Month: January 2024

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, is urging the Democrat Party leadership to “do more” to promote “vision” for the country,” like “codifying abortion” and “reproductive rights to prevent Trump from regaining the presidency.

NBC’s Kristen Welker pressed Cortez on why Joe Biden is “struggling against” Donald Trump” in the 2024 presidential race as the former president battles four indictments while getting “slapped with an $83 million civil suit.”

The progressive “squad member” firebrand evaded the question, arguing Nikki Haley’s losing performance in New Hampshire is indicative of Trump’s weak candidacy.

“We can take a look at the overall landscape here. It’s not just what we are talking about with President Biden, uh, but former President Trump also has extraordinary vulnerabilities,” she said. “We saw that in the fact that he is a former sitting president, virtually head of his party, virtually everyone has dropped out and endorsed him, and still, as we just saw, Nikki Haley — she cleared about 43 percent in New Hampshire bodes very not well for Donald Trump and his ability to win a general election.”

“When it comes to President Biden, you know, I think we need to really focus and understand young people are a very strong part of this electorate. We have a diverse coalition in the Democratic Party that has its own concerns. Whether it is what’s happening in Gaza, or any other of issues. But right now, I think November is going to be about the coalition we put together and the policy promise we can make between now and then.”

Welker pressed Cortez again on whether Biden is equipped to defeat Trump.

“Do you think President Biden is the strongest person to take on former President Trump given everything you’ve just said,” Welker asked the congresswoman.

Cortez downplayed Trump’s win in New Hampshire and evaded the question regarding Biden’s dwindling support a second time, noting Biden garnered more votes in the 2020 race than Obama.

“I think what we have right now, what we’ve seen in New Hampshire, he is virtually the nominee of the party. His turnout in New Hampshire is actually not something to ignore. We saw from a write-in campaign –remember President Biden wasn’t even on the ballot in New Hampshire. He won overwhelmingly with turnout that even exceeded Obama’s 2012 turnout, when Obama was on the ballot. And so there are quite a few indicators of his strength in New Hampshire. We will see what happens in South Carolina and of course when we get into important primaries like Michigan.”

After Cortez sidestepped the question and changed the subject, Kersten pressed Cortez a third time on the prospects of Biden defeating Trump.

“Just to be clear though,” Welker asked, “Do you think the president is the strongest person to take on Mr. Trump, if he is the nominee, and that’s still an if?”

“Uh, yes,” Cortez said. “Especially when we look at this field. We have Dean Phillips and Marriam Williamson, President Biden I think without questions among that field is the strongest nominee.”

Cortez ceded Biden is dissuading voters as his administration fails to tout his plans for the future, like “codifying reproductive rights” and forgiving student debt if Democrats win the House and Senate, Cortez ceded.

“It’s not just enough for Democrats to talk about what they are running against. You want the president to be talking about what he is running for,” she said. “I think we can certainly do more to be advancing our vision. And I believe we have a strong vision that we can run on. For what it’s worth, the president has said, if you give me the House, and if you give me the Senate and reelect me to the presidency, we will codify abortion rights and the rights to choose in this country. We will codify reproductive rights.

“We can do more,” she continued. “we need to be talking about healthcare. Of course, me as a progressive, I want to see the age of Medicare drop. Whether it’s to 50, as the president has discussed earlier or to zero. This is my preference, to extend Medicare to all people in the United States of America. But I believe we could be doing more. We can talk even more about the fact that public colleges and universities should be tuition-free or reduced. The president has advanced student loan forgiveness just this month for people who have taken out safe loans, under $12,000. They will see their loans wiped out. But I do believe, advancing that affirmative vision is going to be very, very important.”

Cortez said she is “committed” to ensuring those movements “are not stamped out with a Trump presidency.”

“I think my role is in allegiance to people’s movements across this country: in the labor movement that had extraordinary gains last year, whether it was the Teamsters, whether it was UAW’s historic contract, whether it is the bubbling labor fights that we are seeing across the country,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

WATCH:

Cortez has accused the Biden administration of backing war crimes by backing Israel’s military operation in Gaza, calling Israel’s military action “genocide.”

