BLUF
Documentarians have an obligation to present the facts of history, even if those facts reflect badly on their favorite president.

PBS Holocaust documentary perpetuates well-worn myths to glorify FDR, says historian
Streaming this week, historian Rafael Medoff says ‘The U.S. and the Holocaust’ misrepresents President Roosevelt’s actions leading up to and during the genocide

Early in his new film “The U.S. and the Holocaust,” documentarian Ken Burns claims the United States admitted more Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany than any other country on Earth.

The problem with this statement, according to historian Rafael Medoff, is that it flies in the face of publicly available data on refugees from that period.

Clocking in at six hours, “The U.S. and the Holocaust” begins airing on PBS this week. In recent press interviews, Burns said he attempted to handle Roosevelt “more critically” for “The U.S. and the Holocaust,” compared to the previous, somewhat glowing treatments of FDR in his other documentaries on the period.

Calling Burns “seriously mistaken” about the issue of Jewish refugees, Medoff told The Times of Israel that the discrepancy is connected to several other “well-worn myths” that appear in “The U.S. and the Holocaust.” These myths, said Medoff, run the gamut from why the US could not rescue Anne Frank to Roosevelt’s role in the “St. Louis” affair, alongside the perennial debate on bombing the tracks to Auschwitz.

Medoff is an American professor of Jewish history and the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which is based in Washington, DC. He is the author of “America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History,” among other works on the Holocaust and Zionist history.

Continue reading “”

Liberal Networks Avoid North Dakota Teen Killed by Man Who Dubbed Victim a ‘Republican Extremist’

The liberal media has long decried the threat of violent right-wing extremism, but when the violence allegedly targets the right, news organizations largely turn a blind eye.

Eighteen-year-old North Dakotan Cayler Ellingson was allegedly targeted and killed by drunken 41-year-old motorist Shannon Brandt following a “political argument,” according to court documents that revealed Brandt’s account of what transpired.

Brandt, who initially fled the scene after hitting the teen with his SUV, told police that Ellingson had belonged to a “Republican extremist group.” Brandt was released on $50,000 bond.

None of the five major news networks — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC — have offered any on-air coverage to the attack on Wednesday and Thursday, according to Grabien transcripts………

North Dakota Official Says ‘No Evidence’ Supports Suspect’s Claim

A North Dakota official said that there’s “no evidence” supporting Shannon Brandt’s claim that 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson was part of a “Republican extremist group” before he allegedly used his car to hit the teenager, who later died.

Brandt, 41, is being charged with criminal vehicular homicide, as well as leaving the scene of a crash involving a death after the incident in the early Sunday morning hours. He was held in the Stutsman County Jail until Tuesday, when he posted a $50,000 bond and was released.

The incident happened after a “street dance” in McHenry, North Dakota and Brandt told state first responders’ radio that he struck the pedestrian with an SUV because the pedestrian was threatening him,” a probable-cause affidavit states. The document also states that Brandt fled the scene, but later returned and called 911.

Continue reading “”

How the US Squandered Its Strategic Minerals

  • While China has been relentlessly pursuing self-reliance when it comes to raw materials — especially strategic ones such as titanium, tungsten and cobalt, which are used in the defense industry — the US for the past several decades has been selling off huge chunks of the strategic minerals stockpile to the extent that the National Defense Stockpile is reportedly reaching insolvency.
  • By comparison, China, as of 2020, was the world’s third-largest exporter of titanium, while the US was the number one destination for the Chinese titanium exports.
  • It is China’s growing influence in Africa, especially through its Belt and Road Initiative, the global infrastructure and economic development project that the Chinese Communist Party launched in 2013, that has helped China achieve such near monopolies when it comes to precious resources and raw materials.
  • The rare earths dependency on China stems in part from the fact that extracting rare earth minerals is an extremely polluting process that China has been willing to undertake, while most other countries have not, including the US, which ironically prides itself on having extremely strict environmental regulations in place.
  • The US, according to Reuters, has only one rare earths mine and no capability to process rare earth minerals. If China were to stop exporting them to the US, the country would fast run out of the basic building blocks required to produce the military hardware that the US needs, not to mention all the other items where rare earth minerals are needed.
  • At present, 40 out of Africa’s 54 countries participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
  • “Beijing has increased its control of African commodities through strategic direct investment in oil fields, mines, and production facilities, as well as through resource-backed loans that call for in-kind payments of commodities. This control threatens the ability of U.S. companies to access key supplies.” — U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2020 Report to Congress.
While China has been relentlessly pursuing self-reliance when it comes to raw materials — especially strategic ones that are used in the defense industry — the US for decades has been selling off huge chunks of its strategic minerals stockpile. Pictured: A front-loader shifts soil containing rare earth minerals, to be loaded on ships at a port in Lianyungang, China, on September 5, 2010. (Photo credit should read STR/AFP via Getty Images)

“The PRC’s [Communist China’s] long-term goal,” the Pentagon wrote in 2020, “is to create an entirely self-reliant defense-industrial sector—fused with a strong civilian industrial and technology sector—that can meet the PLA’s needs for modern military capabilities.”

