I told you about the man who claimed that activists were secretly photographing the jurors to intimidate them to vote guilty or face retaliation. It’s not clear whether that was true or these stories are related, but the judge announced that someone had been caught secretly recording the jury. The video was deleted.

Rittenhouse did something most lawyers advise against and took the stand in his own defense. That can get you into big trouble if you’re facing a sharp, competent prosecutor. Luckily for him, that’s hardly the case here. This prosecutor actually thought he’d hit on a “Perry Mason” moment by asking Rittenhouse why he was running toward a fire with a fire extinguisher in his hand.

The judge blasted the prosecutor for making a “grave constitutional violation” by mentioning Rittenhouse giving up his right to remain silent in front of the jury.

Afterward, the prosecution rested its case, and the judge dropped one minor charge of breaking curfew.

Even some liberal commentators are admitting that their certainty that this wasn’t self-defense has been shaken. You can tell the trial is going badly for the prosecution because liberal media outlets are resorting to attacking the judge and calling him a white supremacist (he was appointed by a Democrat) so that if Rittenhouse is acquitted, they can blame it on him being coddled by a racist judge and not on the evidence and testimony.

Sadly, a lot of people who actually rely on these people for accurate news (which is like relying on Ben & Jerry for diet tips) may be misinformed enough to riot over the alleged “racist verdict” in a trial that was decided on the evidence and had nothing to do with race (Rittenhouse and all three people shot are white.) And while that might be terrible for America, the cities where it happens, and the people and businesses that will suffer, it will give more video footage to the irresponsible, biased media outlets that lit the fuse that set off the bomb. Is it any wonder polls show Americans trust the media less than almost anyone other than Congress?

The CDC comes under scrutiny

November 12, 2021

With tens of millions of Americans having already had COVID-19, a lot of people question why the CDC refuses even to discuss a natural immunity exception to vaccine mandates. The agency claims that vaccination boosts immunity even for those who’ve already had COVID, but that relies on one study from Kentucky that’s contradicted by other studies.

But the agency is now coming under new criticism after admitting in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request that it doesn’t have a single case on record of an unvaccinated person who previously had COVID spreading the disease to anyone else.

As the linked article notes, “fact-checkers” are already rushing to stem the damage by insisting that this is not proof that people with natural immunity don’t spread COVID, just that the CDC isn’t keeping such records. That’s true, but it also obscures the important point.

The bombshell news here is that the CDC, which Americans are told to depend on as a reliable source for all the latest information on COVID, hasn’t even bothered to gather any data on one of the most important and contentious issues: the relative effectiveness of natural immunity. If they had, they might reach the conclusion that recovered people don’t need “vaccine passports” or to comply with vaccine mandates. This revelation makes them look more concerned with pushing an agenda than with amassing the most accurate data and being transparent about it. It only feeds the skepticism of those who already distrust the CDC. They’re not going to convince more people to get a shot in the arm by continually shooting themselves in the foot.

By the way, if you want to know more about the various studies and the arguments for and against natural immunity, this recent video by a professor of pharmacology summarizes it all pretty objectively.

This might be the most important article you’ll read all week.

The Democrats, news media, social media, Big Tech and other allies of the left have been far too successful in clamping down on free speech by conservatives. By accusing people who question their views and narratives of spreading “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech” or whatever other negative buzzwords they can apply to non-leftist views, they’ve succeeded in censoring anyone who questions shady election procedures; discusses the origin or medical treatments for COVID or any problems with the vaccines or mask mandates; or criticizes BLM, Antifa, Critical Race Theory or schools that push any of it. Next, they’re going to make it verboten to question apocalyptic climate change claims.

And who is behind much of this push to destroy free speech and silence any voices that dissent from leftist orthodoxy? Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield has been digging into the background and organization of one of the leftwing cable channels’ favorite pompous talking heads, British leftist Imran Ahmed of the far-too-influential “Center for Countering Digital Hate.” And how legit is that? As Greenfield puts it, if you liked the dubious Brit material in the Steele Dossier, "you'll love the Center for Countering Digital Hate."

