Another gem from Seth Godin:

A simple substitute might change a habit.

Instead of a snack, brush your teeth.

Instead of a nap, go for a walk.

Instead of a nasty tweet or cutting remark, write it down in a private notebook.

Instead of the elevator, take the stairs.

Instead of doomscrolling, send someone a nice note.

Instead of an angry email, make a phone call.

Instead of a purchase seeking joy, consider a donation…

Meme of the Day

In case the image ever goes away, it says, Asked my doctor today how long he thinks this covid thing will last. He responded with: “How should I know I’m a doctor, not a politician.”

In case the image ever goes away, it says,

Asked my doctor today how long he thinks this covid thing will last. He responded with: “How should I know I’m a doctor, not a politician.”

For Those Who Say the Media is Not Biased… Trump and HCQ

Yet ANOTHER example of where the media went full-throttle 180 degrees against what Trump said because, … well just because he said it. I take this straight from Ace of Spades HQ website because they say it with the force and conviction in which it needs to be said.

New Study Says President Trump May Have Been Right About Hydroxychloroquine; Survival Rates Doubled When on HCQ


Paging John Sexton…

John Sexton, please answer the blogging courtesy phone…

John Sexton, we have a Hot Button Culture War topic you will be allowed to get a word in edgewise about, for once…

Ah, take your time. Pretty sure you won’t have any competition for this.*

Was Trump right about hydroxychloroquine all along? New study shows drug touted by former president can increase COVID survival rates by 200%

A study on 255 patients was done by St Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey

The resulting report, out May 31, found hydroxychloroquine to be effective

The drug, when used in a high dose and with zinc, increased survival rates

The authors found it was only helpful in severe cases of COVID-19

Patients given the drug as part of the trial were on ventilators

Trump’s allies have seized on the report to declare that he was correct

As president, Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a preventative treatment

He even took it himself, despite doctors then warning it could be dangerous

A growing number of studies are now suggesting the drug could be useful

On Megan Kelley’s podcast, in her interview with Lara Logan, she says she’s spoken to doctors, and they all say, “All doctors were taking HCQ during the pandemic, all of them, as a preventative. All of them.

Now that’s not proof, but it sure indicates that the left’s — including such leftists as the writers at The Bulwark, and of course AllahPundit — absolute certainty that not only was HCQ not effective, but was positively dangerous, and likely lethal, was yet another purely political claim put forth by Communications Majors pretending to know something about science.

I’ve always wanted to point out the gross asymmetry of proofs required to vindicate either Trump’s or the media left’s (including the NeverRight pseudoconservatives’) positions here.

Trump said that HCQ might provide some benefit.

He also said that maybe HCQ would not work, but “what’s the harm?” in taking it. This, based on the fact that the drug has been around since the 1960s and has very few side effects .

That is a modest claim. He doesn’t need much to be right. All he needs is for some people to be helped by HCQ. Not cured — merely helped.

And he didn’t even say he was guaranteeing that — he said it might help some people.

So, to disprove the Bad Orange Man Who Is Always Bad and Wrong, the leftwing propaganda media and their NeverRight Twitter Palz had to prove a very immodest claim — that no one could ever be helped by HCQ.

And, to defeat Trump’s rhetorical question “What’s the harm?,” they had to assert that Hydroxycholorquine will literally kill you.

As I say: Quite immodest claims, claiming 100% certainty about 100% of cases, and furthermore, asserting the extreme claim that a drug which has been found safe and relatively risk-free after having been used by literally tens of millions of people since the 1960s is suddenly a Life-Stealer, just because the Bad Orange Man uttered the Bad Orange Man Spell of “What’s the Harm?”

Now, obviously, it takes a lot of evidence to prove such immodest — large — claims.

And the leftwing propaganda media and their NeverRight Twitter Palz never had that evidence.

And yet, despite their claims about Lovin’ the Science, they went ahead and insisted that they knew that hydroxychrloquine could never, ever help anyone, and, despite its 50+ year record of safety, was in fact a lethal poison.

Now, there are some people for whom HCQ should not be prescribed. But that, too, is knowledge we have 50 years of world experience with. Doctors know when HCQ would be “contraindicated.” And in such cases, they would not prescribe it.

But the fact that a relatively tiny number of people might have a bad side effect from the drug is no reason to flatly say it can never be prescribed. Almost every single drug has bad side effects for some number of the population, from large to small to tiny.

And yet the leftwing propaganda media, and their NeverRight Conservative, Inc. junior partners, all insisted that the fact that doctors should avoid giving the drug to a relatively small population for whom it might be dangerous meant, perforce, that Trump just told the nation to inject raw poison into their veins.

This is preposterous — but we’ve seen so much Amazing Science from the Communications Majors that man both sides of the political aisle (all the way from far-left to centrist Biden voters!) this past year.

Trump was right. Indeed, given how small the claims he made were, how modest and contingent they were, it was almost impossible for him to be wrong.

