Biden Lied About Beau Exchange With Robert Hur During Angry Press Conference, Transcript Confirms

President Joe Biden lied about an exchange with special counsel Robert Hur regarding his son Beau during an angry press conference following the release of Hur’s report last month, a transcript of their five-hour interview confirms.

Hur’s report detailing the president’s handling of classified documents made several notes about Biden’s memory, including that he forgot the date of his son’s death and when his vice presidency began and ended. Biden held an unexpected press conference a few hours after the release of the report, criticizing Hur for questioning his late son’s death. The president, however, was the one who raised the date of his son’s death, according to the transcript the Daily Caller obtained .

Rather than pushing Biden about the date of Beau Biden’s death, Hur questioned the president on where work-related papers were being kept following the conclusion of his vice presidency in January of 2017.

“Well, um … I, I, I, I, I don’t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?” Biden began.

“Yes, sir,” Hur responded.

“Remember, in this time frame, my son is — either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was — and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the president. I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did,” Biden began. “And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for president. And, and so what was happening, though — what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30 —”

“2015,” Rachel Cotton, a White House lawyer, interjected.

“2015,” an unidentified male confirmed.

“Was it 2015 he had died?” Biden asked.

“It was May of 2015,” an unidentified male reiterated.

“It was 2015,” Biden responded.

“Or — I’m not sure of the month, sir, but I think that was the year,” Robert Bauer, the president’s personal lawyer, weighed in.

During his post-release press conference, Biden blasted Hur for asking him about his son’s death, despite the report revealing that did not happen. “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Biden told reporters. “Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

During the Hur interview, the president went on to ask when former President Donald Trump was elected, and several speakers correct the president when he asks if it was November of 2017. The unidentified speakers tell the president that he left the vice presidency in January of 2017, which is why the year is coming up.

“OK, yeah,” Biden confirms. “And in 2017, Beau had passed and — this is personal …” the president continues, appearing to forget the year of his late son’s death again.

In his report, Hur noted that Biden willfully kept classified documents, but declined to pursue charges. The special counsel justified his decision by citing the memory lapses and adding that the jury might see Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

The White House rebuked Hur, calling the report “flatly wrong,” “inappropriate” and “politically motivated.” The special counsel is now set to testify in front of Congress on Tuesday about his investigation.

The transcript provides new insight into a number of key moments from Biden’s interview with Hur beyond the Beau and vice presidential exchanges.

Biden repeatedly throws his own staff under the bus, as he did during the post-report press conference, failing to take personal ownership for the mishandling of classified documents.

“I don’t want to hold them responsible or get them in trouble, but I believe they were the ones who were packing up … and were deciding, you know, where, where things were going, to the best of my knowledge,” Biden said of his staff. He added he had “no goddamn idea” what was in one set of files shipped to his house.

The president claimed to not recall or struggled to recount certain details he was asked about on a number of occasions. Biden said he had no memory of a comment he made about a 2009 memo to then-President Barack Obama about surging troops to Afghanistan. Biden had told the ghostwriter for his memoir that he found the memo amongst classified documents downstairs.

“It has nothing to do with the investigation, you’ll understand why this is sensitive,” Biden said. “The president thought that I knew a lot more about Afghanistan than he did, and other members of the administration.”

Biden added that the memo was handwritten because it would have taken him five times as long to type it. In a separate exchange, Biden remarked that Obama didn’t want him to run for president in 2016 because he believed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the election.

Despite claiming that his staff was ultimately responsible for moving around classified documents and moving items in and out of his residence, Biden displayed a highly-detailed knowledge of the architecture of his home and said he participated in moving his belongings in and out as well.

“I’m a frustrated architect,” Biden said, while explaining that his home had seven different types of molding. “In order to try to convince me not to run for Senate for the 19th time, my wife said, ‘Look, you don’t run, I’ll pay for architectural school for you.”

At one point, Hur remarked that Biden had “a photographic understanding and, and recall of the house.”

Biden also stated “I remember moving boxes, literally physically moving them, with help, one side to the other so I could get the Corvette in that garage on the left.”

At various times during the interview, Hur had to implore Biden to answer his questions rather than go off on unrelated tangents. Biden once blew past Hur’s attempt to re-focus the interview to explain to him how the torque on electric cars worked, complete with “car noises.”

“You step your foot on the accelerator all the way down until it gets about six, seven grand,” Biden said. “Then all the sudden it will say ‘launch.’ All you do is take your foot off the brake.”

Biden then made a car engine sound, according to the transcript.

The president also digressed about solar panels in Angola, investigators finding swimsuit photos of his wife amongst his documents and the archery skills he displayed on a trip to Mongolia, according to the transcript.

Nevertheless, the White House reacted defiantly to the release of the transcript Tuesday morning. It was delivered to Congress by the Department of Justice just hours before Hur was slated to testify about his findings.

“You can’t make this up. On page 72 of the transcript, it is not President Biden who admits to “misremembering” things from just moments earlier. It’s the Special Counsel himself,” White House spokesperson Ian Sams tweeted, after retweeting a number of other posts defending the president from Hur’s claims about his memory.

AUTHOR

REAGAN REESE

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: FLASHBACK: Democrats Had No Problem With Robert Hur Until He Became A Thorn For Joe Biden

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Admin Sent ‘Hate Group’ List of Conservative Orgs to Banks after J6

Last week, it came to light that the Biden administration provided a listing of “hate groups,” which lumped together mainstream conservative organizations alongside avowed neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, to major U.S. banks for the purpose of monitoring financial transactions in the wake of the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Experts say the pattern could lead to an increase in banks cancelling the accounts of politically disfavored organizations.

The listing was taken from a report compiled by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), two U.K.-based left-wing activist groups. The report includes a listing of “American Hate Groups,” which is itself based on the classifications of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The listing classifies conservative organizations such as Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, and others alongside avowed Neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups such as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

According to an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sent the report to “some of the largest financial institutions in the world, including the very financial institutions that are likely responsible for providing financial services to many of the listed ‘hate groups.’”

In January, reports surfaced that FinCEN had urged banks to “comb through the private transactions of their customers” to look for “suspicious charges” of legal activities involving political and religious expression without warrants, including the purchase of religious texts and legal firearms. Experts warn that these actions are part of a pattern of increasing collusion between the federal government and corporate America to commit warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

But experts also fear that the Biden administration’s actions could lead to an increase in outright cancellations of the bank accounts of conservative organizations by major financial institutions, which has already occurred on numerous occasions. As Jeremy Tedesco, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, testified before the Weaponization subcommittee last week, “viewpoint-based de-banking is on the rise.”