This is the group whose claims about rightwing “hate speech” and “disinformation” are cited by Senate Democrats and Big Tech in their endless quest to criminalize conservative speech. Read what Greenfield has unearthed about the sleazy background and secretive funding, staff and even address of this organization that’s being granted more power over Americans’ speech than the First Amendment. Learn how their next mission, one they’re already succeeding at, is to get Big Tech to censor any skepticism of the movement to confiscate and redistribute the world’s wealth in the name of “climate change.”

And speaking of climate change, see if you don’t feel a sudden chill at reading this quote from Ahmed:

“We can’t suppress anyone’s opinion or their ability to express their opinion, but what we can do is create costs for their speech."

In short, make Americans so afraid of what it might cost them to speak their minds that they censor themselves. Imposing “costs” on speech is by definition the antithesis of free speech.

Read it all, and then demand to know why American media outlets and social media companies are handing over power over our speech to this shady, censorious propagandist? Americans fought a Revolution so that we could express our thoughts freely without fear of retribution from a pompous tyrant with a British accent. Why are we allowing one to take that fundamental right away from us now?

I’ve written many times over the years about how leftists can’t win an argument with logic or reason (that’s why they’ve now declared those things to be racist), or by citing history, experience or the prior success of their ideas and policies (all of which have been dumpster fires.) Instead, they “win” arguments via two main tactics:

1. Silencing or smearing their opponents by calling them racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, science deniers or whatever, so that their target audience never hears an opposing view…

2. Changing the terms of the debate.

It’s hard to use their own words, or any words, to prove how full of horse droppings they are when they’re constantly changing the meanings of words. For instance, there was once a clear term for judging people by race: “racism.” But now, judging people solely by race is “anti-racism” and criticizing that is “racism.” (“Horse droppings” is also probably now considered racist somehow, so we aren’t allowed to point out how full of them they are.)

Like birds that foul their nests and fly away, leftists move on to new words once the rancidness of their policies taints the old ones. I’m old enough to remember how “liberal” became virtually a curse word. Suddenly, liberals magically became “progressives.” Now that the public is finally figuring out that “progressivism” is just the same poison in a new bottle, some hope that time, fading memories and youthful ignorance have laundered the word “socialist” enough to allow them to return to that. But it’s all the same horse droppings under a different name.

This is all preamble for the good news that the public must be waking up at last to how toxic “wokeness,” “Critical Race Theory,” “politically correct,” “identity politics” and “Defund the police” are because “progressives” are suddenly desperate to make us stop using those terms. Never mind that they coined them and promoted them themselves. If you use them critically, you’re either blowing a “dogwhistle” for racists or you’re too dumb to realize that those things don’t even exist (even if your school actually uses the phrase “Critical Race Theory” in its curriculum documents.) And even though they don’t exist, you’re a racist if you criticize them.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted that pundits are using “woke” as a “derogatory euphemism for civil rights and justice.” No, “woke” doesn’t mean “civil rights.” The opposite, in fact. Civil rights include freedom of speech, assembly and religion and the right to due process. Woke culture has been relentlessly attacking all of those things for years. Saying that “woke” stands for civil rights is like saying that “A.O.C.” stands for “Absolutely, objectively correct.”

And here’s some more on why you’re no longer allowed to use the word “woke,” you racist you!

So now that the toxicity of these terms has become so obvious that the public is finally wise to them, expect to hear that it’s racist to use them (“racist” being the one term that never gets old on the left) and for them to be replaced with some new buzzwords that will also eventually be dumped once they absorb the stench of the reality of leftist policies. Might I suggest that “woke” be replaced with something more accurate, like “comatose” or “brain dead”?