And yet, the Communications Majors who all suddenly got Ph.D.’s in Twitter science made the most immodest, absolutist, hysterical claims about HCQ.

They had an election to rig — and when you have an election to rig, “Science” means whatever your Twitter Agenda for that day requires.

And they will not retract.

And AllahPundit will not be covering this story.

* In fairness, Karen Townsend is a good writer. She might cover it, too.

But I’m very confident about who won’t cover it.

Jazz Shaw is okay too, though apparently a Superfan of Archprogressive Jake Tapper and pretty weak a lot of the time. But okay.

I should point that out, because with me making noise about John Sexton posting on the topics the Glitter Twins of AP and EM won’t post on, maybe they’ll say “Hey John why don’t you let Karen or Jazz field this one…”

“NeverRight” courtesy of “…”

A Memory of the Plague: Quick poll — how many people have bottles of quinine stored away?

I have some. I also have four bottles of Soda Stream’s diet tonic, which should have quinine (and thus, a form of HCQ) in them.

I’ll just let them sit in the closet forever as a silent memento of a bygone age.


So to my friend who once told me in an email, “Publications and news outlets have nothing to gain from false reporting and so much to lose,” What do you say now?

Critical Race Theory is Dangerous and This is Why

Once again Mark Perry has an excellent piece so I’m copying and pasting from his post, so it’s here if the link ever goes away (I hate it when that happens):

Quotation of the day on critical race theory…

May 19, 2021

…. is from a recent Washington Examiner editorial:

Critical race theory (CRT) is decades old but, having insinuated itself just in the last few years into cable television, social media, public school systems, and the very public institution of “cancel culture,” is receiving precisely the backlash one would hope for, even from those who do not know it by its name.

Developed in academia, it combines paranoid racial conspiracy theories with a now-orphaned pro-Soviet Marxist ideology. The fingerprints of its creators show up in its singular focus on racism in one particular country and in one particular era against one particular group. This makes it a very narrow idea, whose adherents can simultaneously turn a blind eye toward actual genocide in China while making the ludicrous claim that everyday life in America is a constant genocide.


It is also a thoroughly racist ideology, because it imputes evil to people solely based on the color of their skin. It is already bad enough to attribute faults to people based on their own ancestors’ misdeeds before they were born. But critical race theory establishes guilt based on far less than that — a vague resemblance to long-dead suspects is sufficient.

MP: As the editorial mentions, CRT is a race-based, race-conscious ideology that prioritizes and elevates skin color over other personal characteristics, which puts it in direct contradiction of Rev. Martin Luther King’s philosophy of character over skin color. Note that neither CRT nor BLM mentions MLK much because those ideologies are directly opposed to much of what the civil rights icon stood for and taught us, and they desecrate his philosophy. CRT is a complete regression away from the color-blind society that Martin Luther King advocated for America where people are treated equally and judged as individuals and not as members of groups defined by skin color or other Census categories. What I’ve noticed is that partly as a result of CRT and other related corrosive misguided diversity uniformity ideologies, college students today no longer identify as individuals but instead self-identify primarily as members of a group (BIPOC, Black, Hispanic, Asian, persons of color, LGBTQ+, white, transgender, female, etc.) and are also judging and treating others as members of a group and not as individuals.

CRT is a significant and disturbing trend that is divisive and counter-productive and will not result in greater racial harmony but is instead leading to the balkanization of college campuses and society, characterized by greater strife, friction, resentment, hostility, and discord. Instead of fostering diversity and inclusion, CRT and its corrosive cousins will produce just the opposite – uniformity and exclusion based on one’s group identity. Instead of advancing college campuses and American society forward towards Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society, CRT and the re-segregation/self-segregation movement on college campuses moves us backward towards a color-conscious society that is more reminiscent of a past America of overt and open racial discrimination than an ideal America of racial harmony and understanding.  

Cancer SUCKS but Your Attitude Means EVERYTHING

A friend of mine is battling cancer, and he posted this update on a site where we can keep up with his progress. He has always been a positive person, and I think that is half the battle.

The Beginning

A year ago, the phone rang. The call rolled over into voicemail. I was in a hurry to coach a church league basketball championship game. Not the head coach. I preferred to be the assistant coach who would whisper encouragement or shout directives. I ran hot or cold. Rarely in between.

The call came from a friend. He wouldn’t have called unless it was important. In fact, it was surprising to hear from him at all. I listened as the rain poured down in the dark. His melancholy words took me by surprise. The Stranger entered my world. Nothing would be the same again.

The game started and a loose ball rolled across the floor. Our boys knew to dive for the ball, but our opponents took a different approach. The collision was solid and I jumped up off the bench. When the referee called a foul on our player, I became apoplectic.

I cursed. I ranted. I raved. I waved my arms. I shook with anger. I stared down the ref when he told me to sit. As I walked slowly back to the bench, I never broke eye contact with his cold glare. I felt the boys gawking at me. The head coach asked if I was okay. I was not, but it had nothing to do with basketball.

