Biden’s First Executive Orders Endanger U.S. National Security

H/T Town Hall.

Joe Pee Pads Biden wants the illegals coming to America so there will be a permanent underclass on welfare and food stamps that will always vote DemocRat.


Just hours after being sworn in as Commander-in-Chief Tuesday, President Joe Biden has signed a series of executive orders. Two of them specifically endanger U.S. national security. 


The first halts construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan, knowing this order was coming, has been pushing back on the move. The wall stops human and drug smugglers. It allows Border Patrol to better control and understand who crosses into the country. Under President Trump, 450 miles of wall were built. An additional 350 miles have already been approved and paid for.

The second reverses the ban on travel from terrorist hotspots, including Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, in addition to North Korea, Chad and Venezuela. The ban was put into place in 2017 against governments who could not provide proper documentation, vetting or identification information for citizens traveling to the United States. It required that “baseline for information sharing to support visa and immigration vetting determinations” be established, that passports were secure and that governments worked to provide information about suspected terrorists.  

“Following an extensive review by the Department of Homeland Security, we are taking action today to protect the safety and security of the American people by establishing a minimum security baseline for entry into the United States,” President Trump said at the time. “We cannot afford to continue the failed policies of the past, which present an unacceptable danger to our country.  My highest obligation is to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and in issuing this new travel order, I am fulfilling that sacred obligation.”

Biden’s decision to reverse these actions puts the national security of the United States at risk. 





















Sen Josh Hawley Blocks Quick Consideration Of Biden’s Homeland Security Nominee

H/T The Daily Caller.

Thank you Senator Josh Hawley(R-MO)for doing your job and asking questions of these nominees.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said that he would object to the expedited consideration of Alejandro Mayorkas, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

Hawley’s announcement came hours after Mayorkas’s confirmation hearing Tuesday morning, and will delay the confirmation of a post that Democrats have argued is absolutely imperative to fill as soon as possible given the heightened risks to national security.

“Mr. Mayorkas has not adequately explained how he will enforce federal law and secure the southern border given President-elect Biden’s promise to roll back major enforcement and security measures,” Hawley said in a statement.

“Just today, he declined to say he would enforce the laws Congress has already passed to secure the border wall system. Given this, I cannot consent to skip the standard vetting process and fast-track this nomination when so many questions remain unanswered,” Hawley said.


Hawley has come under fire from Democrats and fellow Republicans in the wake of the Capitol riot after leading the Senate effort to object to Pennsylvania’s election results. His latest move could temporarily stall Mayorkas’s confirmation since defeating the hold would require 60 votes, meaning that 10 Republicans would have to join Democrats after they officially take control of the chamber on Wednesday.

During the hearing Tuesday, Hawley pressed Mayorkas over how he would allocate $1.4 billion in congressionally-appropriated funds towards President Donald Trump’s border wall. While Mayorkas said that he would “follow the law,” he declined to say whether the funds would ultimately go towards the wall’s further construction. 

The two also discussed Biden’s proposed pathway to citizenship for the approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country.

While Hawley said that the plan was “especially” concerning given the increased hardship millions of Americans are facing, Mayorkas said that he would be “privileged to work with Congress to pass immigration reform legislation that provides that path, and provides a permanent solution to what is clearly a broken system.”

The History of Pillows


A brief history of pillows.

They Were Originally Made of Stone

Pillows have been around since ancient times, but back then, they served a very different purpose. The earliest use of pillows occurred in Mesopotamia around 7,000 BC. These early pillows were made of stone and carved into a cradle shape – they were not designed for comfort. Instead, these stone pillows were used to elevate the head so that insects wouldn’t crawl into a sleeper’s mouth, nose, or ears! Because stone was expensive, the pillows were only used by the wealthy. Ancient Egyptians also used pillows, but for a different purpose. They believed the head was the seat of spiritual life and should therefore be cherished. Egyptian pillows were made of marble, ivory, ceramic, wood, or stone. In addition to elevating the head in life, Egyptians also placed pillows carved with images of the gods under the heads of their dead to keep bad spirits away. In ancient China, society was advanced enough to create soft textile pillows, but the Chinese believed that soft pillows were a luxury that would sap the body of energy. They preferred hard pillows made of porcelain or bamboo, and those who could afford such a luxury slept on pillows made of bronze or jade.