As reported by National Review, some banks are citing “reputation risk” in order to justify discrimination “against gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellersfossil-fuel producerscontractors for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; and private prisons and related services.”

In recent years, two Christian nonprofit organizations were targeted by Bank of America (BoA). Indigenous Advance Ministries, which helps impoverished widows and orphans in Uganda, had its long-standing account closed in 2023, with BoA claiming that they no longer serve Indigenous Advance’s “business type” and that the ministry exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.” Three years prior, Timothy Two Project International, a ministry that trains indigenous pastors across the globe, received “a nearly identical letter” from BoA and “was repeatedly stonewalled in attempts to gain clarity about the cancellation and how to resolve it.”

Similarly, in 2022 JPMorgan Chase, without explanation, cancelled the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom in the U.S. which is headed by former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. In order for their account to be reinstated, JPMorgan demanded that NCRF turn over a list of high-level donors, “a list of candidates it intended to support, and its criteria for political support.”

Experts say that the Biden Treasury Department’s actions could lead to more conservative organizations being de-banked.

“That’s what they want,” Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “It’s really troubling. The Republican attorneys general need to come together on this. They need to really start digging into this de-banking pattern and getting subpoenas out. One of the industries where there’s a lot of state regulation is banking. State AGs would have the ability to get subpoenas and start looking at the records and start seeing what the Feds were forcing them to do. It’s very, very serious.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: J6 Committee Reportedly Covered Up Key Testimony, Resulted in Trump Being Struck from Ballot

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Judge Orders Biden Administration to Build the Wall

The Biden administration must spend funds allocated by Congress to build a wall on the southern border, a federal judge ruled Friday. Southern District of Texas Judge Drew Tipton sharply rebuked the Department of Homeland Security for contending that, “notwithstanding the language in the statute,” it had discretion to spend the money however it pleased. “Whether the Executive Branch must adhere to federal laws is not, as a general matter, an area traditionally left to its discretion,” Tipton, a Trump appointee, remarked dryly.

As usual, this lawbreaking by the Executive Branch is traceable back to the nation’s chief executive. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation declaring that “it shall be the policy of my Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.” The proclamation, as Tipton noted, paused all spending on a border wall and directed DHS to devise other ways to spend the allocated funds.

This language was already misleading because the word “divert” means “to turn from one course or use to another.” To quote from the ruling, “In 2020 and 2021, Congress funded roughly $1.4 billion ‘for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border.’” Thus, by halting construction, President Biden was responsible for diverting funds from one purpose to another. The issue was funds being diverted from, not to, border wall construction.

In compliance with Biden’s proclamation, but in defiance of Congress’s allocation restrictions, DHS dreamed up plans to spend most of the money on “smarter border security measures” (a.k.a. technology systems, not a wall), “environmental remediation, flood-control, and cleanup projects.” Under these plans, the DHS would only construct new barriers “in two locations where they are filling gaps in existing walls,” according to the testimony of their own expert.

“The Biden Administration has failed to abide by the law to finish the construction of a wall along the southwest border,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R). “Joe Biden refuses to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibilities, so we took him to court to force him to do his job.”

In response to the Biden administration’s fantastical interpretation of “construction of [a] barrier system,” the judge threw the dictionary at them. “The definitions of ‘construction’ and ‘barrier’ connote building a physical structure that would serve as a barricade and a line of demarcation,” he wrote, after quoting from Merriam-Webster. “‘System’ accounts for the large scale of the U.S.-Mexico border requiring different kinds of barriers such as walls, fencing, buoys and the like.” Obviously, “this plain meaning does not include the Government’s definition,” Tipton concluded.

Tipton proceeded to analyze surrounding text in the same appropriations law. “Congress broke [the relevant section] down into five distinct subsections” and stipulated that “these funds ‘shall be available only as follows,’” he acknowledged. So, funds allocated in one category couldn’t be diverted to a purpose in another category. The following section of the law gave “currently deployed steel bollard designs” as an example of one type of barrier DHS was authorized to construct with the funds, demonstrating that Congress clearly intended the funds to cover the construction of the actual barrier.

Tipton further reasoned that DHS’s creative plans to reallocate border barrier funds fell into the other subcategories Except for a “generalized catch-all,” each section had “clearly separate and distinct purposes,” with one funding a border barrier, another “border security technologies,” another “facility construction and improvements,” and yet another “integrated operations assets and infrastructure.” These distinct categories described all the other projects DHS had in mind.

The agency’s discretion over spending projects did not extend so far, the judge argued. It would be one thing if the states who challenged the administration’s decision (Texas and Missouri) simply objected to DHS’s decision to pursue or not pursue any particular spending project. Instead, a fundamental part of their argument was that “DHS was specifically obligated to spend the CAA funds to construct border walls, and the decision to not do so … was outside DHS’s discretion and violated the law.”

This distinction was important because, instead of turning the argument into a question of federal authority versus state authority, it became an argument over whether Congress or an executive agency had authority over spending. “The central question in this case, then, is this: Has the Government obligated FY 2020 and FY 2021 funds for the ‘construction of [a] barrier system’?” the judge asked. He answered, “The answer is largely no.”

This is not just the opinion of a single federal judge out in Texas. Tipton quoted from a 1993 Supreme Court opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil, “an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities: Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes.”

Given this legal slam dunk, the judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing any parts of the DHS’s plan that did not involve the “construction of physical barriers, such as additional walls, fencing, buoys, etc.” and prohibiting them from obligating the funds in question “toward mitigation and remediation efforts, repair of existing barrier, so-called system attribute installation at existing sites, or other similar purposes.”

During a previous hearing in the Southern District of Texas, a federal judge had dismissed Texas’s border wall lawsuit for a lack of standing, but then the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision and remanded the case in July 2023.

This lawsuit forms part of a legal maelstrom darkening relations between Texas and the Biden administration over its handling of the border. Other lawsuits taking place concurrently involve Texas’s attempt to arrest illegal immigrants, place razor wire along the border, or place buoy barriers in the Rio Grande River.

Given the larger legal context surrounding the southern border, not to mention political controversy making illegal immigration a top issue in the 2024 election, the opinion contained several findings that could be significant beyond the scope of this one ruling. Specifically, the court acknowledged the Biden administration’s border crisis had inflicted real injury on the state of Texas because of the costs the state has incurred in dealing with it.