Welker asked Cortez whether Bideni is supporting a genocide, “or does that go too far?”

“I think what we are seeing right now throughout the country is that young people are appalled at the violence and the indiscriminate loss of life,” Cortez said, sidestepping a direct question again.

The New York Democrat instead cited the recent decision by the United Nations’ International Court of Justice that Israel has a responsibility to prevent genocide.

“They are still determining whether it’s a genocide. Do you think that term is responsible given it’s still under investigation?” Welker doubled down, noting that President Biden has been dubbed “Genocide Joe” by some pro-Palestinian activists.

“I believe that they are. They’re still determining it. But in the interim ruling, the fact that they said there’s a responsibility to prevent it, the fact that this word is even in play, the fact that this word is even in our discourse, I think, demonstrates the mass inhumanity that Gazans are facing,” Cortez said. “I don’t think that it [using the word] is something to completely toss someone out of our public discourse for using.

The post AOC Urges Biden, Democrats To Talk More About ‘Codifying Abortion’ And ‘Reproductive Rights’ To Defeat Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Three Jordanian-based US troops were killed and at least 34 injured in a drone attack likely conducted by Iran-backed militias. Par for the course, Republican hawks are urging the Biden administration to launch a war and think later. “Hit Iran now,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina exclaimed on the app formerly known as Twitter. “Hit them hard.” Nevertheless, unless Nikki Haley clinches first the GOP nomination and then the presidency—an increasingly long-shot prospect—Graham and other Holden Bloodfeast types won’t get the apocalyptic conflagration they salivate for.

The more likely pattern is the United States getting itself embroiled in a growing number of proxy wars and indecisive interventions along a wide geographic range, stretching from Europe’s burning eastern and southern peripheries to the Middle East to East Asia. Indeed, that’s what the Biden administration and the bipartisan establishment seem to have been up to ever since they wrapped up the fruitless post-9/11 wars: carefully calibrating escalation and support to US proxies to punish rising powers for challenging Washington in its sphere of influence—the whole planet, more or less—but without triggering all-out wars.

It is a risky strategy, since it involves frequently tangoing with two nuclear-armed states (Russia and China) and a third that might be a nuclear-threshold state (Iran). Political leaders aren’t perfectly rational actors, and the nations they rule are even more vulnerable to the power of sentiment and passion. What looks to Washington elites as a careful turn of the escalation dial might come across as a humiliating insult to, say, Xi Jinping personally or the Putin regime’s hard-core nationalist base—and then what?

But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that calibrated escalation doesn’t accidentally launch us into World War III, and that the United States is in the absolute moral right in each case (two highly questionable premises). Even so, Americans should ask themselves a couple of fundamental questions before we accept our status as a nation of permanent proxy warriors and limited interventionists: How many proxy or limited wars is too many for a country with limited means in a world still characterized by scarcity? And what is the overall goal here—what vision of the world does the United States want to bring about that necessitates this level of hyperactivity, which leaves much of the rest of the world frequently befuddled and sometimes horrified?

Start with the sheer number of proxy wars, twilight wars, limited interventions, calibrated escalations, and designed-to-be-indecisive actions Washington is currently mounting. As of January 2024, the United States is rhetorically escalating over the Taiwan question and seemingly casting into doubt the One China Policy that has been the premise of decades of stable relations with Beijing; continuing to arm Ukraine against Russia to the tune of billions, even as this has depleted some domestic stockpiles; waging an undeclared limited war against Yemen’s Houthis; playing an ambiguous role in Iraq that sometimes involves confronting Shiite militias and sometimes effectively collaborating with them; continuing to meddle in the byzantine aftermath of the Syrian Civil War; fighting Islamist militants in the Horn of Africa; and on and on. And that’s not to mention legacy bases and troop commitments in places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