They Largely Disappeared with the Roman Empire

The ancient Greeks and Romans introduced the idea of the soft pillow. Citizens used pillows made of cloth that were filled with natural materials like cotton, reeds, or straw. The wealthy used pillows filled with soft down feathers. However, after the fall of the Roman Empire, soft pillows once again became a rarity as most people could not afford them. For anyone who could, they became a status symbol. During his reign, King Henry VII banned soft pillows for everyone except pregnant woman. By the 16th century, however, soft pillows had once again become more widespread. The stuffing had to be changed often, however, due to mold and vermin.

The Industrial Revolution Modernized the Pillow

The Industrial Revolution ushered in the biggest change for pillows. With the sudden surplus of affordable textiles available for purchase, nearly anyone could get their hands on a soft pillow to sleep on. People stuffed their pillows with whatever soft material was available. Often this was clean hay. Chicken feathers and – for those with money or the ability to hunt – goose down were also used. However, because the natural materials were still susceptible to mold and mildew, it was not uncommon for people to refresh the filling each season. During the Victorian era in England, decorative pillows for couches and chairs began to show up in homes for the first time, especially among the wealthy.

Pillow Options Have Continually Improved Since the 1960s

Pillows remained pretty much the same until the 1960s, when polyester filling was invented. Polyester filling was a new synthetic material that not only held its shape, but also lasted much longer than natural filling because mold and mildew were less of a concern. It quickly became a common choice that remains popular today. Like polyester filling, down filling is also still used today. New materials such as foam pellets, cooling gels, and NASA’s memory foam are also extremely popular. For the eco-conscious sleeper, environmentally friendly pillow fills like buckwheat and dried lavender pods are available. Pillows also come in different shapes and thicknesses to support your neck while you sleep. No matter what type of pillow you choose, today’s options are certainly a far cry from the stone pillows available in Mesopotamia!

Biden to immediately crack down on fossil fuels, revoke Keystone XL permit

H/T Fox News.

You will be feeling this in your wallet and family budgets with higher energy costs.

Biden’s climate adviser said the president-elect will reverse ‘more than 100’ Trump-era policies.

President-elect Joe Biden‘s administration will crack down on fossil fuels on his first day in office, according to his transition team.

Biden is expected to direct sweeping environmental regulatory changes over the next four years and reverse some Trump-era deregulatory policies in an effort to tackle climate change.

The new administration’s crackdown on fossil fuels will include stopping the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, reimposing a moratorium of coal leasing on federal lands, tightening fracking regulations on public lands; directing federal agencies to revise energy standards; and reinstating the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

President-elect Joe Biden speaks about the COVID-19 pandemic during an event at The Queen theater, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2021, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

“He will sign a broad executive order that takes steps that are imperative to address our climate crisis and will create good union jobs and advance environmental justice,” the president-elect’s national climate adviser, Gina McCarthy, said Tuesday, adding that Biden will also reverse “more than 100 of the previous administration’s harmful policies.”

Keystone XL pipeline

On Day One, Biden will revoke a presidential permit for construction of the $9 billion, 1,200-mile pipeline that would transport up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, according to a list of executive actions provided to FOX Business.

It is unclear how the Biden administration plans to address job losses that would come with ending construction of the massive pipeline, but his $2 trillion clean energy infrastructure plan, with its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, aims to “create millions of good-paying jobs that provide workers with the choice to join a union.”

Biden also plans to create 250,000 jobs “plugging abandoned oil and natural gas wells” as part of the infrastructure plan.

Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot on October 14, 2014 outside Gascoyne, North Dakota. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

President Trump had overturned President Barack Obama’s decision to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which for years was under scrutiny from environmentalists and Democratic politicians.

