Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Social Media]]>

Reporter Drops Some Inconvenient Truths About Joe Biden After ‘Invitation-Only’ CNN Town Hall Is Announced

by Leave a Comment

On Monday it was announced that President Joe Biden would be appearing at a CNN town hall event with Anderson Cooper on Thursday, the second town hall he’s done with the longtime anchor in a year’s time, the first one being in September 2020.

Set to take place in Baltimore, CNN noted in their write-up on the news that the event would be “invitation-only” (which is media-speak for “highly scripted”):

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper will moderate the live broadcast event, which will air at 8 p.m. ET on CNN and last 90 minutes. A CNN spokesperson said an invitation-only audience will be present at the town hall and the network will follow all local and state Covid-19 guidance and regulations to ensure a safe event. The town hall’s location will be announced in the coming days.

And just to emphasize where the administration’s priorities are in the midst of the pandemic and economic crises, it was also reported that Vice President Kamala Harris, who was last seen in a cringe video that was set to air in 300 black churches in Virginia on behalf of embattled Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe, will be stumping for him in person on the same day Biden will appear on CNN.

Biden appearing on a Biden-friendly network for a town hall that will be moderated by a Biden-friendly media figure like Cooper again brought to the forefront the constant issues the mainstream media have had with getting him to do solo formal press conferences and sit-down interviews with national media outlets, a problem Politico White House reporter Alex Thompson tweeted about in a short thread yesterday listing some inconvenient truths about the POTUS:

He also referenced the fact that Biden has done zero sit-down interviews with Politico.

Thompson then brought up an August tweet from former CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who is viewed in media circles as the king of presidential stats, where Knoller tallied up Biden’s interview schedule at that point in his presidency in comparison to former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama. The numbers were, of course, awful:

Thompson admitted that him pointing all this out was, “a bit self-serving, obviously,” but nevertheless went on to state that Biden emphasizing how much he wanted to “sell his agenda” to the country was at odds with the fact that he has maybe made it “harder to do that only through staged events.”

“He’s just not doing many interviews, even w/ reporters or other non-DC outlets,” Thompson concluded, before sharing a screengrab of a “like” from Biden White House rapid response director Mike Gwin, who was clearly monitoring what Thompson had to say.

To add my .02 to all this, it’s not just that Biden rarely does a sit-down interview, but when he does sit down with a media outlet it’s usually one known to be obscenely friendly with him, which CNN and ABC News obviously are. Not only that, but when he schedules a “press conference,” it’s a “press conference” in name only because he almost never takes questions at them.

Last I checked, public figures usually took questions when they invited the press to appear at an event, which also brings up the issue about how Biden rarely engages in back and forths with reporters even when he’s passing by them on the White House lawn – something that press secretary Jen Psaki admitted in May was an actual strategy recommended to him by the comms staff.

As evidence of this strategy, take a look at this clip of him from last week, which I wrote about Monday. In it, Biden is seen looking disengaged and just staring blankly at reporters as they yell out questions to him on some of the pressing issues of the day. Outside of a brief wave, he simply ignores them and continues walking away from them in a robotic fashion before preparing to board Marine One:

I’m so old I remember when the press routinely whined about Trump’s contentious relationship with them. Trump despised the media for very good reasons, but even at that engaging with them was like catnip to him, and he did so frequently, as Knoller’s stats prove. He clearly enjoyed the sparring and the chance to try to set the record straight if need be. This mindset was also reflected in his press secretaries like Kayleigh McEnany and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

For Biden, on the other hand, the talk last year of how his administration was going to “restore” the “respectful” relationship between the White House and the press ended up being eerily prescient, but not in the way they were suggesting. What those of us familiar with the cozy relationship that has long existed between Democrats and members of the media knew at the time is that what it really meant was that things would get back to business as usual, with the press by and large doing the bidding of the Democrat and eagerly accepting the scattered scraps of time that were thrown to them for questions, the exact opposite of the combative, hostile, and constantly-accusatory manner in which they have typically treated Republicans.