Beyond that, the court also found “that Texas has demonstrated that its injuries are traceable to DHS’s funding decisions.” Texas submitted the DHS’s own documents to prove to the court that “constructing additional border barriers will reduce illegal entries in areas where those walls are constructed, increase detection rates across the entire border, and generally disincentivize illegal immigration.”

In other words, the Biden administration knew that constructing barriers would at least hinder illegal immigration, yet from January 20, 2021 it has deliberately chosen to pursue a policy of not constructing border barriers. In late January, President Biden told reporters, “I’ve done all I can do” to secure the border. According to this federal court’s findings, DHS’s own documents prove that statement false.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Senate Democrats UNANIMOUSLY VOTE AGAINST Proposal to Prohibit Illegals From Voting

For those you still scratching your heads as to why the Democrats have blown up our borders and ushered in a foreign invasion.

Senate Democrats Block Bill That Would Ban Illegal Immigrants From Voting

Sarah Arnold | March 10, 2024 4:00 PM

With the 2024 presidential election coming up and millions of illegal aliens storming the southern border, Republicans are taking a stand from letting another 2020 election happen. 

However, Democrats are trying to squash the GOP’s efforts of upholding election integrity. 

This week, Senate Democrats shot down proposed legislation that would exclude illegal immigrants from being counted on the census for the purposes of apportionment for House seats and the Electoral College. 

Proposed by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) to add an amendment to the $460 billion spending package, the legislation would require the Census Bureau to include a U.S. citizenship question in any future census. It would ban any illegal immigrants and non- U.S. Citizens from being counted for congressional district and Electoral College apportionment.

However, 51 Democrats and Independents voted against the bill. 

45 Republicans voted in favor of the legislation with the exception of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). 

“Today I forced Chuck Schumer to hold a vote on whether illegal aliens should be counted for determining the number of congressional seats and electoral votes each state gets. Democrats’ unanimous opposition to this commonsense measure confirms that they’re using illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to increase their political power,” Hagerty said in a statement. “With this vote, Senate Democrats chose to trample on the rights of each American’s voice. I will continue to fight and press this issue in the Senate.”

The bill would be similar to a Trump-era legislation that would also have had a citizenship question on the 2020 census. 

However, Democrats were critical of Trump’s plan, claiming that questioning a person’s citizenship was wrong and intended to benefit Republicans in future elections.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mississippi’s Secretary of State demands answers on Biden executive order ‘attempting to register’ illegals to vote

DEMOCRAT RULE: Pittsburgh Police to Stop Responding to Most Emergency Calls

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The ‘Ceasefire’/’Red Hand’ Pin Worn by Actors at the Oscars is the Symbol of Jews Torn Limb From Limb and Cannibalized

The Muslim hordes ate his organs.

Why don’t these left-wing Nazis just wear a swastika and be done with it?

Remembering the Ramallah Lynching, 20 years later

Jerusalem Post

On October 12, 2000, IDF reservists Vadim Norzhich and Yosef Avrahami were lynched by a Palestinian mob while detained at the el-Bireh police station in Ramallah after accidentally entering the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled city.

Marking what would become the onset of the more violent Second Intifada following the collapse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in July, the events of October 2000 became among the most brutal timeframe in the history of relations between the two peoples. The Ramallah lynching itself also became one of the first mass publicized incidences of political violence in the internet age, having been widely broadcasted in Israel and around the world.

The event began when Norzhich and Avrahami, two IDF reserve duty soldiers, drove in their civilian vehicle to a meeting point at the settlement of Beit El, when according to accounts, the reservists were unfamiliar with the West Bank road system and drove through the military checkpoint outside Beitunia. From there, they entered the Palestinian city of Ramallah.

Arriving to a Palestinian roadblock, the reservists were detained by PA policemen and taken to the local police station in Ramallah’s twin city el-Bireh, close to the headquarters of PLO chief Yasser Arafat. The detention of the two reservists incidentally came at the same time of a funeral service Palestinian youth who had been killed by Israeli forces a few days earlier. Likewise, over 100 Palestinians  has been killed in violent confrontations with Israeli security forces in the weeks prior.

According to accounts, rumors spread that Israeli undercover agents were being detained at the police station, prompting a crowd of over 1,000 to gather calling for their deaths. While Israeli intelligence got word that the reservists were being detained and a crowd was gathering, the IDF allegedly decided against a rescue operation due to the presence of PA security forces in the area. Haaretz and Maariv, The Jerusalem Post’s sister publication, also reported that 13 Palestinian policemen were injured trying to prevent the mob from storming the station and conducting the lynching.

The IDF reservists were murdered by the crowd via beatings and stabbings, with one Italian news outlet later capturing the infamous photo Aziz Salha raising his blood-soaked hands to the cheering crowd.

The reservists’ bodies were then thrown out the window, mutilated and set on fire. The bodies were then dragged to Al-Manara Square in the city center. PA security forces, aware of the seriousness, attempted to confiscate film showing the events.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Oscar’s Theme? Jew Hatred, Calls for Israel’s Immediate Surrender to Hamas Terror

MARTYRDOM MISSION: Jihad pilot buried missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 in sea trench as part of mass murder plot: Boeing expert

Haiti Collapses, Cannibal Gangs Roam Streets, President Flees Country, BIDEN EVACUATES FIFTH EMBASSY

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer Calls Out Candace Owens

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Muslim Migrant Chases Couple on way to Synagogue, Screaming Anti-Semitic Slurs & Threatening to Kill Them

Diversity, ya know, is our strength. Borders and immigration controls are racist.

Jordanian man arrested in Florida for antisemitic threats against Orthodox Jews

Jerusalem Post, March 10, 2024:

A man in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, is under investigation for what authorities are calling antisemitic attacks, as reported by Local 10 News.

Mohamed Al Saccal, 39, has been accused of using a sharp object, described by some victims as a dagger, to threaten Orthodox Jews in the community.

According to Sgt. Brain Schnell, this incident is part of a disturbing trend of harassment targeting members of the Jewish community over the past three days.

Al Saccal allegedly chased a couple on their way to a synagogue along Collins Avenue, yelling antisemitic sentiments and threatening their lives.

According to the report, Al Saccal, a resident of Sunny Isles Beach born in Jordan, is currently in custody, facing charges of aggravated assault.

Authorities are considering upgrading these charges to hate crimes in light of the nature of his actions….

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu defies Biden, vows to keep fighting: ‘It’s either Israel or Hamas. There’s no middle way.’

Biden, Kamala Send Ramadan Message Empathizing With Hamas Supporters

Austria: Nine Muslim migrant teens sexually abuse two teen girls, film the abuse

Israel Must Make Clear That It Won’t Keep Helping Jordan If Jordan’s Hostile Rhetoric Continues

While Israel Unstintingly Helps Jordan, Jordan Rails About Israel’s Unsurpassed Villainy

The Zone of Interest Was a Bad Movie. No Wonder Jonathan Glazer is a Hamas Apologist.

Montreal: Pro-Hamas protester gives National Socialist salute, screams ‘Death to the Jews’

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer with Stephen Gardner on the true nature of the Israel-Hamas war

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Meets Family Of Laken Riley At Georgia Rally

Former President Donald Trump met the family of Laken Riley Saturday night at a Georgia campaign rally.

Trump was photographed embracing members of the murdered nursing student’s family before taking the stage in Rome, located right outside of Atlanta, according to the New York Post. Riley’s body was found late February near a lake at the University of Georgia (UGA) campus after she was allegedly beaten to death by an illegal migrant.

The prospective Republican presidential nominee’s campaign distributed posters of Riley’s photo with phrases like “Say her name” and “Remember our angels” written on them, ABC News reported.

Trump tore into President Joe Biden for incorrectly saying Riley’s name Thursday during his 2024 State of The Union address, blaming the Democratic president’s policies for Riley’s murder. Biden called the deceased 22-year-old “Lincoln” instead of Laken after being heckled by Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to “say her name.”

“He’s got no remorse, he’s got no regret. He’s got no empathy,” Trump said of Biden. “No compassion, and worst of all, he has no intention of stopping the deadly invasion that stole precious Laken’s beautiful, American life.”

Allyson Phillips, the mother of the late Riley, criticized Biden in a Facebook comment. She wrote, “Biden does not even KNOW my child’s name — it’s pathetic! If you are going to say her name (even when forced to do so) at least say the right name!”

Biden apologized Saturday for referring to Riley’s alleged murderer as “an illegal” during his State of The Union speech, saying that he should have used the term “undocumented” instead. Biden told MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart that unlike Trump, he didn’t want to “treat any of these people with disrespect.”

AUTHOR

JULIANNA FRIEMAN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s What Trump Told Laken Riley’s Family

‘They Don’t Get It’: CNN Panelist Calls Out Cackling MSNBC Hosts

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DEI is Dying. And It’s About Time!

Wall Streets DEI Retreat Has Officially Begun. As DEI gets more divisive, companies are ditching their teams.


These are not headlines I thought I’d be reading in 2024, but it’s a happy day when legacy news sites as hegemonic as Bloomberg and The Washington Post are using such clear language to flag the retreat of DEI from corporate America.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bills itself as a framework for promoting fair treatment and full participation for all people in the workforce, with a special focus on groups historically hurt by discrimination, like women, racial minorities and LGBT individuals.

What DEI has generally looked like in practice, however, is a new brand of bigotry to replace the old, where a person’s outward identity trumps their merit or performance. Meanwhile, those possessing genuine talent but the wrong attributes (think male, white or straight) have found themselves punished for factors out of their control.

American philosopher Dr Peter Boghossian was part of the infamous Grievance Studies Affair project, and later made headlines for resigning from his prestigious post at Portland State University after the school became overrun with DEI ideology. He has offered more honest definitions for this contentious three-letter acronym.

Diversity, according to Boghossian, means people who look different but think alike. Equity, he says, means making up for past discrimination with current discrimination. And Inclusion, he argues, means restricting speech.

Nowhere have Boghossian’s DEI definitions proven more prescient than at Harvard University, which became embroiled in a months-long scandal late last year as the woke worldview of then-President Claudine Gay unravelled in real time before a watching world.

Ms Gay’s failures were at least threefold.

First, she carved a path of effectively destroying the careers of dissident Harvard scholars, even if they were from racial minorities: economist Roland Fryer and law professor Ronald Sullivan being two prominent examples.

Second, following unconscionable pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus, she was asked during a Capitol Hill deposition whether calling for genocide against Jews ran counter to Harvard’s harassment policy, and she equivocated, bigly.

Third and perhaps most unforgivably for an Ivy League president, some 50 instances of plagiarism were latterly uncovered in her rather threadbare canon of scholarship.

There is no doubt that the fall of Claudine Gay was a turning point for wokery in America’s institutions. If reporting from Bloomberg and WaPo is anything to go on, it also marked the beginning of the end for DEI.

Writes Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has made a surprising change to its Possibilities Summit” for Black college students: Its opened the program to White students.

At Bank of America Corp., certain internal programs that used to focus on women and minorities have been broadened to include everyone.

And at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., executives are being urged to reconsider hard metrics for workforce diversity. Lose them, lawyers have advised.

This is what diversity, equity and inclusion looks like on Wall Street today: anxious, fraught — and changing fast.

From C-suites down, American finance is quietly reassessing its promises to level the playing field. The growing conservative assault on DEI, coupled with pockets of resentment among White employees, have executives moving to head off accusations of reverse discrimination. Its not just Wall Street. In recent weeks, Zoom Video Communications Inc. cut its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs and Tesla Inc. removed language about minority workers from a regulatory filing.

The seemingly small changes — lawyerly tweaks, executives call them — are starting to add up to something big: the end of a watershed era for diversity in the US workplace, and the start of a new, uncertain one.

The news from WaPo is just as bright:

DEI jobs peaked in early 2023 before falling 5 percent that year and shrinking by 8 percent so far in 2024, according to Revelio Labs data shared with The Washington Post. The attrition rate for DEI roles has been about double that of non-DEI jobs, says Revelio, which tracks workforce dynamics.

In recent weeks, Zoom axed its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs, and Snap cut workers who worked on retention and engagement efforts for employees from underrepresented groups. Meta, Tesla, DoorDash, Lyft, Home Depot, Wayfair and X were among major corporations making steep cuts in 2023, slashing the size of their DEI teams by 50 percent or more, Revelios data shows.

Conservative journalist Christopher Rufo, who has been at the forefront of the counter-DEI revolution, has hailed these results as a historic turning point.

“DEI is not an inevitability,” he wrote in City Journal last week. “It is a choice that can be undone.”

Rufo reports having recently spoken with several Fortune 500 executives who had felt immense pressure to enact DEI initiatives following the summer of George Floyd. “But four years later, they have realized that DEI programs undermine productivity, destroy merit-based systems, and poison corporate culture.”

In the wake of events like the Harvard scandal, Rufo explains, these executives “now have the political space — in essence, the social permission — to wind down these programs.”

No small part of turning tide comes thanks to the introduction of 76 anti-DEI bills in U.S. state legislatures, with 17 states either passing or considering them, according to data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

“We should celebrate the moment,” Rufo declares — “But we need to do much more.”

Let’s hope it’s only up from here.


Kurt presents a pretty negative view of DEI. Is he on the money? What do you think? Tell us in the comments box below.


AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Doctor: ‘DEI Is Dangerous Everywhere, but It’s Most Dangerous in Medical School’

Disney’s DEI Policies Land Them in Court: ‘The Hit Factory Is Now the Flop Factory’

DEI/DIE the Virgin Skies: ‘Um… Why Is Our Plane’s Wing Missing All Those Screws?

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Why DEI Must End for Good’—Bari Weiss Gets a Lot Right Here

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democratic Rhetoric Takes A Perilous Turn For The Jews

In an appearance this week on MSNBC, veteran Democratic political strategist James Carville made a stunning statement. Speaking of the uncommitted vote in Michigan, Carville said that it will be Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault if Biden loses the election in November.

“There is a problem all across the country [with Democratic voters who will punish Biden if he continues to support Israel] and I hope that the President and [Secretary of State Antony] Blinken can get this thing calmed down, because if it don’t [sic.] get calmed down before the Democratic convention in Chicago it’s going to be a very ugly time in Chicago. I promise you that. They’re gonna have to tell Bibi Netanyahu, ‘Hey dude, we’re not gonna lose our election because you’re scared to go to jail.”

Carville’s bit about jail was part of a larger conspiracy theory that he has been peddling since shortly after the Hamas-led Palestinian invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7. That theory has it that Netanyahu only decided to wage a war to eradicate Hamas to deflect public attention from his criminal trial. Beyond the obscenity of the contention itself, the fact is that since Netanyahu’s trial opened two years ago, the prosecution’s entire case has fallen apart. But the new wrinkle that Carville incorporated is that it will be Israel’s fault if Biden loses.

Carville is far from alone in making this claim. Pro-Hamas Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is one of its most outspoken champions. Ahead of the Michigan primary last Tuesday, Tlaib led a campaign of pro-Hamas Muslims and progressives to convince like-minded Michiganders to vote “Uncommitted” to show their opposition to what they perceive as Biden’s support for Israel in its war against Hamas.

Others, including academics, have piled onto the bandwagon. For instance, New York University professor Mohamad Bazzi wrote in The Guardian last week that Biden is risking reelection by not reining in Netanyahu. In his words, “While Biden complains about the petulant Israeli leader who won’t listen, his presidency is now at risk. It’s a self-inflicted wound that Biden would have avoided by standing up to Netanyahu months ago.”

The allegation that Netanyahu is going to cost Biden the election because of his unwillingness to end the war with Hamas without victory is absurd for three reasons. First, the Michigan primary showed the emptiness of the threat. For more than a month, the media provided around-the-clock coverage of calls by Tlaib and her Hamas-supporting partners for Muslims and progressives in Michigan to vote “Uncommitted.” But in the end, Biden won 81.1% of the vote and only 13.2% of Michigan voters voted “uncommitted.”

While 13.2% is being presented as a major achievement, it is anything but significant. It isn’t clear what portion of the 13.2% voted “Uncommitted” out of support for Hamas, for one thing. Around the same percentage of primary voters regularly vote “Uncommitted” in Democratic presidential primaries. For instance, when then-President Barack Obama was running unopposed for re-election in 2012, 11% of Michigan primary voters voted “Uncommitted.”

Beyond that, the Harvard-Harris poll of U.S. opinion on Israel’s war with Hamas, which was published the day of the primary, showed that 82% of Americans support Israel compared to 18% who support Hamas. The implications are clear. Both the election results and the Harvard-Harris poll demonstrated that Tlaib and her pro-Hamas supporters do not have the political weight to throw a presidential election.

The claim that support for Israel will cost Biden the election is also fatuous because Tlaib and her supporters are bluffing. Donald Trump was the most pro-Israel president in history, and they know it. They will not enable him to return by refusing to support Biden. Tlaib admitted this herself at a press conference on Thursday.

“It’s really important for folks to understand: I am incredibly, incredibly scared of a second term for Trump. And I think it’s really important to emphasize this,” she said.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Caroline Glick

Caroline B. Glick is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy. She is a senior columnist at Israel Hayom and the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown Forum, 2014). From 1994 to 1996, she served as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

RELATED ARTICLE: Viktor Orbán Warns: ‘The Hegemony of the West has Ended, A New World Order is Emerging’

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

5 More Lies in Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address

The fallout continues over President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and his errors, lies, and misstatements continue to pile up. Here are five more false claims Biden made on Thursday night.

1. Biden Claims He Has Created 15 Million Jobs and 800,000 New Manufacturing Jobs

In speaking about his economic record, Biden boasted of creating “15 million new jobs in just three years,” including “800,000 new manufacturing jobs in America and counting.”

Most of the jobs Joe Biden has taken credit for “creating” were merely jobs destroyed by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

The economy under Joe Biden actually created about one-third that many new jobs: The economy added 5.49 million jobs above pandemic level in three years. President Donald Trump’s economy created 6.7 million jobs in the three years before the pandemic. Similarly, Joe Biden has added 114,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to the pre-pandemic level of February 2020. President Trump created 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the same period.

American workers have enjoyed little of this job growth. The U.S. workforce added 2.9 million foreign-born workers (legal or illegal), while there were 183,000 fewer U.S. citizens in the workforce between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the same period in 2023.

Some of this job growth is illusory, since a total of 8.3 million Americans hold multiple jobs, and 386,000 Americans are working two full-time jobs — a number that reached a 30-year high of 447,000 last September. More than two million people work two (or more) part-time jobs. And the number working-age Americans who are working, the labor force participation rate, remains below pre-pandemic levels.

2. Wages Are Up and Inflation Is Down under Biden?

Joe Biden touted his economy as a boon for middle-class workers, adding, “Wages keep going up. Inflation keeps coming down. Inflation has dropped from 9% to 3% — the lowest in the world and trending lower. … Consumer studies show consumer confidence is soaring.”

Real wages remain lower under Biden, thanks to soaring inflation sparked in part by massive rounds of stimulus-level government spending. Americans under Biden need to earn an extra $11,434 a year to maintain the same level of income they had before he took office. The average American, of course, has not closed the gap.

“Bidenflation” shows up in everyday prices: The cost of dairy products has risen 59 cents since February 2021. A loaf of bread costs more dough — 49 cents a loaf more. Other staples, utilities, and necessities have risen, including chicken (41 cents a pound), a dozen eggs (92 cents), gasoline (72 cents a gallon), home heating gas (29%), and electricity (21%).

Rather than address these concerns, Biden focused on shrinkflation and “junk fees.” Even Biden’s speechwriters felt the need to sell the public on their policy’s relevance, insisting, “It matters. It matters.” Biden’s focus invited withering criticism from his chief rival for the presidency. “Biden talked about the SNICKERS bars, before he talked about the border!” posted former President Donald Trump on Truth Social.

The Biden administration did give some indication of who benefitted from its policies: The White House invited Shawn Fain — president of the United Auto Workers, which had delayed its endorsement of Biden’s reelection — to the State of the Union address.

3. The Myth of Trump’s Muslim Ban

In his section on immigration, Biden attempted to distinguish himself from “my predecessor” by saying, “I will not ban people because of their faith.”

Biden is alluding to President Trump’s so-called “Muslim travel ban.” In December 2015, candidate Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Then-President Barack Obama had admitted 12,500 scantly-vetted “refugees” from Syria. Trump also cited widespread, anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Islamic world for decades, including a poll of Muslims from the Center for Security Policy which found “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.” But he never pursued such a policy in office, using model policies enacted by the Obama-Biden administration.

In his first week in office, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, placing a 90-day moratorium on some immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also required vetting of people hailing from nations whose background checks do not meet U.S. standards. The move was far from unprecedented. Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, Barack Obama imposed similar restrictions on anyone who was “present, at any time” in Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in the past four years. Yet activist courts initially ruled Trump could not impose the same policy, eventually accepting an amended version that barred immigration from Iran, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

In 2020, Trump broadened this net of protection by excluding the terror-tied nations of Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. (Muslims make up a mere 4% of Myanmar’s population, 0.3% of Venezuela’s population, and officially zero percent of North Korea’s.) The Supreme Court upheld the policy, Presidential Proclamation 9645, in Trump v. Hawaii (2017). Biden rescinded the executive order on his first day in office: January 21, 2021.

The threat proved to be anything but illusory. Authorities arrested a Syrian refugee, 21-year-old Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, for plotting to blow up a Christian church in Pittsburgh, Legacy International Worship Center, to support ISIS.

4. Making the Rich ‘Pay Their Fair Share’ of Taxes?

Joe Biden promised to enact “a fair tax code” by “making big corporations and the very wealthy finally begi[n] to pay their fair share. Look, I’m a capitalist. If you want to make, you can make a million or millions of bucks, that’s great. Just pay your fair share in taxes.”

The top 1% of income earners paid 42.3% of U.S. income taxes in 2020, the most recent year available, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The top 10% paid 73.7% of income taxes. All told, the top half of income earners paid 97.7% of all taxes, while the bottom half paid 2.3%.

By contrast, a growing number of Americans paid no income tax. An estimated 57% of Americans paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2021, according to the Tax Policy Center.

By any just reckoning, the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share of income tax — and a good deal of our share, as well.

5. Biden Has Not Raised Federal Taxes on Anyone Making Less than $400,000?

“Under my plan nobody earning less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional penny in federal taxes,” Biden claimed. “Nobody. Not one penny. And they haven’t yet.”

If Joe Biden has not squeezed more money out of those making less than $400,000, it’s not for lack of trying. Biden and congressional Democrats have endorsed numerous proposals that would have extracted more of the federal budget from those beneath Biden’s alleged income threshold. Those proposals include:

  • Expanding the number of items that must be registered under the National Firearms Act, with a $200 fee for each item
  • Reinstating the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and $695-per-person penalty, which President Trump eliminated
  • Imposing a carbon and/or methane tax. One proposal would charge companies $1,800 per ton of methane they handle (not emit), with the cost rising 2% above inflation each year
  • Increasing corporate taxes, which pass on approximately one-third of increased costs to consumers by raising prices (and another third by reducing payroll costs/hours)
  • Hiking cigarette taxes, which fall disproportionately on the working class

The greatest way Biden has funded the federal budget at the expense of the middle class is through inflation. As Henry Hazlitt explained in his classic book “Economics In One Lesson”:

“Inflation is a form of taxation. It is perhaps the worst possible form, which usually bears hardest on those least able to pay. … It discourages all prudence and thrift. It encourages squandering, gambling, reckless waste of all kinds. It often makes it more profitable to speculate than to produce.”

Here is the previous collection of “14 Lies and Myths in Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: More Misleading White House Statistics on Unemployment

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Emerging Collusion’: Experts Warn of Expanding Warrantless Surveillance of Americans

A panel of experts, including famed author and psychologist Jordan Peterson, warned Congress on Thursday that potential collusion between federal law enforcement agencies and financial and other corporations could lead to unprecedented violations of the constitutional right of American citizens not to have private information handed over without proper warrants.

On Thursday, a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was held to examine how citizens’ private financial data is being surveilled by the federal government. In the wake of incidents like what happened in January when a government agency colluded with banks to uncover gun and religious book purchases of citizens without a warrant, experts are concerned that the U.S. could be headed in the direction of surveillance states such as China.

“If the emerging collusion between government and gigantic corporations continues in the manner it is continuing, there won’t be anything that you do that can’t be used against you and will be used against you in very short order,” Peterson warned. “We are in danger of eliminating the private sphere in its entirety. It’s already happening in places around the world, particularly China. … We have technologies at hand, and it appears both giant corporations and giant governments are utilizing it in every way that they can manage.”

Congressmen like Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) are also worried about how surveillance laws already in place can potentially be abused by the government for political reasons, as he shared on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Thursday.

“[The] Bank Secrecy Act is supposed to keep us safe,” he explained. “You use [it] to … catch terrorism, money laundering, illicit finance, tax evasion, things like that. So they do have sort of this loophole, though, because they implemented this in 1970, and it essentially circumvents the Fourth Amendment. … [I]f you remember back a couple of years ago, the Biden administration wanted to start surveilling your bank account for $600 of activity a year and share that directly with the IRS. I think what people are seeing now is they already surveil your accounts … with the rules they have in place. The question is, can they use it in court?”

