UPDATED: Briefly Noted: Lockdowns All The Way Down?

ZeroHedge is republishing an interesting piece from Off-Guardian. The idea is that our Globalist masters, having succeeded with the Covid lockdown--confirmed to their satisfaction that the public can be gaslighted into compliance with almost any restrictions on freedom--are now considering rebranding the Covid lockdown as a Climate lockdown:

Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?

What would a climate lockdown look like? The author quotes from an article written by a WHO employee, Avoiding a climate lockdown:

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

Wait--haven't I heard all that before? Isn't that thinking at the bottom of most of the Zhou regime's policies--some already implemented? Isn't that what the G-7 were running on about for the last few days? Yes, it is. And didn't BoJo the conservative just extend the UK lockdown? Yes, he did. Establishment politicos love lockdowns.

All that is being presented in the article as ways to avoid a climate lockdown--it's the carrot we'll be required to eat to avoid the stick of a lockdown.

Maybe the author is just a nobody, speculating on a climate change pie in the sky agenda? Not so much. This is who the backers of this are:

Three Way Squeeze

That's the title of a thought provoking post by James Howard Kunstler today (h/t aNanyMouse). The idea behind the title is that the Zhou Baiden regime--a regime for which Zhou himself is merely the frontman for others, probably in the Obama camp--is finding itself squeezed from three separate directions, but with all three factors working toward the imminent downfall of the regime. What makes these three factors so potent is that they rest upon Three Big Lies. When those lies are exposed--and the exposure of all three is proceeding apace--the result, Kunstler argues, will spell the end of the regime.

What are these three Big Lies?

AZ Audit Update

I've been waiting for the audit process to run its course, rather than try to keep up with breathless speculation. However, this morning sundance has pointed to an article in which a named person associated with the AZ audit makes important assertions of fact. Sundance argues that the fact that these assertions are not being reported anonymously warrants repeating them, and I agree. What follows is simply the relevant portion of the article as reproduced at CTH. I did check the original, and what follows does appear to be the extent of the relevant information:

ARIZONA – Several hundred thousand votes that were counted in Maricopa County, Arizona are associated with missing ballots, according to an audit organizer who is speaking regularly with people on the audit floor.

“We found a ballot shortage, anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of the votes,” Josh Barnett, an audit organizer who led the affidavit drive to make the audit happen, tells NATIONAL FILE. “It looks like a couple hundred thousand ballots are unaccounted for. The ballots are missing.”

“I also know that there were boxes filled with blank ballots in those pallets. There were blanks in there,” Barnett said, citing a person who is frequently at the audit site as part of the audit process. “They (election officials) were doing it for appearance, to try to hide the fact that ballots are missing by saying, ‘It’s okay, they’re all right here.’ But the ballots are blank.” (read more)

Obviously, if true--and we should know very soon now--this would be a genormous development, which nationwide ramifications.

Briefly Noted: Babylon Bee Wins Big Over NYT

You may recall that satire site Babylon Bee has been threatening legal action against the NYT, which has been using various subterfuges to tag Babylon Bee as "right wing misinformation". Apparently realizing it was holding a losing hand, the NYT threw it in. Here's a short version from The Federalist:

New York Times Forced To Back Down After Smearing Babylon Bee

JUNE 14, 2021 By Jordan Davidson

The New York Times was forced to back down from targeting popular satire website the Babylon Bee after months of smearing it as “far-right misinformation.”

In a reply to the Babylon Bee’s demands to retract “defamatory statements” about the satire site from one of the New York Times’ March articles, the Times said it has “removed the reference to the Babylon Bee from the article and appended a correction.”

Follow the link for more details. You can also read about it at Red State, which may include some extra tweets: The Babylon Bee Scores a Huge Victory Against the New York Times.

