Trying to save its own reputation, the NY Times pretends Biden’s decline wasn’t obvious

The New Neo Posted on by

Does the Times really think people will believe it’s that stupid and unobservant? In other words, does the Times think people are that stupid and unobservant?:

After actively engaging in a coverup of Biden’s cognitive state — the brave, intrepid journalists at NYT are out with a tell-all piece on the coverup — blaming Biden’s inner circle, and taking zero responsibility themselves.

Everything they lied about for years, they now admit is true — Biden’s “walkers” to hide his shuffle, the short stairs to AF1, his frequent falls, cognitive lapses, telepromper woes, needing naps for debate prep — everything.

Legacy media is attempting to rewrite history and play the hapless victim of a White House inner circle that managed to dupe them for four years, in a vain attempt to salvage their tattered reputations and cratered credibility.

Here’s a link to the Times article, with its “now it can be told” facts:

[Biden’s staff] rearranged meetings to make sure Mr. Biden was in a better mood — a strategy one person close to him described as how aides should handle any president. At times, they delayed sharing information with him, including negative polling data, as they debated the best way to frame it. They surrounded him with aides when he walked from the White House to the waiting presidential helicopter on the South Lawn so that news cameras could not capture his awkward bearing.

Funny how everyone on the right saw it, and has seen it, for years.

More:

They had Mr. Biden use a teleprompter for even small fund-raisers in private homes, alarming donors, who were asked to provide questions beforehand. They came up with replacing the grand steps that presidents use to board Air Force One with a shorter set that led directly into the belly of the plane. They chastised White House correspondents for coverage of the president’s age. They hand-delivered memos to Mr. Biden describing social media posts the campaign staff had persuaded allies to write that pushed back on negative articles and polls.

This was no secret.

The article keeps up the pretense that Biden’s problem were mostly physical, in terms of walking, balance, and stamina. It continues to downplay his obvious cognitive problems that were present even in 2020 during that campaign. And the debate with Trump last June? Here’s how the Times treats it:

Mr. Biden needed naps during the debate preparations and then turned in a halting, incoherent performance universally described as “disastrous” by panicking Democrats. Even close aides aware of the president’s frailties were stunned by what they saw. It was, as Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recounted in a recent interview, “a big shock.”

Three weeks later Mr. Biden dropped out of the race.

Note how the Times skips the story of how he was “persuaded” to drop out.

What’s Trump got planned for executive orders?

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember? Trump said he’d be a dictator, but only on day one, drilling and closing the border. During the campaign, the left parlayed that into the idea that Trump will be an actual dictator, and that he’s so bold and shameless that he even announced it!

Now his press secretary has said of these orders:

“There will be tens of them. I can assure you of that,” Trump’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News on Sunday.

There’s a lot to do, and especially to undo. Some will no doubt be connected to the two things he mentioned, drilling and the border. Also deportations of illegal aliens, particularly people who have committed crimes or are otherwise under orders to be deported but haven’t been. And of course the J6 defendents.

What’s the history of day one executive orders, and executive orders in general? At the moment, the record for initial orders is held by none other than Joe Biden:

Since 1937, only three U.S. presidents have issued executive orders on their first day in office. This exclusive group includes Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Bill Clinton. …

The Federal Register tracks all executive orders signed by presidents beginning in 1937, excluding former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first-term executive orders. …

President Joe Biden holds the record for the most executive orders signed on the first day and first week in office. On his first day, Biden issued nine executive orders, six of which reversed orders from the Trump administration. These reversals included rescinding policies targeting communities that shielded undocumented immigrants from deportation and requiring the use of face masks in federal buildings and lands.

Biden’s use of executive orders during his first week in office was prolific, with a total of 22 orders signed.

During his presidency, Biden signed 160 executive orders. But that didn’t hold a candle to FDR, who signed a whopping 2,023 during his terms two and three; Truman, who signed 906; Clinton, who signed 364. George H.W. Bush had the lowest number since the count began in 1937: 46.

One of Trump’s executive orders will probably be to extend the TikTok cancellation window for 90 more days, in hopes of a sale.

NOTE: An early order of Biden’s took the Iran-backed Houthis off the terrorists list. Great. And now, in the last days of his presidency, guess what? This past Wednesday, Biden put the Houthis back on the list. One less thing for Trump to do.

King Joe and Queen Kamala have spoken

The New Neo Posted on by

The topic? The dearly departed Equal Rights Amendment. I remember having to write about the ERA back in law school – and believe me, that was a long time ago.

Those two brilliant lawyers, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, seem to think they can revive it by fiat.

Actually, I don’t believe they really think that – although who knows what Joe thinks these days? They’re just messing with our minds in order to move the Overton window. The fact that they’re both saying this means it was orchestrated by the person or persons who have been orchestrating so very much during this administration.

And so we have this from Joe Biden:

And this from Kamala Harris:

And this from lawyers such as Jonathan Turley:

The most information you’ll get about the hostage deal at this point …

The New Neo Posted on by

… can be found in this video, IMHO. Highly recommended:

Israel isn’t just negotiating with terrorists for hostages. It is negotiating with a terrorist-controlled neighbor that isn’t exactly a country but wants to be one and has the backing of the majority of the countries in the world. Not only that, but Israel has at its northern boundary another terrorist-controlled country, and is surrounded by other countries (Syria, for example) who want to destroy it. Even its sort-of friends in the area – Egypt, for example – help out the terrorists from time to time.

This is an extremely special and in fact unique situation. What’s more, Israel itself is small in both area and population, and much of its population is composed of people who are literally related to each other. It was never an option, as far as Israel was concerned, to leave the hostages there and count them as already dead. You may coldly and dispassionately decide that this is a stupid way for Israel to look at it, but as the speaker in the video points out, it can be argued that that is not the case. My point of view, which I’ve stated before, is that part of the reason that Hamas and others take hostages is not just to get their terrorists back (although that is certainly one of the reasons), it is to torture Israelis, both the captive ones and their families and friends and everyone else who lives in Israel or cares about Israelis. You might say that, to terrorists, taking Israelis hostage is intrinsically satisfying and rewarding, whether they get terrorists out of prison in exchange or not.

As I’ve also written before, this war is a marathon rather than a sprint. I don’t know how Israel will ultimately change things for the better, but in the larger picture, the prisoners released in this exchange do not change that long-term strategy, whatever it may be.

CNN found liable for defamation

The New Neo Posted on by

Because the person defamed was not a public figure, the standard was lower:

A Florida jury found CNN liable on Friday in a high-stakes defamation trial against U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, who alleged that the network maligned him as an “illegal profiteer” with a report on Afghan evacuees being charged thousands of dollars to flee the country following the U.S. military withdrawal.

Following two days of deliberations, the jury ruled that CNN must pay Young $4 million in financial damages and $1 million for emotional damage, adding that Young is also owed punitive damages. The trial is now heading into a second phase to determine the amount of punitive damages Young should receive from the network.

And of course this was in Florida. Had it been in NYC or especially in DC, the verdict might have been different.

This is interesting:

Additionally, CNN’s legal team argued in court filings that at the “time of its reporting, CNN knew little about Young’s financials, his model, or whether he’d successfully evacuated anyone because whenever anyone [including CNN] asked Young to explain his business, he obfuscated, behaved unprofessionally, lied, and hid.”

Are people required to answer the MSM’s questions? Apparently CNN thinks so. And why didn’t CNN wait till it knew the facts, instead of implying that what Young did was illegal? This appears to be why:

Throughout the trial, Freedman presented a series of Slack messages and emails from Marquardt and other CNN staffers in which they referred to Young as a “s***bag” with a “punchable face.” In one message to an editor, Marquardt said they were “gonna nail this Zachary Young mf***er,” while an editor responded: “Gonna hold you to that one cowboy!” In another message, Marquardt said of Young: “It’s your funeral, bucko.”

In depositions and court filings, CNN and its lawyers defended the harsh remarks as “banter” that’s part of a candid newsroom and that it didn’t impact the editorial process.

Sure thing. Highly objective.

I seem to remember another person with a supposedly “punchable face” who ultimately was paid quite a bit by various news agencies (including CNN) for defamation: Nicholas Sandmann.

Monday’s inauguration will be moved inside due to cold weather

The New Neo Posted on by

At least, that’s the reason that’s being given by Trump:

The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows. There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!).

Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather.

When I look up the weather forecast for DC on Monday, it says 24 degrees with winds between 10 and 20 miles per hour. That’s indeed cold, and although for New Englanders it’s not at all unusual, it’s bitter for DC. I suspect, however, that moving the ceremony inside also makes security much easier. I’ve been worried about security for that day, and so I prefer this solution.