Davidson, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, went on to observe how other laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and agencies like the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) were initially enshrined to protect Americans but are now being increasingly used to eavesdrop and spy on Americans without cause.

“[T]he Fourth Amendment’s there on purpose,” he emphasized. “And there’s a reason it’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — foreigners aren’t protected by our Constitution the way American citizens are. … [Y]ou’re supposed to have to get a warrant or a subpoena to go after an American.”

Davidson continued, “They can’t just do this blanket [search] like, ‘Well, I don’t know who was in Washington, D.C. on this day. Well, who was here? Who was here?’ And they build the case from that end. They’ll literally say, ‘We’re querying the database,’ which is a synonym for searching. But they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, that’s very different, because once we go to search, we get a search warrant.’ So they’ll query the database, and they build the database. How does the data even get into the database? They do it [in] multiple ways. … [T]he Financial Crimes [Enforcement] Network will direct the banks to, basically, ‘Here’s how you spy on your customers better for us. And if you don’t do a good job, the regulators will come in and shut your bank down.’”

The congressman further shed light on how the FBI surveilled private data without a warrant surrounding the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

“[T]he whistleblower came forward because he worked in the Boston FBI office, and he said, ‘Hey, what I saw is we were targeting people that happened to be in Washington, D.C. on January 5th, 6th, and 7th,’ and then they started building from there, like who had a financial transaction on this date,” Davidson described. “And if they had financial transactions on this date, what other things did they buy? Did they use transactions in certain stores? And they started highlighting red flags like, ‘Oh, you might have gone to Cabela’s or Bass Pro, you might have purchased anything related to a firearm. You might have purchased religious material, including the Bible.”

Davidson concluded by outlining what congressional actions need to happen in order to help restore Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.

“[W]e have to change the law fundamentally,” he stressed. “The Bank Secrecy Act is very flawed. … There’s court decisions related to that … [which could] effectively completely nullif[y] the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. … The Judiciary Committee, in a rare set of events, you had Jim Jordan [R-Ohio] and Jerry Nadler [D-N.Y.] agreeing that the government needs to get a warrant. … The intel community, on the other hand, is asking to expand the surveillance on Americans. They want to add Wi-Fi hotspots … to get at more expansive data, to add more things to the database. And those ideas deserve a debate, and they deserve a recorded vote. So we hope Speaker [Mike] Johnson will give us that vote very quickly.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICE: Viktor Orbán Warns: ‘The Hegemony of the West has Ended, A New World Order is Emerging’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

More Misleading White House Statistics on Unemployment

Critical Thinkers will not be fooled!

One of the most monitored U.S. statistic — and one frequently used for political gain — is the Unemployment Rate. It sounds simple enough (and actually should be) but when bureaucrats and politicians got their hands on it, it’s merely a shadow of itself.

Here is a Mainstream Media article on the most recent Employment Report (just released), plus the Whitehouse spin on it…

Believe it or not (as this superb article explains), there are now SIX different U.S. unemployment rates! Here are the latest (2023) government data for all six. The popularly referred to rates are 3.6% (U-3: unemployed) and 6.9% (U-6: out of work).

However, there is another large fly in the ointment: the unemployment rates (by-and-large) do not count illegal immigrants. When that number was low, it was ignored, as it was considered to be just statistical noise. Since 2020, that is no longer the case, as the current data says some six (6) million new illegal immigrants are in the US, just from the Southern border!

A reasonable estimate is that 4± million of these are people who would be normally considered as part of the labor pool. The approximate size of the US citizen labor pool is 165 million. So the 3.6% (U-3) means that 6± million US citizens are unemployed.

Let’s estimate that 1± million (out of the 4± million employable) of the new illegal aliens are gainfully employed. That leaves 3± million who would be considered unemployed. None of those are considered in the government statistics… Put another way, the U-3 statistic goes from 6 to 9 million (i.e., a 50% increase: 3.6%—> 5.4%). The U-6 statistic would likewise go from 6.9% to 8.7% (i.e., an increase of 1.8%)

The point here is that these immigration corrections are rather sizable, so if the government is claiming to be doing its best to keep citizens accurately informed, (e.g., about our economy) they should include this information in their calculations. Maybe I missed it, but I was unable to find that…

In this vein, I can’t resist plagiarizing this prior Abbott and Costello spoof:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: 
Good Subject. It’s 3.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? 
ABBOTT: 
No, that’s 6.9%.

COSTELLO: You just said 3.6%.
ABBOTT: 3.6% 
are unemployed. 

COSTELLO: Right, 3.6% out of work.
ABBOTT:
 No, that’s 6.9%. 

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 6.9% unemployed.
ABBOTT: 
No, that’s 3.6%. 

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 3.6% or 6.9%?
ABBOTT: 3.6% 
are unemployed. 6.9% are out of work. 

COSTELLO: But if you are out of work, you are unemployed. 
ABBOTT: 
No, Biden said you can’t count those “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to be looking for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: 
No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: 
Someone who isn’t actively looking for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: It wouldn’t be fair to whom? 
ABBOTT: 
The unemployed. 

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work. 
ABBOTT: 
No, the Unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are Out of Work gave up looking. If you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the Unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the Unemployment roles that would count as less Unemployment? 
ABBOTT: 
Yes, unemployment would go down.

COSTELLO: The unemployment rate goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: 
Obviously. That’s how the current administration gets it to 3.6%. Otherwise it would be 6.9%. Our government doesn’t want you to read about 6.9% unemployment.

COSTELLO: Why don’t they include illegal immigrants in the employment data?
ABBOTT: 
Because that would make unemployment rates much worse!

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection. 
ABBOTT: Duh!

COSTELLO: So that means there are three ways to bring down the unemployment number? 
ABBOTT: 
Yes.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct. 

COSTELLO: And unemployment goes down if citizens stop looking for a job? 
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: And unemployment also goes down if the government doesn’t fully include employment data about illegal immigrants? 
ABBOTT: You’re a genius. 

COSTELLO: So citizens who support the current administration can help bring unemployment down, by stopping to look for work. 
ABBOTT: 
Now you’re thinking like the Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!  ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like some of our current leaders!!!