(On a side note, have you noticed that they get to decide what we’re called – nonsense like “CIS white male” – but they also get to decide what we call them? And the media actually play along with that, as if these loons are the Divine Arbiters of Speech.)

For the final word (I hope!) on this, check out blogger Freddie deBoer’s post on this. He accurately points out that the term “dogwhistle” itself is “a way for people to simply impute attitudes you don’t hold onto you, to make it easier to dismiss criticism.” And he pleads with the left that if they don’t want us calling them what they call themselves, then how about telling us what they do want to be called? (Warning: he uses some rough language of his own out of understandable frustration.)

Of course, they can’t give us permanent terms because whatever they come up with will be operational only until their inevitable failure and obnoxiousness tarnish it. Then it will have to be replaced with some new term that, like a motel toilet seat, has been sanitized for their protection.

Rittenhouse Trial Update

November 11, 2021

If the jury in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial doesn’t vote to acquit, he’ll likely have excellent grounds for appeal on jury intimidation. A man claiming to be a friend or relative of George Floyd released a video that went viral, claiming activists were taking photos of jurors in the courtroom so they could retaliate if they didn’t vote to convict.

(Incidentally, the George Floyd/racism aspect of this case is a bit bizarre, considering Rittenhouse and the three men he shot are all white.)

Even if that video is nothing but Internet bluster, the very idea of such a threat might be enough to scare jurors out of being impartial, and that should be obvious grounds for an appeal.

However, despite the local bias against Rittenhouse (two-thirds of potential jurors said they’d already decided he was guilty), if the jurors are impartial, I don’t see how they vote any way other than acquittal on self-defense. The prosecution’s case has blown up in their faces so many times, you’d think the D.A. was Wile E. Coyote. Their “star witness” contradicted their narrative of Rittenhouse chasing the men down (they chased him down.) FBI surveillance video also contradicted it. Another witness testified that one of the men shot was acting aggressive and threatened to kill him and Rittenhouse.

On Monday, the prosecution called to the stand the only agitator shot by Rittenhouse who survived. He claimed he was running toward Rittenhouse to save him from the other two who were attacking him, and that he yelled at one to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. But the defense attorney forced him to admit, “with the benefit of hindsight,” that that wasn’t true. He also got him to admit that he was advancing on Rittenhouse and pointing a pistol at him when Rittenhouse shot him. The state’s case imploded so thoroughly, a prosecutor was caught on camera face-palming (burying his face in his hand in frustration.)

The defense also pointed out that that guy is suing the city for $10 million in damages, but he didn’t mention in his filings that he was carrying and pointing a gun at the time he was shot.

The jurors might fear riots if they don’t vote guilty, but Nick Arama at offered an alternative: the defense could ask the judge for a directed verdict.

That means the judge could rule that no jury could possibly be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and throw out some or all of the charges. The mainstream media aren’t covering the terrible job the prosecutors are doing, but if there are riots, their bias could be a contributing factor. Anyone who riots over Rittenhouse being acquitted definitely wasn’t informed about what's going on in that courtroom.

Biden is in denial

November 11, 2021

Joe Biden may be President of the United States, but judging from his response when he was asked about his dismal poll numbers, he must be running for Queen of Denial.

While the latest USA Today/Suffolk poll shows him at a historically low 38% approval, he insisted his polls were on par with Clinton’s and Obama’s and that he just saw a poll that had him at 48%. I assume he means the latest CNN poll (of course), but even that one shows 58% of respondents say he’s not paying enough attention to the most important problems. I checked the Real Clear Politics roundup of the latest 13 polls. Even including the Democrat-friendly ones, his average approval rating is 42.8%.

Still, Biden brushed off the question, saying, "But look, the point is I didn't run because of the polls." Darn good thing!

But that was only the tip of the denial iceberg. He also blamed his low ratings on Americans being anxious about COVID. He said, "Even though we've created almost six million jobs since I came into office, we're in a situation where people don't, I mean they don't feel it right now. They don't feel it." (Note: allowing businesses that were artificially shut down by the government to reopen and people to go back to work is not “creating” jobs.)