This is a big victory for freedom of the press, in that it demonstrates that there are some standards of accountability for Big Media. Nevertheless, it remains the case that asserting the right to a public life free of defamation from Big Media remains tenuous at best. Hopefully these issues of accountability will be reviewed by the SCOTUS in the relatively near future, specifically with regard to NYT v. Sullivan. I append several paragraphs from Wikipedia's article that demonstrates that at least some on the SCOTUS are aware of the threat that the outdated and politically motivated case poses to free public discourse:

In February 2019, the Supreme Court denied a petition brought by Katherine McKee, one of the women that accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, which claimed that Cosby had leaked a letter that permanently damaged her reputation, and had sought civil action against Cosby on this matter. Lower courts rejected her case based on New York Times Co., stating that she "thrust herself to the forefront of a public controversy", making her a limited public figure and requiring the higher standard of malice to be demonstrated. The denial by the Supreme Court did not include a vote count, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the solitary opinion on the case, agreeing that denial was appropriate per New York Times Co., but stating that he believed that decision of New York Times Co. was made wrongly. Thomas wrote "If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we".^[25] The views of Thomas, a conservative, mirrored that of President Donald Trump, who had repeatedly called for the review of libel laws in the United States to give those defamed by others a "meaningful recourse in our courts".^[25]

In March 2021, federal judge Laurence Silberman called on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, stating that the New York Times and The Washington Post are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets". Silberman's dissent also accused big tech companies of censoring conservatives and warned that "Democratic Party ideological control" of mainstream media may be a prelude to an "authoritarian or dictatorial regime" that constitutes "a threat to a viable democracy".^[26][27]

Judge Silberman's dissent produced significant public discussion of Sullivan and potential reforms. Many conservative-leaning outlets endorsed Silberman's criticisms of Sullivan.^[28] Most liberal-leaning outlets and several moderate conservatives condemned Silberman's decision for its tone and the substantive idea of loosening defamation standards.^[29] However, some liberal scholars and a Harvard Law student writing in the Wall Street Journal embraced significant reforms to Sullivan.^[30]

Central Bankers To Lead The Great Reset

What could go wrong, right? The Great Rest--or, How to reduce the Middle Class to serfdom where they belong.

Canada's National Post has a very long and fascinating--chillingly so--article about Mark Carney. Never heard of him? He's a very influential man. And he's totally up for revolution--or, if you prefer, a Great Reset. It comes down to pretty much the same thing. You can read the article here or at ZeroHedge:

"It Won't Be Pleasant" - Mark Carney Unveils Dystopian New World To Combat Climate 'Crisis'

Authored by Peter Foster via NationalPost.com,

What Carney ultimately wants is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism ...

Do you remember Boris Johnson babbling to the G-7 about "building back better" and making society more "gender neutral" and "more feminine"? Mark Carney is a special adviser to BoJo. He's also very much a Marxist of a 21st century technocratic variety and an influential voice in the World Economic Forum. For that reason I'm pasting in the beginning and conclusion of this article--and believe me, there's lots more in between. This should give you an idea of what sundance means with his oft repeated refrain, "There are trillions at stake." These are the people who had to have Trump gone, and want to beat the middle classes down. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not.

Potpourri Of Videos/Links

 This one from Cornwall is priceless--such a buffoon:

Boris Johnson insists to Joe Biden that he already introduced the president of South Africa to a G7 meeting.

Read the latest from the G7 here: https://t.co/LLt2KjJhOE pic.twitter.com/mjwKvbvDo6

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 13, 2021

In case you didn't get it, here's the transcript courtesy of TGP:

Boris Johnson: And welcome to those who just joined us… President Ramaphosa (South Africa), President Moon (South Korea)…

Joe Biden: And the President of South Africa.

Boris Johnson: And the President of South Africa as, as, as I said.

Joe Biden: Oh, you did?

Boris Johnson: I certainly did.

Room: Laughter

Imagine if Trump had done anything remotely like that.

In this next one Dan Bongino makes an obvious point, but one that always bears repeating--and he does it well. I couldn't find the video on Youtube so follow the link:

Petition calls for NJ school board members to resign after holidays removed from calendar: 'Cancel culture'

And my Dutch friend tipped me to this--Americans Got Catfished In 2020:

Will The Courts Restore Rationality?

Red State reports today about the lawsuit of the State of Florida in federal court challenging CDC "guidelines" for cruise ships. One wishes that such lawsuits had been brought, oh, at least a year ago, but better late than never. The judge hearing the case has Florida in CDC in mediation at this point, Steven Douglas Merryday (a senior GHWB appointee) is showing signs that he will demand that CDC show some rational basis for its outrageous "guidelines"--guidelines that are clearly intended to shut down the cruise ship industry in the State of Florida. CDC is demanding that 95% of cruise ship passengers be vaxxed. According to the Tampa Bay Times,

Does the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have the authority to require cruise companies in Florida to take specific measures to prevent the spread of disease? And are its current mandates an unfair burden on the industry?