Half time came and I sheepishly jogged toward the referee. He warily accepted my approach. I apologized for my behavior and he casually shrugged it off. But that wasn’t enough for me. I needed to explain. I told him about The Stranger and his countenance displayed immediate understanding.

He asked me to bend down on one knee as he reached out, touched my shoulder and bowed his head in prayer. He gave praise for announcing The Stranger’s arrival. He repented for our lack of faith to deal with The Stranger. He asked for strength and patience knowing The Stranger would not leave soon. And he closed with a promise to yield to God’s will.

I silently chuckled at his prayer. Not the content, but the structure. For years, we had been asking the kids to pray before practice. They didn’t know how. We finally figured out the best way to teach them. They could say whatever they wanted as long as they followed the structure: P.R.A.Y. = Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield.  

The referee and I stood. We embraced. A black man and a white man drawn together by a game we loved. Inextricably webbed by our faith. He was the first person that I told about The Stranger and I never saw him again.

The Middle

The Stranger makes itself known to many. Its carnage is immense. You see it in hollow eyes. Gaunt faces. Pale flesh. The hospital halls where I walked were filled with unwelcoming hosts from the very young to the frailest elder. The Stranger infects everyone in contact with it. Family, friends, care givers. Everyone.

There are only three ways to dislodge The Stranger. Burn it. Poison it. Cut it. Sometimes it takes a combination of the above. Unfortunately, repetition is required. And time. These things can’t be rushed. My tally: Twenty-five burn sessions. Five poison sessions. Six hours of cutting.

Burning saps your strength. Poison triggers rejection. Cutting changes everything. Some people describe The Stranger as your body slowly committing suicide. Harsh words. Accurate too. The beating is relentless and inescapable. The uncertainty crippling. The frustration angering.

The Stranger makes every effort to break you. The physical breaks can be measured, monitored and tracked. Drugs, therapy, exercise do the trick. The mental breaks are more elusive. Stress about self, others, job, and life require skillful guidance. But the spiritual damage is incalculable and without ready redress.

The End

The ultimate irony is there is no ending. The shadow of The Stranger is always at your door. I’ve had clear scans in September, December, and March and that’s good news. Yet, in cases like mine, The Stranger returns 70% of the time and claims its host 50% of the time within five years. This is the specter that haunts.

The Stranger creates a sense of urgency too. It refocuses the mind on the meaning of life. Musical notes sound sweeter. The sun shines brighter. A child’s laughter is more joyful. An embrace feels deeper. But slights are more acute. Patience for trivial matters is short. Each minute is recalibrated for meaning.

This intolerance is liberating. Time is spent on important matters, not inconsequential ones. The axiom of living each day like it’s your last is too anachronistic. I think it’s more important to create moments, live in those moments, and cherish these moments. Does engaging in political animus create a moment? Does scanning 140 characters help you live in the moment? Does envious scanning of social media help you cherish moments?

The Stranger (or its cousin) takes all kinds of shapes and forms. It preys on our fears, doubts and uncertainties. It tears us apart from each other. It shatters social contracts. It destroys dreams. It kills hope. It incites violence. It helps us commit social suicide. The Stranger doesn’t care. It doesn’t discriminate. It only destroys.

But you cannot burn it, poison it or cut it. You need to love it away. You need to spill, splash, spray love everywhere you go. You need to share love without conditions. You need to accept love without hesitation. You need to express love in new ways that make you uncomfortable. Crush the vitriol. Anger is not righteous. Tolerance is not weak. Lean in and listen to Stevie again, Love’s In Need Of Love Today. Show The Stranger the way out.

Peace out.

Lady Killer… or Man Killer

​I​ overheard someone tell a young mom her 2-year old was handsome and the mom said, “Yeah, he’s going to be a real lady killer… or man killer.”

And it got me to thinking, is she that politically correct that she has to cover both bases?  She can’t just say he’ll be a lady-killer because he might end up being gay, or he may identify as female?

So I thought some more and wondered, “Was she politically correct enough?”  What if the child decides he is not male?  I’m told there are more than two genders, so how do we solve that conundrum?  I don’t even begin to attempt to unpack that, because I’m not woke enough, but is she too close-minded because she only gave him two options? 

Maybe she should have said her child was going to be a person killer.  But by saying that, are we limiting the child to just being attracted/attractive to humans?

Maybe she should have said her child was going to be a carbon-based-life-form-killer.  That opens it up a bit more, but again, are we being exclusionary?

I don’t know.  The whole thing gives me a headache and makes me sad.  

The New York Times Regularly Publishes Falsehoods That Spur Violent Unrest and Civic Dysfunction

Memorializing this article from the which does a good job of exposing the falsehoods, hoaxes, and lies they publish and showing you the primary sources which disprove their utter bullshit.

The New York Times Regularly Publishes Falsehoods That Spur Violent Unrest and Civic Dysfunction

By James D. Agresti
February 22, 2021


A New York Times essay by columnist Kevin Roose frets that the U.S. is suffering from a “reality crisis” and proposes this solution: President Biden should set up a “truth commission” to combat the “scourge” of “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions” that lead to “violent unrest and civic dysfunction.”