But while more and more reporters are raising the troubling issue of Biden’s notorious lack of availability with the media, it is still for the most part very much a friendly environment for Democrats as far as the press goes in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to ever change, but fortunately, there are plenty of us around on standby ready to call them out for it loudly and often whenever it happens.

Related: We May Need Joe Biden’s Handlers to Decipher What He Just Said About Gretchen Whitmer

Glenn Greenwald Reveals 'Real' Purpose of Jan. 6 Committee

by Leave a Comment

More than ten months after the Jan. 6 breach (oops, “insurrection”) of the U.S. Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Trump Derangement Syndrome-driven January 6 Committee continues its “investigation” (show trial) in a never-ending attempt to do as much damage to Donald Trump and Trump supporters as her delusional self can do before finally riding off into the San Francisco sunset — God knows when.

Or is damaging Trump really Pelosi’s main goal?

Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald thinks not.

In a Substack column dropped on Sunday, Greenwald argues that the real objective of the radically changed Democrat Party is to exploit the so-called “insurrection” as an excuse to further “trample” on the civil rights of America and its citizens. The Jan. 6 committee, wrote Greenwald, “may be the worst abuse yet.” In the opening paragraph, Greenwald sets the stage —as eloquently and forthright as we’ve come to expect from one of the best investigative journalists on the planet. (Emphasis, mine.)

When a population is placed in a state of sufficiently grave fear and anger regarding a perceived threat, concerns about the constitutionality, legality, and morality of measures adopted in the name of punishing the enemy typically disappear.

The first priority, indeed the sole priority, is to crush the threat. Questions about the legality of actions ostensibly undertaken against the guilty parties are brushed aside as trivial annoyances at best, or, worse, castigated as efforts to sympathize with and protect those responsible for the danger.

When a population is subsumed with pulsating fear and rage, there is little patience for seemingly abstract quibbles about legality or ethics. The craving for punishment, for vengeance, for protection, is visceral and thus easily drowns out cerebral or rational impediments to satiating those primal impulses.

Enter: Nancy Pelosi and her show trial.

The events of Jan. 6 could not have delivered a more perfect opportunity to Pelosi and her party. Here were Trump supporters, waving Trump flags, wearing Trump gear, “angrily” marching on the Capitol of the United States.  The photos and videos could not have been better for exploitation — and nobody in D.C. hates Donald Trump more than Nancy Pelosi. Perfect foil. Perfect storm. Let the trampling begin.

“The aftermath of the 9/11 attack provided a vivid illustration,” wrote Greenwald. The perfect comparison.

Everything should be done to crush the terrorists who — directly or indirectly were responsible for [the] traumatic attack.

The few dissenters who attempted to raise doubts about the legality or morality of proposed responses were easily dismissed and marginalized, when not ignored entirely.

Typically, they were vilified with the accusation that their constitutional and legal objections were frauds: mere pretexts to conceal their sympathy and even support for the terrorists.

It took at least a year or two after that attack for there to be any space for questions about the legality, constitutionality, and morality of the U.S. response to 9/11 to be entertained at all.

Greenwald then pointed to the obvious, which we began to see and hear on CNN and MSNBC — and from Democrat lawmakers — even as the Jan. 6 “riot” was in progress, and we have heard, ever since:

For many liberals and Democrats in the U.S., 1/6 is the equivalent of 9/11. One need not speculate about that. Many have said this explicitly. Some prominent Democrats in politics and media have even insisted that 1/6 was worse than 9/11.

And the hapless new president-to-be?

Biden’s speechwriters, when preparing his script for his April address to the Joint Session of Congress, noted Greenwald, laughingly called the three-hour riot “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” Democrat hyperbole. Don’t you love it? The histrionics and all?

And let’s not forget Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney [rolling-eyes emoji] — nor did Greenwald:

Liberal icon Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), whose father’s legacy was cemented by years of casting 9/11 as the most barbaric attack ever seen, now serves as Vice Chair of the 1/6 Committee; in that role, she proclaimed that the forces behind 1/6 represent “a threat America has never seen before.”

The enabling resolution that created the Select Committee calls 1/6 “one of the darkest days of our democracy.” USA Today’s editor David Mastio published an op-ed whose sole point was a defense of the hysterical thesis from MSNBC analysts that 1/6 is at least as bad as 9/11 if not worse. 

