The kidnapping plot against Governor Whitmer – more evidence that it was entrapment all along

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve already discussed this general topic here, but now there’s a new article with even more details of the enormous role of undercover FBI agents in the supposed plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer of Michigan.

It would be shocking if we still had the capacity to be shocked by something like this. But even if it’s no longer shocking, it’s outrageous, despicable, and should be condemned by every American.

But there’s no chance of that last bit happening, unfortunately.

Excerpt:

The audacious plot to kidnap a sitting governor — seen by many as a precursor to the Jan. 6 assault on the US Capitol by hundreds of Trump-supporting protesters — has become one of the most important domestic terrorism investigations in a generation…

The government has documented at least 12 confidential informants who assisted the sprawling investigation. The trove of evidence they helped gather provides an unprecedented view into American extremism, laying out in often stunning detail the ways that anti-government groups network with each other and, in some cases, discuss violent actions.

An examination of the case by BuzzFeed News also reveals that some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.

A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come.

The Iraq War vet, for his part, became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group that he rose to become its second-in-command, encouraging members to collaborate with other potential suspects and paying for their transportation to meetings. He prodded the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping plot to advance his plan, then baited the trap that led to the arrest.

The piece is long, and I haven’t read the whole thing although I plan to.

There’s also this, which is tangential but certainly interesting:

Meanwhile, Gregory Townsend, one of the lead prosecutors handling the cases against eight of the defendants in Michigan state court, was reassigned in May pending an attorney general audit into whether he had withheld evidence about deals cut with informants during a murder and arson trial in Oakland County in 2000. And on Sunday, in a matter apparently unrelated to the alleged kidnapping conspiracy, one of the lead FBI agents in the case, Richard J. Trask, was charged in state court in Kalamazoo with assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

We have certainly learned not to trust the FBI. But the need for distrust goes way back, and fifty years ago (!) I remember being very concerned when I learned about entrapment in law school. So there’s this:

Informants have helped make cases that averted terrible violence. But informants have also coerced innocent people, falsified evidence, and even committed murder while working for the FBI. The bureau’s reliance on informants, much criticized in the 1970s, received renewed scrutiny in the wake of 9/11, when they were used to probe Muslim groups for alleged involvement in Islamic terrorism.

I went to law school in the 1970s, and that’s when I realized how pernicious – and perhaps widespread – entrapment is.

The Whitmer “kidnapping” case is not directly related to the January 6th “insurrection” cases. But it rhymes. The latter even is being used to implicate those involved in the former:

In court, the government has drawn a direct line between the alleged kidnapping plot and the Jan. 6 insurrection, holding up the storming of the US Capitol as evidence that the Michigan defendants posed a profound threat.

Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland stressed in a speech about the government’s approach to domestic terrorism that it is focused “on violence, not ideology,” adding that “in America, espousing a hateful ideology is not unlawful.” But if the defense is able to undermine the methods used to build the Michigan case, it could add weight to the theory that the administration is conducting a witch hunt against militant groups — and, by extension, that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a black op engineered by the FBI.

Speaking of ideology, note some of the court proceedings yesterday involving a January 6th defendant:

One of the replies to that tweet is “Sounds like a charge of blasphemy.”

The internet and political censorship

The New Neo Posted on by

Years ago, when the internet really got going, one of its big attractions was that it gave everyone who wanted one a voice. For example, in the blogophere’s early days, different individuals would compete in the marketplace of ideas to be able to reach a segment of the far-flung public without going through the middlemen of agents and publishers or newspaper or magazine editors . Sometimes bloggers linked and promoted each other. Or sometimes a newspaper or talk show host would pick up and promote a certain blogger. But for the most part it was a decentralized system, and bloggers controlled their own sites in their own way. Each blogger made decisions about the rules for commenting and commenters on his or her own site, but no single blogger had that much power because there were so many blogs on which to comment.

Then it slowly changed. The number of individual political bloggers shrank and the number of aggregate sites grew, so that the blogosphere became more centralized although still somewhat spread out. A great many blogs stopped having comments, too, finding them too troublesome to monitor.