Yet, the Times’ idea of “truth” often consists of falsehoods that cause violent unrest and civic dysfunction. This includes but is not limited to hoaxes, lies and collective delusions that:

  • spur violence against police.
  • incite class warfare.
  • stagnate the economy.
  • slander the United States.
  • sow racial animosity.
  • empower criminals by disarming their victims.
  • cover up corruption and fraud.
  • harm the nation’s education system.
  • demonize elected officials.
  • conceal the deadly effects of illegal immigration.
  • distort science.
  • rationalize and cloak the killing of pre-birth humans.
  • drive the U.S. deeper into debt.

Below is a sampling of such statements published by the Times, along with the primary sources that disprove them. These quotes come from both news articles and commentaries, which the Times claims to be factually accurate. In the words of Times’ editorial page editor Trish Hall, “the facts in a piece must be supported and validated. You can have any opinion you would like, but you can’t say that a certain battle began on a certain day if it did not.”

Spurring Violence Against Police

According to the New York Times:

  • “Black people suffer disproportionately from police brutality.” Disproven by facts from the academic journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the left-leaning Center for Policing Equity.
  • “Many police officers see black men as expendable figures on the urban landscape, not quite human beings.” Disproven by facts from ProPublica (the Times’ own source) and the U.S. Department of Justice.
  • “Black Americans” are “brutalized or killed by law enforcement officers, who rarely if ever face consequences for their actions.” Disproven by facts the academic journal Criminal Justice Policy Review and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Inciting Class Warfare

According to the New York Times:

  • The “job market is not working to distribute wealth” and “has lost much of its power to deliver income gains to working families.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
  • “Our tax code isn’t progressive. It’s not even flat. For people like me—and I assume there are millions of us—it’s regressive. For many people, the more you make, the lower the rate you pay.” Disproven by facts from the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the left-leaning Tax Policy Center.
  • “For the vast majority of workers, pay increases have lagged behind productivity in recent decades.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Labor and Ph.D. economist Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Stagnating the Economy

According to the New York Times:

  • “There is little historical evidence tying regulation levels to” economic growth. Disproven by facts from the Journal of Economic Growth, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.
  • High unemployment during the Obama administration was due to “drastic spending cuts” by state and local governments. Disproven by facts from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
  • As a result of Obamacare, “wages will go up, not down.” Disproven by facts from the Congressional Budget Office (the Times’ own source).
  • By using solar power, the U.S. can “achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Slandering the United States

According to the New York Times:

  • The United States is the “the poorest” developed country in the world with “a whopping 18% poverty rate—closer to Mexico than Western Europe.” Disproven by facts from the World Bank, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  • “One in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from … hunger.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  • “Everything that has truly made America exceptional” grew out of “slavery and the anti-black racism it required.” Disproven by facts from academic encyclopedias, the Declaration of Independence, records of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, and letters written by the nation’s founders.

Sowing Racial Animosity

According to the New York Times:

  • African Americans face “increasing terror” from white people on “a daily basis.” Disproven by facts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice.
  • “All Black people pretty much, we need guns to protect ourselves” from white people and police officers. Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Justice.
  • “Fights over school segregation, rather than decreasing, are becoming more common. … The percentage of intensely segregated schools, defined as those where less than 10 percent of the student body is white, tripled between 1988 and 2016, from 6 to 18 percent.” Disproven by facts from the UCLA Civil Rights Project (the Times’ own source).
  • “On average” across the United States, “nonwhite districts received about $2,200 less per student than districts that were predominantly white.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Education (1996), Ph.D. economist Derek Neal (2006), the left-leaning Urban Institute (2008), the conservative Heritage Foundation (2011), and the academic journal Education Next.
  • “Black and Hispanic home buyers entering the fast-growing market for subprime mortgages tend to pay higher interest rates than whites with similar credit ratings, a statistical study by an advocacy group says.” Disproven by facts from Federal Reserve Board economists.

Covering Up Corruption and Fraud

According to the New York Times:

  • President Trump’s “allegations related to Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, and his business activities in Ukraine” were “baseless.” Disproven by facts from court records, Biden’s bank statements, White House phone logs, the verified contents of Biden’s laptop, and many more primary sources.
  • “Virtually no evidence” of illegal voting by non-citizens “has been discovered.” Disproven by facts from the academic journal Electoral Studies, the U.S. Social Security Administration, the academic journal Demographic Research, and many other scholarly sources.
  • “The FBI has said there is no evidence that supporters of the antifa movement had participated in the Capitol siege.” Disproven by facts from an FBI affidavit, videos of the riot, and the publications of an antifa leader arrested for his role in the riot.