S.V. Date, the White House correspondent for America’s most nakedly partisan “news” outlet, The Huffington Post, published a series of tweets arguing that 1/6 was worse than 9/11 and that those behind it are more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda ever were.

This exchange with The Washington Examiner’s Byron York illustrates the insanity of Dáte and “journalists” like him.

There you have it. Donald Trump and his “terrorists” were far worse than Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Greenwald continues, making several more comparisons between the aftermath of 9/11 and Jan. 6 — in the minds of today’s radicalized Democrat Party — before concluding with several examples of the subsequent trampling of civil rights.

Excerpts:

Almost immediately after the Capitol riot, some of the most influential Democratic lawmakers — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS), who also now chairs the Select 1/6 Committee — demanded that any participants in the protest be placed on the no-fly list, long regarded as one of the most extreme civil liberties assaults from the first War on Terror.

And at least some of the 1/6 protesters have been placed on that list: American citizens, convicted of no crime, prohibited from boarding commercial airplanes based on a vague and unproven assessment, from unseen and unaccountable security state bureaucrats, that they are too dangerous to fly.

I reported extensively on the horrors and abuses of the no-fly list as part of the first War on Terror and do not recall a single liberal speaking in defense of that tactic. Yet now that this same brute instrument is being used against Trump supporters, there has not, to my knowledge, been a single prominent liberal raising objections to the resurrection of the no-fly list for American citizens who have been convicted of no crime.

Yet, “half” of Americans believe “the big lie” of Jan. 6. Why? Because they want to. 

In a 2017 article titled Why We Believe Alternative Facts, the American Psychological Association argued that “the natural tendency to cherry-pick and twist the facts to fit with our existing beliefs is known as motivated reasoning — and we all do it.” (Operative word being “all.”)

“Motivated reasoning is a pervasive tendency of human cognition,” says Peter Ditto, PhD, a social psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, who studies how motivation, emotion and intuition influence judgment.

“People are capable of being thoughtful and rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears and motivations often tip the scales to make us more likely to accept something as true if it supports what we want to believe.”

Incidentally, the above doesn’t apply to us, of course. Just the other guys.

Instagram Censors Evolutionary Biologist for Saying What Everyone Knows About Transgenders in Sports

by Leave a Comment

It is perfectly fine if leftists wish to live in a fantasy world. But it is not okay for them to try to force everyone else to live in said fantasy world.

Instagram recently censored a post from Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist. His crime? Posting about a study showing that biological men were more proficient than biological women in most sports.

The study, which is titled “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage” was published in Medicine & Sports in Sports & Exercise, a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

The Daily Mail reported:

Colin Wright, who has been published in the Wall Street Journal and was in academia for 12 years, posted a chart from the study – conducted by researchers at University of Manchester and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm –  showing that biological males have a performance advantage over biological females across many Olympics-contested sports.

The study was published shortly before the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, which had the most transgender athletes ever competing in the games. It revealed that even after three years of hormone therapy, transgender women still have significant advantages over biological women. This prevents women’s sports from having a level playing field.

The British Journal of Sports Medicine also published the findings of a study that produced similar results. The Daily Mail noted:

Both studies found that the reductions to strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density through the use of typical testosterone suppression regimes shows a minimal difference compared to the average difference between biological men and women, leaving them with a performance advantage.

Wright’s views on gender and sex are controversial, but he told the Daily Mail that he is “extremely careful” to refrain from posting anything that is “mean-spirited.” Nevertheless, the left has labeled him as transphobic. These people are nothing if not predictable.

The biologist on Twitter criticized Instagram for censoring him, accusing the company of lying when it says “you can ask us to review our decision if you think we made a mistake.”

According to Instagram’s guidelines, it will “remove content that contains credible threats or hate speech.” However, there was no hateful language in Wright’s post.

The study Wright posted reveals only what we all know: Men and women are different. Men are physically stronger than women. Pretending this isn’t the case is absurd. Yet, the hard left would have us participate in the fantasy that men can actually become just like biological women. Censoring this type of content is one of the ways in which so-called progressives attempt to force their fantasy world on the rest of the nation.