It isn’t “isolationism” to wonder if a single nation—even a very powerful one—can or should engage in this many conflicts, however indirectly, without inevitably neglecting the domestic foundations of its well-being. Ordinary Americans of both parties get this. It’s what they have in mind when they complain that America is “protecting other people’s borders when our own border is broken.” That might be a crude way to put it, but such statements contain a big kernel of truth. One hundred thousand Americans die from opioids annually. Working-class life expectancy is on a downward trajectory. Millions of working-age men have checked out of the labor force. Our industrial base, including, crucially, our military-industrial base, remains a shell of its former self. 

Against this backdrop, it’s reasonable to ask our leaders to at least prioritize among the various proxy conflicts and limited interventions.

The bigger question is: What’s the endgame? According to a certain Cold War logic, it made sense for Washington to fight numerous proxy and limited wars. The goal then was to contain Soviet Communism. Each time the lines of containment were transgressed, U.S. policymakers took action, now toppling this left-wing government, now bolstering that right-wing junta, now arming this rebel group, now directly sending in the troops, and so on. The inner meaning of the whole enterprise was discernible to the nation itself, even if it sometimes made us morally queasy.

Can the same be said for today’s hyperactive policies? Is the goal for “democracy” to defeat “dictatorship,” as President Biden said in 2022 in a striking echo of the Bush Doctrine? To protect various small client states for emotional reasons and at all costs? To uphold the “rules-based international order”? To defeat Islamist ideology? To ensure that various rival powers don’t get to assert themselves in their own backyards? All of the above?

But this is an obvious recipe for decline. Just as individuals can diminish themselves by dissipating their energies without focus, so can nations. If the next president of the United States could halve the total number of proxy wars and limited interventions, it would be a historic achievement.

The post How Many ‘Limited’ Wars Are Enough? appeared first on The American Conservative.

The war hawks are warbling again. Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday called on President Joe Biden to “strike targets of significance inside Iran,” while Senator John Cornyn said the U.S. should “target Tehran” by bombing its paramilitary forces. The future former presidential candidate Nikki Haley warned that Biden had been “weak in his treatment of Iran” and said “we should retaliate with the full force of American strength.”

None of this is new, of course. Graham has been demanding we bomb Iran since the reign of Xerxes I. Yet the casus belli this time around is much graver: Over the weekend, three American troops were killed and more than 30 injured in a drone strike at an outpost in Jordan near the Syrian border. Iran has denied involvement, but the strike was reportedly carried out by Iranian-backed militants who have been increasingly aggressive since Israel began bombing the Gaza Strip. Attacks on American forces in Syria have been frequent, while the Houthis in Yemen have been firing missiles at commercial ships in the Red Sea.

It’s now very possible that a wider war could engulf the Middle East, with Iran on one side and the U.S. on the other. That raises questions: why are American troops in Syria in the first place? Why are they in harm’s way in faraway Jordan? And why once again is the solution said to be even more bloodshed?

The Americans killed in Jordan were stationed at Tower 22, which is about 12 miles from the U.S.-controlled al-Tanf military installation just over the Syrian border. Al-Tanf was established in 2016 amid the Syrian Civil War as a staging ground for Americans who were training rebels to fight the Islamic State. More recently it’s been the scene of skirmishes with Iran-supported militants, and that has everything to do with its location. Al-Tanf sits on the Baghdad-Damascus Highway, a kind of Route 66 for Iranian imperialists, linking Iran-backed Shiite forces in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

This is an old fear among America’s Sunni allies in the Middle East: the dreaded Shiite Crescent, a moon-shaped swath of Iranian influence that stretches from Iran itself to Hezbollah in Lebanon more than 1,000 miles away. With ISIS now mostly routed, al-Tanf exists primarily to counter this Shiite bloc. John Bolton admitted as much in 2019 when he was Donald Trump’s national security adviser; even Trump, who wanted to withdraw American forces from Syria, didn’t shut down al-Tanf.

The story of the Shiite Crescent dates back twenty years to when America invaded Iraq and replaced Saddam Hussein with a Shiite-run “democracy.” This prompted the king of Jordan, a Sunni, to warn of a Shiite Crescent for the first time. Relations between Iran and Iraq today are complicated—many Iraqi Shiites resent Tehran as an outsider meddling in their affairs—but there’s no question Iran was the biggest winner of the Iraq war, as the rise of Shiite power next door enabled it to expand its influence westward.

The Syrian Civil War is another cause of Iranian expansion, and here too American heroics played a role. By arming the Syrian rebels in a quixotic bid to depose the dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Iran, the U.S. helped draw both Iranian and Russian forces into the Syrian theater. Assad ultimately won the war, and Iran’s presence in Syria was further strengthened. This in turn provided America with an excuse to stick around and keep al-Tanf open, which drew even more Iranian-linked aggression.

This is a pattern throughout America’s Middle East policy: Interventions beget unintended consequences beget excuses for more interventions. Twenty years ago, the idea that Iran would be the main beneficiary of the Iraq war would have caused Bill Kristol to gag on his freedom fries. Ten years ago, the idea that American arms to Syrian rebels would culminate in an Iranian victory would have been mocked as defeatism. Today, both are reality, and both are now enabling calls for even more war, this time with a Shiite bloc that our previous wars had a hand in strengthening.

In fairness, President Biden doesn’t seem to buy this. He has a tendency to react from his gut (as opposed to the chillier and more detached approach of Barack Obama) but that gut tends towards skepticism of conflicts where America doesn’t belong. So, while Biden promised to respond to the Jordan attack, he seems unlikely to blow up the entire Middle East in the process. Still, it’s not yet known exactly how he’ll retaliate, and the deaths of American troops, combined with Biden’s continued support for Israel despite pressure from his left, introduce an element of uncertainty into his thinking. 

The attack on Tower 22 puts the United States in a precarious position. It also puts Biden in a tough position politically. Under Donald Trump, Israel was striking historic deals with its Muslim neighbors while skirmishes with Iran were at least more muted. In an election year, you don’t think Trump is going to keep quiet about that, do you?

The post Why Conservatives Should Oppose Bombing Iran appeared first on The American Conservative.

Under Governor Greg Abbott’s leadership, the Lone Star State confronts a national security crisis on a greater scale than any our nation has previously faced. This crisis, caused by the federal government’s flagrant neglect of border security, demands a fierce response. Governor Abbott’s unwavering commitment to Texas border security is both a fulfillment of his oath of office and his patriotic duty, rooted in the fundamental tenets of state sovereignty and the safety of American citizens.

Texas bears the brunt of America’s border security failures. The unchecked flow of undocumented immigrants and criminal elements across our porous borders has evolved into a national emergency. This situation has unleashed an avalanche of public safety concerns and humanitarian tragedies within our state, pushing the resources of both Texas and our nation to the brink. 

Under the current administration, our nation has experienced record illegal immigration, terror watch list apprehensions, surging human trafficking, and countless deaths due to fentanyl-laced drugs streaming into American communities. Paramilitary cartels act as conduits for unconscionable crimes while the Biden White House is asleep at the wheel.

Despite this, the Biden administration continuously ignored the pleas of Governor Abbott, myself, and other Texans in Congress to declare a state of emergency at the southern border. In a decisive move to rectify these federal failures, Governor Abbott moved into the gap and launched Operation Lone Star. This initiative deploys Texas law enforcement and the Texas National Guard to reinforce our border, apprehend undocumented migrants, and stop the flow of narcotics.

A key strategy in this operation was the deployment of razor wire along critical border areas—a necessary measure to prevent illegal entries and protect Texas law enforcement. The recent Supreme Court decision ordering Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico is a blatant betrayal of Texas’s right to self-defense. Governor Abbott is right and fully within his constitutional powers to resist this unconscionable Supreme Court order. The crisis at our border transcends immigration policy, requiring a thorough legal analysis of the limits of state sovereignty against federal overreach. 