Empowering Criminals by Disarming Their Victims

According to the New York Times:

  • “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare.” Disproven by facts from the National Academies of Sciences, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council.
  • “Many deranged mass murderers expect to die themselves during their killing sprees,” and thus, “It’s almost laughable to believe” that Trump’s plan to arm teachers “would deter them.” Disproven by facts from the academic book The Psychology of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior: Victim and Offender Perspectives, the textbook Forensic Science: Advanced Investigations, and an internationally renowned authority on the mindsets of killers.
  • The perpetrator of the Orlando nightclub massacre “was able to kill 49 people largely because the assault rifle he was using could fire 30-round clips as fast as he could pull the trigger.” Disproven by facts from firearm specifications.

Demonizing Elected Officials

According to the New York Times:

  • President Trump deployed the “full might of federal law enforcement to crush protests” by “Black Lives Matter” activists. Disproven by the full context of Trump’s words and records of his actions.
  • President Trump referred to people who were “chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans” as “very fine people.” Disproven by the full context of Trump’s words.
  • “Americans didn’t fail the Covid-19 test; Republicans did.” Disproven by facts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and numerous papers in medical journals like The Lancet, the Journal of Travel Medicine, and the journal Social Science & Medicine.
  • The “Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake” and “America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war.” Disproven by facts from Clinton administration officials and a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report signed by all Democrats on the committee.

Bloating and Harming Education

According to the New York Times:

  • “In the same towns, private schools are reopening” during the Covid-19 pandemic “while public schools are not” because public schools “tend to have less money” than private schools. Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
  • “The government’s official statistic” for rising college tuitions “exaggerates the cost of college.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
  • School choice programs have no “accountability” and don’t allow children to “compete on a fair footing in the work force.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Department of Education, the journal Education Next, and the Journal of School Choice: International Research and Reform.

Concealing the Deadly Effects of Illegal Immigration

According to the New York Times:

  • Illegal immigrants “are far less prone to crime than native-born Americans.” Disproven by facts from the Obama administration Department of Justice and Census Bureau.
  • Israel’s West Bank Barrier cannot account for the “sharp decline in the number and scope of terrorist attacks by West Bank Palestinians in Israel.” Disproven by facts from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, two Hamas officials, and a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader.
  • “Democrats now argue that a wall is an expensive and ineffective means of curbing illegal immigration. The majority of undocumented immigrants are people who overstay visas, not people who sneak across the border.” Disproven by facts from the Congressional Research Service, the academic book Debates on U.S. Immigration, federal law, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Distorting Science

According to the New York Times:

  • Global warming has caused “an intensification of rainstorms.” Disproven by facts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Journal of Climatology, and the Journal of Hydrology.
  • “An ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that hasn’t happened in more than 50 million years.” (Delicately corrected 10 days later). Disproven by pictures and logs of submarines surfacing in the North Pole region during the 1950s and 1960s.
  • “A team of scientists, in a groundbreaking analysis of data from hundreds of sources, has concluded that humans are on the verge of committing unprecedented damage to the oceans and the animals living in them.” Disproven by facts from the journal Science (the Times’ own source), the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the textbook Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy, and the journal Diversity and Distributions.
  • EPA studies based on hidden data are trustworthy because the process of “peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency are sound.” Disproven by facts from the scientific journal Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the journal PLOS ONE.
  • “Climate-change contrarians” are “politically influential” but have “little scientific credibility.” Disproven by the signatures of 3,805 scientists with degrees in atmospheric, earth, or environmental science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the journal Eos.

Rationalizing and Cloaking the Killing of Pre-Birth Humans

According to the New York Times:

  • Late-term abortions “mostly often involve severely troubled pregnancies that pose risks to a woman’s health or life.” Disproven by facts from the president of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, and three late-term abortionists.
  • Democrats don’t support “an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.” Disproven by facts from a federal bill cosponsored by nearly all Congressional Democrats, public statements by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, state laws passed by Democrats that allow elective abortions up until birth, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
  • “Medical evidence does not support” the idea that “an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization.” Disproven by facts from scientific journals, including (1) the New England Journal of Medicine, (2) Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, (3) Anesthesiology, (4) Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (5) PLoS ONE, and (6) Pain: Clinical Updates.

Driving the U.S. Deeper Into Debt

  • “We do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years to come.” Disproven by facts from the Congressional Budget Office and the Medicare Trustees Report.
  • The national debts of the United States and Europe “are not anywhere close” to being big enough to “lower economic growth.” Disproven by facts from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts (the Times’ own source) and the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
  • “Spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama. But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.” Disproven by facts from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.


For more than a century, one extended family has owned a controlling share of the New York Times: the Ochs–Sulzberger family. From 2015 to 2018, the Times’ revenues were 20% greater than the total donations of all U.S. citizens and corporations to federal Republican campaigns and causes. This includes all presidential candidates, congressional candidates, and special interest groups combined.

To keep to the Ochs–Sulzberger family in control of the Times while raising money from other people, the Times has issued a separate class of stock that gives shareholders little or no voting rights to control the corporation. This arrangement has allowed foreign interests to pump money into the Times, as it regularly publishes falsehoods that harm and destabilize the United States.