Those questions were at the heart of a three-and-a-half hour hearing in federal court Thursday in Tampa over the state of Florida’s request that the court invalidate the federal government’s rules for cruises while a lawsuit against the agency proceeds.

It was the second hearing on the request. As with the initial hearing, held on May 12, U.S. Middle District of Florida Judge Steven D. Merryday issued no immediate ruling but said he would have a decision “soon.”

There is growing sentiment on the SCOTUS to rein in the administrative state, which courts have long deferred to as representing "expert" opinion. In addition to long sitting justices, all three Trump appointees are known as critics of what has often amounted to blank check deference. That view seems to come through in the TBT account of the hearing, and of Merryday's questioning of the CDC. Notably, Merryday confronted the CDC with the stats from the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

The question of Chevron deference, the deference accorded to the interpretations of government agencies like the CDC by federal courts, is a complicated one. Here's the Wikipedia first paragraph thumbnail sketch:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

Note that the deference applies when Congress has passed a statute that the agency in question (here the CDC) is interpreting, as a presumed expert in the subject matter. This is why the CDC lawyer references the "broad authority" that it has "from Congress". But the judge shows a will to push for a rational basis for the guidelines independent of CDC's claims of "broad authority." The CDC lawyer slips up, in my opinion, by claiming an essentially unlimited authority--an authority that courts are unwilling to grant even to Congress. Additionally, courts are unlikely to accord a high degree of deference when the guidelines were not arrived at as a result of public hearings. Conservative legal groups have long been urging federal courts to review the Chevron doctrine of deference (it has been narrowed over time) and even to throw it out entirely--subjecting agency rules to "strict" scrutiny for a rational basis. That momentum, with the addition of Trump's three appointees, is at the highest point yet.

Here is the TBT account of the core of the hearing, but there's more at the link:

The underlying lawsuit, filed against the Centers for Disease Control by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April, says the agency’s “conditional sail order” is unfairly targeting the cruise industry with overly burdensome safety rules, and preventing Florida from collecting important tax revenue. The current request calls for immediate action until the lawsuit can be heard.

In reviewing the issues Thursday, Merryday asked, “What is the acceptable risk for traveling on a cruise vessel and who decides to take that risk or if it’s too much?” He noted that a passenger who contracts the coronavirus aboard a cruise ship has made “a private decision with a public consequence.”

He also grilled the federal government’s lawyer about the source of their powers to regulate cruises and repeatedly asked for the agency to define how bad the coronavirus spread needs to be onboard a ship before the agency can intervene.

...

But Amy Powell, who represented the Centers for Disease Control, said cruises are much more dangerous than other settings.

“Several thousand people are in close quarters for days and weeks,” she said. “We have data showing the transmission rate aboard cruise ships is five times higher than elsewhere.”

The judge’s questions hinted at skepticism. The federal government has used past cruise outbreaks, such as on the Diamond Princess, to help craft the rules and understand how the virus spreads on board. Of the thousands of passengers on that ship, at least nine died, according to previous agency statements, though Powell said the true number was higher.

“On a vessel without precautions designed for COVID, without knowledge of COVID and without therapeutics ... two-tenths of one percent of passengers died?” Merryday asked.

He also said the Centers for Disease Control’s own research suggested masks’ effect on tamping down the spread was “barely statistically significant” in one community where the agency had done a study.

“Where does this mask efficacy theory come from?” Merryday said. “We’ve had masking and social distancing for a long time and we had a pandemic in the middle of it.”

Powell responded that neither masks nor social distancing are cure-alls, but that they reduced the number of people who died.

“What you can do is make the best scientific decision you can with the evidence available. That’s the CDC’s job,” she said. “We don’t expect the risk to be zero, there will be risk on every ship. ... But we’re still in the midst of a still-deadly pandemic.”

When pressed on what level of transmission would require agency action, Powell said the agency has broad authority from Congress to prevent the interstate and international transmission of disease, and there’s a need for “enforceable public health measures.” Legally, the agency has the power to try to reduce transmission to zero, even if that may not be practical in the coronavirus’ immediate future, she said.

Percival, for the state of Florida, pounced on that statement.