But then social media became more popular, and that came down to Facebook and Twitter for the most part. Very centralized. Social media was attractive to a lot of people – although it never attracted me because I felt it was mostly shallow and rewarded “gotcha!” attacks. But it quickly became the way to communicate with a huge number of people at once, if you could get followers, because all the Twitter leaders were on the same platform rather than separate ones.

Politicians quickly saw the advantages of Twitter and many started using it and attracting large followings. But I doubt they thought all that much about the amount of power they were giving a private company over their ability to communicate with the public. And that centralization of social media is now a big problem, especially for the right. It Twitter or Facebook decides to ban a person that person can still write and speak, but he or she loses out on a vital way to be heard and read in today’s world.

And now the heads of social media are apparently taking orders from the Biden administration. So they have become the mouthpiece that does the present administration’s bidding, a far cry from the original promise of the internet. Of course, they say they’re just refusing to spread “misinformation” – but who decides what that is? The people on the left who are in charge of social media, that’s who, as well as the currently leftist government.

But it’s not just Twitter and Facebook and other social media outlets. Conservative sites in general are now at risk; see this for some of the details, as well as the first part of this.

We’re getting closer and closer to the situation of government censorship of a huge segment of our communication, and it’s being done in a fascistic way through a partnership of government and private enterprise. And many people don’t seem to give a hoot, because it’s silencing the voices they want silenced.

Have ten thousand people died from the COVID vaccine?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve seen that figure touted here and there online, and the other day a friend of mine also insisted that people are dropping like flies from the vaccine. At this point, I see no reason to believe that’s true.

It’s not that I naively trust the government or the CDC or the MSM at this point; I don’t. But it stands to reason to me that if you give a vaccine to half the population and far more than half of the elderly population, you’re going to have a lot of “adverse events” coming afterwards.

The rumor seems to have come from the manner in which such events are being reported for COVID vaccines. This article makes sense to me, and until further evidence emerges that it’s wrong (and of course that could happen), I believe that this vaccine is not especially dangerous. Here’s an example of what I mean:

Deaths reported to VAERS are not a “death toll.” The database includes all serious adverse events following vaccination against COVID-19 — regardless of whether the vaccines are to blame. There have been more deaths reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination than for other vaccines, but experts told USA TODAY that’s not because the vaccines are deadly. Anti-vaccine advocates have erroneously cited the database for decades…

VAERS relies on healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers and vaccine recipients to submit reports of adverse events following vaccination. Those events are not called “symptoms” or “side effects” because events reported to VAERS are not all verifiably linked to the vaccines, as the CDC says on its website.

These reports are relatively rare for FDA-approved vaccines. Between 2000-2020, VAERS received 1,005 reports of death after vaccination, according to a USA TODAY analysis of VAERS data…

One reason for the inflated reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination is that healthcare providers are required to report all serious adverse events, regardless of whether they think they’re related to the shot.

“Healthcare providers’ reporting requirements (for COVID-19 vaccines) are much broader than for other vaccines,” Shimabukuro told USA TODAY.

After someone receives a COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use.

For other vaccines — such as the flu vaccine and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines — the requirements are different. According to Shimabukuro, providers do not have to report deaths or other adverse events for FDA-approved vaccines unless they fit specific criteria of reportable events.

But that’s not all. It turns out that anyone – not just medical people, but anyone – can report to the system. Because the COVID vaccine is so controversial and there’s so much interest in it as well as political implications, it is probably the case that more people are reporting data to the system than with other previous disease vaccinations.

This all makes sense to me, as I said. Nevertheless I support the right of anyone to refuse to be vaccinated, for any reason.

What is Hunter Biden’s art really worth?

The New Neo Posted on by

This article is entitled “Pulitzer-Winning Art Critic Reveals What Hunter Biden’s Paintings Are Really Worth”:

Last month, we reported that Hunter Biden’s first solo art show was coming soon and that his paintings were expected to sell for between $75,000 and half a million dollars each.