In 2015, Mexican multi-billionaire Carlos Slim became the largest single shareholder of the New York Times Company. He also loaned it $250 million during the Great Recession in 2009. According to the Times, Slim did this when the Times “looked to be in peril” as the “world economy” was “struggling and credit tight.” The same article described Slim as “one of the world’s richest people, worth about $72 billion.”

Thus, a foreigner who is one of the wealthiest people in the world played a key role in ensuring the survival of a U.S. media corporation that has more monetary resources than one of the two major political parties in the United States. Now, the Times is asking the U.S. government—which is now controlled by the other major party—to set up a “truth commission” to combat statements that it deems to be false.

Meanwhile, the Times regularly churns out damaging and deadly misinformation while using its wealthy platform to denounce people “with big bank accounts” and “big megaphones” who “drown out other voices” in politics.

Agresti, J. D. (2021, February 23). The New York Times Regularly Publishes Falsehoods That Spur Violent Unrest and Civic Dysfunction. Retrieved from

Time Magazine Details the ‘Shadow Campaign’ Against Trump

There are lots of articles detailing the Time Magazine story about the “fortification” of the election. Since when is ‘fortification’ and euphemism for ‘stealing?’ But I digress. Here is one such article – an opinion piece from The Epoch Times:

Opinion: Time Magazine Details the ‘Shadow Campaign’ Against Trump


In a surprisingly brazen article, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” Time magazine chronicles a myriad of pre- and post-election actions taken by a loose coalition of Democratic operatives, grassroots activists, mainstream media, tech companies, and corporate CEOs before and after the 2020 presidential election.

According to the article, the effort consisted of “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

In the post-election days, the author refers to this disparate grouping of players as a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs” resulting in an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”

Although the words “cabal” and “conspiracy” are used to describe the sweeping activities of these groups, collectively referred to as the Shadow Campaign, the article’s author takes pains to note that these efforts weren’t aimed at “rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”

Indeed, throughout the article, there is the repeated claim that these efforts were made not with the intention of subverting the election, but rather as part of a heroic grassroots movement intent on salvaging our democracy and preserving the integrity of this and future elections.

“The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding,” the article reads.

Although the article treats the actions taken by this “Shadow Campaign” as necessary steps towards saving our democracy, a more objective reader of events might make the case that our democracy was actually trampled underfoot.

According to the players in this saga, the perceived threat to our democracy was so consequential that it would require “an effort of unprecedented scale” and a measure of cooperation heretofore not seen during an election process. And one that would encompass a surprisingly broad coalition of interests that would include “Congress, Silicon Valley and the nation’s statehouses.”

As the article notes, the efforts of this cabal “touched every aspect of the election” including our election laws. These groups engaged in a unified legal front to “change voting systems and laws” at the state level, often unconstitutionally bypassing state legislatures and shifting power to the states’ governors in the process. Conservative efforts to fight against this process were euphemistically termed as “voter-suppression lawsuits.”

The terminology and framing of issues bring us to a peculiar characteristic of the article. It’s written as though 75 million Trump voters simply don’t exist—as though a nation was somehow wholly united against a self-imposed second term of a Trump presidency. There is no acknowledgment that President Donald Trump enjoyed support from a large segment of the population. When the term “voters” is used, it’s always in reference to those who were voting against Trump and for Biden.

Other than a few short paragraphs, the reader could be forgiven for thinking the election was ever even in question.

While an intense focus on the Trump campaign is present in the article, there’s an almost surprising lack of discussion regarding the Biden campaign. As the article states, the Shadow Campaign was “separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines.” Indeed, Biden is mentioned in the article only a handful of times and never in direct relation to anything he or his campaign was doing to prepare for the election.

Media Framing, Online Efforts and Tech Companies

In tandem with the focus on Trump, there is another almost unifying theme of gaslighting that traces its way throughout the article. Any activity, position, or response from conservatives or the Trump administration was automatically labeled and then framed as inherently nefarious, even villainous. Meanwhile, a notion of false nobility was attached to every action taken by the left.

Pre-election warnings from the Trump campaign “and his henchmen” on the risks from an unprecedented shift to mail-in ballots were, according to the article, designed to “spoil the election.” Conservative legal pushback against the unconstitutional changes to state election law was termed as “spurious.” Despite being the legal instigators, the article stated that “Democratic lawyers battled a historic tide of pre-election litigation.”

Meanwhile, information from the right was repeatedly deemed to be “Trump’s lies,” “conspiracy theories” or “Bad actors spreading false information.” According to the article, these efforts, along with “the involvement of foreign meddlers made disinformation a broader, deeper threat to the 2020 vote.”

In contrast, when leftist organizations such as the Voting Rights Lab and IntoAction created “state-specific memes and graphics” designed to claim that mail-in voting was safe and not subject to fraud, their actions were framed as “battling bad information.” Nor was this any small effort. As the article notes, these memes and graphics were “widely disseminated by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok” and were viewed “more than 1 billion times.”

