On Friday, Tucker Carlson examined the threat of Red China to the United States as shown by the coronavirus outbreak. The globalist economy, so profitable to big business, has put too much power in the hands of hostile communist China which manufactures a large proportion of the pharmaceuticals upon which we Americans depend.
Even so, the larger truth is that unfriendly China “dominates the world market in pharmaceutical ingredients” as Tucker observes, and “more than 95 percent of all the antibiotics in America are manufactured in Communist China.”
This situation is not conducive to America’s national security, particularly when Chinese economist Li Daokui suggested last year that medicine could be used as a weapon against the West:
“Just as some international analysts have pointed out, we are indeed at the mercy of others when it comes to computer chips, but we are the world’s largest exporter of vitamin and antibiotic ingredients,” Li said last March during a speech at a national advisory conference, as quoted by state-run Xinhua (Chinese). “If we cut back exports, some western countries’ medical system won’t operate well.”
Nice people, these ChiComs!
Whatever the nature of the coronavirus — global pandemic or media hiccup — the event has shown how unwise it is to allow the unfriendly Chinese to manufacture so many necessary pharmaceuticals. The global economy and healthcare are not a good mix, and especially so when Red China is involved.
Tucker Carlson sounds inclined to believe the worst about the corona illness, but nevertheless he makes important points about the big picture of the Chinese threat and the borderless world generally regarding public health.
Audio file:
TUCKER CARLSON: Good evening, and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight.
There comes a time in every presidential administration when the people in charge realize they’re not really in control. Unforeseen events arise. In an instant, every assumption about the future changes. Heads of State die, wars erupt, natural disasters descend, epidemics rage — none of it was in anybody’s plan. There’s something about human nature that prevents us from preparing for this, for abrupt and radical change. We pretend the unexpected will never happen.
But there’s something in nature itself that reminds us it inevitably will. It’s always a terrifying realization.
The rise of the Chinese coronavirus is that kind of moment. The virus is quickly becoming a global pandemic. Ultimately, it could kill millions, at the very least, it will reorder the global economy and change our politics.
Could the disease help determine the outcome of our next presidential election eight months from now? Of course, it could, in fact it will. Our leaders can’t stop that.
Like all matters of life and death. It is beyond human power to affect, but they can respond to the threat in a way that makes this country stronger, not weaker.
How can they do that? Here’s how. The first step is to take the virus seriously and to convince the public that you are.
In 1918, Woodrow Wilson’s White House downplayed the Spanish influenza and refused to take obvious precautions to slow it spread. Wilson had a pointless war in progress in Europe to fight. His generals couldn’t be distracted from that goal.
So the government continued to ship men to overcrowded army camps across the country and to pack them on ships to France. The virus spread exponentially.
In the end, about 53,000 American soldiers were killed in combat in that war, at least 675,000 Americans died of the flu.
Could Wilson have prevented that disaster? Well, not entirely. But by early and decisive action, he could have improved America’s odds.
So what does effective action look like now? Well, we ought to be screening people when they get off the planes from infected countries. That’s not complicated. It’s obvious.
But at the same time, it is hardly a solution. We should be honest about how much we can do to keep the Chinese coronavirus from coming here.
A hundred years ago, the Spanish flu killed a significant percentage of the population in remote Aleutian Islands and that was before air travel.
Today, the entire world is connected by hourly international flights. Global pandemics are inevitable. There’s too much movement to keep viruses isolated. We should acknowledge that.
Yes, we can do our best to keep foreign diseases out of this country, but we ought to spend most of our time trying to figure out how to protect Americans once the diseases get here.
There’s still a lot we don’t know about the Chinese coronavirus, but two things do seem clear. It is highly communicable and the elderly and people with preexisting respiratory disease face the greatest threat from it.
That means for most Americans, the biggest risks will come not from the virus itself, but from its ancillary effects. People will panic. Travel will be disrupted. Markets will tumble and most critically, hospitals will be overwhelmed.
We’re about to learn the limits of our healthcare system. Conditions will be tough for the many thousands of Americans looking for beds to recover from the flu. In Seattle, they already are.
But things will be even worse for anyone suffering from say pancreatitis or a burst appendix; not to mention, countless other health emergencies.
People like this may not get care at all. Our system won’t be able to accommodate them.
There are many implications of this and some of them are political. For example, is this really the time to invite the rest of the world to join Medicare-for-All? Probably not. That idea was always stupid. Now, it’s clearly dangerous. Continue reading this article
As the coronavirus spreads around the world, we should notice how the openness of travel has been facilitated the spread of the illness. Borders are our friends when contagion is on the loose — even though the current panic is largely an overblown media concoction, according to Dr. Drew Pinsky.
