate despite often breaking secondary boycott rules in the process.

Time for more people to stand up to these corporate cowards. The irony is that the very people pushing cancel culture are the least likely candidates to consume the products they protest. So why do corporates wimp out without a fight?

Clowns to the bitter end

The Party of Unity has decided it wants to move to impeach Trump or declare the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.

Despite Trump saying he’ll ensure a transfer of power on Inauguration Day, the Democrats revealed their true colours again. They know neither is achievable but will stage the theatrics anyway for posterity to say they did their best to dump Trump.

Vying for the title of world’s biggest hypocrite, Speaker Pelosi said, “The president of the United States incited an armed insurrection against America…The gleeful desecration of the U.S. Capitol, which is the temple of our American democracy and the violence targeting Congress are horrors that will forever stain our nation’s history.

We’ve already said our piece on the despicable act. Where was Pelosi when so many anti-Kavanaugh protestors stormed the Capitol?

Wasn’t it Democratic Rep Maxine Waters who openly incited people to attack members of Trump’s administration?

Wasn’t it Pelosi who turned a blind eye to all the destruction left in the wake of BLM protests by saying “people will do what they will do“?

Wasn’t it Democrat Rep AOC encouraging the drawing up of a blacklist of those who served Trump in order to publicly dox them?

In any event, with two weeks to go, why put America through yet more nonsense? If anyone is in more danger of failing to comply with the mental instability edicts of the 25th Amendment, it is Nancy Pelosi.

Welcome to a preview of the kind of juvenile antics before Biden has even taken office. We doubt America voted for more of this nonsense.

Facebook locks Trump’s account. Unelected tech giants more powerful than elected leader of free world

Yet more social media cowardice. Facebook has blocked Trump from posting on the platform at least until he leaves office.

Regardless of one’s opinion about Trump, we never knew that social media giants exerted more power than the democratically elected leader of the free world.

Take one of Trump’s banned video tweets on Twitter yesterday. Apparently telling protestors To ‘Go Home in Peace’ was banned on the basis it was a “risk of violence

Is that protecting democracy? By silencing an elected president? Since when did social media giants self appoint themselves as guardians of American democracy and domestic security?

What if America was at or on the verge of war? Would Twitter and Facebook block presidential posts they didn’t ideologically agree with and place bans? It is irresponsible beyond belief.

These platforms need to lose Section 230 immunity. Under the Democrats that is not going to happen.

This will only worsen.

Finding a correlation between Trump voters and opioid use

The left-leaning taxpayer funded US media network, NPR, published a sensationalist piece titled, ‘Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016

The article opened as follows:

The fact that rural, economically disadvantaged parts of the country broke heavily for the Republican candidate in the 2016 election is well known. But Medicare data indicate that voters in areas that went for Trump weren’t just hurting economically — many of them were receiving prescriptions for opioid painkillers.

Is that what the two charts reveal? The first chart records 2016 voting strength for Trump by county. The second, prescription opioid use by each county.

What the NPR article failed to note is that the r-squared figures for each study were stuck in the 40% range meaning there was incredibly low correlation and what statisticians would call “statistically insignificant.

Perhaps NPR might have admitted that drug overdose deaths under Trump went down for the first time in almost 30 years, claims backed up by the CDC. We wrote a piece on the problem back in 2017.

Best just run an article implying that Trump voters in 2016 were poor dumb hicks in rural areas hallucinating from all of the opioids they had taken.

At least we give some credit to NPR for actually reporting (towards the end of the article) the study’s lead author who said,

We were not implying causality, that the Trump vote caused opioids or that opioids caused the Trump vote…We’re talking about associations.”

So why bother with the article in the first place other than to take a pot shot at a portion of the very people who hold different political views but still fund NPR?

Perhaps, NPR might have thought how bad things had become over the long run under the incumbent political class that it gave birth to Trump. Not the other way around.