Another focus of this campaign was to convince the public that election results would be delayed, perhaps for a number of days. These efforts were designed to condition the voting public to not expect, or even accept, an outcome on election night. As the article notes, the “organization’s tracking polls found the message was being heard: the percentage of the public that didn’t expect to know the winner on election night gradually rose until by late October, it was over 70 percent. A majority also believed that a prolonged count wasn’t a sign of problems.”

Perceptions and information are crucial in an election and in recognition of this, Democratic operatives “successfully pressured social media companies” in advance of the election. These efforts were largely successful as large numbers of conservative accounts were deplatformed and crucial stories that might injure the Biden campaign were suppressed, while the media relentlessly attacked the Trump campaign.

While acknowledging the involvement of technology companies in the effort, the article portrays the resulting suppression of information and conservative deplatforming in a positive light. When stories such as the ones regarding Hunter Biden’s business activities in China were dismissed or simply not covered by the mainstream media, these tactics were labeled as taking a “harder line against disinformation” in an ongoing effort to “fight viral smears.”

There is a side question raised by the participation of the tech companies in online suppression. If accounts were deplatformed from places such as YouTube and Twitter purely for political ends, does this not raise the specter of a meaningful breach of fiduciary duty to the companies’ stockholders?

Mail-In Ballots and Shadow-Campaign Funding

These groups also engaged in large-scale “national public-awareness campaigns” designed to convince Americans that “the vote count would unfold over days or weeks” as an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots were systematically flooding into our electoral system.

With 100 million mail-in ballots sent out in an effort to get “millions of people to vote by mail for the first time,” the coalition recruited “armies of poll workers” to deal with the influx of absentee ballots. Large amounts of money would be required to deal with the processing and in preparation for this, the group “helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding.”

This money had two material sources. The first, surprisingly, came from the first round of COVID-relief packages in March 2020. As the article notes, activists lobbied Congress in March 2020, “seeking $2 billion in election funding.” This effort was led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Although the group didn’t get anywhere close to their lofty $2 billion goal, they were still wildly successful. When the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act passed in March, it contained “$400 million in grants to state election administrators.”

From there, the informal group turned to private funding for additional sources; Silicon Valley tech companies were the primary focus. According to the Time article, an “assortment of foundations contributed tens of millions in election-administration funding. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative chipped in $300 million.”

These contributions were framed as an effort to fill “funding gaps” left by the federal government, while ignoring that it was Democratic operatives who were pushing the mail-in vote efforts.

Indeed, focus groups were held by the Voter Participation Center (VPC), designed to “find out what would get people to vote by mail.” Several months later, the VPC would send out ballot applications to “15 million people in key states.” The group followed up with mailing campaigns and digital ads urging these targeted voters to “not wait for Election Day.”

These efforts were historically successful and transformative. As the article notes, “In the end, nearly half the electorate cast ballots by mail in 2020, practically a revolution in how people vote. About a quarter voted early in person. Only a quarter of voters cast their ballots the traditional way: in person on Election Day.”

The Left’s Control of the Mobs

There are several material admissions made in the article, not the least being that the left actually did control the activities of groups such as Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and others that rioted throughout the election year. As the article notes, “Many of those organizers were part of [Mike] Podhorzer’s network” the man credited in Time’s article as being “The Architect” of the entire election effort.

The article notes that more than 150 liberal groups joined the “Protect the Results” coalition and stated that “The group’s now-defunct website had a map listing 400 planned post-election demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets.”

There’s another unspoken admission here as well. The trigger for the pre-planned riots was a Biden loss, not a “stolen election.” Or said another way, the left would determine what comprised a stolen election only by its outcome.

This matter was further highlighted in a recounting of election night events after Fox News called Arizona for Joe Biden. Angela Peoples, director for the Democracy Defense Coalition, told Time that “We wanted to be mindful of when was the right time to call for moving masses of people into the street.”

But after Fox called Arizona for Biden, a decision was made to “stand down.” As Podhorzor noted, “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it … there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident.”

In other words, Podhorzor and his crew effectively controlled the actions of Antifa and Black Lives Matter—if not completely, then at the very least during these critical moments and days.

The Importance of Fox’s Arizona Call

The description surrounding election night, while short, is telling and raises further questions. Despite the overall tone of the article, it seems clear that Democrats thought they had lost the election in the later hours of Nov. 3th, 2020:

“Election night began with many Democrats despairing. Trump was running ahead of pre-election polling, winning Florida, Ohio, and Texas easily and keeping Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania too close to call.”

According to the article, the “liberal alliance gathered for an 11 p.m. Zoom call. Hundreds joined; many were freaking out.” While Podhorzor was speaking, Fox News “surprised everyone by calling Arizona for Biden.”

The Fox News call changed everything. As the article put it, “The public-awareness campaign had worked: TV anchors were bending over backward to counsel caution and frame the vote count accurately. The question then became what to do next.”

