The blowback from family members, close friends, and employers are usually devastating, given the words “liberal” and “tolerance” are like oil and water. Following through takes bravery most can’t understand and/or are not willing to risk, which makes it infinately more admirable, especially when sincere.

On November 29, 2022, Tucker Carlson alerted us to the story of Winston Marshall who decided to jump into the light, paid for it with the loss of his chosen career in the “Mumford & Sons” band he co-founded, and was invited to share his perspectives last month in the halls of the University of Oxford to debate that current topic of great concern: democracy.

On April 25th, Marshall was invited to debate a motion that “This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy”.

…
Also invited was Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. As her remarks, based on the premise that “populism is a threat to democracy due to voters being manipulated” are familiar on this side of the pond, you can view her presentation here.

Like most liberal Democrats, she did break courtesy norms and interrupted Marshall when he made logical points, simply because he struck uncomfortable nerves Pelosi just couldn’t let go countered. For that reason, the legacy media didn’t let the American people know of this event and witness her humiliation in real time.

Logic is easier to censor than spin.

There’s an obvious problem with the subscription business model. While most people will listen to a song they like an untold number of times, people may listen to a podcast episode once; maybe twice? And then all it does is take up space. Not exactly a good use of valuable and expensive storage space and now the geniuses at these businesses are taking notice.

Apple has quietly tightened its reporting of how many people listen to podcasts, sending shock waves through an embattled audio industry still reeling from the end of the COVID-era production bubble. The shift, Apple wrote in a blog post, was technical: The dominant podcasting platform had begun switching off automatic downloads for users who haven’t listened to five episodes of a show in the last two weeks.

But while few users noticed the shift, some of the biggest podcasts in the world saw their official listener numbers drop dramatically. Long-running shows that publish frequently were hit particularly hard. A user who listened to a show like The New York Times’ The Daily a few times, subscribed, but stopped listening would continue to count as a download indefinitely.
— Semafor, 1/14/24

I’ve commented on, what I consider, the failed subscription business model because while you pay for certain things you like, you’re also forced to pay for many more things you don’t. In this case, you may have a person you enjoy hearing from but you’re also paying for the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Meghan Markle, and almost every cable news personality and it’s doubtful anything you hear makes you want to hear it over and over again.

Even podcast executives believe the changes are part of a necessary shakeout in an industry whose bubbly inflation helped create the industry’s recent boom and bust.

But privately, reactions to the change have ranged from mild annoyance to legitimate alarm. Some advertising deals were inked under the assumption that shows had audiences they no longer have. The update also means that some shows could struggle to meet minimum download agreements. The fact that no major podcasts would talk about how much they lost is a sign that many big shows aren’t ready to admit how much their audiences have shrunk.

This could create some real problems in an industry that, in some cases, paid hefty up-front money to “personalities” and at some point will have to have awkward discussions with narcissists involving pay restructure because few are really rushing to hear what they say.

But even if it is not responsible for a sudden drop, podcast publishers are bracing themselves for a decline. “From our detailed analysis, these adjustments will largely impact download numbers on back catalog episodes, which are typically categorized as content older than 7 days,” Acast CEO Ross Adams wrote in a blog post on Thursday.‍ “However, it’s important to note that these adjustments do not reflect a change in the unique audience a podcast has, simply the number of downloads per user. On the whole, this will mean more accurate measurement and a more efficient depiction of a podcast’s total listens.”

You know who loves accuracy? Advertisers. And you know who doesn’t love paying for impressions that aren’t really impressions? Yeah, you get the drift. As this plays out, I will be interested to see how advertisers react to these changes.
— The Verge, 10/17/23

I can’t imagine how much a publisher pays on a monthly basis for storage, or if they own their own servers, how much it’s going to cost to expand, but if you’re having trouble getting advertisers or can’t tell them accurately what the reach to consumers is, that could be a problem.

It appears it now is.

Granted, a lot of the discussion centers around their reach to a smartphone, which nowadays also connects and sends content to automobiles (that strategically stopped putting CD players in them a few years ago). When phone manufacturers upgrade, it creates havoc downwind and that’s part of the problem.

Again, the subscription business model was ripe for those who wanted to take a website public, make a gob of money off screwed content creators, hire hundreds of employees, meanwhile forcing their consumers to pay for programming they like and programming they never consume. That is a model doomed for failure and it’s only a matter of time, especially when consumers revolt.

The geniuses as NBC decided to buck tradition, screw over the millions of football fans who already paid for cable subscriptions, and made the Miami Dolphins, Kansas City Chiefs playoff game available only to those who bought a subscription to Peacock, and went as far as openly bragging about it. Yet another act of public relations arrogance, thus stupidity.

And if it’s any consolation….

Peacock finished the June quarter with 24 million subscribers, up from 22 million at the end of March — but the streamer lost $651 million over the same three months.

Sadly, those losses have pretty much become par for the course. The NBCUniversal streaming platform lost $704 million in the prior quarter (and $467 million in Q2 2022). The company expects to post “peak” losses from streaming — to the tune of $3 billion — in 2023. Good thing Comcast is soon to come into about $9 billion in streaming bucks through the sale of its Hulu stake to Disney.
— Yahoo! Entertainment, 7/27/23

Chances are very good that once their tech-challenged, NFL playoff broadcasts are over, Peacock subscription will be cancelled en masse and they have it coming.

It’s no surprise the podcast industry is cratering. Most of those, who deem themselves important, aren’t creative enough to find new ways to talk about the same thing. They seem to believe an audience will be perpetually enamored simply because they said it. But they are still a part of what we used to refer to as the “entertainment business”. With few exceptions, people talking isn’t really all that entertaining.

Especially when it comes to people who have nothing else of value to give the world.

Amazon has blacklisted the Amanda Milius-directed documentary The Plot Against the President by removing the title from its Prime Video streaming service without explanation.

Consumers are no longer able to digitally rent or purchase The Plot Against the President from the platform.
— Breitbart, 11/22/23

UPDATE

Will all of the recent #RussiaGate revelations released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, many have been once again vindicated after years of being called conspiracy-theory Putin stooges, and even today (again) being called a product of Kremlin fiction.

The Plot Against the President can be viewed below for pertinent review.

It’s been a constant as far back as most of us can remember that Democrats have been playing fast and loose with their variation of the sociopathic mental disorder known as projection: disparaging others for doing what they knowingly do themselves.

Today’s Democrat Party and their media depend on the cultivated ignorance of their voters to portray Republicans as extremists for daring to look into numerous, blatant irregularities in the 2020 election while demanding the American people accept Democrat victories as legit and final simply because they say so. No denial is tolerated when the Democrat wins.

However, it IS standard operating procedure for Democrats to reject Republican victories despite their convenient denials….

Biden and Democrats have a long history of contesting election outcomes.

Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), have cast doubt on every single Republican presidential victory in the last two decades.

Every single Democrat president since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

As recently as this year, Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming 2022 midterms.

DEMOCRATS CALLED THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ‘STOLEN’, ‘FRAUDULENT’, AND A ‘COUP D’ETAT’

For years, Democrats have refused to accept the results of the 2000 presidential election.

Al Gore repeatedly claimed that he was the real winner of the 2000 election.

In 2002, Gore claimed he “would have won” if every vote in Florida was counted and that he “absolutely” believed he would become president after the ordered recount.

Gore’s wife, Tipper, said that “I still believe we won“.

In 2016, Gore brought up the 2000 election during a rally for Hillary Clinton and did not refute chants from the audience saying he won.

In 2017, Gore implied Jeb Bush “may have had something” to do with him losing Florida.

Gore, in 2017: “Actually, I think I carried Florida.”

Hillary Clinton, more than once, questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 election.

In 2002, Clinton said Bush had been “selected” and not elected president.

In 2016, Clinton said that the Supreme Court “took away a presidency” in Bush v. Gore.

Then-President Bill Clinton in 2001 claimed that Gore actually won the election, suggesting that all the votes in Florida were not counted and that the Supreme Court had altered the outcome.

Clinton: “The only way [Republicans] could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.”

Former President Jimmy Carter has repeatedly denied the results of the 2000 election.

Carter, in 2005: “There is no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president“.

Carter, in 2014: “I don’t think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000″.

Terry McAuliffe repeated claims that the 2000 election was “stolen” for over two decades.

Repeatedly in 2001, then-DNC Chairman McAuliffe claimed that Al Gore won the election.

In 2004, McAuliffe falsely accused Republicans of “stealing” the 2000 presidential election.

In 2008, McAuliffe accused Republicans of “stealing” the 2000 election in his autobiography.

In 2017, McAuliffe once again claimed that Al Gore “did win the election“.

In 2021, McAuliffe doubled down on his previous “stolen” election claims and refused to say that Bush won the 2000 election.

Former presidential candidate Rev. Jessie Jackson, Sr. said Gore’s election was “essentially taken and stolen“.

Former DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) in 2016 said that Al Gore won Florida.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the January 6^th Committee, has repeatedly suggested the 2000 election was illegitimate.

In 2002, Raskin wrote that the Supreme Court had “[frozen] the election results” in an “outrageous assault on democracy,” saying the Court had “determine[d] the outcome of a presidential election“.

In 2003, Raskin called Bush America’s first “court-appointed president.”

15 House Democrats even objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) questioned the 2000 Florida election results, calling them “fraudulent” and staging a walkout of the House chamber.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) questioned the integrity of the election and “the future of our democracy“.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Bush did not win the 2000 election and vowed there would be “no peace” as a result.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the Florida electoral count “inaccurate“.

Former Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) said that Bush “was not elected,” saying in 2004 that Bush was chosen by the Supreme Court and that the election was stolen in a “coup d’état“.

DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY CAST DOUBT ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THE 2004 ELECTION

The election in 2004 was no different than 2000, with Democrats once again denying the results of an election they did not agree with.

In 2005, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) filed an objection to the certification of Ohio’s electoral college votes.

31 House Democrats voted to reject electoral votes from the state of Ohio, including Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), and now-Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

In 2005, House Democrats authored a report claiming there were “‘numerous, serious election irregularities” in Ohio’s presidential vote.

John Kerry raised questions about the election on multiple occasions, claiming that many voters were “denied their right to vote; too many who tried to vote were intimidated”.

In November 2005, New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller said that John Kerry told him he thought “the election was stolen”.

Kerry’s wife Teresa Heinz Kerry also claimed the presidential election could have been hacked and stolen.

In 2004, then-DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe commissioned a “comprehensive investigative study on election practices in Ohio” to address “legitimate questions and concerns”.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided” in 2004.

In 2008, Dean accused Republicans of stealing elections and inferred they stole the election in 2004.

Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) questioned the “integrity” of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.

In January 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed there were many “legitimate” questions regarding the “accuracy” and “integrity” of the 2004 election.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) applauded objections to the 2004 election and thanked Sen. Boxer for objecting to Ohio’s electoral votes, saying voters can’t be confident their vote will be counted.

Then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) applauded Sen. Boxer and Rep. Tubbs Jones for objecting to Ohio’s electoral votes, calling their objections an “important service for American democracy”.

Harkin also accused Republicans of a “concerted effort to suppress the vote” and suggested electronic voting machines could lead to “serious fraud”.

Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005 applauded Democrat efforts to contest the 2004 election, called the election “flawed,” and suggested problems may have been the result of “manipulation”.

Then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) alleged “systematic voter disenfranchisement” and faulty voting machines in the 2004 election.

In September 2008, then-Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) joked about the 2004 election, saying it helps that in Ohio “Democrats are in charge of the [voting] machines” in the upcoming election.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) questioned the use and efficacy of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.

In January 2005, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised Sen. Boxer’s challenge of the election, saying the debate is “fundamental to our democracy”.

Pelosi said it is “appropriate” to have the debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections.

Then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued the 2004 election was “riddled with unnecessary problems”.

Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) claimed the 2004 election contained widespread “fraud”.

Then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) claimed that “dirty tricks occurred across the state” of Ohio in the 2004 election.

Then-Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blamed “inadequate and malfunctioning” electronic voting machines for “numerous irregularities”.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) claimed democracy was once again “thwarted” in 2004 and blamed the use of electronic voting machines for voter suppression.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “the system of voting broke down Nov. 2, 2004” and called for an independent audit of discarded ballots.

Jackson Lee then said, “we cannot declare that the election of November 2^nd, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real for all of those who attempted to vote”.

Then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-CA) in 2005 attacked the efficacy of voting machines saying they “can’t be trusted.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) repeatedly claimed there were irregularities in the 2004 election.

In November 2004, Nadler said that “we are requesting an investigation into all the allegations, of irregularities with respect to the electronic and other voting machines”.

In November 2004, Nadler said that “well, we have received…any number of communications, e-mails, everything about all kinds of irregularities”.

In December 2004, Nadler said that “paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud”.

In January 2005, Nadler said the right to vote was “stolen” from voters.

Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

Then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said Boxer And Tubbs performed a “very valuable public service” and stated he was concerned with all “reports of voting problems in many parts of the country”.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the problems with the Ohio election could have been “outcome determinative”.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2006 wrote an op-ed claiming that Republicans “stole” the 2004 election.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. “questioned the legitimacy” of the election and suggested the Bush victory was the result of “fraud and stealing”.

Of course when their guy won, Democrats had nothing but uniform praise for the integrity of the 2008 and 2012 elections. Michelle Obama was finally proud of her country.

But when Donald Trump won in 2016….

DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION

In 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes.

After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with many “claiming his election was illegitimate“.

After the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the election and claimed the election was stolen from her.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

In March 2019, Clinton smiled in agreement when former State Sen. Hank Sanders (D-AL) said the election was stolen from her.

In May 2019, Clinton said the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.

In September 2019, Clinton dismissed Trump as an “illegitimate president” and said “he knows” he stole the 2016 presidential election.

In October 2019, Clinton said that Trump knows that he is “an illegitimate president“.

In December 2019, Clinton nodded in agreement that she won the election.

In July 2020, Clinton said Trump is scared for Americans to see “how illegitimate his victory” was.

In October 2020, Clinton claimed that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “we still don’t really know what happened“.

Former President Jimmy Carter said he believed that “a full investigation” would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said “I believe” Russian interference altered the outcome of the election.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dodged answering whether Trump was “a legitimate president“.

Rep Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the “legitimacy is in question” of Trump’s presidency.

Then-Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said he did not believe President Trump is a “legitimate president“.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) “applauded” John Lewis and said that he was “right on target”.

Then-Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) said that John Lewis’ remarks on Trump not being legitimately elected “are reasonable”.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “there absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy” to Trump’s presidency.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said that Trump’s election was “illegitimate” and that Trump “is an illegitimate president“.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) justified his decision to object to certification saying Republicans engaged in “deliberate voter suppression … in numerous swing states“.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) refused to attend President Trump’s inauguration ceremony because Trump’s election victory was “tainted” by “foreign interference and voter suppression”.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) refused to say if Trump was a “legitimate president“.

DEMOCRATS HAVE CONTINUED TO CAST DOUBT ON OTHER ELECTIONS SINCE 2016

In 2018, Stacey Abrams refused to concede after losing the Georgia governor’s race and repeatedly challenged the “legitimacy of the election” after her loss.

Following her defeat, Abrams never conceded and continued to argue that she truly won the election.

Abrams said she would not concede a race that was an “erosion of our democracy,” was “not a free and fair election,” and was simply “not just“.

She called her defeat “fully attributable to voter suppression” and argued there was widespread voter disenfranchisement.

Many other prominent Democrats supported Abrams in her stolen election claims:

Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her“.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it“.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

Former Vermont Governor and DNC chair Howard Dean said Abrams “should not concede” and that the election was “almost certainly stolen”.

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said “I tend to think Stacey Abrams won that election“.

After losing his Florida gubernatorial race in 2018, Andrew Gillum withdrew his concession and pointed to “questions over the handling of the vote” in certain counties.

In 2020, after losing his House race, former Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY) called for authorities to investigate voting irregularities and issues of “massive disenfranchisement of voters“.

Former State Sen. Rita Hart (D-IA) contested the election results of her House race loss in 2020, arguing that ballots were improperly rejected.

BIDEN AND HIS OFFICIALS HAVE PUSHED STOLEN ELECTION CLAIMS

In both 2013, and in 2016, Biden claimed that Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump is an “illegitimate president“.

Kamala Harris has repeatedly cast doubt on election results over the years.

Following the Georgia gubernatorial race in 2018, Kamala Harris claimed that “without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia” and that Gillum would be “the governor of Florida”.

In 2019, Harris agreed that Trump was an “illegitimate president“.

Multiple Biden administration officials have a history of denying election results.

For nearly two decades, Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre tweeted that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was stolen.

Jean-Pierre also cast doubt on the 2016 election, tweeting “stolen election …..welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump”.

Kamala Harris’ Communications Director Jamal Simmons for years tweeted that Bush “stole” the 2000 election.

Cedric Richmond – Biden’s former Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement – said that John Lewis’ remarks on Trump not being legitimately elected were “reasonable”.

Then-Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), now Biden’s HUD Secretary, said that Trump “may not be a legitimate president“.

And there’s probably more to come after every election Democrats lose from here on, so Joe Biden should be careful when he refers to “election deniers” being “enemies of the state”.

Liberals may be numerically-challenged when convenient.

Republicans can count and that’s what they’re afraid of.

The US President has faced a backlash over the informal way he greeted the kingdom’s de facto ruler on his arrival in Jeddah on Friday. Critics have said the fist bump was inappropriate given US suspicions that the Crown Prince was responsible for the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — and Biden’s subsequent 2020 campaign trail pledge to turn Saudi Arabia into a “pariah”.

But Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan played down the controversy in an interview with CNN’s Nic Robertson hours after the President left Jeddah on Saturday.

“I see the image as a win for President Biden,” bin Farhan said.
— CNN, 7/17/22

While Khashoggi’s murder was horrific, there weren’t too many news organizations who demanded the last three American presidents avoid the appearance of undue courtesy after the 2,977 fatalities and over 25,000 injuries that resulted at the hands of Saudi citizens on September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda was the prime culprit, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, but subsequent lawsuits by the families of 9/11 victims implicated Saudi officials, not to mention FBI files that have still not been released.

Where was the outrage and demands from the media that Presidents George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump not visit Saudi Arabia after the horrors of 9/11?

4/25/02: President Bush Meets with Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
1/15/08: President Bush in Saudi Arabia
4/20/16: Barack Obama holds talks with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman
9/23/16: Obama Vetoes Bill to Let 9/11 Families Sue Saudi Arabia
5/16/17: President Trump Is Visiting Saudi Arabia to Cement a Friendship

There was little media consternation, if any, because the World Trade Center attack was just a news story for them. There were no interviews of the hundreds of widows from that day. But because a journalist was murdered, it was a media all-hands-on-deck.

Washington Post: Biden says he confronted Saudis directly on Khashoggi
Variety: ‘The View’ Host Sunny Hostin Slams Biden for Fist-Bumping Saudi Crown Prince and ‘Normalizing a Murderer’
ABC News: Biden says he raised Khashoggi murder with Saudi crown prince
Newsweek: Biden Scoffs at Reporter’s ‘Silly Question’ About Khashoggi Killing
CNBC: Biden said he raised murder of Jamal Khashoggi with Saudi leaders after MBS fist bump
New York Post: Khashoggi fiancée says Biden owns ‘blood’ of next MBS victim after fist bump
NPR: She was married to Khashoggi. She wants accountability as Biden lands in Saudi Arabia
The Hill: Biden betrays Khashoggi, campaign promises in quest for Saudi oil
CNN: Wolf Blitzer presses Saudi diplomat who was in meeting with Biden on Khashoggi’s murder
U.S. News & World Report: Biden Confronts Saudi Crown Prince Over Khashoggi Murder, Expects Action on Energy
Business Insider: Bernie Sanders rebukes Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia, says the US shouldn’t ‘be maintaining a warm relationship with a dictatorship’

The privileged left is predictable, as evidenced by our ongoing documentation of how indifferent they are when bad things happen to the people as opposed to how batshit indignant they get when bad things happen to one of them. The media has the immediate megaphone and they will stop the presses when the unfortunate happens to one of them.

More to come. You can be sure of it.

So, what are their very limited options seeing how much they love power and the lengths they would go to keep it?

Embrace the suck and seize power while they can.

While those in the legacy and social medias would blow this off as “conspiracy theory”, remember almost everything they demand we ignore as falsehood has turned out to be true. We must also remember to not only watch what Democrats expect Americans to endure; look at what they conversely do to protect themselves.

The select board approved a request for a 2,500-gallon commercial propane tank for 79 Turkeyland Cove Road in Katama — owned by former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. “We’ve never had a private propane tank come to us,” said select board member Arthur Smadbeck, with select board member Michael Donaroma noting a private-residence propane tank is typically a fraction of the quantity being requested. 
— Martha’s Vineyard Times, 6/7/22

We’ve already witnessed the breakdown of civility in major metropolitan centers and imagine when those smash-and-grabbers get hungry. We’ve also heard how freaked current officeholders can be when outside forces and/or misguided policies threaten their seats. 2022 is a referendum on fiscally reckless policies that have directly harmed the American people from an arrogant, tone deaf administration and party. Democrats currently in office know it, and for the most part, are fairly calm as if they know something we all don’t.

In his second ever solo White House press conference on Wednesday, US President Joe Biden was asked if November’s congressional elections would be legitimate if he could not pass his voting plans.

“It all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election,” he said, referring to stricter voting rules enacted by Republican state houses. “I’m not saying it’s going to be legit,” Mr Biden said when asked about the possibility of fraud in the forthcoming elections that will decide the balance of power in Washington. “The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” the Democratic president continued.
— BBC, 1/20/22

Biden would never have made such an assertion unless he and his Democrats had doubts they would remain in power after November 8th so efforts are being made to create victims of those who’ll be counting the votes.

Maybe they won’t have to….

Despite the fact the term “martial law” doesn’t appear in the United States Constitution, it has been implemented over 60 times in the history of our nation, and for reasons more dire than to provide political cover for bad policy. But the Biden administration clearly has no respect for the American people so creating the atmosphere that could result in a suspension of an election is quite possible; a suspension that will be justified and promoted by a sycophantic, partisan legacy media.

If things start getting really ugly on the streets of America in September, watch out for discussions when gas rationing (a “next pandemic”?) could become a real possibility and how unfair such an environment could create for law-abiding taxpayers; especially those Democrats and RINOs are making a priority to disarm. An ability to get to the polls would be oh-so unfair to Democrat voters; as few of them as there may be, and all attempts will be made to preserve DEMocracy by all means necessary.

Especially, if you’re a lawyer….

The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia. The jury deliberated for about six hours before acquitting Michael Sussmann, 57, on the single felony charge he faced: that he lied when he allegedly denied he was acting on behalf of any client in alerting the FBI to claims that a secret server linked Trump and a Moscow bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
— Politico, 5/31/22

Since the early days of the Donald Trump campaign, transition, and term in office, we’ve all seen one constant when it comes to the Democrat Party, federal officials and employees, their activists, and their media: they lie and get away with it.

In the Sussmann case, we had an Obama-appointed judge, jurors who managed to be seated despite clear conflicts of interest, and we were all supposed to take their word that they’d be fair and impartial.

Yeah, right.

As many as three Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — are among the prospective jurors for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s trial. Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

But the prosecution was overruled by Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher Cooper, who said the man — who works in public policy for Amazon and appeared to be in his 40s — “expressed a high degree of confidence” that he could be impartial. Cooper, nominated by former President Barack Obama, also said Durham’s prosecutors could use one of its peremptory challenges to strike him from the panel for the trial, the first to result from his three-year probe into the government’s investigations of purported ties between former President Donald Trump and Russia.
— New York Post, 5/16/22

Again having to replay that stupid scenario, what if this were a trial against a Republican defendant in a red state, the judge was appointed by President Donald Trump and prospective jurors were found to have donated to his campaign. First off The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC would have prefaced their coverage with “conflict of interest” shrieks and demands to begin with a change of venue and dismissal of obvious biased jury members. But the legacy media most hid the partisan nature of the court proceedings so the trial result would appear on the up-and-up.

A Clinton supporter, a former bartender who appeared to be in her 20s, said she’d also donated to progressive firebrand Ocasio-Cortez (D-The Bronx, Queens) but was put on the panel after a Sussmann defense lawyer told her that neither Clinton nor former President Donald Trump were on trial and asked if she could be impartial.

“Yes, knowing that,” she said.

Yes, even though we’re talking about a culture where 51 intelligence “experts” can knowingly lie with impunity to the public, take their word for it.

Another woman, who appeared to be in her 40s, said she likely donated to Clinton’s 2016 campaign but wasn’t entirely sure.

Who could forget that?

Although the woman told prosecutor Michael Keilty that she had “a strong preference of one candidate over the other” in the election, she insisted she could be impartial.

Take her word for it.

A prospective juror who works at an engineering firm and appeared to be in her 30s said that her husband worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign but was allowed to remain on the panel after saying it wouldn’t affect her ability to be impartial

Take her word for it.

Another prospective juror who works for the Sierra Club and appeared to be in her 30s was questioned by Keilty about saying on a pre-screening questionnaire that she thought the criminal justice system was racist and “the police should be defunded.”

But her ideology wouldn’t have any effect during possible deliberations in a trial involving a Democrat. And we all know the wall-to-wall second-guessing that would occur during the evening opinion shows on CNN and MSNBC had a pro-Trump juror been a parent whose child hung out with the defendant’s child.

But the reverse was allowed to happen here.

A federal judge in the criminal trial of Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann denied a prosecution request Thursday to remove a juror whose daughter plays on the same high school sports team as the defendant’s daughter.

A woman, identified as Juror #5, came forward Thursday morning to tell the court that she only recently discovered that her daughter and Mr. Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school crew team.
— Washington Times, 5/19/22

Americans should have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial and should not have to be wary of the appearance of a clearly rigged system that favors one ideology over another, and there are takeaways we should never forget going forward….

Federal officials and employees (the deep state) lie and will get away with it.

Lawyers lie and will get away with it. On the rare occasions they’re busted, they will be sentenced with genuine leniency.

Jurors lie so they can determine preferable, partisan outcomes.

I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI. It was the government’s job to prove it, and they succeeded in some ways and not in others. We broke it down, and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.
— Jury Forewoman

And Hillary Clinton remains legally unscathed but some of the stink will stick.

Hillary Clinton personally approved her campaign’s plans in fall 2016 to share information with a reporter about an uncorroborated alleged server backchannel between Donald Trump and a top Russian bank, her former campaign manager testified Friday in federal court.
— CNN, 5/20/22

As we can’t recall one instance where it’s been proven that conservative Republicans in those positions have done the same, it can rightly be concluded that liberal Democrats willfully lie in government and the legal system.

There’s your “threat to democracy”.

Nina Jankowicz is President Joe Biden’s pick to serve as executive director of the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board—and her appointment has already met with some controversy.
— Newsweek, 4/28/22

“Controversy” is an understatement.

Psaki claimed Nina Jankowicz is an ‘expert’ with ‘extensive qualifications’ to lead DHS’ Governance Board
Biden ‘disinfo’ czar Nina Jankowicz ripped over cringeworthy Mary Poppins TikTok

Yes, it was that bad….

Nina Jankowicz is a classic test case for the liberal affliction known as psychotic “projection”.

So, who exactly is Nina Jankowicz? Certainly, not a person with any concerns about preserving freedom of speech or expression. A quick look at her Twitter history is enough to dispel that. When Facebook permanently banned Donald Trump from its service, Nina was in the wings complaining that this punishment was not harsh enough. Through a metaphor, Nina explained that only mass bans on hundreds or thousands of accounts would be enough to “fix” the disinformation “problem.”
— Revolver News, 4/29/22

So, why this now? Why is Joe Biden okay with forming such an ominous-sounding agency within DHS. Knowing Joe as we all do, it CAN’T be Joe’s idea or regarding Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. What is this really about?

Could it be between now and the midterm election, a couple of major players in the Democrat Party could be at the center of uncomfortable attention; a couple of Democrats who MUST be protected at all costs?

During a speech at Stanford University on Thursday, former U.S. President Barack Obama presented his audience with a stark choice: “Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better?” Over the course of an hour-long address, Obama outlined the threat that disinformation online, including deepfake technology powered by AI, poses to democracy as well as ways he thought the problems might be addressed in the United States and abroad.
— Stanford News, 4/21/22

The committee for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is seeking to block Special Counsel John Durham from obtaining certain documents related to law firm Perkins Coie and its work with the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Hillary For America and the DNC are the holders of the privileges at issue, according to the filing.
— Fox News, 4/29/22

Interesting how this “disinformation” topic came out of nowhere and considering how many media outlets still have egg crusts on their faces for distributing Hillary’s Trump-Russia-collusion bullshit for four-plus years that distracted a presidential campaign, hampered a transition team, and kneecapped a presidency. It had to have been green-lighted by Hillary and Obama had to have known.

John Durham knows. He just has to have every i dotted and t crossed before he certifies proof of the greatest political scandal in American history. And when that happens, all involved in the conspiracy can’t depend on the legacy media to do all the heavy lifting. They’ll need something more and this is where Nina Jankowicz comes in.

Of all the old-and-reliable useful idiots Biden (or whomever) could have appointed for this DHS gig, he chose an expendable nutcase who’ll fit nicely under the bus when she goes after anyone and everyone who reports what may be coming from the special counsel. As usual when in the company of the like-minded, people like Jankowicz feel free to tell the truth about who they are, what they want, and what they’re willing (or not) to do to get it….

President Biden’s new disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz once belted out a raunchy parody version of a Christmas song — changing the lyrics to ask who she needed to “fuck” to be “famous and powerful,” according to resurfaced YouTube footage. “I want to be rich, famous, and powerful! Step on all my enemies and never do a thing,” Jankowicz sang in the clip from 2015.
— New York Post, 4/30/22

Looks like she got what she wanted. How…? We won’t ask.

Instead of being banned from a social media cite, Jankowicz could conceivably send goons with sub-machine guns kicking in the doors of Americans who shared a post embarrassing to Joe, Barack, Hillary, and Democrats as a whole.

After all, some things take relatively small amounts of intelligence to pull off.

So while it will be formerly known as the Disinformation Governance Board, it’s really going to be Disinformation Projection Board because like most of the so-called scandals specifically blamed on President Donald Trump, it turns out the Democrat left actually did the things the accused others of doing with no accountability.

For now.

UPDATE

It would appear the bully got too much a taste of her own medicine, and like most bullies, she ran away.

The Biden administration has “paused” its controversial plans to create a Disinformation Board, causing its would-be leader to resign.

In a statement Wednesday, Nina Jankowicz, the “disinformation expert” tapped to head the panel, said that “[w]ith the Board’s work paused and its future uncertain, and [sic] I have decided to leave DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to return to my work in the public sphere.” Jankowicz’s departure and the decision to scrap the board was first reported by the Washington Post.

Whenever a liberal claims to be “mischaracterized”, it means uncomfortable truth was made public.

Jankowicz’s idea of standing up for the First Amendment included letting “verified” Twitter users “edit” other users’ tweets if the blue-checked chosen think they’re misleading. Jankowicz also repeatedly tried to spread doubt about The Post’s own reporting about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, telling the Associated Press in October 2020 that it should be viewed as “a Trump campaign product.” In addition, Jankowicz pushed the since-debunked claim in 2016 that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had a tie to Kremlin-linked Alfa-Bank, an allegation at the center of an ongoing trial of a Clinton campaign lawyer accused by special counsel John Durham of lying to the FBI.

The misinformation maven was also ripped for a bizarre TikTok performance from February 2021 in which she altered the lyrics to the “Mary Poppins” song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to be about fake news.
— New York Post, 5/18/22

Jankowicz probably had been working on a landing spot long before her “announcement”. She’ll be back at work creating musical, pro-Democrat misinformation soon enough. After all, it IS what Nina does best.

At no point in modern American history can anyone remember seeing a president wander around after an official White House event with no one to talk to, people walking by him, and even ignoring him.

Well, add yet another historic first to the Joe Biden presidency….

Joe Biden is now the most unpopular person in virtually any room he enters. It’s the president United States in his own house, shunned. Nobody would talk to him. So Biden wandered off, looking vacant as a crowd formed around a former president, Barack Obama, who was obviously deeply grateful for the attention. And then it got worse. Biden tried to horn in on the conversation swirling around Obama. Everyone involved in that conversation, including Kamala Harris, who supposedly works for Biden, ignored Biden completely. Biden desperately tried to get Obama’s attention. He puts his hand on Obama’s shoulder. He even calls him “Barack” like they’re friends, but Obama blows him off. He acts like Biden is not even there.
— Tucker Carlson, 4/5/22

Joe Biden IS there because almost everyone in that room, in some way, supported him. Now they all want to act like he’s not their problem.

When you’re walking around aimlessly and alone at an event in your own “home”, that kinda’ says it all.

Again, thanks to Joe Biden, things have changed.

A President’s Day lesson turned controversial when a Norco parent saw video of her daughter among students chanting “we want him out” after her teacher asked the class who the president is and “what do we want to do with him?” Video of the 4 and 5 year olds chanting the political statement about Joe Biden was posted on an internal app for parents of students at Turning Point Christian School, and that’s how Christina McFadden saw it.

She said she watched the video several times in horror.

“The teacher is indoctrinating her students,” McFadden told KTLA. “Everybody has a right to believe in what they want and my daughter wasn’t given that opportunity. And especially at that age, I don’t even think that she can comprehend to make an informed decision on who and what she should believe in.”
— KTLA, 3/21/22

Let the whining begin.

Let’s not forget that in 2009 New Jersey, the problem wasn’t children being indoctrinated with pro-Obama lyrics, but the inconvenience of a recording being seen by the public.

Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the Internet which has been reported by the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were not authorized.
— Dr. Christopher Manno, Burlington Township School District superintendent

At least the teacher at Turning Point Christian School didn’t attempt to hide the classroom activities from parents and went as far as sharing a recording with them.

And it’s not like the sentiments in that classroom isn’t being repeated in many homes around the nation….