Here are the cold weather precedents:

The last time the ceremony was moved inside was for Ronald Reagan in 1985, also due to extremely cold temperatures. It was 7 degrees with some stiff winds topping 30 mph, which put the wind chills well below zero.

Wow. That is much colder. More:

Historically, early presidential inaugurations were often held indoors within the Capitol, explained FOX News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram to FOX Weather, noting that President Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration followed this tradition.

Pergram further explained that President James Monroe initiated the practice of holding inaugurations outdoors. This shift occurred after the War of 1812, during which the British forces burned the Capitol building.

In addition, every US schoolkid knows – or used to know; I have no idea what they learn these days – that President William Henry Harrison apparently contracted pneumonia because of standing in the cold and wet to deliver his inauguration address in 1841, and died a month later. Although many people on the left would love for Trump to follow that particular precedent, he’s not taking that chance.

The first inauguration I can recall was that of President Kennedy. I was a child at the time, and I watched it in black-and-white on TV, and I remember it as very cold. Looking it up now, I see that was indeed the case:

In 1961, when John F Kennedy was sworn in, temperatures didn’t get past 22F (-5C) in the afternoon and there was 8 inches (20cm) of snow on the ground.

Not as much wind, though? More on the weather here:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was put in charge of clearing the streets during the evening and morning before the inauguration, and were assisted by more than 1,000 District of Columbia employees and 1,700 Boy Scouts. This task force employed hundreds of dump trucks, front-end loaders, sanders, plows, rotaries, and flamethrowers to clear the route. Over 1,400 cars which had been stranded due to the conditions and lack of fuel had to be removed from the parade route along Pennsylvania Avenue.

I see from footage of JFK’s inauguration that he seems to have worn a topcoat without a scarf. And then there’s the bit about the top hat and JFK:

NOTE: Does getting chilled predispose a person to coming down with a cold or pneumonia? Well, maybe a little tiny bit:

“If you’re a little bit colder outside, your body’s immune system may just drop a little bit because it’s spending extra effort to keep you warm. That’s not with everybody, but, in some cases, it may predispose you to a cold,” says Dr. Bracamonte.

But, he says, the cold weather itself doesn’t cause the common cold. However, as winter temps dip down, the chances of spreading a respiratory virus go up because more time is spent indoors with others.

Hostages: deal or no deal?

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel says not so fast:

Israel’s government is aiming to vote Saturday night, local time, to accept the terms of a ceasefire and hostage agreement, multiple outlets reported, delaying implementation of a deal that negotiators hoped to go into effect on Sunday.

While President Biden, President-elect Trump, and Qatar’s emir announced Wednesday that a deal had been agreed between Israel and Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed beginning the internal Israeli process of approving the deal.

There is dissension in Netanyahu’s cabinet:

Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud) threatened in a lengthy statement on Thursday to resign his position as a minister if the incoming hostage deal terms include a retreat from the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border or “if we do not return to fight in order to complete the goals of the war.”

I trust very little that I read about this deal. It seems to still be in a state of flux, plus I don’t trust reporting in general. However, from what I’ve seen, I think both of his stated goals are being met, although I’ve also read articles that seem to state the opposite.

One of the things that seems to matter – or that might matter – is this statement of Trump’s. Strip away the bragging (difficult, I know; there’s so much of it) and pay attention to the promise itself [emphasis mine]:

This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies. I am thrilled American and Israeli hostages will be returning home to be reunited with their families and loved ones. With this deal in place, my National Security team, through the efforts of Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will continue to work closely with Israel and our Allies to make sure Gaza NEVER again becomes a terrorist safe haven. We will continue promoting PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH throughout the region, as we build upon the momentum of this ceasefire to further expand the Historic Abraham Accords. This is only the beginning of great things to come for America, and indeed, the World! We have achieved so much without even being in the White House. Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return to the White House, and my Administration is fully confirmed, so they can secure more Victories for the United States!

Gaza is full of terrorists, and that was the case even without the release of 1000+ more who are presently in Israeli prisons and are slated for release in the deal.

That is, if the deal goes through. It’s not over till the Israeli cabinet sings. And until the exchange happens. And until Hamas doesn’t violate the ceasefire or break the deal in other ways. And even then it’s hardly over. As Trump says, this is only the beginning, whether of “wonderful things that will happen” during Trump’s turn, or of the hostage deal itself.