The foundation of American federalism is dual sovereignty, a principle that creates distinct spheres of authority for both the federal government and the states. This principle is found in the 10th Amendment and further supported by the anti-commandeering doctrine, which the Supreme Court addressed in cases like Printz v. United States. According to this doctrine, the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal law. Texas’s decision to implement border security measures falls squarely within its constitutional authority, as its actions are aimed at ensuring the safety and welfare of its residents. 

Historical documents like the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, highlight states’ ability to refuse to comply with federal actions that overstep constitutional limits. Madison emphasized that states have the right to oppose unconstitutional breaches by any federal branch. The Founders believed states have the authority to counter federal actions that encroach on their sovereignty, especially on issues such as an invasion.

Operation Lone Star is an assertion of state sovereignty and a defense against judicial overreach. This resistance is all the more important as the federal government has abdicated its duty to defend the southern border from invasion. Texas’s action to step into the breach is not just a state’s prerogative, but a constitutional imperative.

The post Governor Greg Abbott Is Right appeared first on The American Conservative.

MSNBC host Joy Reid apologized to viewers after a hot mic broadcast her profane off camera comment on Joe Biden during Monday night’s show of the Reid Out.

Reid was heard saying after introducing a clip of Biden talking about the border dispute with Congress, “Starting another f***ing war!”

Reid was likely commenting on the news that Biden is considering retaliatory strikes in the Middle East after Sunday’s deadly drone attack on U.S. troops at a base in Jordan that killed three Army reservists from Georgia and wounded several dozen soldiers.

Reid later apologized for the profanity, but not the dis of Biden, telling viewers:

“I just want to apologize very quickly. Uh, I was chatting during a clip that was playing um, and you know we try to keep this show very PG-13. So I just want to apologize to anyone who was listening to my behind the scenes chatter. Uh, wee deeply, deeply apologize for that, cuz you know it’s PG-13 around here.”

A home viewer captured the hot mic and apology, posting video clips to X Twitter:

And the apology! pic.twitter.com/aJdidizUN4

— Steven (@OP_StevenS) January 30, 2024

Cleaner video of the hot mic incident:

I guess time traveling hackers made Joy Reid drop the F bomb pic.twitter.com/LlJJ0p49r5

— Dr. Richard Harambe (@Richard_Harambe) January 30, 2024

In 2018, Reid infamously blamed hackers for un-PC blogs posts about gays (Medeiaite excerpt):

Mediaite has obtained a series of homophobic posts from Joy Ann Reid’s old blog that she denies were actually written by her.

In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, the MSNBC host claims these posts from The Reid Report — which include defending homophobia, gay jokes, and the outright mocking of gay people and homosexuality — were somehow put in by an “external party” that “manipulated material from my now-defunct blog.”

While Reid apologized in December for writing homophobic content on a blog she ran long before her days as an icon of the #Resistance movement, she claims these new posts opposing gay marriage and cringing “at the sight of two men kissing” were part of a “fabricated” outside effort to paint her as “offensive and hateful.”

The post Joy Reid Caught on Hot Mic Dissing Biden: “Starting Another F***ing War” (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This weekend on ABC News, California Governor Gavin Newsom made a ridiculous case for Biden’s reelection and even tried to claim that Biden has a plan for dealing with the crisis at the border.

During the same interview, he was asked about third party candidates and said that Democrats should be worried about them.

To his credit, unlike many other Democrats, Newsom said that he doesn’t support the effort to keep them off ballots. Some polls have shown Trump performing even better in the election with third party candidates included.

Transcript via Breitbart News:

JON KARL: How worried are you about a third party? There will be multiple third party candidates. So, it doesn’t take a lot. I know a third party candidate isn’t likely to be elected president, or beat either one. But I mean, how worried are you —

NEWSOM: Spoilers.

KARL: Yeah, how worried are you about that?

NEWSOM: I have to be, I’m worried. But you know what? You’ve got to control the controllables. Got to control what you have to control. Right now, it’s getting the vote out.

KARL: Do you think it’s a mistake then for Democrats to try to keep these third party candidates, No Labels, and the others off the ballot? We’re seeing an effort —

NEWSOM: I —

KARL: — to —

NEWSOM: Yeah, I think when you — again, when you try to suppress choice and voice, it tends to backfire.

KARL: Especially when you’re talking about the importance of democracy, you try to keep people off the ballot.

NEWSOM: Yeah. So, I don’t get consumed by that. And I’m not here on behalf of the Biden administration thinking about that.

Here’s the video:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom tells @JonKarl that Democrats “have to be worried” about third party candidates.

“But you know what? You got to control the controllables. You got to control what you have to control. And right now, it’s getting the vote out.”https://t.co/F5LdQXszA2 pic.twitter.com/98knwY5FqR

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 28, 2024

The ladies of The View are also worried about third party candidates.

After literally begging Liz Cheney to run third party to hurt Trump, The View is (again) fretting about the harm of third parties. Of course, they’re concerned for Biden’s reelection chances.
Sunny Hostin whines about third parties helping elect Trump the first time. pic.twitter.com/FqfGeUN7Xo

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 29, 2024

Democrats are terrified of another Ralph Nader/Jill Stein situation.

The post Gavin Newsom Says Democrats Have to be Worried About Third Party Candidates in 2024 (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The supposed ‘sanctuary city’ of Denver, Colorado, is going to start limiting the amount of time that illegal border crossers can spend in shelters.

Like many blue cities, Denver is learning that city resources are not infinite and that a community can be quickly overwhelmed when an army of people suddenly appears in town. They are already shipping people to other places.

One has to wonder how the city is going to enforce this policy.

Townhall reports:

Blue City to Evict Illegal Immigrants From Shelters Next Month

The city of Denver, Colorado will begin limiting the number of days illegal immigrants can stay in its shelters and will send those who overstay out onto the streets, according to a report from NBC News.

Reportedly, around 40,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in the city over the course of the past year. Many come on buses from the Texas-Mexico border.

Starting Feb. 5, the city will implement the limitations on how long an illegal immigrant can stay in the city’s shelters. One family from Venezuela told NBC that they received notice they would be evicted from their hotel. Their stay is being paid for by the city.

“Just yesterday they started throwing away the toys, the bicycles in the common area,” the mother said. “We don’t know where we will go next.”

In addition, the city’s “safety net” hospital, Denver Health, is reportedly asking the federal government for aid covering $10 million in unpaid medical bills due to illegal immigrants.

More from NBC News:

Nearly 40,000 migrants have arrived in Denver over the past year, making a city with a population of just over 710,000 the top destination per capita for newly arrived migrants crossing the U.S. southern border and traveling north in buses from Texas.

The influx is taking a toll on the city’s public safety net. Starting Feb. 5, Denver will limit the number of days migrants can stay in shelters and send those who exceed their stay out onto the streets…

Denver Health, the city’s “safety net” hospital, is asking for more money from both the state and federal government to help cover $10 million in unpaid medical bills from migrants.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston estimates the city will need $100 million over 2024 to pay for housing, schooling, health care and other services as a result of the unexpected influx of migrants.

Here’s a tweet from the Mayor of Denver in 2019:

Our country was built on the promise to welcome everyone — including refugees and asylum seekers. We are a nation conceived and created by those seeking a better life. Trump is betraying those values. https://t.co/NuDDuTPqIW

— Mayor Mike Johnston (@MikeJohnstonCO) July 19, 2019

What changed?

The post Sanctuary City of Denver to Begin Limiting Amount of Time Illegal Immigrants Can Stay in Shelters appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

When it comes to inflation and prices, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is singing a very different tune than her boss Joe Biden.