PS — This relevant article just came out today: Doing statistics can be difficult but understanding them can be fairly simple

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

POST ON X:


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Of course, the best actress Oscar given to a movie that glorifies sociopaths, pedophiles and a mad scientist who is an abortionist

Poor Things is a 2023 film directed by Yorgos Lanthimos and written by Tony McNamara, based on the 1992 novel by Alasdair Gray. Poor Things is called a “black comedy” although I didn’t laugh, and “steampunk” which is defined as  a subgenre of science fiction that incorporates retro-futuristic technology and aesthetics.

In the case of Poor Things retro-futuristic technology is actually a pornographic film that includes abortion, pedophilia and an array of sociopaths, from a suicidal mother, the killing of an unborn child, horrible experiments of a mad scientist on multiple women, a sociopathic and murderous husband, a sociopathic lover and of course the film’s justification and normalization of wholesale, no pun intended, prostitution, writ large.

After watching the film “Poor Things” we expected that it would receive the Best Picture award at the 2024 Oscars. Keep reading to find out why.

We believe that this film should have been titled “Perverted Things” here are some, but not all, of the reasons why:

  1. The movie begins with a woman Bella Baxter, played by Emma Stone, jumping off a bridge. What the viewers don’t know until much later in the film is that Bella is pregnant and by jumping off of the London Bridge Bella is not only killing herself but also dooming her innocent unborn child to death. Remind anyone of Planned Parenthood?
  2. The movie includes Dr. Godwin Baxter a horribly disfigured mad scientist, played by William Dafoe, who finds the pregnant woman Bella who drowned and then proceeds to remove her brain and replace it with her living unborn child’s brain. He had to kill the baby to complete his experiment in organ transplanting.
  3. Dr. Godwin Baxter is insane and was abused and disfigured as a child by his father. He then became a physician who plays God by creating monsters via organ transplants. Dr. Baxter does not adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, which requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Instead Dr. Baxter creates horrible monsters, like Bella.
  4. The pedophile is Duncan Wedderburn, played by Mark Ruffalo, who by happen stance comes across the child-like Bella and begins to seduce and have sex with Bella multiple times during the film. You see Bella has the brain of her own baby and is mentally a child in the body of a woman. Sickness indeed!
  5. After Bella dumps Wedderburn, she becomes a prostitute. Multiple scenes in the film are pornographic to say the least. It’s even worse when you understand that emotionally Bella is a child.
  6. After here time in a French brothel, where Bella becomes among other things a lesbian, she finds her way back to her creator Dr. Baxter, who she calls “God.” There she becomes her own type of monster and carries on Baxter’s experiments with glee.
  7. In the end Bella becomes an enlightened sociopath that takes revenge on her abusive husband Max McCandless, played by Ramy Youssef, by at the end of the film replacing his brain with that of a sheep.

So, for those who laud this film and award this film I say to you that you are promoting the worst ideas, ideals, social afflictions and medical malpractices in the world.

Bravo for your degeneracy Hollywood. And as for the Oscar’s Board of Governors, well you all are most deserving of your future award — a special place in Hell.

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: “The Zone of Interest” Was a Bad Movie. No Wonder Jonathan Glazer is a Hamas Apologist.

RELATED VIDEO: Rabbi Michael Barclay Calls Out the Oscars For Their Blatant Jew-Hatred

Pro-Palestinian Groups Boast of Plans to Disrupt Oscars

“We are well aware of the protesters, we have a number of backup scenarios we can activate quickly if needed,” a senior security official said.

Several pro-Palestinian organizations are making concrete plans not only to demonstrate at Sunday evening’s Oscars ceremony but to actually sabotage the event.

Commander Randy Goddard of the Los Angeles Police Department told The New York Times that according to intelligence gathered from social media and other sources, some pro-Palestinian activist groups “would like to stop the Academy Awards.”

This is indicated by slogans chosen by the groups and social media posts.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, several groups are planning on blocking the entrances and exits to the event as well as the streets leading to the venue. They plan to carry signs and chant slogans such as “No awards during a genocide.”

Their justification for restricting access to attendees is to reflect “the blockade of Gaza and the occupation of Palestine.”

Groups posting about their intention to disrupt the Oscars include Writers Against the War on Gaza LA (WAWOG), Film Workers for Palestine, SAG-AFTRA Members for Ceasefire and many others.

The 96th Oscar Awards are scheduled for Sunday evening at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood.

Jewish Voice for Peace LA chapter plans to congregate at LA’s Cinerama Dome with signs that say “While you’re watching bombs are dropping.”

“Let’s mobilize and take to the streets to show that we refuse to look away from this ongoing genocide! Ceasefire NOW!” their statement said.

Film Workers for Palestine and SAG-AFTRA for Ceasefire, said in a statement, “We will not let people turn away from the atrocities in Gaza. We are taking action and making sure Palestine will NOT be ignored for some glitz and glam.”

EDITORS NOTE: This UNITED WITH ISRAEL column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SON OF HAMAS: Who Are These People?

Mosab Hassan Yousef, a.k.a. Son of Hamas, lists the characteristics of a certain people — can you guess who they are?

  1. They sacrifice their own children to ignite rage and hatred against their opponents.
  2. They don’t feel guilty for sacrificing their own children because the children are going to heaven as martyrs.
  3. They use the hospitals as terror hubs then they complain about the collapse of the health system.
  4. They use mosques for indoctrination and terror then they complain about religious freedoms.
  5. They initiate the war, and when they lose they say it was a massacre.
  6. They believe Killing, looting, raping, robbing, child molesting, and honor killing, are justified because of “resistance”.
  7. They believe the genocide of peaceful communities is because of “occupation” and “colonialism.”
  8. They are fighting for “their land”, but they have no proof of any ownership.
  9. They could have developed the land they have, but they prefer to conquer a land that has been already developed.
  10. They are certain that the grass on the other side is greener.
  11. They didn’t achieve anything because they were busy trying to steal their neighbor’s life achievement.
  12. If they don’t have their lamb stew dish while at war they have started, they call it famine and a human rights violation.
  13. They agree on evil then they complain about collective punishment. Their false accusations against their neighbors only reveal who they truly are.

Have I forgotten anything?

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Iron Swords” News Summary: March 11 – Morning

Pro-Palestinian Groups Boast of Plans to Disrupt Oscars

Infrastructure Used By Hamas On Oct. 7th Destroyed By IDF

RELATED VIDEO: IAF warplanes PULVARIZED a Hezbollah launcher

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael News Desk column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.