He went on, “Gas prices are up, exceedingly high…That's why I have the Attorney General taking a look at whether or not these gas companies are gouging people." Yeah, that’s the reason why gas is so expensive! Those same gas companies that were charging $1.89 a year ago suddenly realized they could gouge customers after he coincidentally declared war on the domestic fuel industry.

Supply chain problems? That’s all just COVID, man. But don’t worry, because with the passage of the $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill (about $110 billion of which goes to actual infrastructure), widespread infrastructure projects will begin in "the matter of weeks."

I’m old enough to recall the last time Congress voted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on “shovel-ready jobs.” Several years later, even Obama later had to admit there were no “shovel-ready jobs.” Because of all the green regulations and red tape that Biden wants to make even worse, no major infrastructure projects could launch without a decade’s worth of environmental studies first.

I’m sure he’ll find a way to ignore this poll, too: USA Today asked people what was the one thing they wanted to see President Biden do in the next year. The top answer was “Resign/retire/quit.”

San Francisco voters elected a far-left district attorney who promised “progressive justice reform,” and they’re getting it good and hard. Releasing the same career criminals to victimize citizens again and again…not prosecuting nonviolent crimes of less than $950, which has incentivized gangs of shoplifters to openly loot store shelves and drive stores to close…kowtowing to drug addicts and homeless people until the streets are filled with garbage, needles and feces...

But the San Francisco Chronicle reports that city leaders and residents who are now living in constant fear are baffled over what could possibly be done about all this? Maybe the answer is tolerance…of criminals:

“Should they tolerate a high level of burglaries as a downside of city living and focus on barricading their homes? Should people who are repeatedly accused of stealing be targeted with rehabilitation services or incarcerated so they can’t commit more crimes?”

Supervisor and “justice reform” advocate Rafael Mandelman is frustrated. The city’s leftist leaders claim that jailing criminals “fails to address the underlying factors” such as poverty and addiction (which they address by giving junkies free heroin needles.) Speaking of two constant repeat offenders, Mandelman said, “It raises tricky questions about incarceration. Because so far we’ve been unable to release (them) without them committing more crimes. And the question for reformers is, ‘What do we do with someone like that?’”

Yes, ‘tis a puzzlement. It’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What can you possibly do with criminals who just keep committing more crimes every time you let them out of jail? Hmmm...

This is your brain on leftism. And you thought heroin was a terrible drug!



p>Did anyone there who’s aghast at the poor criminals having to live behind bars ever consider that if people have to barricade themselves in their homes to be safe, then all the law-abiding citizens will be living behind bars? And they did nothing to deserve it. Well, other than vote for leftist morons to destroy their once-great city.

Last month, Derek Hunter at wrote a great article about how he used to feel sorry for people suffering in Democrat-run cities, but he just can’t empathize anymore because “They vote for this, they elect these idiots who implement these asinine plans and policies.”

And they just keep doing it again and again, even as everything slides deeper into the sewer. One of his many examples was San Francisco, where as bad as it’s gotten, “not a single elected Democrat in the city (fears) anyone taking their job, outside of the rare primary challenge.” And those primary challengers are usually even further left.

But I’m a little more optimistic. Hunter assumed that Virginia would elect yet another Democrat and keep careening over the leftward cliff, but the voters finally rose up and said, “Enough!” Maybe someday, even San Franciscans will get fed up with dodging criminals, homeless mental cases, addicts, drug needles and feces and actually force themselves to vote for some Republicans to save their city. Maybe they’ll finally stop playing out Einstein’s definition of insanity over and over.

I will maintain hope, but I won’t hold my breath. Unless I’m forced to visit one of these poop-covered, garbage-strewn, urine-soaked, Democrat-run cities. Then I’ll definitely be holding my breath.