There is another related item of note as well. Podhorzor was sharing his data regarding a “Blue Shift”—the term used to describe a late surge in Democrat votes from mail-in voting—with “media organizations who would be calling the election.”

One analyst, described as a “member of a major network’s political unit who spoke with Podhorzer before Election Day” told Time that having access to Pordhorzor’s data and being able to “document how big the absentee wave would be and the variance by state was essential.”

Arnon Mishkin, an outside contractor and a Democrat, was the individual at Fox who reportedly made the call on Arizona at 11:20 p.m. New York time. According to one report, “No announcement was made until anchor Bill Hemmer, reviewing the latest status of an electoral map that was looking positive for Trump, glanced at the southwest, where the decision desk had left its yellow check mark on Arizona awarding the state to Biden.”

After making his call on Arizona, Mishkin stated that Trump was “likely to only get about 44% of the outstanding votes that are there.” Mishkin was wrong. Trump got a significantly higher percentage of the remaining votes, and although the Arizona call ultimately stood, it was far closer than Mishkin had forecast. Indeed, there’s currently a parallel audit underway in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous county.

Post-Election Impact

While voters on the right protested in seemingly unorganized groups, the left appeared to be far more prepared. At roughly 10 p.m. local time on election night, a bus carrying Republican election observers arrived at Detroit’s TCF Center. The article provides a rather biased description, stating that Republican observers “were crowding the vote-counting tables, refusing to wear masks, heckling the mostly Black workers.”

When the Republican observers arrived, Art Reyes III, leader of ‘We the People Michigan’ “sent word to his network.

“Within 45 minutes, dozens of reinforcements had arrived. As they entered the arena to provide a counterweight to the GOP observers inside, Reyes took down their cell-phone numbers and added them to a massive text chain.”

Election boards were another “pressure point.” Activists called “attention to the racial implications of disenfranchising Black Detroiters. They flooded the Wayne County canvassing board’s Nov. 17 certification meeting with on-message testimony.” Detroit’s vote was certified by the Republican board members.

Finally, the pressure on state legislatures was intense. On Nov. 20, Trump invited the Republican leaders of the Michigan legislature to the White House. According to the article, a “full-court press” was launched by the left and “Protect Democracy’s local contacts researched the lawmakers’ personal and political motives.”

Reyes’s activists rallied at departure and arrival terminals for the Republican state lawmakers’ trip to DC.

The final step in certifying the Michigan vote was a vote from the state canvassing board, which was comprised of two Republicans and two Democrats. “Reyes’s activists flooded the livestream and filled Twitter with their hashtag, #alleyesonmi. A board accustomed to attendance in the single digits suddenly faced an audience of thousands.”

The vote was certified 3-0, with one Republican abstaining.

Shadow Campaign Wants You to Know

The in-your-face detailing of events in the Time article leads to one somewhat alarming conclusion. The leaders of the Shadow Campaign want you to know what they did. Whether this stems from hubris or a position of power isn’t entirely clear, but there are some important people who were willing to contribute to this article. And to be openly quoted.

In addition to Podhorzer, Norman Eisen is quoted at several points in the article. In addition to recruiting members for the Voter Protection Program, Eisen is one of the architects and authors of two Brookings Reports that were written during the Mueller investigation.

Brookings produced a 108-page report, “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” authored by Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder, and Eisen, on Oct. 10, 2017. They followed up with a 177-page second edition on Aug. 22, 2018, which also came with a lengthy appendix.

Eisen, a senior fellow at Brookings, served as White House special counsel for ethics and government reform under former President Barack Obama and is the founder of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) in Washington. Eisen, according to his Brookings profile page, advised Obama “on lobbying regulation, campaign finance law, and open government issues,” according to his CREW bio. He also served as the ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014.

Eisen and Berke were later retained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on a consulting basis as special oversight counsels to the Democratic majority staff.

As Nadler noted in an announcement, the two men had a particular focus on reviewing Mueller’s investigation and would be advising the committee. It also appears Nadler intended for the two lawyers to question Attorney General William Barr, who ultimately declined to attend the hearing—leading to a Democratic vote to hold Barr in contempt.

Ill-Fated Jan. 6 Rally

On Jan 6, thousands of Trump supporters came to D.C. for what would be an ill-fated rally, culminating in an assault on the Capitol building. The fallout from this event would be severe and the full effect has yet to be fully determined.

The new administration, along with many in Congress, appear to making domestic terrorism threats a top priority. Biden’s newly installed U.S. Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas has stated publicly that “one of the greatest threats that we face currently on our homeland … is the threat of domestic terrorism.”

Despite the expectations of many, there didn’t appear to be a material presence of counter-demonstrators from the left at the Jan. 6 rally.

The author of the Time article appears to have been in continued contact with members of the “Shadow Campaign,” including Podhorzer, the group’s “architect.” On the morning of Jan. 6, Podhorzer texted her, noting that the activist left was “strenuously discouraging counter activity.”

Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He is a CFA® Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.