From the pieces that I was able to see, I found them mediocre, but the media gushed over Hunter’s newfound art hobby, professed his talent, and some “experts” claimed his work is actually good…

Never mind the inflated prices and the whole thing about all the purchases being confidential…

In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cillizza, [famous art critic] Smee was asked outright: “Is Hunter Biden’s work any good, aesthetically speaking?”

“For me, not really,” Smee told him. “I’ve only seen it in reproduction, so I’m sure I’m missing a lot: texture, layering, detail. Parts of them look technically impressive. But the style is eclectic in a way that makes his work feel neither one thing nor another.”

But I submit that there’s no way to tell what Hunter Biden’s (or any other artist’s) work is really worth in some ideal Platonic sense. It’s worth what people will pay, and that can change over time. It’s worth – to each person – is what that person thinks of it. With the paintings of Hunter Biden, it’s even more difficult – in fact, well-nigh impossible – to get an objective sense because politics and the selling of influence enters into it so heavily.

But I have noticed that a great deal of recent art is political, both in concept and in the way it’s treated by museums and critics. I used to go to art exhibits regularly, but in the last decade or so it’s become so “woke” that I’ve stopped going. Even exhibits of older art are increasingly described in political leftist terms, and although that doesn’t completely spoil the art for me, it becomes a distasteful exercise in wading through the explanatory mire.

And new art? Much of it that I’ve seen seems utterly worthless to me, and I wouldn’t pay a dime for it. It’s not esthetic, it’s not appealing, and it’s often so “conceptual” (although that word is a bit passé) that it’s indistinguishable from political propaganda. The artists are also sometimes grouped and evaluated in terms of their ethnicity and sex (or “gender”).

That’s not the way I look at art. But it’s the way we increasingly are being told to see it.

The Delta variant and the vaccine

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday, commenter Edward R. Bonderenka wrote this:

As for the efficacy of the injection. I heard this morning that Israel, thoroughly injected, is seeing an upswing in ChiVi.
Now I hear it’s the Delta Variant (I shudder in fear).
But the injections were good against the DV.
Are they making it up as they go along?

I think the point of that comment was to say that the vaccine isn’t especially protective. It seems to me that the “shudder in fear” part might be sarcastic. But whether it’s sarcastic or not in that particular comment, “shudder in fear” is a good description of the effect that news of the Delta variant has on a lot of people, including a lot of people I know.

And it does seem as though quite a few authorities are itching to lock us down again, or at least to get us to all wear masks again.

It’s relatively early at this point in the life history of the Delta variant, but so far when I look at the actual numbers I see no cause for alarm. As has been true for the entire course of the pandemic, it’s the serious cases and the deaths that matter, and so far the rise in US cases is small according to the chart of cases per day. As for the rise in deaths, we only have data up to about three weeks ago, and there was no rise at that point.

But let’s take Israel, the country that was the subject of the comment. Israel is a good example because it’s compact and it’s easier to see the overall picture, plus it has a high percentage of vaccinated people.

The population of Israel is approximately 9,228,000. About 10% are over 65, and from this chart it seems that about another 450,000 are between 60 and 65 (that would add another 4.8%). So by my quick figuring, the total population over 60 in Israel would be about 1,373,000.

Of that 60-and-over group, more than 90% are fully vaccinated. Let’s lowball it and say that it’s 90%, which would mean that 1,235,700 are vaccinated in that age group. The Pfizer vaccine (used in Israel) is considered to be 95% effective. So I would conclude that 61,785 people over 60 in Israel who have been vaccinated would be expected to be susceptible to getting COVID despite the vaccine.

In populations over 60, what percent tend to have cases serious enough to be hospitalized? In the early days of the COVID pandemic (when there wasn’t good treatment and testing wasn’t so widespread), it was found that between 22% and 34% of people over 60 who got COVID needed hospitalization. I can’t find more recent statistics, but I’m pretty sure it’s a considerably smaller percentage at this point. I remember reading at one later time that it was 10% in the over-60 age group. So I’ll use that 10% figure.

If you look at the Worldometer charts for Israel, you’ll see that although case numbers have had a slight uptick there, they are still very low. Deaths haven’t even had an uptick (although deaths trail reporting of cases, of course).

Here’s an article describing the situation in Israel at present. Right now in the entire country there are 121 hospitalized COVID patients (it doesn’t say whether “from” or “with”) and 61 of them are in serious condition. All but one are over 60, and the other person is close to 60. There’s no information about their state of health otherwise, or their age distribution within that over-60 group. But this is a minuscule portion of the 61,785 Israelis in that age group fully vaccinated and vulnerable, of whom at least 6,179 might be expected to be hospitalized if they were to contract COVID.

Then there’s this:

One month ago, there were just 19 serious cases in the country; Sunday’s figure of 61 is the highest in two months. At its peak in late January, there were more than 1,000 serious cases.

So the caseload is still very low, even comparatively speaking. What’s more – and this is an important part:

The Delta variant is believed to be more successful in bypassing the COVID vaccines than previous strains of the virus. Health Ministry figures released in early July indicated that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is only 64% effective in preventing infection, but it remains 93% effective at preventing hospitalization and serious symptoms.

Some health officials cast doubt on these figures, noting that they were gathered only over a period of a month, and they maintain that the Pfizer vaccine is actually more effective against Delta than claimed. Nevertheless, Pfizer cited data from Israel in seeking authorization from the US Federal Drug Administration for a third booster dose of its vaccine.

Boosters are only planned to be given to people with extra health problems.

So it seems that the vaccine doesn’t protect perfectly, nor did anyone ever say it did. But it protects pretty well, especially against serious COVID. But that doesn’t mean such cases don’t happen in fully vaccinated people. They do and they will. The real question is whether their numbers will increase significantly and especially past the point that is to be expected given the fact that vaccines all have a certain failure rate. So far the numbers are not bad.

Part of the panic about this is that the MSM isn’t doing a good job of explaining the statistics. But what else is new? They have a vested interest in panic, too. And of course the Biden administration and some local authorities are ramping up the “Unvaccinated people are killers!” routine.

From the start COVID has been utterly politicized, which I consider reprehensible. From the start there also has been so much lying and coverup (as well as bona fide confusion) that it becomes harder rather than easier to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Social media and government officials (but I repeat myself) who purport to tell us what is “misinformation” and what is not have utterly failed to earn our trust. So apparently it’s up to us to figure out what the statistics actually mean, and that’s far from easy.

[ADDENDUM: I’ll add that headlines saying something like “COVID cases increase among fully vaccinated people” are confusing and even misleading for many people. Of course such cases are increasing among the fully vaccinated. More people have been fully vaccinated, and as I said in my post, at least 5% of the vaccinated will be susceptible to COVID. So as a greater percentage of the population becomes vaccinated, cases will increase among the vaccinated. But most people don’t think that through, and they conclude that the vaccine isn’t helping them against the new variant.]

RIP Robby Steinhardt, violinist for the rock group Kansas

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s Steinhardt, in a song that I particularly remember because it came out not long after the death of a family member of mine:

From the Rolling Stone obituary:

Steinhardt’s wife, Cindy Steinhardt, confirmed his death on Facebook. Cindy said Steinhardt was admitted to the hospital with acute pancreatitis in May. Not long after, he went into acute septic shock and was placed on life support, and although the outlook was “very grave” at he time, he managed to recover. However, several months later, just as he was about to be released from medical care and moved to a rehab center, Steinhardt suffered another sepsis.

I’ve written about the dangers of sepsis in this previous post.

This is interesting:

Steinhardt was born May 25th, 1950 in Chicago, and was adopted by his parents, Ilsa and Milton Steinhardt, when he was four days old. One year later, as a biography on Steinhardt’s website notes, the family relocated to Lawrence, Kansas, where Milton worked as a music professor and eventually became the Chairman of the Music History and Literature Department at Kansas University. Steinhardt grew up playing and studying classical violin, but in 1972, he joined a fledgling rock based out of Topeka, then known as White Clover.

So Steinhardt seems to have been fortunate to have been adopted by a very musical family, and to have been musical himself.

More:

Steinhardt shared vocal duties with Walsh, with the pair switching between backup and lead; but it was Steinhardt’s violin that helped distinguish Kansas’ sound from other bands…

In a 1992 interview, Livgren offered this assessment of Steinhardt’s contributions to Kansas, saying: “Robby had a totally unique function as a violinist, second vocalist, and MC in a live situation. Robby was the link between the band on the stage and the audience.”