If that’s true, “it’s unclear what they cannot do,” he said. “They can bar your doors. ... That is an astronomical power.”

Percival, representing Florida, makes a hugely telling point, in my view. CDC unwisely asserted an essentially unlimited power that any court should be skeptical of. Hopefully this case--which, with all the economic and social implications involved--will serve as the vehicle to restoring rational control of the federal administrative state.

Kick-Ass Tucker Video, More Covid News

Tucker Carlson did a totally kick ass monologue last night, and I really recommend listening to the whole thing. As is usual with media outlets, different pages offer different titles. I should state up front that the titles for this Tucker segment are somewhat misleading from a rigorously legal standpoint. Here are the two variations that I'm aware of:

* Tucker: Reading government data will get you censored

* Tucker Carlson: If you read government data, you'll be thrown in jail and censored by Big Tech

We knew this was coming, how long can it continue?

The problem with these is that, strictly speaking, from a legal standpoint only the government can censor you. The First Amendment deals with government action--or, as it turns out, actions supported by the government. Yep, I'm being a bit misleading two, because it's a complicated topic--and that's part of the point.

The point is that we all know what Tucker is talking about, and social media (aka Big Tech) has gotten such a stranglehold over online communication--meaning, really, communication generally--that America stands in need of a robust debate on the role of social media and its standards for policing content. Are social media platforms publishers? Are they public utilities? These really are complicated questions, and we should think twice before we invite government involvement. Maybe Trump's new social media initiative is the best solution. Honest people can disagree. 

On the other hand, there isn't much doubt about the partisan and ideological bent of much of the social media policing and "fact" checking. There has long been the suspicion of these private companies colluding with politicians. Now, however, with the release of the Fauci emails, we have actually seen a social media company (Facebook) offering its services to a government entity for the purpose of policing messaging about Covid response and vaccines. Not, be it noted, for the purpose of "getting the message out" in a public service sense but for the purpose of preventing any dissenting message from getting out. That's pretty clearly a problematic position to be taking, both for government and for social media companies. Ted Cruz, among others, has suggested the companies may face legal liability.

Non Compos Abroad

By now you've all seen the embarrassing videos from the G-7. The first features an obviously mentally lost Zhou having to be, um, fetched by his keeper Jill. The other shows a slow Zhou bringing up the rear of the fatuous G-7 participants, shuffling along. (By the way, did anyone else notice the pixie looking outfit Justin has on?) Monica Showalter discusses them in a brief post and captures most of it:

The first video shows him wandering into a cafeteria for the public instead of the special accommodations reserved for the G-7 leaders. Notice that the crowd guffaws as someone throws out a flip question, which he has to ask her to repeat. When he gives a dullard's answer, the laughter roars harder. It's an obvious mockery of a lost old fool looking for the buffet table at the senior citizens' home, or maybe the right bingo hall on a Thursday. Nobody applauds Biden's entry as if he were there to see him, nor do they indicate terror and awe or basic respect for the leader of the free world. Nope, for them, he was "just trying to get some ranch." Or perhaps they were when he obviously wandered in, not knowing what day it was or where he was at. After futzing about looking as lost as he probably is, caretaker Jill Biden strides in and leads doddering forgetful old grandpa, who couldn't read his brief about where the lunchroom was, away, taking him by the hand.

I'd been wondering how Zhou got to be where he wound up. The explanation that he went to the wrong cafeteria makes perfect sense in context. Anyone who has experience with people who are slipping into dementia knows that they tend to fixate, especially, on their meal times. Most likely while the other participants briefly milled about before lunch, chatting, Zhou was totally focused on getting to the trough--all he could think of was that it was feeding time. Keeper Jill probably momentarily lost track of Zhou while chatting up Justin in his bizarre, adolescent looking outfit, then had to rush off in search of her charge.

One thing to notice. Showalter states that the people in the cafeteria guffaw the second time at his "dullard's answer" to the "flip question" directed to Zhou by a diner who pretty obviously realized that Zhou was lost. Actually, that second guffaw--and it was a real guffaw--came when Keeper Jill rushed in with both hands outstretched to retrieve Zhou. The guffaw began when she addressed Zhou with a brisk "C'mon!"--as if she were speaking to a child--grasped his hand in both of hers, and led him away.

