This is fantastic news that will hopefully turn into a treatment for people with spinal cord injuries and other nerve injuries.

A self-assembling gel injected at the site of spinal cord injuries in paralysed mice has enabled them to walk again after four weeks.

The gel mimics the matrix that is normally found around cells, providing a scaffold that helps cells to grow. It also provides signals that stimulate nerve regeneration.

Samuel Stupp at Northwestern University in Chicago and his colleagues created a material made of protein units, called monomers, that self-assemble into long chains, called supramolecular fibrils, in water.

When they were injected into the spinal cords of mice that were paralysed in the hind legs, these fibrils formed a gel at the injury site.

The researchers injected 76 paralysed mice with either the fibrils or a sham treatment made of salt solution, a day after the initial injury. They found that the gel enabled paralysed mice to walk by four weeks after the injection, whereas mice given the placebo didn't regain the ability to walk.

The team found that the gel helped regenerate the severed ends of neurons and reduced the amount of scar tissue at the injury site, which usually forms a barrier to regeneration. The gel also enhanced blood vessel growth, which provided more nutrients to the spinal cord cells.


Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? "Because that's where the money is."

Why does the government want to tax your IRA and ROTH retirement savings? Because that's where the money is.

When the income tax first went into effect in 1915, the top rate was a mere 7% and fell only on those making $500,000 a year or more -- that's $13.5 million in today's dollars. The vast majority of Americans paid the lowest 1% rate.

Today, the federal income tax ranges from 10%-37% and that's on top of all the FICA withholding. Today's top rate -- more than five times higher than it was in 1915 -- falls on those making about $500,000.

Which means top rate-payers are paying 5.5 more income tax on about one-thirtieth of the income.

The lowest rate-payers are paying 10 times more on about the same fraction -- and that still doesn't count FICA deductions, which hit the poorest the hardest.

The income tax was sold by early 20th Century progressives as a way to sock it to the rich, but progressives made sure it become a way to sock it to everybody.

You can bet your bottom dollar -- if Congress doesn't confiscate that, too -- that today's "Billionaire Income Tax" is tomorrow's "Tax Your Middle Class Retirement Accounts Before You Even Retire."

Our government is too big, too unaccountable, too incompetent, and entirely dedicated to growing its own power. Anything that can't go on forever, won't.


I recently wrote that Facebook should be regulated like a utility, but maybe social media is more like an addictive, harmful drug than a utility. The companies that push social media on us are like drug dealers. Given my libertarian sympathies, adults should generally be free to use the drugs they want, but society should regulate promotion and distribution of the substance and protect children from being preyed upon by the dealers.

The real problem with Facebook's behavior is the revelation of its rampant institutional lying. In the XCheck story, we learned that after Facebook spent more than $130 million to create an Independent Oversight Board to oversee its content-moderation decisions, Facebook executives routinely lied to that board. Facebook told the Oversight Board that XCheck was only used in "a small number of decisions," even though the program had grown to include 5.8 million users in 2020.

"We're not actually doing what we say we do publicly," and the company's actions constitute a "breach of trust," reads a confidential internal review done by Facebook.
We also learned -- shockingly -- that the CEO and COO of the trillion-dollar behemoth are regularly involved in decisions of what posts to remove when such posts are made by certain people who are exempted from Facebook's community guidelines and content-moderation procedures. This is all while Facebook asserted that it applied the same standards to everyone.

Apparently, XCheck was created to mitigate "p.r. fires" or negative media attentions when Facebook takes the wrong action against a high-profile VIP. Even worse than the existence of the XCheck program was Facebook's dishonesty about it, reflecting the state of mind of a company that knew it was doing something wrong -- and still did it anyway.

These revelations strengthen the case that Facebook likely serves increasingly as the censorship arm of the US government, just as it does for other governments around the world.

That last sentence gets to the heart of the matter, and explains why collective action against social media dealers has been so slow: the elite class wants to control our speech, and is happy to use social media dealers to do it.

Facebook is soma.

What is soma in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? In the context of the novel, soma is a recreational drug that several of the main characters take throughout the story. The government in Brave New World strongly encourages individuals to take soma as a way to increase the happiness and complacency of the population. Soma can be taken as a pill or as a powder and can also be released as an aerosol. It is freely available to everyone in the novel. Its inclusion in the text is central to the novel's themes of complacency and resistance in society as well as the theme of escapism.


This is extremely disturbing. Two days ago Bob Woodward claimed in his new book that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pledged to warn China in advance if then-President Trump ordered any attacks on Chinese interests. Many people found this claim difficult to believe, including myself.

This report claims Milley pledged to alert his CCP counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, quoting Milley as saying: "General Li, you & I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise."

"In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the PLA, that the U.S. would not strike, according to a new book by Bob Woodward & Robert Costa."

Yesterday Milley issued a statement that doesn't deny the substance of the allegation.

NEW statement from Milley spokesman Col. Dave Butler:

"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia..."

"...These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict..."

"...His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability..."

"...All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency..."

"...Also in keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues..."

"...The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject..."

"...General Milley continues to act and advise within his authority in the lawful tradition of civilian control of the military and his oath to the Constitution."

Nowhere in his statement does Milley deny bypassing the elected civilian leadership of the country to offer assurances to China.

Update:

Fox News reports that Milley's calls were coordinated with the Trump's Secretary of Defense.

But Fox News spoke with multiple individuals who were in the room during the two phone calls Milley had with Li. The calls, in October, were coordinated with then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper's office.

"They were not secret," a U.S. official told Fox News about the calls, which took place over video teleconference.

Fox News has learned there were about 15 people present for the calls. Sources told Fox News that there were multiple notetakers present, and said the calls were both conducted with full knowledge of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller - something Miller denied.

But Miller says:

Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon from the period after the 2020 election through Inauguration Day, said that he "did not and would not ever authorize" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to have "secret" calls with his Chinese counterpart, describing the allegations as a "disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination," and calling on him to resign "immediately."

I think we need to hear from Mark Esper.


It's hard to know where to start with this. Internal Facebook documents confirm that the company "whitelists" powerful establishment people and permits them to post anything on the platform without censorship, while "normal" users are monitored, censored, and punished for "unacceptable" speech. This is possibly the most unAmerican business practice I can think of. Special speech rights for powerful, famous, rich people, and limited speech rights for everyone else. Disgusting and shameful.

The program, known as "cross check" or "XCheck," was initially intended as a quality-control measure for actions taken against high-profile accounts, including celebrities, politicians and journalists. Today, it shields millions of VIP users from the company's normal enforcement process, the documents show. Some users are "whitelisted"--rendered immune from enforcement actions--while others are allowed to post rule-violating material pending Facebook employee reviews that often never come. [...]

For ordinary users, Facebook dispenses a kind of rough justice in assessing whether posts meet the company's rules against bullying, sexual content, hate speech and incitement to violence. Sometimes the company's automated systems summarily delete or bury content suspected of rule violations without a human review. At other times, material flagged by those systems or by users is assessed by content moderators employed by outside companies.

Regardless of its profitability, Facebook is a national disgrace.

The company agonizes to an absurd degree over how its services are used and by whom -- an agony that telephone, electric, water, and trash-collection companies seem to manage just fine without.

Facebook's stated ambition has long been to connect people. As it expanded over the past 17 years, from Harvard undergraduates to billions of global users, it struggled with the messy reality of bringing together disparate voices with different motivations--from people wishing each other happy birthday to Mexican drug cartels conducting business on the platform. Those problems increasingly consume the company.

Time and again, the documents show, in the U.S. and overseas, Facebook's own researchers have identified the platform's ill effects, in areas including teen mental health, political discourse and human trafficking. Time and again, despite congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn't fix them.

Obviously all good people are united against drug cartels, teen depression and anxiety, and human trafficking -- but Facebook is no more an enabler of these ills than are the electric or telephone companies. In their absurd compulsion to lock out bad users, Facebook is shamefully restricting the free speech rights of all people everywhere in the world.

Human civilization needs to change how we see social media and internet communication more broadly -- it's a utility that should be required to serve all comers. We shouldn't burden these services with the moral responsibility to discriminate between good and evil, and the services shouldn't take that responsibility on themselves. Leave that burden to the People and their elected representatives, as protected by the Constitution and our God-given rights and dignity.


The Intercept reports that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, led by Anthony Fauci, funded gain-of-function research carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, the likely source of COVID-19.

The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: "Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled."

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said the documents show that EcoHealth Alliance has reason to take the lab-leak theory seriously. "In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten -- and they kept records of everyone who got bitten," Chan said. "Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?"

In July Senator Rand Paul asked Fauci about US-funded gain-of-function research and Fauci denied that the research in question qualifies as "gain-of-function".

FAUCI: "Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you're referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. What was -- "

PAUL: "So you -- "

FAUCI: "Let me finish!"

PAUL: "So you take an animal virus and you increase the transmissibility to humans, you're saying that's not gain of function?"

FAUCI: "Yeah, that is correct. And Senator Paul, you do not know what you're talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about. Okay, you get one person -- "

PAUL: "The NIH -- "

FAUCI: "Can I answer?"

PAUL: "This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among mammals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function -- "

FAUCI: "It is not."

PAUL: "It's a dance and you're dancing around this, because you're trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic."

So Fauci thinks he can parse the terminology in a way that excludes the work he funded from being "gain-of-function", regardless of the plainest, most obvious reading of the definition. Fauci says that Paul isn't qualified to interpret what he has read and heard.

But experienced researchers say that the work described in these newly released grant applications is definitely "gain-of-function", even by the most hair-splitting definition. Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright writes:

The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present.

(This had been evident previously from published research papers that credited the 2014 grant and from the publicly available summary of the 2019 grant. But this now can be stated definitively from progress reports of the 2014 grant and the full proposal of the 2017 grant.)

The materials confirm the grants supported the construction--in Wuhan--of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells.

It's not surprising that few people seem very interested in positively identifying the source of COVID-19. Our experts seem to have a conflict-of-interest.


How can this possibly be true?

The American Chargé d'Affaires Ross Wilson (formerly Ambassador, but hey, we don't have an embassy in Afghanistan anymore) says that Americans are not being denied entry to HKIA.

We pray for peace and safety in Afghanistan, and that everyone who wants to leave is able to.


America's incompetent abandonment of Afghanistan and the instant collapse of the government we built, supported, and funded for 20 years is a humiliating failure for our ruling class. The disaster that unfolded over the past month belongs to President Biden, but the foundation was laid by our "smart" political, military, and intelligence leaders over the past two decades.

Every four years, a Democratic presidential candidate pops up and reminds us that he -- or, one cycle, she -- represents the smart party when it comes to foreign policy. These Democrats boast that they're not isolationist, like Donald Trump, and they're not unilateralist cowboys, like George W. Bush. They, and their top advisers, assure us that they are right, tough, smart, nuanced, and sophisticated. And every four years, the U.S. foreign-policy establishment -- think-tank wonks, retired diplomats, columnists and authors, certain retired generals -- almost uniformly swoons at these Democratic presidential candidates' keen grasp of a complicated and dangerous world.

And these top Democrats are not shy about telling us how they understand the world better than anyone else does. ...

In the worldview of the Democratic foreign-policy cognoscenti, Americans should expect foreign-policy crises during Republican presidencies, because GOP presidents and their foreign-policy teams are either crazed warmongers or ignorant, selfish isolationists, or some combination of the two. They just don't understand the world as well as the self-identified "smart" Democratic foreign-policy thinkers.

But something odd happens whenever the self-identified "smart" Democratic foreign-policy thinkers come to power. Somehow, randomly -- through no fault of their own, they insist -- disaster strikes.

Jim Geraghty lists numerous examples for your edification.

Mark Steyn takes a wider-angle view that highlights the utter incompetence of American leadership.

To modify Hillary Clinton, what difference at this point would it make if the US government simply laid off its entire "intelligence community"?

Indeed, what difference would it make if it closed down its military? Obviously, it would present a few mid-life challenges for its corrupt Pentagon bureaucracy, since that many generals on the market for defense lobbyist gigs and board directorships all at once would likely depress the going rate. But, other than that, a military that accounts for 40 per cent of the planet's military spending can't perform either of the functions for which one has an army: it can't defeat overseas enemies, and it's not permitted to defend the country, as we see on the Rio Grande.

So what's the point? ...

One of the depressing aspects of the Swamp is that everything becomes a racket - including even your armed forces. Look at that buffoon at top right, the guy who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Thoroughly Modern Milley: that's an awful lot of chest ribbonry for a nation that hasn't won a war in three-quarters of a century. During his recent wokier-than-thou Congressional testimony on "white rage", I wish someone would have asked Thoroughly Modern what they were all for[.] ...

I'm in favor of razing the Pentagon and salting the earth - or, at the very least, firing Milley and the massed ranks of "parade generals" (a useful Commonwealth term) and moving the few guys left to a new HQ in a strip-mall on the edge of Cleveland. The bigger your armed forces get, the more they become a racket - as the US-created "Afghan National Army" "300,000-strong" (and now down to, oh, twenty-seven maybe) has just conveniently demonstrated. As for where all the money wound up, the Taliban's tour of American "ally" and former Afghan vice-president "Marshal" Dostum's palatial spread provides a clue.

dostum palace.jpg

Yeah, those golden thrones were bought with American blood and taxes. Needless to say, Dostum and his forces surrendered to the Taliban without a shot fired.

President Biden argued there was no point in America spending more time in Afghanistan. Biden is correct about many things, but was incompetent in his execution. He said:

So what's happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.

If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.

American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong -- incredibly well equipped -- a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies.

We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force -- something the Taliban doesn't have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support.

We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.

There's some very brave and capable Afghan special forces units and soldiers, but if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that 1 year -- 1 more year, 5 more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would've made any difference.

The problem here is that none of these events was inevitable. Afghanistan could have turned out differently if our political, military, and intelligence leaders had been competent over the past two decades. What's more, the withdrawal itself could have gone differently if President Biden had been competent over the past seven months. We didn't have to close Bagram Air Base and make ourselves dependent on Kabul's commercial airport. We didn't have to delude ourselves that the Afghans would fight when they wouldn't. We could have projected the Taliban taking Kabul in 90 hours rather than 90 days. These were all bad decisions that weren't inevitable; they were the result of incompetence.

We pray for peace, safety, and security in Afghanistan. We pray that Afghan women and girls will be protected. We pray that refugees will be provided for. We pray that Americans and our allies who are trapped in the country will be evacuated safely. We pray that evil will be restrained. We pray that American and global leaders will have wisdom and courage to protect the powerless.


Many conservatives are upset by President Obama's 60th birthday party, even calling it the "height of elite hypocrisy".

Here was our climate czar, John Kerry, flying in private. His mode of travel was preferred by a host of left-leaning eco-warrior celebs, all Obama's "close friends," of course, descending on an already understaffed and emotionally depleted Vineyard.

"His birthday party is insane," one of Obama's caterers told The Post last week. "What is he thinking?" ...

"This outdoor event was planned months ago in accordance with all public health guidelines and with COVID safeguards in place," Obama spokesperson Hannah Hankins told the press last week. "Due to the new spread of the delta variant over the past week, the President and Mrs. Obama have decided to significantly scale back the event to include only family and close friends."

That, we now know, was a lie.

The Obamas hosted hundreds of guests, all free to go unmasked, while their 200 servers were reportedly forced to mask up. The tiny island's residents, meanwhile, endured "a s--t-show" of traffic and sudden road closures enforced by the Secret Service.

Is there a more disgusting display of elitist "Rules for thee, not for me" than this?

As is said, hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue. Obama and his guests were simply acting on what they and I believe: we should all be free to make our own choices about risk, whether that's pandemic risk or climate risk.

I, for one, am grateful to Obama for setting this example of individual liberty and responsibility.


"A fourth law enforcement officer who responded to the Capitol on Jan. 6 has died by suicide" according to The Hill.

According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention the annual suicide rate in America is 13.93 per 100,000. The Metropolitan Police Department has "over 4,000 sworn and civilian members". So, doing some rough math, since January 6th the MPD has had an annualized suicide rate of over 170 per 100,000 -- over 12 times the national average.

According to the AFSP, men have a suicide rate of 3.63 times the rate of women, and all four MPD suicides were by men. All else being equal, and assuming that MPD is all-male (certainly not true) we'd expect approximately 0.25 suicides over the past seven months, not four.

We pray for the health and safety of our law enforcement personnel and all our leaders in government.

(HT: Vodkapundit.)


San Francisco has a lot of open office space. The COVID reckoning hasn't begun in earnest yet.

As we outlined yesterday, there is over 17 million square feet of vacant office space now spread across San Francisco, which is up from around 16 million square feet of vacant space three months ago and as compared to under 5 million square feet of vacant space at the start of last year.

For context, the 1,070-foot-tall Salesforce/Transbay tower at First and Mission, which is the tallest building in San Francisco, contains 1.35 million square feet of office space spread across 59 floors.

Salesforce-Tower-Equivalency-17M-Square-Feet-600.png

A commenter named Dave provides this analysis:

This begs the question - what to do with all that empty office space. The average annual net absorption for the boom decade just ended was what? About 1.5 million feet? It would take 11 years at that absorption pace to fill the space. However, going forward it's hard to see SF ever averaging that kind of net absorption again over a prolonged period. So it could take decades to fill the 17 million feet of empty space.

This does not bode well for the owners of these buildings - generally. Some of the space can be converted to life sciences or residential. But most of it cannot. Already the Oceanwide development has been abandoned as has 88 Bluxome - and the to follow second phase.

Mission Rock is going forward but it had already started construction and it was early enough to tweak the design and make that space aimed towards life-science tenants. Dropbox abandoned its SF headquarters but that building(s) had been designed to accommodate life science space and a small potion of DropBox's sublease was picked up by a life science company. Life science may be the only option for major new SF "office" development Hence the Power Plant project is now planned/designed as life science space.

In terms of the life sciences and biotech SF is at a disadvantage both to SSF/the Peninsula and Berkeley/Emeryville/Oakland - the latter cities are making a big play to attract life science/biotech firms. SF needs to not only clean itself up but change its business tax policy if it hopes to capture even a small portion of the life science/biotech play.

The only office development that might pan out in SF is small, boutique projects. 50K or so Hence the Union Square condo conversion will include a small amount of said boutique office space.

As to large office developments (like the still empty 3M tower) not only is there not a need/demand for more space, there is no way to determine the potential price/square foot that future space might command. Today it's $73.24 but how long before landlords losing significant amounts of money on these empty towers make large cuts in the asking price per square foot? Meaning future projects could actually be financially untenable if rents take a big hit.


My family has been using an Nvidia Shield TV on our main television for a few years. We paid around $200 for the device and have been generally pleased with it until now. A recent software update has inserted unavoidable ads onto the home screen that occupy half the screen. The ads are for shows and products on services we don't subscribe to, and what's worse, the ads themselves contain not-safe-for-work content that I don't want my children exposed to.

Many users are upset by the software update, and Nvidia support is looking into it.

We are getting a lot of user complaining that they do no like it and need to be removed. We have already escalated to the the developers team and they are working on this as soon as possible. Kindly accept our sincere apologies for the inconvenience you may have experienced.

I've updated my review of the Shield on Amazon to one star. If these are are removed I will update my Amazon review and this post.


California is paying more than $2 million dollars to settle two cases in which the state infringed on the right to worship freely while favoring "essential businesses" -- i.e., giant corporations.

The State of California has agreed to pay more than $2 million to a San Diego church and a Catholic priest who challenged Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom's unconstitutional COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, which violated the Christian leaders' religious freedom. In two separate settlements, the state agreed to pay $1.6 million to South Bay United Pentecostal Church and $550,000 to Catholic Priest Father Trevor Burfitt. Judges also granted permanent injunctions to protect their religious freedom rights. ...

"Restrictions on churches cannot be more severe than restrictions on retail. We are pleased with the final results in these two important cases," Paul Jonna, another South Bay lawyer, added.

Many people are actively hostile towards religious believers and searching for ways to use government power to persecute them. This should be no surprise to Christians. Near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told his audience:

Matthew 5:10-12

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Christians are commanded to pray for all our leaders, that they would come to Christ and that they would lead our country in a way that promotes peace.


Don't miss the significance of Facebook's humiliating free speech disaster just because Politico tries to minimize it by calling it a "policy tweak". The point isn't merely that Facebook and many "experts" were wrong, the point is that the only way to discover truth is through speech. When we limit free speech we cripple our ability to find the truth.

Some people are ascribing political motivations to Facebook's censorship.

While it is welcome news that Facebook has reversed its policy, perhaps the bigger issue here is that Facebook's policy was wrong. Not just because it was incorrect but because Facebook shouldn't be in the business of curating content and making decisions as to what people can and cannot read. This reversal is an indictment of Facebook's entire content-moderation effort, which they say is meant to curb the spread of fake news when, in actuality, it was meant to curb inconvenient news.

This is a pretty easy hypothesis to test. What proportion of Facebook speech restrictions limit left-wing talking points as compared to right-wing talking points? I don't know the answer, but I can guess.


Jonathan Turley is right to say the Colonial Pipeline cyber attack was terrorism but it was also worse than that: the attack was a probe that further revealed the weakness of America's critical infrastructure.

We've heard calls in recent years for an ever-widening category of "terrorists" to encompass groups from the Jan. 6 rioters to antifa to the the Ku Klux Klan. So it is surprising that the White House and the media have referred to the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attackers simply as "hackers." "DarkSide" is not just a collection of hackers -- it's a group of terrorists. And the only thing more concerning than the failure to label them correctly is the possible reason for not doing so. ...

The reason is obvious: Colonial just paid a ransom to terrorists. Moreover, gas pipelines are not just "a private company" but a highly regulated industry that closely follows the government's directions.

If it's not possible for the government to protect American infrastructure from cyber attacks then we need to significantly overhaul our national security system.

It may be true that the Biden administration concluded we are defenseless to cyber terrorism despite years of ransomware attacks and hundreds of billions of dollars in cybersecurity programs. If that is the case, the public should be informed. The failure of Congress and our government to defend against such terror attacks is a national security failure of breathtaking proportions. The Colonial Pipeline attack was the cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor. In both cases, we were caught unprepared and unable to deal with a threat we knew was coming. Yet President Roosevelt did not issue a "no comment" on the critical facts after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. Back then, we believed FDR when he stated in his first inauguration that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

What the Biden administration seems to fear most is public recognition that it is afraid -- afraid of the vulnerability of our infrastructure, afraid that the public will learn what cyber terrorists already know.

Maybe America has been distracted by nonsense for a while and needs to refocus our attention on real problems.


A bunch of retired generals and admirals have written an open letter advocating for election integrity, along with a bunch of other rightist political preferences and talking points.

I have a lot of respect for our military, active duty and retired, but I think it would be best for America if our military didn't leverage its rightful prestige to influence politics.

Maybe things are "so bad" that it's justified now, and each person is free to make that determination for himself or herself.


This failure of accounting is a humiliating disaster for California.

It's been 21 months since we asked California to do what 49 other states, the federal government, and hundreds of America's largest cities do: produce a line-by-line state checkbook of its spending.

California Controller Betty Yee denied the request from our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com for its spending records, claiming she could not "locate" the records.

So we sued the State of California to get the records that are legally required to be made available to anyone who requests them.

Our initial request on Aug. 23, 2019 was ignored, and follow-up letters in October and November were finally acknowledged - 11 weeks after the first request, a violation of state open records law.

Our request was later denied, with Yee saying that they were "unable to locate" the evidence of payments that her office made and that it did not track payments that went through other state offices.

In 2018, Yee's office paid 49 million bills totaling $320 billion in payments. While she made the payments, she claims she cannot track the payments.

Somehow I doubt California would be very understanding to a taxpayer who couldn't "locate" any financial records when requested.

This failure of one of the most the basic functions of government is embarrassing beyond words.


Unfortunately for everyone, America's bureaucrats have squandered the broad and deep trust that Americans used to give them without question. Now some people are even questioning something as (apparently) simple as the census. "Why Did Biden Census Bureau Add 2.5 Million More Residents to Blue-State Population Count?"

There is something very fishy about the new 2020 Census Bureau data determining which states picked up seats and which states lost seats.

Most all of the revisions to the original estimates have moved in one direction: Population gains were added to blue states, and population losses were subtracted from red states. The December revisions in population estimates under the Biden Census Bureau added some 2.5 million blue-state residents and subtracted more than 500,000 red-state residents. These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state. ...

Remember, the House of Representatives is razor-thin today, with the Democrats sporting just a six-seat majority with five seats currently vacant. So, a switch in a handful of seats in 2022 elections could flip the House and take the gavel away from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. A shift of 3 million in population is the equivalent of four seats moving from Republican to Democrat.

When all the "mistakes" favor the same group of people, which also happens to be the group in power, it's very reasonable for citizens to wonder if the "mistakes" are honest or not.


Does President Biden think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence racist?

QUESTION, NEWSMAX: Thanks, Jen. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, talking to a group on Wednesday said that white--essentially said that white supremacy is woven into our founding documents and principals. This statement is getting widely criticized as essentially parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points. So is the president going to remove her from her position as the representative before that body to promote United States values?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE: Is the president going to remove an African American woman with decades of experience in the foreign service who is widely respected from her position as ambassador from the UN? He is not. He will--he is proud to have her in that position. She is not only qualified. He believes she is exactly the right person in that role at this moment in time.

I have not seen her comments. I will say that there's no question that there has been a history of institutional racism in this country. And that doesn't require the UN ambassador to confirm that.

QUESTION: So that's essentially the same lecture, though, that the Chinese delegation gave Secretary Blinken in Alaska last month. So does the President think our founding documents are racist?

PSAKI: I would say that I will--I will leave my comments to speak for themselves. And certainly, I think most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country. And she was speaking to that.

Do Psaki's comments speak for themselves? I think so.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Monthly Archives