Steinhardt also had major Big Hair.

The song “Dust In the Wind” is very evocative for me, and Steinhardt’s violin is a big part of it. RIP.

The vaccines and COVID and the Texas Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

Quite a few of the Democrats fleeing the Texas legislature seem to have gotten COVID for their troubles. And yet they were all fully vaccinated.

To me, this demonstrates two things about the vaccine and COVID. The first is that – as was always said – the vaccines are not 100% effective and some vaccinated people will be getting COVID. But what does “getting COVID” mean in this context? Most – actually all, so far – of this group have no symptoms or what’s described as mild symptoms. So the second thing it seems to demonstrate is that even when the vaccine doesn’t prevent COVID, it reduces its more serious effects.

There’s been a lot of brouhaha about the fact that the fleeing Texan Democrats didn’t wear masks on the plane. I think that matters only in that it shows their hypocrisy and rules-flouting, because masks are mandatory on planes. I assume they’re mandatory even on chartered flights, but I’m not sure. At any rate, I think masks are only mildly protective, and even with masks quite a few of these people might have gotten COVID anyway.

Floods wreak havoc in western Europe; botched warnings

The New Neo Posted on by

Massive floods after torrential rains have affected Germany and Belgium, and to a lesser extent Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with significant loss of life and property destruction.

European leaders have blamed AGW, as you might have predicted, although there is no way of knowing whether that has anything to do with this event. The beauty of AGW is that any extreme weather event can be blamed on it and no one needs to prove it, nor can it be disproved.

The photos show a lot of property destruction. Over a hundred people are dead and many more missing. Germany, one of the worlds’ most developed countries, is described as having been taken by surprise:

Professor Hannah Cloke, a hydrologist who set up and now advises the European Flood Awareness System – an EU programme designed to provide early warnings of dangerous floods – said alerts were sent to authorities in Europe over the weekend.

“There were alerts going out… saying there’s some very serious rain and floods coming: be aware. It’s then for the national authorities to take that information and go with it,” she said.

Prof Cloke said there were places where the system had “done what it’s designed to do”, with early warnings heeded.

But there were “also places where those warnings did not get through to the people and they did not know it was going to happen”.

Prof Cloke set up the warning system after deadly flooding in Europe in 2002, hoping to prevent such an event from happening again.

But she said the latest flooding had exposed “breaks in the chain”…

Prof Cloke says Germany has a “fragmented” system involving many different authorities in different states, resulting in varying responses.

A spokesman for the German weather service Deutscher Wetterdienst said it had issued a number of warnings about extreme rainfall. He said it was up to other authorities to determine the flood risk and act on evacuating people, or taking other measures…

Prof Cloke said there were places where people did not know the floods were coming, or did not know how to respond to protect themselves and their homes.

“They were putting themselves at risk, they were walking through the floodwater,” she explained…

Friederike Otto, associate director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, said “urgent education” was needed on the risks of flooding.

“I think people are really not aware that weather can actually be deadly,” she said.

Where’s that vaunted German efficiency when you need it? What a terrible situation, and seemingly preventable if the warning system had done its job. Note also that this system was set up under the EU banner, and it doesn’t sound as though it filtered down to the more local authorities. Nor does it sound as though people have the old-fashioned common sense to understand what a flood is and what it can do – perhaps because we are generally so protected against things.

Unlike Germany, however, the Netherlands avoided fatalities:

The Copernicus Emergency Management Service said it sent more than 25 warnings for specific regions of the Rhine and Maas river basins in the days leading up to the flooding, through its European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), well before heavy rains triggered the flash flooding. But few of these early warnings appear to have been passed on to residents early — and clearly — enough…

In Belgium, too, communication and organization appear to have been problems…

In the Netherlands, just across its borders with Germany’s and Belgium’s flood-devastated areas, the picture is entirely different. The Netherlands too experienced extreme rainfall — albeit not quite as heavy as those in Germany and Belgium — and it hasn’t escaped unscathed. But its towns are not entirely submerged and not a single person has died. Officials were better prepared and were able to communicate with people quickly, said Professor Jeroen Aerts, head of the Water and Climate Risk department at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.

“We better saw the wave coming, and where it was going,” Aerts told CNN.

The Netherlands has a long history of water management and their success in the face of this disaster may offer the world a blueprint on how to handle floods…

Much of the [The Netherlands] is essentially sinking.

Its water management infrastructure is among the best in the world — involving giant walls with moveable arms the size of two football fields, coastal dunes that are reinforced with some 12 million cubic meters of sand per year, and simple things, like dikes and giving rivers more room to swell by lowering their beds — or floors — and expanding their banks.

Its strength lies largely in its organization. The country’s infrastructure is managed by a branch of government devoted solely to water…

Oh, and it had less rain.

However, unlike the Netherlands, most countries are not organized around water control. It seems that in Europe this time, all the information was there to have organized an evacuation and prevented the worst loss of life, although not the property damage. But it wasn’t done.

The American descent into madness

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the title of Victor Davis Hanson’s latest essay, and I think he’s got it right:

America went from the freest country in the world in December 2019 to a repressive and frightening place by July 2021. How did that happen?…

In the last six months, we have seen absurdities never quite witnessed in modern America. Madness, not politics, defines it. There are three characteristics of all these upheavals. One, the events are unsustainable. They will either cease or they will destroy the nation, at least as we know it. Two, the law has largely been rendered meaningless. Three, left-wing political agendas justify any means necessary to achieve them.

Hanson then proceeds to list and describe many of the details. I’ll just give the title headings here: “Citizenship as Mere Residency” (on illegal immigration), “The Campus Con” (the further leftist-driven decline of universities), “Commissars and Jacobins” (thought control through social media plus government), “Inflation Is a Mere Construct” (pseudo-economics to shrug away inflation), “Our People’s Military” (wokeness taking over the armed forces), “Keep Cuba Castroite?” (failure to support the demonstrators), “The United Nations Über Alles” (asking the UN to investigate our human rights).

The list isn’t exhaustive nor do I think it’s meant to be, and it certainly didn’t just start in the last six months. But Hanson’s general description is a good one, because person after person on the right has described this feeling of witnessing something crazy happening to the nation and to some extent the world. But radical leftism has never made much sense, although it often purports to do so. It actually rides on the idea that – as Orwell so aptly described – two plus two equals five if the Party decrees it to be so.

That’s already a form of madness, but it describes the left’s essential rejection of logic in favor of the quest for power and the consolidation of power, and the double-think required to maintain belief in the party’s goals despite contradictions and 180-degree switches that sometimes are quick enough to give a person what one might describe as concept whiplash. That illogic, boldness, and sense of whiplash is what the right experiences as “madness,” and part of the “madness” is that the left doesn’t experience it that way at all, and that the “left” (or useful idiots of the left) now constitutes half of America. For most of us, among that half are our friends and family, which only adds to the sense of bewilderment and confusion.

The perception of the world or the country having gone mad also has the effect of making it difficult to know how to counter it. It seems as though it’s already very far gone, and that perception is correct. I can recall, for example, noticing some of this – certainly at the university level – back in the late 80s and early 90s, and speaking out against it but not getting anywhere. There were attempts during the Obama years – the Tea Party comes to mind – but that movement was unsuccessful in fighting off the combined forces of the MSM and the Obama administration smearing it as racist, as well as persecution by the IRS.

One of the benefits of the current madness, though, is that many more people than before are noticing it and experiencing the effects of it up close and personal. For example, inflation can be redefined and excused by the left, but it still affects the pocketbook in ways that are hard to deny. And when CRT wokeness comes for the average schoolchild, parents can be mobilized to fight it off.

COVID fear was used to temporarily keep people in a state of obedient passivity, but for a lot of people (including some in the middle and even some reliable Democrat voters) that era is over. Is the madness of the Biden administration – which includes the bizarre Emperor’s-New-Clothes condition of its nominal leader, Biden – enough to wake the sleeping giant that is the American people?