With regard to the second video, the photo op with the Queen, Zhou's shuffling gait was on display--he seems little more mobile than the much older Elizabeth. What struck me about Zhou as he trailed away at the rear of the group--one of the others appearing to stay with him lest he be lost again--was the way his arms hung limply at his side, rather than swinging a bit. Taken together with the shuffling gait, the impression can only be described as doddering.

And so on to confront Putin. Not gonna back down. Always providing that he remembers where he is and with whom he's speaking. Pathetic.

UPDATED: Briefly Noted: Joe Manchin's Role In The Senate

I counted at least three articles about Joe Manchin at Red State yesterday. However, the prize for hands down best would have to go to shipwreckedcrew's 

Democrat Self-Interest in Re-Election Overtakes Desire to Pass the Socialist-Progressive Legislative Agenda

SWC offers a lucid explanation for why the Left simply has zero leverage over Manchin--their childish attacks on him do Manchin nothing but good in West Virginia. If he hopes to live out his days as senator from West Virginia that's all that matters. Indeed, as SWC suggests, Manchin might be tempted to 

send a bus to pick up AOC, Rashida Talib [sic], and Cori Bush and bring them to Charleston and Wheeling to campaign against him.

However, SWC's main point, as we have also emphasized, is that Manchin's role is actually to be the front man for non-radical Left Dems. In other words, he fronts for several other senators (not just Kyrsten Sinema) with similar views. They're not all completely on the same page, but they're close enough that they'll hang together. Now that Diane Feinstein (a surprise) has come out, I count five--including, unsurprisingly, both AZ senators. Remember, there's an election audit going on in AZ, so any expectation of those two going out on a far Left wing is ridiculous. Neither are the ideologues that some other senators are, and there is the possibility of their elections being ruled invalid.

SWC goes on to point out why Schumer--just like McConnell--is highly unlikely to draw any hard and fast lines that exclude wayward Dems. With a 50-50 Senate he has to be concerned for maintaining even that precarious grasp on his position--not, as SWC says, paying "fealty to the nutjobs in the House."

Don't Forget About Baiden Corruption

I'll be interested to see whether Putin will raise any issues of the Baiden Crime Family corruption--given that so much of what is known about that corruption stems from Baiden dealings in connection with Ukraine. As it happens, there are two article today that look at two aspects of Hunter's legal problems. The details are too complex to sort out here, but I recommend both articles. The fact that the Ukraine story hasn't just disappeared should be concerning for Dems as we approach 2022 because, as one of the authors points out, it wasn't just Hunter--Zhou was involved as well.

John Solomon sets the stage, in a way, for the second article:

Feds subpoenaed Hunter Biden during 2016 election, raising worry over unpaid taxes on Ukraine work

Lawyers and accountants prepared "proffer" to federal authorities, scrambled to devise narrative on unpaid taxes in emails that undercut president's longtime claim his son did nothing wrong.

What this means is that Hunter, on the advice of accountants and lawyers, was considering admitting some degree of wrongdoing in his tax matters in return for turning against his partner, Devon Archer. Here are the basics:

Lock This Down!

It's almost impossible to believe, but there are apparently still some people under the illusion that the lockdowns have served some positive purpose. We know the negative purpose: to crush the small business and working classes. Steve Watson has a piece at Summit News today that exposes the lack of any rational basis for the lockdowns:

Professor: Historians Will Look Back On Lockdowns As ‘Most Catastrophic Event Of All Human History’

“Every single poor person on the face of the earth has faced some harm, sometimes catastrophic harm, from this lockdown policy.”

The professor in question here is Jay Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya has PhDs in assorted subjects, like epidemiology and economics and teaches at the Stanford medical school. In other words, he actually has some credentials as opposed to career bureaucrats like Fauci. He also was one of the drafters of the Great Barrington Declaration. Watson links to an interview with Bhattacharya at a UK outlet, Planet Normal. The interview has its moments. If you care to listen to it, follow the link and go to the 30:00 minute mark.

For our purposes, I'll embed two brief videos and some text, to give some flavor for the state of debate.

First we have Watson, with his trademark style and accent--is that Estuary English? I don't like it, but he can be entertaining while also being informative and making serious points. The most serious point, halfway through, is that in the UK it has been revealed that public health officials, so-called, colluded to "ramp up the fear" to control the populace and force compliance with their dictates. Thank God that could never happen here: