{"id":109149,"date":"2023-04-30T19:20:42","date_gmt":"2023-04-30T23:20:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=109149"},"modified":"2023-04-30T19:20:47","modified_gmt":"2023-04-30T23:20:47","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-friday-april-28th-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=109149","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, April 28th, 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, April 28th, 2023…but before we begin, Best of the Web provided the latest on…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fauci and the New York Times<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Now he\u2019s refusing to accept responsibility for promoting lockdowns<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Remember the government disease doctor who once described the Covid lockdown policies\u00a0he was promoting<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0as merely \u201cinconvenient<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u201d? Trillions of dollars and countless shattered lives later<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, now the country\u2019s most forceful advocate for shuttering U.S. society is pretending he was inconsequential<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

To make his new case Dr.\u00a0Anthony Fauci\u00a0has chosen the friendly forum of the\u00a0New York Times, which also isn\u2019t eager to accept responsibility for panicked responses to Covid<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. In this week\u2019s Times\u00a0interview<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0with David Wallace-Wells, Dr. Fauci says:<\/p>\n

Nothing was done perfectly<\/span><\/strong>. But what I can say is that, at least to my<\/span><\/strong> perception, the emphasis strictly on the science and public health \u2014 that is what public-health people should do<\/span><\/strong>. I\u2019m not an economist<\/span><\/strong>. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is not an economic organization<\/span><\/strong>. The surgeon general is not an economist<\/span><\/strong>. So we looked at it from a purely public-health standpoint<\/span><\/strong>. It was for other people<\/span><\/strong> to make broader assessments<\/span><\/strong> \u2014 people whose positions include but aren\u2019t exclusively<\/span><\/strong> about public health. Those people<\/span><\/strong> have to make the decisions about the balance between the potential negative consequences of something versus the benefits of something<\/span><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Certainly there could have been<\/span><\/strong> a better understanding of why people were emphasizing the economy<\/span><\/strong>. But when people say, \u201cFauci<\/span><\/strong> shut down the economy\u201d \u2014 it wasn\u2019t Fauci<\/span><\/strong>. The C.D.C. was the organization that made those<\/span><\/strong> recommendations. I happened<\/span><\/strong> to be perceived as the personification of the recommendations. But show me a school that I shut down<\/span><\/strong> and show me a factory that I shut down<\/span><\/strong>. Never<\/span><\/strong>. I never<\/span><\/strong> did. I gave a public-health recommendation<\/span><\/strong> that echoed the C.D.C.\u2019s recommendation, and people made a decision based on that<\/span><\/strong>. But I never criticized<\/span><\/strong> the people who had to make the decisions one way or the other.<\/em><\/p>\n

To expose the falsity<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of Dr. Fauci\u2019s attempt to avoid responsibility for the consequences of his actions and advice, one doesn\u2019t even need to look beyond the pages of the New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Not that the paper was holding him to account. He was often cast as a heroic figure<\/em><\/span><\/strong> as he pushed back against those who tried to warn of the great harms of closing society<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Dr. Fauci wasn\u2019t deferring to economic experts or even to medical experts who didn\u2019t share his Covid prescription<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u2014he was using his powerful perch to forcefully rebut them. And he largely succeeded<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, to the great detriment of America\u2019s children<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

As for Dr. Fauci\u2019s claim that he looked at things from \u201ca purely public-health standpoint,\u201d this too<\/em><\/span><\/strong> deserves great skepticism<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. One of the reasons his advice was so destructive<\/em><\/span><\/strong> is that it was based on a purely Covid standpoint<\/span><\/em><\/strong>\u2014and with a particular approach<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that didn\u2019t even yield exceptional Covid outcomes<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u2014rather than assessing other<\/em><\/span><\/strong> threats to health, such as mental illness and cancer, the treatment of which suffered during the shutdowns.<\/p>\n

Along with fellow government disease doctor\u00a0Deborah Birx, Dr. Fauci issued forecasts of Covid deaths and then pushed the dubious notion that lockdown was the appropriate response<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Michael Shear, Michael Crowley and James Glanz\u00a0reported<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0for the New York Times in April of 2020 that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx said the number of Covid deaths \u201ccould be much higher if Americans did not follow the strict guidelines vital to keeping the virus from spreading.\u201d The Times reporters added:<\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx showed charts indicating that coronavirus cases in New York and New Jersey had risen far higher than in other parts of the country, a fact that they said gave them hope that the overall number of deaths might be lower if people in the rest of the states followed the guidelines for at least the next month…<\/em><\/p>\n

The president, who on Sunday extended for 30 days the government\u2019s recommendations for slowing the spread of the virus, made it clear that the data compiled by Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx convinced him that the death toll would be even higher if the restrictions on work, school, travel and social life were not taken seriously by all Americans.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci had won the argument over many economists and<\/em><\/span><\/strong> dissenting doctors. Most of the shutdown orders came from governors and local officials. But Dr. Fauci was the most<\/em><\/span><\/strong> influential figure encouraging the closure of schools and factories.<\/p>\n

The following month, he not only continued to reject the advice of economists, but also wrongly suggested that his advice was actually the best prescription for the economy. A New York Times\u00a0report covere<\/span>d<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0his May 12 appearance before a Senate panel:<\/p>\n

If economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns<\/span><\/strong>, Dr. Fauci warned, \u201cthere is a real risk<\/span><\/strong> that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control<\/span><\/strong>.\u201d That could result not only in \u201csome suffering and death that could be avoided,\u201d he said, \u201cbut could even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

… Scientists hope to know by late fall or early winter whether they have at least one possible effective vaccine, Dr. Fauci told the senators. But he cautioned, \u201cEven at the top speed we\u2019re going, we don\u2019t see a vaccine playing in the ability of individuals to get back to school this term.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci, who spent a career as an unelected<\/em><\/span><\/strong> head of a government agency, now claims he never criticized those who had to make decisions<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. But at the time<\/em><\/span><\/strong> he felt comfortable challenging even those who were both elected officials\u00a0and<\/span><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0medical doctors. The New York Times reported:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we keep kids out of school for another year, what\u2019s going to happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don\u2019t have a parent that\u2019s able to teach them at home will not get to learn for a full year,\u201d said Senator\u00a0Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci pushed back<\/span><\/strong>, saying that the virus\u2019s effect on children is still not well understood, and that recent cases of children who have tested positive and developed a serious inflammatory syndrome was worrisome. \u201cWe really better be very careful, particularly when it comes to children,\u201d he said.<\/em><\/p>\n

Now Americans can only wish they had been more careful in keeping Dr. Fauci away from any policies related to children. But it wouldn\u2019t have been easy.<\/p>\n

No one sits atop a federal bureaucracy for nearly 40 years without having first-class skills in politicking and public relations. After that Senate hearing in 2020, another account in the Times\u00a0suggested that<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Dr. Fauci had become even more powerful than the president and was in fact the critical public official preventing the opening of schools.<\/p>\n

The leaders of the nation\u2019s largest teachers\u2019 union and parent volunteer organization pushed back on Mr. Trump\u2019s efforts to reopen schools, saying only one official<\/em><\/span><\/strong> could reassure them that it was safe to welcome millions of students back. \u201cI\u2019m waiting for Dr. Fauci<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u201d\u00a0Lily Eskelsen Garc\u00eda, the president of the National Education Association, said Thursday on a call with reporters. \u201cI\u2019m waiting not<\/em><\/span><\/strong> for a politician; I\u2019m waiting for a medical, infectious-disease professional<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to say, \u2018Now we can do it, under these circumstances.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Ms. Eskelsen Garc\u00eda joined educators and members of the National P.T.A. a day after Mr. Trump had rebuked Dr. Fauci for expressing caution about reopening schools. Dr. Fauci told a Senate panel on Tuesday that a vaccine for the virus would almost certainly not be ready in time for the new school year. \u201cWe better be careful, if we are not cavalier, in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci\u2019s testimony irritated Mr. Trump, who believes that reopening schools is critical to restarting the economy and to his re-election campaign. \u201cI totally disagree with him on schools,\u201d Mr. Trump said Thursday in an interview on Fox Business.<\/em><\/p>\n

Shame on President Trump for not firing the destructive doctor in 2020<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, and shame on Dr. Fauci for trying to rewrite this history in 2023<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

If there’s anyone…other than every member of the Biden and Clinton criminal cartels and<\/em><\/span> Lois Lerner…who deserves to be behind bars, their wealth seized and pensions forfeited, it’s Dr. Faux Chi.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the risk of seeming repetitive, we must note the lockdown strategy was originally set forth in a 14-year-old girl’s high school science project<\/em><\/span><\/a>, after which two government doctors, neither schooled in either virology or epidemiology, refined it over pizza and beer.\u00a0 It was then dismissed by experts in both fields, without ever being reviewed by a single economist.\u00a0 And yet, this was the course of action Faux Chi favored.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s the juice in meme form:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It was never<\/em><\/span> about controlling a virus, but rather all about<\/em><\/span> controlling…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…YOU<\/em><\/span>!!!<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, NRO’s Jeff Zymeri records how House Republicans took ATF president Randi Weingarten to task<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a> for her organization’s significant role in delaying school openings, despite the “science” informing kids were in miniscule if any danger whatsoever from the WuFlu:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Republicans on the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic delivered a sharp rebuke to Randi Weingarten,\u00a0<\/span>president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), for her organization\u2019s role in delaying school reopenings during the Covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe effect on children has been vast<\/em><\/span><\/strong> and to have no remorse<\/em><\/span><\/strong> on closing schools and keeping them closed for the length of time is unconscionable<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u201d explained Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R., Iowa), a medical doctor and a former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health.<\/p>\n

Referenced throughout the hearing were consultations the American Federation of Teachers had with the Biden administration and the CDC about school reopenings. On January 29, 2021, Weingarten and senior AFT staff participated in a conference call with members of the CDC in which they suggested ideas<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Two of the suggestions were accepted in guidance the Biden administration sent out in February in 2021. The first was to encourage schools to provide options for teachers and staff who had documented high-risk conditions and the second was that the government\u2019s guidance may need to be changed depending upon new variants of the coronavirus. Several members took issue with this, including the committee\u2019s chair, Representative Brad Wenstrup (R., Ohio).<\/p>\n

Miller-Meeks did as well, but she zeroed into the claim that AFT had scientific expertise that allowed it to take science-based positions<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. The Iowa representative pointed to publications by the American Journal of Pediatrics that children had very little to no transmission of Covid-19<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cDid your<\/em><\/span><\/strong> scientific experts present to you, as of June of 2020, among 1.8 million children in this age group<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, do you know how many died from Covid<\/em><\/span><\/strong>?,\u201d asked Miller-Meeks, later answering: \u201cZero<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.\u201d \u201cDid they present you data from other countries that showed continuing in-person schooling was in fact safe for children and safe for teachers<\/em><\/span><\/strong>?,\u201d asked Miller-Meeks, adding that she understands the educational system has a great deal of experience with influenza and its contagiousness among children but \u201cinfluenza is not<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Covid.\u201d The representative then pointed to CDC data from March 1, 2020 to July 25, 2020 showing the exceedingly low risk to children<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of hospitalization or death from Covid-19.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat our<\/em><\/span><\/strong> experts showed us\u2026in two reports, the one from Massachusetts and the one from Wisconsin, and we also saw the reports from the other countries\u2026that show that when you had this layered mitigation<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, there was much less transmission in schools,\u201d explained Weingarten.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe layered mitigation<\/em><\/span><\/strong> was in relationship with influenza<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u201d Miller-Meeks countered. \u201cWhat I\u2019m<\/em><\/span><\/strong> doing is as a physician, as 7 physicians on this panel, challenging what your experts said<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.\u201d \u201cThese facts<\/em><\/span><\/strong> are non-negotiable<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, ma\u2019am. The fact<\/em><\/span><\/strong> is schools were relatively safe places<\/em><\/span><\/strong> for both students and<\/em><\/span><\/strong> educators. These are scientific questions<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that a scientific organization<\/em><\/span> should<\/em><\/span><\/strong> be able to study and answer. The AFT is not<\/em><\/span><\/strong> a scientific organization,\u201d Miller-Meeks asserted.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe AFT was out of its league in this regard<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u201d she added…”<\/p>\n

Out of its league and<\/em> <\/span>out of its mind<\/em><\/span>…unless of course the AFT hadn’t the faintest concern for “the children”; We certainly know Faux Chi and Randi Weingarten couldn’t have cared less.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The G<\/em><\/strong>ouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up,\u00a0<\/strong>the Morning Jolt<\/em>\u00a0reports…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even the\u00a0Times\u00a0Is Airing Concerns about Biden\u2019s Age and \u2018Cognitive Abilities<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u2019<\/span><\/h1>\n

Even the Warnings about Biden Being Old Are Getting Old<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“The\u00a0New York Times\u00a0editorial board was never<\/em><\/span><\/strong> going to come out and say, \u201cJoe Biden shouldn\u2019t run for another term because he\u2019s too old to do the job anymore<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.\u201d That would represent cutting off an incumbent Democratic president at the knees, a betrayal of a president who delivered a lot of policy wins, and perhaps even spur some serious<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Democrat \u2014 sorry,\u00a0Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. \u2014 to launch a primary bid. If the\u00a0Times\u00a0had declared Biden shouldn\u2019t<\/em><\/span><\/strong> run again, in the coming year, we would have seen a million sentences saying,\u00a0\u201cEven the\u00a0New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0thinks Biden is too old to serve another term.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the\u00a0Times\u2019 house editorial\u00a0on Monday came right up to the line<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of declaring that Biden taking the oath of office at age 82 in January 2025, and the notion of him serving in office until he is 86, is absurd<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. The\u00a0Times\u00a0warned, \u201cCandidates shouldn\u2019t pretend<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, as Mr. Biden often does<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, that advanced age isn\u2019t an issue<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u201d and that \u201cIf Mr. Biden runs again,\u00a0as he recently said he intends to, questions will persist<\/em><\/span><\/strong> about his age until he does more to assure voters that he is up to the job.\u201d<\/p>\n

Inherent in that statement is a warning that Biden has\u00a0not\u00a0done enough<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to assure voters he is up to the job. That verb tense of \u201cis<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u201d instead of \u201cwill be<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u201d is also intriguing<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. The editorial continued:<\/p>\n

Concerns about age \u2014 both in terms of fitness for office and being out of touch with the moment \u2014 are legitimate<\/span><\/strong>, as Mr. Biden acknowledged<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0in an interview in February with ABC News.\u00a0His standard line, repeated in that interview, is: \u201cThe only thing I can say is, \u2018Watch me.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

But Mr. Biden has given voters very few chances to do just that<\/span><\/strong> \u2014 to watch him \u2014 and his refusal to engage with the public<\/span><\/strong> regularly raises questions about his age and health.<\/em><\/p>\n

The usual White House method of demonstrating a president\u2019s mastery is to take tough questions in front of cameras, but Mr. Biden has not taken advantage of that opportunity, as The Times reported on Friday. He has held\u00a0fewer news conferences<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0and media interviews than most of his modern predecessors. Since 1923, only Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan\u00a0took fewer questions per month from reporters<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, and neither represents a model of presidential openness that Mr. Biden should want to emulate. His reticence has created an opening for critics and skeptics. . . .<\/em><\/p>\n

His\u00a0most recent health summary<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, released on Feb. 16, said much the same thing, describing him as a \u201chealthy, vigorous 80-year-old male who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.\u201d But his cognitive abilities went unmentioned<\/span><\/strong>. That\u2019s something he should discuss publicly<\/span><\/strong> and also demonstrate to the voters<\/span><\/strong>, who expect the president to reflect the nation\u2019s strength.<\/em><\/p>\n

If he runs again, Mr. Biden will need to provide explicit reassurance<\/span><\/strong> to voters; many of them have seen family members decline rapidly in their 80s. Americans are watching what Mr. Biden says and does, just as he has asked them to do.<\/em><\/p>\n

That\u2019s about as skeptical and critical an assessment as we can expect<\/em><\/span><\/strong> from the\u00a0Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n

…The White House has to carefully manage Biden\u2019s travel schedule, since overseas trips wear him out<\/em><\/span><\/strong>,\u00a0as the\u00a0Times\u00a0has reported<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>. After the recent Ireland trip,\u00a0Biden had no public events for three and a half days<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Biden did almost no in-person campaigning or public events in 2020<\/em><\/span><\/strong> once the Covid pandemic hit in March; the\u00a0term \u201cbasement campaign\u201d was not an exaggeration<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Covid was a nonfactor in American life by last autumn, but Biden\u00a0didn\u2019t get out on the trail much in 2022<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, either. And now, the\u00a0New York<\/em>\u00a0Times\u00a0reports<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, \u201cBiden has no immediate plans to barnstorm the key battlegrounds.<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Decorative bunting is nowhere to be found, and large rallies will come later.\u201d<\/p>\n

Now, ask yourself: If Biden could<\/em><\/span><\/strong> get out on the trail, and do<\/em><\/span><\/strong> more than one public event per day, wouldn\u2019t he be doing that<\/em><\/span><\/strong>? Because Biden isn\u2019t<\/em><\/span><\/strong> doing these things, isn\u2019t that a de facto admission<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that he can barely handle<\/em><\/span><\/strong> his current duties? What will Biden\u2019s physical and mental state be<\/em><\/span><\/strong> a year from now? Two years<\/em><\/span><\/strong> from now? Five years and change<\/em><\/span><\/strong> from now, when the Democratic Party envisions him wrapping up his second term?<\/p>\n

The Democratic National Committee has\u00a0no intention of holding primary debates<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>.”<\/p>\n

Neither does the DNC have any intention whatsoever<\/em><\/span> of holding debates during the run-up to the general election, involving Biden or<\/em><\/span> Harris.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since we’re on the subject of the Great Insensate, the Journal<\/em>‘s Kim Strassel details how, having successfully passed a bill both raising the debt-ceiling and reining in uncontrolled spending, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has the only plan in town for avoiding a default<\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Meanwhile, Biden’s refusal to recognize reality continues<\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Then again, he likely doesn’t recognize most anyone or anything else.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, while evidently having the time to publicly express their satisfaction with Tucker’s departure<\/em><\/span><\/a>, DoD guidelines against such political expression<\/em><\/span><\/a> notwithstanding, it seems to us the time of Pentagon officials would be better spent finding a second source for one critical commodity, as Gordon Lubold reveals in the pages of the WSJ<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The U.S. Military Relies on One Louisiana Factory. It Blew Up<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h1>\n

Decades of consolidation have left the Pentagon vulnerable to mishaps\u2014including when the sole maker of a crucial type of gunpowder went offline<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Nearly two years ago, an errant spark inside a mill caused an explosion so big it destroyed all the building\u2019s equipment and blew a corrugated fiberglass wall 100 feet. It also shut down the sole domestic source<\/span><\/em><\/strong> of an explosive the Department of Defense relies on to produce bullets, mortar shells, artillery rounds and Tomahawk missiles<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The ramshackle facility makes the original form of gunpowder, known today as black powder, a highly combustible material with hundreds of military applications. The product, for which there is no substitute<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, is used in small quantities in munitions to ignite more powerful explosives.<\/p>\n

No one was hurt in the June 2021 blast. But the factory remains offline<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, unable<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to deliver its single vital component<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to either commercial or Pentagon customers.<\/p>\n

Military suppliers consolidated<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0at the Cold War\u2019s end, under pressure to reduce defense costs and streamline the nation\u2019s industrial base. Over the past three decades, the number of fixed wing aircraft suppliers in the U.S. has declined from eight to three<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. During the same period, major surface ship producers fell from eight to two<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, and today, only three<\/em><\/span><\/strong> American companies supply over 90%<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of the Pentagon\u2019s missile stockpile.<\/p>\n

Lower-tier defense firms are often the sole maker<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of vital parts\u2014such as black powder<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u2014and a single crisis can bring production to a standstill…”<\/p>\n

But hey, at least the DoD is up to speed on its DEI regulations and requirements, not to mention converting to all-electric vehicles by 2030<\/em><\/span><\/a>, at least if Biden’s Energy Secretary has any say.\u00a0 This is an idea so devoid of any common sense or the faintest grasp of reality it quite literally beggars the imagination.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moving on, we present another sextet of special selections certain to pique the interest of inquiring Conservative minds:<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1). Just when you thought Progressives couldn’t promote deeper perversions, a transgender\u00a0state lawmaker in Minnesota…<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…<\/span>introduced a measure that would remove language from the state’s Human Rights Act that currently declares pedophiles are not included in protections based on “sexual orientation<\/em><\/span><\/a>.”\u00a0 Gee, wonder what’s on his<\/em><\/span> mind?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2). In a related item, Jim Geraghty records a recent NBC poll which reveals EVERYTHING is now a battle in the Culture War<\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(3). Jim next suggests, in a better world, lawmakers from left, right, and center would\u00a0learn the lesson from San Francisco<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/span> and\u00a0never again waste time with ordinances requiring city or state employees to boycott other states<\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 While we’re not certain whether any red state lawmakers have boycotted blue states, we certainly get his point.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(4). As our insensate chief executive recently spoke alongside South Korea’s president, a photographer happened to snap a photo of\u00a0a small cheat-sheet in the president’s hand signaling he had advanced knowledge of a question from L.A. Times journalist Courtney Subramanian<\/span><\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 It included a breakdown of the correct pronunciation of the reporter’s last name.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(5).\u00a0<\/strong>Nikki Haley has taken sides in Ron DeSantis’s battle with Disney, and as Julio Rosas reports, it’s the wrong side<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 As if Disney is going to spend billions of dollars to relocate from Orlando, with it’s airport, hotels and other attractions.\u00a0\u00a0In response, a senior aide to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis shared a clip of him bashing corporatism:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

A senior DeSantis aide texts this clip from his Heritage speech:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not conservative to simply defer to every corporation in America. That’s being a corporatist.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier today Nikki Haley invited Disney to leave Florida for South Carolina
\npic.twitter.com\/s1tu789q1a<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) April 26, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n