Coal leasing on federal lands

The Trump administration also reversed an Obama-era ban federal coal mining ban soon after he took office in 2017.

Former President Obama issued the temporary ban on federal coal mining in January of 2016 as part of an economic review of the practice.

Some experts have argued that without federal impediments, coal could continue for at least another three decades – bolstering another generation of miners – while others contend the decimation of the “dirtiest fossil fuel” is inevitable and will only happen faster under a Biden team than it would have under a Trump one.

Fracking on federal lands

Biden will also put an end to the Trump administration’s efforts to increase fracking and other oil and gas development on federal lands.

Fracking — or the process of injecting water into shale rock at high pressure to extract natural gas — on federal lands and waters accounts for 13% of the nation’s natural gas production.

Virgin Hyperloop One test site near Las Vegas NV showing the first complete test track for the XP-1. Virgin Hyperloop One formerly known as Hyperloop One, is an American transportation technology company that was formed in 2014, and reorganized and r

Proponents say the process has been instrumental in America securing its energy supply and has resulted in a sharp drop in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade. Critics, however, argue that fossil fuels should remain underground, and that fracking pollutes the environment and contributes to greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.

Federal energy standards

The incoming administration is expected to direct federal agencies to revise their energy standards soon after Biden takes office, including vehicle fuel economy and emissions standards, methane emissions standards and appliance and building efficiency standards.

The move is aimed at cutting pollution, saving money for consumers and creating good union jobs.

Interagency Working Group

Finally, during his first few days in office, Biden plans to reinstate the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which existed between 2009 and 2017.

The group created a methodology for federal agencies to determine the social cost of carbon (SCC), which the New York University School of Law’s Policy Integrity Institute describes as “a metric designed to quantify and monetize climate damages, representing the net economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions.”

Biden will also sign the instrument to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, which the Trump administration officially left last year. The Paris Agreement was a global pact created during the Obama administration to combat climate change.

McCarthy said the move will be an “important step for the U.S. to regain and strengthen its leadership opportunities,” and added that Biden has made it “abundantly clear” that climate change “poses an existential threat.”

A Sticky Issue Medical Marijuana And Guns

H/T Bearing Arms.

Will Joe Pee Pads Biden convince Congress to legalize pot?

Throughout the nation, numerous states have decided to legalize marijuana for medical use, if not for recreational use. Medical marijuana is a fair bit less controversial since it’s medical, meaning it goes through a physician, but still, pot is being legalized to varying degrees all over the nation.

However, we often run into a significant problem with medical marijuana, as noted here in a piece about the topic:


4. In Virginia like other states, medical marijuana patients are not allowed to possess a gun or ammunition because of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

That’s right. Despite being legalized by the state, marijuana is still considered a schedule 1 controlled substance by the federal government, which means if you’re using it under any circumstances, you can’t legally have a firearm.

And, if you couple this with gun registration, you have a real problem because the state knows who has guns. This isn’t just supposition, either, because it’s happened.

With Joe Biden set to take office tomorrow, it’s a safe bet he’s not going to be interested in doing much of anything that will benefit gun owners. He doesn’t like us and, frankly, the feeling is mutual.

However, he might just be willing to help marijuana users and growers, and that might end up helping us.

See, if Biden were to work with Congress to de-schedule marijuana, lower it to, say, a schedule 2 drug, then it would negate this concern. After all, GCA prohibits people who use or are addicted to illegal drugs. It doesn’t prohibit those who use a lawful substance. By classifying it as a schedule 2 drug, marijuana would have lawful uses under federal law. It wouldn’t be an illegal drug anymore.

While it’s unlikely Biden would listen to, say, the NRA if they pushed this line of reasoning, there are a lot of other people who might push for descheduling it that he might listen to.

In fact, I’d actually be surprised for Biden not to at least float an idea of legalizing marijuana.

He’d better do it early, though, because while it’s popular with progressives, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris made her name prosecuting drug offenders. It’s entirely possible that she’ll refuse to legalize anything. While she doesn’t have complete say in the matter, she does have veto power, so nothing is happening unless she’s on board.

Well, that or Congress put aside all its stupid and acts together on something like this.

Look, I know a lot of you aren’t fans of marijuana use. I get it. However, it’s here and the current laws are hurting gun owners, often gun owners who aren’t aware of what is coming because they’re doing what a doctor told them to do.

At the end of the day, if we want our gun rights to matter, we have to be willing to defend them, even for people who do things we may not be particularly fond of but don’t hurt anyone but themselves. That’s just how it is and it’s really just that simple.

AZ Republicans Introduce 2A Sanctuary State Legislation

H/T Bearing Arms.

There will be more states becoming Second Amendment Sanctuary States during Joe Pee Pads Bidens regime.

After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared that one of his top legislative priorities this year is turning the state into a Second Amendment Sanctuary, I predicted that other states would soon follow suit. Now several Republicans in Arizona have introduced legislation that would bar the state from spending any resources to enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws.

The bill, filed by State Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, and known as the “Second Amendment Firearm Freedoms Act,” is a simple piece of legislation. In fact, in it’s current form the bill is only a couple of paragraphs long. 




I hate to say it, but this language is more symbolic than anything else. If a gun control law has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then it’s not going to be enforced regardless.

A more meaningful way of approaching the issue would be to take a page from California, oddly enough. The sanctuary state bill limiting law enforcement cooperation with ICE that was signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown has been upheld by the federal courts, and could easily be used as a blueprint for turning a state like Arizona into a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

Rather than trying to base enforcement (or lack thereof) on the constitutionality of any new gun control law, legislation could declare or specify that local or state law enforcement will not work or assist federal agencies in, say, investigating or prosecuting any non-violent, possessory federal firearm offenses involving legal gun owners.

Not only would the legislation have more teeth than the bill currently filed, by mirroring California’s sanctuary state language on illegal immigration it would have a much better chance of surviving court scrutiny. As law professor Robert Anthony McReynolds has explained, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue of local enforcement of federal laws, and found room for states to decline to participate.

The U. S. Supreme Court has weighed in with two key decisions related to understanding the voluntary language of federal laws as it pertains to state and local law enforcement acting as an agent of the federal government. In Printz v. United States, the question before the court was whether language in the amended section of the Gun Control Act of 1968, known as the Brady Act, could command local law enforcement to conduct background checks on behalf of the U. S. Attorney General who was charged by the Brady Act with creating a national system for conducting background checks of individuals seeking to purchase handguns.

In Printz, the petitioners argued against the idea that the federal government could compel states to administer federal programs and that such attempts by the federal government were relatively new; however, the U.S. government responded that there is a long history of the federal government directing state governments in just such a manner.

In reviewing the historic examples provided by the government, the Supreme Court stated that each instance “at most…was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions.” (Emphasis in the original.) However, as spelled out in the Constitution, this imposition on judges is not translated to “imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service.”

The Supreme Court went further by dispelling the idea that state governments were “incorporated into the operations of the national government” by being “rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws” by explaining that such a theory would negate the need for there to be language in laws directing state governments to act on behalf of the federal government.

The Supreme Court wrapped up Printz by explaining that there has never been precedent for federal direction of state legislatures and that the only duty owed by the states to the federal government is that the states do not construct legislation that would obstruct the operations of the federal government. The Court’s reasoning in Printz distinguishes the obligation placed on state judges by federal law and the ability to place similar obligations on other state agencies.

In other words, states or localities can’t legally impede the enforcement of federal law, but they don’t have to be a party to enforcement.

I happen to believe that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement can be a valuable tool for gun owners in the coming years, but the language used to establish those sanctuaries is critically important. If Arizona lawmakers are serious about turning their state into a safe haven for the right to keep and bear arms, I hope they’ll revise the language in the new legislation to make it less symbolic and more substantive in its potential impact.

Tucker Carlson Reveals What He Thinks Is the Real Reason for the Massive Military Presence in DC

H/T Western Journal.

I agree with Tucker on this it is a massive power play by the DemocRats.