For them, it is not enough for people to accept that some individuals believe they are the opposite sex. We have to participate fully in the illusion, lest we be labeled as ‘phobic.’ They understand they will not be able to persuade most people to buy into their charades, so they use censorship and other means to render us compliant. It is yet another reason why these people should not be allowed to have more power.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Spent Nearly Half a Billion With Hard-Left Organizations to Help Democrats In 2020

by Leave a Comment

Mark Zuckerberg is a hard-left ideologue and the kind of spending he did during the 2020 election, and how he spent it on, shows this to be the case.

According to the New York Post, Facebook’s CEO dropped nearly half a billion dollars that infused ideologically hard-left non-partisan organizations with so much money that it actually increased Joe Biden’s chances of winning by thousands of votes in key swing states:

During the 2020 election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to turn out likely Democratic voters. But this wasn’t traditional political spending. He funded a targeted, private takeover of government election operations by nominally nonpartisan — but demonstrably ideological — nonprofit organizations.

Analysis conducted by our team demonstrates this money significantly increased Joe Biden’s vote margin in key swing states. In places like Georgia, where Biden won by 12,000 votes, and Arizona, where he won by 10,000, the spending likely put him over the top.

This unprecedented merger of public election offices with private resources and personnel is an acute threat to our republic and should be the focus of electoral reform efforts moving forward.

As the post’s author, principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute William Doyle notes, the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, it was “likely bought by one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men pouring his money through legal loopholes.”

The organization Zuckerberg poured his money into was The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). The big tech CEO dropped $419.5 million between these two groups, who then turned around distributed the money into the local government elections offices. Each donation came with very specific instructions from CTCL and CEIR. The focus of these actions being “the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists” who then use these offices to implement practices and voting methods preferable to Democrats.

As the Post notes, the demands from the CTCL include universal mail-in voting through suspended election laws and extending deadlines for mail-in voting over in-person voting, the proliferation of unmonitored drop boxes, and more paid Democratic Party activists as poll workers. This money was spread throughout the country, targeting primarily battleground states:

Of the 25 grants CTCL provided to cities and counties in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia that were $1 million or larger, 23 went to areas Biden won in 2020. One of the two counties won by Donald Trump, Brown County, Wisconsin, received about $1.1 million — less than 1.2 percent of the $87.5 million that CTCL provided to these top 25 recipients.

But even in Brown County, Wisconsin, where heavily Democrat Green Bay is located, the funding disparities are glaring. The Wisconsin legislature provided roughly $7 per voter to the city of Green Bay to manage its 2020 elections. Rural counties in Wisconsin received approximately $4 per voter.

The CTCL funds boosted Democratic-voting Green Bay resources to $47 per voter, while most rural areas still had the same $4 per voter. Similar funding disparities occurred near Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Flint, Mich., Dallas, Houston and other cities that received tens of millions of dollars of CTCL money.

The Post’s analysis shows that this infusion of cash and hard-left organizing is what put Biden over the edge in electoral votes and is currently creating a graph to show what the electoral map would have looked like without the interference of CTCL, CEIR, and Mark Zuckerberg.

This is a staggering amount of money, and the Post gives some perspective about how much was spent by comparing it to the $479.5 million in federal and state matching funds for COVID-related election expenses in 2020.

This story proves that activist organizations are just as dangerous as the media when it comes to influencing elections, but the source of their funding comes from none other than social media’s most successful tech overlord, Mark Zuckerberg. This dollar amount proves that the bias that infects Silicon Valley is more than just to the left, it’s to the extreme left.

It's Not Just Trump: Big Tech Censors GOP Lawmakers Over Democrats by Astonishing Rate

by Leave a Comment

On this episode of “Try to Control Your Shock and Amazement”…

Big Tech’s censorship, restriction, and finally a “lifetime” ban of President Donald Trump was an unprecedented step into censorship infamy — on par with the heady days of TASS and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. But it wasn’t just Trump, according to a new Media Research Center study.

Turns out, as reported by NewsBusters, social media giants have overwhelmingly censored Republican members of Congress by a rate of 54-to-1, compared to congressional Democrats. Shocked? Me, neither.

Here’s more, via NewsBusters:

That censorship was aimed at Republicans in both the House and Senate and was especially prevalent in stories about COVID-19 or the 2020 election. Twitter just underscored that point when it censored Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) for a tweet about natural immunity and vaccine mandates.

These results were based on analysis by the MRC’s CensorTrack.org database team of the last two congressional delegations.

YouTube deleted content posted by both Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rand Paul (R-KY), and suspended both their accounts.

The video site also used COVID-19 as its excuse for the restrictions.

In addition, the Federalist reported on Monday that Sen. Johnson’s YouTube account was suspended for a week, and the video — a speech Johnson gave about “bureaucrats in the Trump and Biden administrations […] ‘not only ignoring but working against robust research [on] the use of cheap, generic drugs to be repurposed for early treatment of COVID’” — was deleted.

Johnson was right. As has been the case with angry parents in droves showing up at school board meetings to protest the racist indoctrination of so-called “Critical Race Theory,” it is past time for every concerned American to actively fight against censorship of conservative content.

Johnson noted that he held two hearings on early treatment for COVID-19. He said one of the people testifying at one of the hearings talked about “the four pillars of pandemic response,” those being [the] prevention of the spread of the virus, early treatment, treatment in the hospital, and vaccines.

Johnson said in the now-deleted video:

“It always baffled me that there was such a concerted effort to deny the American public the type of robust exploration research into early treatment early in this pandemic. Both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin [are] incredibly safe drugs.”

The Federalist noted that both drugs have been on the market for decades and are recommended for various uses, such as Lupus and scabies, but also that the National Institutes of Health recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 after a study showed it did no harm but did not provide benefit. NIH is currently neutral on the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, a shift from a previous recommendation against its use.

So, why was Johnson’s YouTube video deleted? Because it goes against Biden and the liberal media’s vaccination narrative.

In Rand Paul’s case, the Kentucky senator posted a video of an interview he did with Newsmax where he criticized the contradictions pushed by the Keebler Elf —  the Democrat Party’s COVID mascot. chief medical advisor to the president, Dr. Anthony Fauci. YouTube took it down, noted Newsbusters. Paul then created a response video, which YouTube not only took down — it suspended his account for seven days.

Did I mention Google owns YouTube?

And, incidentally, as I reported last weekend in Noted Climatologist Sundar Pichai’s Google to ‘Crack Down’ on ‘False Climate Change Claims’:

Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Alphabet Inc. and its subsidiary Google, is again using his playground to “crack down” on digital ads promoting “false climate change claims” — particularly accounts being used to make money from “such content,” hoping to limit revenue for climate “change deniers” and stop “the spread of misinformation on its platforms.”

Nice. Sundar Pichai, Google, and YouTube are equal-opportunity censors of conservative content.

The list of blatant examples of hypocrisy goes on, as noted by NewsBusters:

Facebook and Twitter used their censorship mechanisms at least 30 separate times against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), including five Twitter suspensions and the flagging of at least 24 tweets with some type of warning label.

Only one Democrat member from the last two U.S. congressional delegations was censored. Facebook briefly removed a post by Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) about the transgender flag outside her office. “Facebook took down our video of me putting up the Transgender flag outside my office and labeled it ‘hate speech,’” she tweeted.

That didn’t last long. Facebook communications director Andy Stone, who had a long career as a Democratic Party spokesman, quickly apologized. He tweeted in response: “Congresswoman, this plainly should not have happened. We’ve restored this content and you have our sincere apologies.”

Author, lawyer and candidate for U.S. Senate J.D. Vance (R) was just one example. He became a household name among conservatives after his book Hillbilly Elegy sold millions of copies. Vance experienced Big Tech’s wrath firsthand when Twitter suspended his campaign’s press account:

“No warning. No explanation of what rules I allegedly broke. But this is what happens when we allow five companies to control what we’re allowed to say,” [Vance] tweeted.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC, CNN, MSNBC, et al. continue to lie their “forget” to tell the truth on a regular basis — and I’ll be damned if Sundar Pichai, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg don’t miss those “forgetful moments” every time.