Continue reading “”

Thumbnail

Who’s our real president? Joe Biden — or the staffers who keep walking back his comments?

Is Joe Biden President? That’s the question to ask after staffers walked back Biden’s latest remarks on Taiwan.

During his rather uneven “60 Minutes” interview with Scott Pelley last weekend, Biden firmly and clearly announced that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

This was a dramatic statement, and a substantial shift from America’s traditional policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan, in which our response to Chinese saber-rattling over the island nation was essentially “fool around and find out.” Biden was not at all ambiguous: If China went to war with Taiwan, it would be war with the United States and its allies.

That departure made some sense. Back in February, Biden seemed to grant Vladimir Putin a green light to invade Ukraine. White House spokesmen quickly walked that back, but the green light, coming directly from Biden’s lips, apparently convinced Putin that he could launch an invasion without blowback.

That turned out to be wrong, of course, and now the United States is involved in a proxy war with Russia, while sanctions and export disruptions cause the world’s food and fuel markets to go crazy and have Europe looking at a long, cold winter of gas shortages and electrical blackouts. So firmness, this time.

But Biden’s firmness was short-lived. Within hours, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other spokesmen were loudly proclaiming US policy had not, in fact, changed at all.

Gordon Chang writes: “This is the fourth time that Joe Biden as president, has publicly stated the U.S. will defend Taiwan. He made that pledge last August to ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. The President repeated his words to CNN’s Anderson Cooper last October.

“Biden also said the same thing to a reporter in Tokyo in May. White House and administration officials, both anonymously and on the record, have contradicted the President all four times.”

In the Curtiss-Wright Export case, the Supreme Court declared the president the “sole organ” of the nation in foreign affairs, noting the importance of speaking with one voice when dealing with other nations. The formulation, and authoritative expression, of US foreign policy is supposed to come from the president.

Yet over and over again, Biden has been undercut by subordinates who basically said, “Pay no attention to the old man in the Oval Office.”

This won’t do. Either Biden is president, or he is not. If he’s president, then policy should come from him, and it’s the job of subordinates to make that policy work. If they’re doing otherwise, they’re engaged in a sort of coup against the duly elected commander in chief. That presents a serious problem.

If Biden is, instead, a dotard whose pronouncements on foreign affairs should be ignored in favor of the presumably more measured statements of unelected White House apparatchiks, then the office of president is effectively vacant. And that presents serious problems of its own.

A president incapable of serving should resign. There seems no chance Biden will do that. Failing that, he can be removed using the 25th Amendment. Though there was a lot of talk about that amendment under the previous administration, we’re not hearing much about it now.

Removal under the 25th Amendment is difficult and requires most of the Cabinet to go along. Worse, in our situation, it would mean replacing Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris, in whom most people have no more confidence. Harris’ political career was short, and her stint as vice president so far has been unimpressive. Her speeches are, if anything, even less intelligible than Biden’s.

(And next in line of succession is Nancy Pelosi, who, to put it mildly, isn’t a comforting prospect as chief executive.)

So at a time of crisis, our nation is effectively leaderless. Nor is this an accident. The 2020 election was, if not rigged, at least heavily tilted in favor of Biden. Media and Big Tech companies blacked out criticism and allowed Joe to campaign from his basement, where he faced no tough questions. Harris also got a pass, because of her historic status.

Shortly after the election, Time magazine bragged about how a “cabal” of business and media and government folks “saved” the election by ensuring that Biden took office.

Now America has to live with the consequences. Thanks, cabal.

Just now, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the lawsuit challenging California’s magazine ban, which means it will now go back to the district court to be heard again….by Judge Benitez!!

The judgment in this case is vacated, Duncan v. Bonta, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (2022), and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)

19-55376

BLUF
Notice how frequently the characters in this melodrama employ rhetoric such as “fighting climate change on the frontlines.” They intentionally frame COVID-19 as a war. And it is – only against you, not against carbon emissions.

Join the other side, the real rebellion – the side of humanity against the technocrat overlords on the digital plantation — by enlisting in a parallel economy/society.

WEF Mafioso Threatens Climate Annihilation, Demands $2 Trillion as Protection Money

WEF transhumanist Yuval Noah Harari – who recently declared that the techno-hell he’s constructing doesn’t need “the vast majority of the population” – has returned to demand that the serfs offer more tribute to their overlords for “climate change.”

 

CNN news actor Bill Weir, who facilitates the discussion, gets things started by sycophantically slobbering all over Harari’s knob in his introduction, fawning over his supposed genius.

An eager beaver, Weir, a purportedly serious CNN—The Most Trusted Name in News™—”journalist,” gets as giddy introducing Harari as a preteen girl meeting Justin Bieber backstage. It’s very strange, and embarrassing. Weir’s wife surely shudders when he comes home and climbs into bed, with Harari’s stench lingering on his person, and probably a few pubic hairs stuck in his teeth.

In this manner, Weir offers an unintentional, powerful insight into just how influential WEF leadership actually is within the corporate media: the mere opportunity to toss Harari softball questions fills him with childlike excitement.

Weir then introduces, albeit much less enthusiastically, a special guest, the obligatory Climate Change Person of Color©—fresh-faced, barely-legal “climate activist” Vanessa Nakate, who, as Weir explains, “focuses on how the climate crisis is exacerbating gender equality.”

Climate crisis —> gender inequality: imagine connecting those dots! It certainly takes creativity, so credit where credit is due. The girl clearly has a healthy imagination.

Continue reading “”

GOPPouncer

The idea that 1/6 was this rare instance of violence that was a unique threat against our Democracy is ridiculous, but the left has droned on and on about this unique political violence. Let me take you on a journey.

“The bomb completely destroyed the area it was placed in and could have caused untold harm to human life if it had gone off closer to where the people had been gathered.” 1983 bombing of the Senate

Sorry that didn’t count, it was leftist political violence. Let’s try again:

Oops my bad, that was a Republican that was shot by a leftists who thought Republicans voting against Obamacare would “kill people” That one doesn’t count either. 

Or how about the time that protestors stormed the supreme court and pounded on the doors to breach it, because they were mad at a SCOTUS nominee?

Continue reading “”

Here’s the Latest Climate Change Projection That Was Totally Wrong

As if this is shocking news, the global warming Armageddon peddlers were wrong again. How many times have we heard that we’re all going to die if we don’t sacrifice economic growth to reduce global temperatures by an indiscernible amount? Democrats had a full-blown meltdown over the haggling about the latest spending bill when it seemed as if it were on life support. If we don’t pass the inflation reduction act, which quickly became a climate change bill—civilization will end. The New York Times had an op-ed declaring that the Democrats’ spending bill just saved the world.

The latest doomsday scenario to be proven incorrect is related to this past summer’s temperature, which was 1.5 degrees warmer than the 50-year average. Yet, it was way off the 5.4-degree projection cast by Professor James Hansen, one of the godfathers of the global warming hysteria. Hansen is known for his series of congressional testimonies in the 1980s that created public awareness. Steve Milloy used The Washington Post’s tool regarding temperature changes this past summer to expose the shoddy projection.

It’s a pattern that cannot be ignored. The climate change prognosticators said in 2007 that the Artic Ice Cap would melt by 2013. In 2013, the ice cap was intact and had grown by 538,000 square miles. That same year, it was the calmest hurricane season in almost 20 years. It was also the quietest tornado season that year in nearly 60 years. To flashforward to the present, the 2022 hurricane season is now the most undisturbed in almost three decades.

In the 1970s, people who predicted the total annihilation of humanity over global warming thought that ‘global cooling’ would create a massive food crisis as the North American continent would undergo another period of glaciation. That didn’t happen either, but we must listen to them now and waste trillions in economic output and growth to avert disaster. If we don’t heed their warnings, we could all be dead in 12 years or something. In other news, we have another great weekend of football, college, and professional. That’s much more important than anything these green people say since they’ve been wrong about everything.

Burglar Shot By Homeowner During Break-In, Resident Also Shot

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD — A break-in Tuesday shortly after midnight led to a homeowner shooting the intruder and a resident of the home being shot during the incident, too, police say.

At approximately 12:20 a.m., officers with the Hyattsville Police Department were dispatched to the report of a burglary in progress at the home in the 5600 block of 30th Avenue. When officers arrived, they saw a car attempting to leave the residence. Officers stopped the vehicle and found a man in the car with a gunshot wound. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he later died. He has been identified as 23-year-old Giovanni Hayles and was a resident of the home.

The preliminary investigation reveals a suspect broke into the residence shortly after midnight. Officers found the suspect still in the home with a gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead on the scene. A gun was recovered near his body. He has not yet been identified by the police department.

Colleton homeowner shoots, kills one of two armed intruders

A Colleton County [South Carolina] homeowner who shot and killed an intruder last week is not facing any criminal charges for the incident.

This criminal investigation is still underway, and local authorities say it is not likely that the victim/homeowner will be charged. The victim /homeowner’s identity has not been released.

On Sept. 14th, the homeowner was inside his Madison Street house near Walterboro at about 10 p.m. when two armed men tried to break into his home. The homeowner shot one of the men: authorities who arrived to the scene found the suspect dead on the victim’s front porch.

When we arrived to the victim’s house, the “homeowner exited the home, unarmed, and confirmed he shot the man when he and another individual tried to break down his door,” said Shalane Tindal, spokeswoman for the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office.

Both of the suspects were armed with a handgun, said Tindal.

The second would-be-intruder fled from the scene in a dark-colored sedan. He has not yet been found, as of press deadline.

The suspect who was shot to death is identified as 25-year-old Brandon McDonald-Sharmk, of Colleton County, according to Colleton County Coroner Richard Harvey.

McDonald-Sharmk died at the scene from a gunshot wound, said Harvey.

“The homeowner cooperated with detectives, citing the location of the used firearm and providing footage from a home security camera. Detectives worked through the night to process the scene,” said Tindal, in a written statement. “This is still an active investigation and is believed to be an isolated incident.”

The Colleton Sheriff’s Office is asking anyone with information about this incident to contact their Criminal Investigations Division at 843-549-2211. Tipsters can also leave an anonymous tip by emailing submit-a-tip@colletoncounty.org.

This incident is not tied to another fatal home invasion that occurred two weeks ago in Cottageville. In that case, the suspect shot and killed the male homeowner. The suspect fled the scene, but was later captured in Georgia.

Poll: Majority of Texans Reject ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

“Hell no.”

That’s what Texans appear to be saying about the idea of banning AR-15s and AK-47s, according to a new poll. 50 percent of likely voters told Spectrum News and Siena College they oppose efforts to ban “assault-style” weapons, a term the poll did not define but is generally understood to include the rifles. In contrast, 46 percent said they support a ban. An equal number “strongly” opposed and supported the policy.

Beto O’Rourke (D.) has based much of his campaign against incumbent Governor Greg Abbott (R.) on the need for further gun restrictions in Texas. He is best known for his viral commitment to seize the guns Texans told the pollsters they don’t want to see banned.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said during a September 2019 presidential primary debate. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

And, while he has been consistently inconsistent on whether he stands by his famous call for confiscation, he has continued to advocate for stricter gun laws.

“Five of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history have taken place in this state in the last five years on Greg Abbott’s watch,” O’Rourke said in an ad featuring a Uvalde shooting survivor that was posted to his social media on Tuesday. “Those kids were not just up against that gunman and that AR-15 and those high-impact, high-velocity rounds that hit their body; they were up against a governor who would not lift a finger to prevent this from happening.”

The focus on gun control hasn’t benefited O’Rourke much in the polls, though. While the Siena poll found Texans were open to some new gun-control policies, with 85 percent supporting universal background checks, Abbott still holds a substantial lead in the race. Siena found 50 percent of respondents support Abbott while 43 percent support O’Rourke, moving Abbott’s lead in the Real Clear Politics average of the race down slightly to 7.5 percent.

O’Rourke hasn’t become any less brash in his approach either. He has crashed a post-Uvalde press conference to heckle Abbott and cursed out a man for laughing during one of his stump speeches on the topic.

The race’s outcome will provide a good guide for how American gun politics are playing out in the wake of a slew of major recent gun-related events. The Uvalde shooting and the first bipartisan federal gun restrictions in decades, combined with two years of recording setting gun sales and the Supreme Court setting a new standard for reviewing gun laws as it struck down restrictive gun-carry permitting regimes, have injected a lot of uncertainty into how the issue will impact voters’ decisions in November. With O’Rourke running on an aggressive gun-control platform against Abbott, who has signed several reforms that removed gun-carry and ownership restrictions, how the candidates fare may indicate where things have settled after those significant shakeups.

The election results may also provide insight into the politics surrounding AR-15s and AK-47s in particular. O’Rourke wants to confiscate them or, failing that, ban their sale to adults under 21. Abbott has opposed both ideas as unconstitutional. The fight in Texas mirrors the national one, with Democrats recently passing an “assault weapons” ban through the House of Representatives despite opposition from all but two Republicans. The push to ban the popular rifles, estimated to be more than 24.4 million in circulation, has been facing increasing headwinds even as they have been used in recent high-profile mass shootings. If Abbott can hold off O’Rourke, it could pull further wind from the sails of those pursuing a ban.

Another recent poll in the state provides a slightly brighter picture for O’Rourke’s confiscation plan. Support for “a mandatory program where the government would buy back semi-automatic assault-style rifles from citizens who currently own them” was 52 percent in the latest Dallas Morning News and University of Texas at Tyler poll. However, respondents were more likely to strongly oppose the idea than strongly support it.

As with the Seina poll, the confiscation scheme was the least popular gun policy polled. The Morning News poll also found 55 percent of Texans support arming teachers, which O’Rourke opposes and Abbott supports. That is in line with Seina, which found support at 53 percent.

Seina’s results on issue importance were also similar to a recent poll from The Texas Tribune and the University of Texas. The Tribune poll found Texans said guns were only the sixth-most-important issue in the race. Siena found it was the fifth behind economic issues, threats to democracy, immigration, and abortion.

All three polls found Abbott maintained a significant lead over O’Rourke.

The Seina poll was conducted among 651 likely voters between September 14th and the 18th.

‘Fact’ Checker Glenn Kessler Claims Fetal Heartbeat Is a ‘Misnomer,’ Instantly Regrets Getting Out of Bed Today

Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s intrepid “fact” checker, must have been salivating over his plan to “own the cons” when he retweeted Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams’ claim that “there’s no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.” Abrams (D-Tinfoil Hat) claimed that a fetal heartbeat is just a Grand Plot by men to “take control of a woman’s body.”

Kessler weighed in with, “FWIW, ‘fetal heartbeat’ is a misnomer. The ultrasound picks up electrical activity generated by an embryo.”

“The so-called ‘heartbeat’ sound you hear is created by the ultrasound,” he added. “Not until 10 weeks can the opening and closing of cardiac valves be detected by a Doppler machine.”

Apparently, a memo went out on the Left this week with the new pro-abortion talking point to justify the murder of unborn children. Dr. Stacey Abrams, M.D., and Kessler wasted no time running to Twitter to shout the New Abortion Narrative.

Radiologist Pradheep J. Shanker quickly pointed out that Kessler has no idea what he is talking about:

Continue reading “”

Denver Gazette: Gun control hits a wall in Colorado

Gun-control measures enacted in Boulder County have been placed on hold by the federal courts; left in doubt by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and, as reported in The Gazette last week, stymied even more amid further court developments here in Colorado.

All of which should prompt advocates of more restrictions on firearms to ponder shifting tack in the campaign to curb gun violence. If the courts are turning out to be no friends of more gun control, perhaps it’s time for policy makers to move beyond tilting at the Second Amendment.

How about focusing instead on steps that likely would draw little opposition while making a real difference — like beefing up security at our children’s schools? Let’s have more police deployed as school resource officers. And tighter limits on access during the school day. There’s even a program that has been training faculty and staff in firearms use if needed to defend kids at dozens of participating school districts around the state.

Such alternatives to more gun control make all the more sense considering the inherent futility of attempting to legislate an end to gun violence. Rebranding firearms as “assault rifles” and banning them; limiting the capacity of gun magazines, and other knee-jerk responses were always more about sending a message in the wake of a shooting tragedy than about providing any realistic hope of heading off the next one.

Last Friday, a federal judge declined to combine four different lawsuits brought by right-to-arms advocates against Boulder County and the cities of Boulder, Louisville and Superior. The local governments had enacted similar firearms regulations, including bans on large-capacity magazines and on so-called assault weapons.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore, whose court is handling the lawsuit against Superior, declined that city’s request to merge all the court actions. The result could be conflicting rulings between various judges as to whether the local ordinances violate the Second Amendment. But as Moore observed, “if anyone thinks the district court is going to have the last say on this, they’re kidding themselves.” Perhaps there’s no harm, then, in giving each lawsuit its full day in court in light of the long legal journey that lies ahead.

The laws are not in effect thanks to court-issued restraining orders. That’s pending further proceedings and maybe even the resolution of the entire court challenge. Which could take years.

Underlying all of it is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which set a higher bar for gun restrictions to pass constitutional muster.

Given a new prevailing philosophy on the Second Amendment at the nation’s highest court — and lower courts’ pragmatic deference to it — the prospects for imposing new restrictions gun ownership appear a lot dimmer than they used to. Gun control could become the dog that won’t hunt.

Coloradans across the political spectrum should resolve to lower the odds of random violence where they can, in ways that actually work. Our schools — the scene of some of the worst shooting tragedies in Colorado and across the country — are a good place to start.

Denver Gazette Editorial Board