This their way of saying we are in charge and if you cross us you will pay a price.

Since the Jan. 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol building, troops have descended on Washington, D.C., in mass numbers, for President-elect Joe Biden’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

While lawmakers and the establishment media say the troops are meant to protect the capital city from violence, Fox News host Tucker Carlson is not so sure.

“So no matter what they are telling you, those 26,000 federal troops are not there for your safety,” Carlson said on Monday night’s segment of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Instead, unmistakably, the Democratic Party is using those troops to send the rest of us a message about power: ‘We’re in charge now.’”

This quote is sure to stir up controversy, but Carlson has a point. It’s a point that he goes on to back up with facts and logical reasoning.

The number of troops in Washington, D.C., currently, according to Carlson, is “more than twice the number of troops that President Lyndon Johnson ordered to Washington in April of 1968.”

As many Americans are aware, April 1968 was a month in which massive riots took place in the capital city in response to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination.

“More than a thousand people were injured in those riots, and at least 13 of them died,” Carlson said.

In comparison, he said there are three confirmed deaths from the Jan. 6 riots, one of which was an unarmed protester being shot by police.

From purely a numbers standpoint, Carlson is right. Washington, D.C., was in far more danger in April 1968 than it is now, and yet lawmakers have ordered double the number of troops this time around.

Unfortunately, we don’t even have to go all the way back to 1968 to see the hypocrisy of lawmakers’ responses to riots.

Just a few months ago, Washington, D.C., was one of many major American cities under siege due to riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

According to the Military Times, the number of troops deployed to the capital city during the summer was much lower than the amount scheduled to be at Biden’s inauguration.

The outlet reported that there were about 4,900 National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., on June 7 during the Floyd riots, and “only about 1,500 troops were on the streets at any given time.”

Despite what the establishment media may say, those riots were not “mostly peaceful.” Candace Owens, a D.C. resident and conservative commentator, tweeted that in her experience, the riots this summer were more destructive than the Capitol Hill incursion.

Despite all this, we see a previously unimaginable number of troops in our capital city during the week leading up to the inauguration. In Carlson’s view, it is not an isolated incident.

He argued that our military officers have become more and more left-leaning over the past few years, and he provides some pretty convincing evidence.

“Our military leadership — the very same generals who howled at the idea of deploying American troops to stop an invasion of our southern border — those same generals sent tens of thousands of soldiers with rifles to Washington purely as a show of force on behalf of the political party they support,” Carlson said.

What’s more, Democratic lawmakers even had to make sure that these troops had political views that were close enough to their own.

“Democrats in Congress demanded that the troops sent to Washington this week submit to a political purity test — ideological vetting, as they put it — to make certain that every soldier professed loyalty to the new regime,” Carlson said.

“Nothing like that has ever happened in America, and just a few months ago, it would have been unimaginable. Suddenly it’s compulsory.”

In a CNN clip Carlson showed on his segment, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee suggested that many of the National Guard troops are suspicious, in his view, based solely on the color of their skin and their gender.

“The Guard is 90, some odd, percent, I believe — male,” Cohen said to the CNN host. “Only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden.”

“You’ve got to figure that in the Guard — which is predominately more conservative, and I see that on my social media, we know it — there are probably not more than 25 percent of the people that are there protecting us who voted for Biden.

“The other 75 percent are in the class that would be the large class of folks who might want to do something.”

So there you have it. Not only do Democratic lawmakers want to call in huge numbers of troops, but they also want to make sure that these troops can be trusted not to “do something” those on the left may not like.

Of course, a smooth and safe transition of power is of utmost importance on Jan. 20. Yet with the actions of lawmakers over the past few days, Americans are right to have a few questions about how the situation is being handled.

Dick Morris: Donald Trump Has Been One of Our Great Presidents

H/T Western Journal.

In spite of the lies being told about President Trump he is one of our greatest presidents.

Despite a level of condemnation by the media that dwarfs anything to which Nixon, Clinton, Hoover or Grant were subjected, Donald Trump ranks as one of our great presidents.

As Richard Nixon once said, “history is written by liberals,” so don’t count on any objectivity. But we, Trump’s supporters, need to keep the memory of his record in mind so we can unpack it for the next election.

Here’s my take on what he did:

He defied almost every vested interest group in the country — and in the world — to achieve his ends. And in 2020, those interests took their revenge.

He began by defying the almost-royal power of the economic establishment — Wall Street, the big banks, hedge funds, multinational corporations. These giants were used to writing tax policy to benefit only themselves, but Trump changed that. He forced Congress to pass a massive tax cut, skillfully crafted to benefit the middle class, the working poor and small businesses, producing millions of jobs.

Then he upended the pro-China foreign policy elites — and corporate America — by holding Beijing accountable for its unfair trade practices through massive and highly effective sanctions.

President Trump virtually eliminated illegal immigration over the southern border, first by using the threat of trade sanctions to induce Mexico to hold refugees on its side of the Rio Grande and then by brilliantly contriving to build a border wall and funding it despite congressional opposition.

And when the coyotes who shepherded immigrants to the U.S. began sending unaccompanied minors to the border, where they would be separated from their mothers, he had a brilliant solution: Using trade sanctions as a cudgel, he got Mexico to hold them on their side of the border where more generous U.S. laws — and liberal judges — had no jurisdiction.

In the process, he incurred the wrath of the immigration establishment which included American industrialists and agribusinessmen by cutting off their supply of dirt-cheap labor and making them hire decently paid Americans instead.

Perhaps the most dramatic initiative he took was to cripple the most notorious and dangerous anti-American regimes in the world.

When Iran was caught secretly building nuclear weapons in defiance of international agreements, he confronted them with a new and devastating weapon: massive and crippling economic sanctions. Where some wanted to send in troops, he chose, instead, to use this economic weapon.

When Russian oligarchs evaded law enforcement, laundering money and brutally killing opponents, he called them out by name, barring them from obtaining visas to the U.S. and from accessing the international banking system.

And when Venezuelan dictators proved to be immune from diplomatic pressure as they rigged elections and repressed the opposition, his sanctions destroyed their economy. Where others saw no middle ground between war and appeasement, Trump’s reliance on economic sanctions imposed a true new world order

Climate change, the sacred cause of the left, put Trump and the environmentalists at loggerheads over the issue of America’s signature on the Paris accords. Flying boldly in the face of a worldwide consensus, the president pulled out when Europe gave China a free pass, allowing it to continue to emit more carbon pollution into the atmosphere than the U.S., Europe and Japan combined.

Then he further defied the environmental lobby by granting fracking rights so that natural gas would replace coal in U.S. power generation.

At the same time, he demanded aggressive oil drilling offshore and throughout America, finally realizing a goal set more than forty years ago to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

The vast labyrinth of national and international environmental agencies and organizations would never forgive this heresy.

He alienated the military establishment by demanding withdrawal from the Middle East and Afghanistan while still wiping out ISIS. Our NATO partners were also furious when he successfully forced them to pay their delinquent assessments for our common defense.

When he scrapped the two-state solution on the West Bank and used the looming threat of Iran to induce the Arab OPEC states to coalesce with Israel and end their subsidy of Hamas and Hezbollah, the foreign policy establishment was aghast.

He quit NAFTA and negotiated a new deal that stopped China from sneaking products into the U.S. and allowed free hemispheric trade only for goods produced by Mexican, American or Canadian workers paid at least $15 per hour.

He alienated the legal establishment by appointing and confirming Supreme Court justices who uphold our values, even as they proved their independence by voting — wrongly — against his post-election challenges.

The intelligence community hated him for exposing their corrupt lying about his so-called collusion with Russia, which was a subterfuge designed to keep him out of the White House.

When that failed, the intelligence community knowingly spread the fictional Christopher Steele dossier throughout the media. Compiled at the behest of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the dossier was used to try to oust Trump from the presidency.

Silicon Valley bristled at his attempts to stop them from controlling and censoring the content that their amazing technology put at our fingertips. Facebook, Google and Twitter wanted to be the exclusive arbiters of what information was sufficiently politically correct to distribute to their audience.

Trump insisted that tech companies could not censor the news or opinions any more than broadcast or cable networks could.

He paid for his sins with his presidency when his various establishment enemies ganged up on him and tried to finish him off.

But his most serious error was to incur the wrath of the media. They hated him as they have never hated any politician, crime boss, dictator or even mass murderer before. It was bloodlust.


First and foremost, he was an existential threat to the media’s power and credibility. He alone dared to challenge them and fearlessly speak the truth.

He wouldn’t kowtow to the media deities. He ignored them, going over their heads and speaking directly to the voters

And when he did speak to them, he didn’t hesitate to call them out. In a debate with Hillary Clinton, he refused to follow debate protocol and curtly berated moderator George Stephanopoulos for his obvious Clinton bias.

It isn’t just that the media disliked Trump. They hated him. They were liberals who hated his policies, insiders who hated his outsider mentality and unorthodox appointments.

They denigrated his proposals. They belittled his accomplishments, his style, his confidence and most of all, his success.

He was their rival for power.

Officials Pause Large Batch of COVID Vaccines After Multiple Adverse Reactions

H/T Western Journal.

This provides multiple reasons not to take this vaccine.

California state health officials have recommended pausing the use of a batch of Moderna COVID-19 vaccines after a San Diego vaccination site observed a few suspected allergic reactions to the jab.

Fewer than 10 people sought medical care after getting vaccines from Moderna Lot 041L20A at Petco Park in San Diego last week, the California Department of Public Health told KSWB-TV.

“Our goal is to provide the COVID vaccine safely, swiftly and equitably,” Dr. Erica Pan, California’s state epidemiologist, said in a statement recommending providers pause the administration of the batch of vaccines.

“A higher-than-usual number of possible allergic reactions were reported with a specific lot of Moderna vaccine administered at one community vaccination clinic.”

Those affected appeared to experience a “possible severe allergic reaction during the standard observation period,” according to the news release.

“Out of an extreme abundance of caution and also recognizing the extremely limited supply of vaccine, we are recommending that providers use other available vaccine inventory and pause the administration of vaccines from Moderna Lot 041L20A until the investigation by the CDC, FDA, Moderna and the state is complete,” Pan said.

Over 330,000 doses from the lot have been distributed across the state to 287 providers.

Moderna said in a statement to KSWB that it “is unaware of comparable adverse events from other vaccination centers which may have administered vaccines from the same lot.”

The vaccination site at Petco Park opened on Jan. 11 and health care workers in the Phase 1A tier of California’s priority list were able to receive the jab.

The entire lot of doses is under investigation.

A few vaccine trial participants who had cosmetic facial fillers experienced side effects from the Moderna vaccine, the FDA previously reported.

This is not the first instance of people being hospitalized after receiving the vaccine.

An Alaskan health care worker was hospitalized with a serious allergic reaction after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in December.

The Florida Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also investigating the death of a doctor who died about two weeks after receiving a dosage of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Dr. Gregory Michael developed a severe case of thrombocytopenia — a rare disorder that The New York Times reported can decrease the blood platelet count and reduce the body’s ability to clot blood and stop internal bleeding — 16 days after receiving the vaccine, according to The Associated Press.

The 56-year-old obstetrician, who had a private practice at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, died on Jan. 3.

Darren Caprara, the director of operations for the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department, told the AP that the “cause of death is pending the completion of studies” by the medical examiner and the CDC.

Pompeo Puts Biden on the Spot: Accuses China of ‘Genocide’

H/T Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden has chapped lips from kissing the Chi-Coms ass.

Joe Pee Pads Biden s owned body and soul y the Chi-Coms.

The Biden administration is going to have to show its cards fast.

The China-related dealings of President-elect Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, might have gotten squelched by the propaganda giants of social media in the run-up to the presidential campaign, but a last-day declaration by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is likely to put Biden’s Chinese policy on full display.

And the whole world will be watching.