During a recent appearance on ABC News, when she was asked about prices going back to pre-pandemic levels, Yellen said that ‘most Americans know’ that prices are not coming back down.

That is absolutely not what Joe Biden is saying. Biden recently bragged about how much prices of various goods have come down, then bashed ‘greedy corporations’ for the prices that have not come down. Watch:

Biden brags about overall prices (up 17.3% during his presidency) and gas prices (up 30% from when he took office) pic.twitter.com/vHGneMScgk

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 28, 2024

Yellen’s message is quite different. From RedState:

Biden is trying to sell us on this fiction of how much he’s doing to change what he broke, and no one believes him because he doesn’t even understand the problem. Or he does and he just wants to spin us.

But now, Treasury Janet Yellen just threw him under the bus with what she had to say about inflation. She was being interviewed by ABC when she was asked how she would convince people that prices might not go back to what they were before the pandemic. This is an astounding statement, especially in light of what Biden keeps saying now.

“Well, I think most Americans know that prices are not likely to fall,” Yellen said. “It’s not the Fed’s objective to try to push the level of prices back to where they were.”

Watch the video:

Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: “I think most Americans know that prices are not likely to fall.” pic.twitter.com/QM9fWa56NS

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 29, 2024

Doesn’t this even contradict Yellen’s previous comments on this topic?

That NOT what we were told though https://t.co/xQOp5Jmb4M

— Nurse Patriot (@LABeachGal1) January 29, 2024

It’s almost like they’re just making this stuff up as they go along. Almost.

The post Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen Contradicts Biden on Inflation: ‘I Think Most Americans Know That Prices are not Likely to Fall’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Conservative historian and scholar recently wrote about the E. Jean Carroll ruling against Trump, taking special aim at changes in New York law that took place prior to the case and pointing out that this is just one piece of the endless lawfare the left is aiming at Trump.

Hanson calls the case ‘baffling’ and notes the inconsistencies in Carroll’s story.

Hanson put his thoughts in a lengthy post on Twitter/X:

The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

Yet here we are.

The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.

It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.

Hanson gets into the background of how we got here:

In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.

That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump hating billionaire Hoffman.

Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind—given the legislator who introduced it, Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.

The media continues to pretend that this is all legitimate but most people, including many Democrats, know that it is not.

It’s just more of the left’s multi-level strategy to prevent Trump from ever again taking office.

The post Victor Davis Hanson Slams the ‘Baffling’ Ruling in the E. Jean Carroll Case Against Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a post on X, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, Starlink, and Neuralink, revealed the first human patient has received a Neuralink brain implant.

Musk stated, “The first human received an implant from Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well.”

The Neuralink founder continued, “Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.”

Musk founded Neuralink in 2016 with the aim of creating a connection between the human brain and computers.

LOOK:

The first human received an implant from @Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well.

Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2024

Per Reuters:

Elon Musk, Neuralink’s billionaire founder, said the first human received an implant from the brain-chip startup on Sunday and is recovering well, in a post, opens new tab on social media platform X on Monday.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had given the company clearance last year to conduct its first trial to test its implant on humans.

“Initial results show promising neuron spike detection,” Musk added.

The startup’s PRIME Study is a trial for its wireless brain-computer interface to evaluate the safety of the implant and surgical robot.

The study will assess the functionality of the interface which enables people with quadriplegia, or paralysis of all four limbs, to control devices with their thoughts, according to the company’s website.

Many users on X are extremely skeptical of the new technology and took to X to share how they believe the new tech will usher in an age of transhumanism.

LOOK:

So it begins. https://t.co/cbYPijlhjd

— SOVEREIGN BRAH (@sovereignbrah) January 29, 2024

The end goal is transhumanism. A society connected via brain computer interfaces to a god computer. Capable of both reading and WRITING to the brain. Neuralink can already read and write….
Deus ex machinahttps://t.co/kTKhhUKcDH

— Golgotha (@mlwelsh425) January 29, 2024

The post Elon Musk Announces First Person Received Neuralink Microchip in Brain appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.