ADDENDUM:

Almost all the commentary I read or hear about the deal is that it’s awful, terrible, a surrender, shocking, a betrayal by Trump. I think that’s a very shortsighted way to look at it, although of course it might end up that way. But as I believe I wrote in another post on the subject, this deal is like an iceberg and most of it is unseen: what Trump promised, what Hamas will ultimately do, what the Israelis will ultimately do, and whether there was any other way to get some of the hostages back. There was not, IMHO.

I’ve looked for someone who agrees with me on this, and I found this clip from Ben Shapiro. He’s nothing if not articulate, and he articulates my position very well. The portion I’ve cued up is a little over five minutes long:

RIP

The New Neo Posted on by

David Lynch has died at 78. Looking at his obituaries reminds me that for a while his works were highly popular and widely discussed, particularly Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. I most definitely watched both, but remember little of either except a vague sense of unease.

Then there’s Bob Uecker, who has died at the age of 90:

Bob Uecker, who parlayed six laughable seasons as a light-hitting catcher into a second career in comedy highlighted by hilarious turns in the Major League movies, on The Tonight Show and in beer commercials, died Thursday. He was 90.

A member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, Uecker was a popular play-by-play man for his hometown Milwaukee Brewers since 1971, and it was the team that announced his death.

RIP.

President Biden …

The New Neo Posted on by

… says goodbye, although he’s not done yet. There are still a few days left in which he can cause trouble.

I didn’t listen to the speech. However:

He opened his remarks by taking full credit for the hostage deal between Israel and Hamas announced earlier in the day. Notably absent from his account was any acknowledgment of the crucial role played by President-elect Donald Trump’s negotiators or the fact that Trump’s victory itself made Hamas significantly more willing to strike a deal. …

Despite calling MAGA supporters “garbage,” he emphasized that he has been a president for all Americans. …

Similarly, forgetting that many first responders lost their jobs as a result of his administration’s ill-conceived vaccine mandate, Biden praised them as the “heroes” on the frontlines who guided us through the pandemic.

He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, our system of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the significance of the words “we the people” in our Constitution, as if he actually reveres any of these ideals.

Next came the lies. Biden disingenuously claimed that his administration “brought violent crime to a 50-year low. … We have created nearly 17 million new jobs, more than any other single administration in a single term. More people have health care than ever before. And overseas, we have strengthened NATO. Ukraine is still free. And we’ve pulled ahead in our competition with China. And so much more.” …

Biden said he worries about “the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America.”

He blamed “the existential threat of climate change” for the California wildfires and the hurricane that devastated western North Carolina.

Citing former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex in his 1960 farewell address, Biden said he was “equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.”

He attacked misinformation, disinformation, and lamented the decision of Big tech leaders to end fact-checking on social media sites.

Blahbity blah blah.

What’s up with Michelle Obama, and why care?

The New Neo Posted on by

The news is that Michelle Obama is skipping Trump’s inauguration:

“There’s no overstating her feelings about [Trump]. She’s not one to plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake,” a source close to the former first lady told People Magazine. “Michelle doesn’t do anything because it’s expected or it’s protocol or it’s tradition.”

“She served in the public eye and did all the public good that she could for eight years as first lady,” the source said of Obama fulfilling her duties at Trump’s 2017 inauguration. “You’ll see her when she has a project or cause to promote but she doesn’t feel the need to be a public figure anymore,” they continued.

Longtime allies of Michelle Obama also told The Hill they believed her decision to skip the inauguration was an act of resistance.

I’ve never been one to write much about Michelle Obama, either pro or con. Any interest I retain in her is simply because I realize that a lot of people – a lot, perhaps even a majority – would vote for her were she to run for president. Fortunately, she’s never given any indication of wanting to do that, despite almost constant rumors to that effect.

The explanation for the news about Michelle not attending the inauguration is a good example, however, of her inflated sense of self-righteousness for an act of rudeness. “Resistance”? I guess she’s once again not proud of the US, her default position.

However, I also find the announcement interesting coming on the heels of Michelle’s no-show at the Jimmy Carter funeral. I would have thought that would be an event she might have attended. Was her problem that Trump would be there, too? Her husband didn’t seem to mind. Or is it actually that she is through with public life except when it’s completely on her terms and she’s the star of the occasion? That’s my guess.

Then of course there are divorce rumors. That’s always a possibility, but it wouldn’t be my first bet.

ADDENDUM: In only tangentially related news, Ivanka Trump says she’s “through with politics” and won’t be involved in her father’s new term.