In a statement Tuesday, Pompeo declared that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government is committing “genocide and crimes against humanity” with its treatment of the ethnic minority Uighur Muslims, Reuters reported.

The harshly-worded statement took direct aim at the Chinese Communist Party’s control over the People’s Republic of China and cited the U.S. stand against human rights abuses — from the genocide of the Nazi holocaust to the savagery of the Islamic State group and its treatment of “Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria.”

“For the past four years, this Administration has exposed the nature of the Chinese Communist Party and called it what it is: a Marxist-Leninist regime that exerts power over the long-suffering Chinese people through brainwashing and brute force,” the statement said.

“We have paid particular attention to the CCP’s treatment of the Uyghur people, a Muslim minority group that resides largely in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Western China. While the CCP has always exhibited a profound hostility to all people of faith, we have watched with growing alarm the Party’s increasingly repressive treatment of the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups.”

Since at least March 2017, the statement recounted, the crimes of Xi’s government against the Uighurs have included arbitrary imprisonment and torture, forced sterilization, forced labor and general restrictions on freedoms of movement, expression and religious beliefs.

“I believe this genocide is ongoing, and that we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state,” Pompeo said in the statement.

 the forced assimilation and eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic and religious minority group, even as they simultaneously assert their country as a global leader and attempt to remold the international system in their image.”

Now, obviously, the question arises about why the announcement took until literally the last day of President Donald Trump’s administration. China and the U.S. have been at loggerheads for the duration of the Trump presidency.

In that connection, it’s worth noting that in June, Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020  — a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate by voice vote and with overwhelming support in the House.

That bill condemned the Chinese Communist Party’s treatment of the Uighurs and provided for sanctions against Chinese officials responsible.

In October, the Trump administration was among the leadership of 40 nations that called on China to allow independent observers into the Xinjiang region to monitor the treatment of the population.

And just last week, as The Associated Press reported, the Trump administration blocked imports of cotton, tomatoes and other goods from Xinjiang because of suspicions they were produced or harvested using slave labor.

In other words, late it might be, but Pompeo’s declaration wasn’t from out of nowhere.

Regardless, there’s no question that the declaration is going to put Biden and his foreign policy team on the spot from Day 1. A declaration of genocide by a presidential administration — even an administration on its way out the door — is not a matter to be taken lightly.

Biden & Co. are going to have to decide, fast, whether they’re going to stand by silently while a world power engages in a practice that evokes global horror, or whether they’re going to engage and try to stop it.

The establishment media is likely to take the line that the Pompeo declaration was an act of sabotage of some kind by Trump officials to lock in Biden’s foreign policy, or some kind of petty gesture by Trump against a rival nation — anything to keep attacking Trump.

But there’s no getting around the fact that Biden and his team — including Antony Blinken, Biden’s nominee for secretary of state — are going to be in the position of reiterating the Pompeo declaration or walking it back.

They will, in effect, be telling the world that the United States does not have a problem with China’s barbaric treatment of a minority group — and a Muslim minority group at that.

That might be OK with Democrats who are more concerned with the power they can wield against Americans than the power China wields against those under its control. It might be OK with the NBA and LeBron James.

But it would be a loss of face on the world stage by a new American president who’s international dealings are already suspect to tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump in November — and maybe some who would have voted for Trump if they had not been kept in the dark about Biden by social media.

It would also be an abrogation of the responsibility Biden and his team will now assume for the American people — and the international community.

As Pompeo’s statement noted:

“The United States has worked exhaustively to pull into the light what the Communist Party and General Secretary Xi Jinping wish to keep hidden through obfuscation, propaganda, and coercion. Beijing’s atrocities in Xinjiang represent an extreme affront to the Uyghurs, the people of China, and civilized people everywhere.

“We will not remain silent. If the Chinese Communist Party is allowed to commit genocide and crimes against humanity against its own people, imagine what it will be emboldened to do to the free world, in the not-so-distant future.”

The Pompeo declaration just raised the stakes in the global standoff between the U.S. and China.

And the Biden administration is going to have to show its cards — fast.