But the next communicable disease may be more deadly, so returning to a more orderly, borderly world would be a good idea. President Trump’s shutdown of foreigner travel from Red China to the US was definitely the right move to block the coronavirus entry here, although he was accused of xenophobia for protecting the American people at the time.
China watcher Gordon Chang agreed with Gregg Jarrett that border restrictions are a good idea during an interview on Fox Business last week:
GREGG JARRETT: Do more countries need to start closing their borders?
GORDON CHANG: I think so. You know, President Trump at the end of January imposed those travel restrictions on China and the quarantine, and that’s the only reason why we do not have an emergency today. That’s not to say it won’t spread in the US because it is, but at least we’ve bought some time. And I think we can do the same thing with some other countries, preventing some travelers from coming here. That will help us a lot.
Is President Trump depending on the general lameness of the 2020 Democrats — the Cuba-loving commie and the senile gasbag — to assure his re-election?
Unfortunately for the American people, the president cannot honestly campaign on his record of immigration enforcement to attract voters, though he promised a lot of policing in the beginning of his term. But his record is simply not strong.
Another unfulfilled Trump promise was ending the H-1b visa which has been used to replace thousands of well educated citizen tech workers with cheapie foreigners, often Indians.
On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson examined the H-1b issue and the continuing pain it causes to American tech workers.
Perhaps President Trump will see the segment and do more to fix the harmful legislation — after all, this is an election year.
TUCKER CARLSON: President Trump travelled to India last week to meet with that country’s Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi. One of the central issues at their meeting was the H-1b visa program. that program doles out roughly 85,000 visas a year to foreigners so they can move to this country and take American jobs.
I’m not exaggerating, that’s what it does: the vast majority of these visas are given to people from India. As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump called for ending this program entirely, but as president that hasn’t happened, though the Trump administration has made the visas slightly harder to get.
So why is the program still around? Why is it so durable? That’s an easy question to answer — it’s a favorite of tech companies which claim they simply can’t find any Americans skilled enough or smart enough to do tech work.
That’s a lie, a provable lie: companies routinely use H-1bs as a means to fire their existing American workers and replace them with lower paid foreigners. Often the fired workers are made to train their replacements before they’re terminated. The process for the replaced workers is painful and humiliating. Company executives tell them they’re being reassigned to a completely new company with a new role that consists of training people to do the job they once did. When they are not needed any more, they’re cast aside.
We recently spoke to some AT&T employees who are quote “rebadged” by the company to train cheaper replacements from India. Here’s their story:
ANONYMOUS FORMER AT&T EMPLOYEE: You’re just kind of numb. You just feel helpless, and you just accept it. Continue reading this article
Which has been worse on TV recently — the constant yammer about the coronavirus or the 2020 Democrats reciting their talking points? Both are odious, although the alleged sickness may be fake news entirely.
Dr. Drew Pinsky recently opined what many must have suspected — that the virus scare is just the media being hysterical about a public health situation that is not anywhere near verging on a pandemic. In fact, coronavirus is far less serious than the flu in terms of actual fatalities.
But “coronavirus” has lots of syllables and can be blamed on Trump (wrongly) rather than China, so the press can’t leave it alone.
Below, Red China Coronavirus
Dr. Drew appeared with Laura Ingraham on Monday, and he is not happy with the press:
LAURA INGRAHAM: Now, it’s not just the Democrats who are recklessly politicizing the coronavirus threat. Their media lapdogs are at it as well:
FAREED ZAKARIA: The coronavirus outbreak has the potential to become a global pandemic.
JAKE TAPPER: It’s a global health process, the spread of the coronavirus in the United States.
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: This is a serious threat, and Donald Trump needs to do his job.
MSNBC FEMALE: It could get worse, and it could be precipitated by actions taken by the administration.
INGRAHAM: My next guest says some of those in the media need to sit back and let the professionals do their work. Joining me now, Dr. Drew Pinsky, an addiction medicine specialist, host of “Dr. Drew After Dark” podcast. Dr. Drew, how much damage is the media causing now the way they’re covering this?
DR. DREW PINSKY: Essentially the entire problem we are having is due to panic, not the virus. I was saying this six weeks ago.
We have six deaths from the coronavirus, 18,000 deaths from the flu. Why isn’t the message, get your flu vaccine? This is amongst us. It is milder than we thought. The fatality rate is going to drop as we identify more cases.
The entirety of the problem now is that people are being pushed into bankruptcy. Travel is down. The supply chain is being interrupted because of panic, not because of the virus. The flu virus in this country is vastly more consequential, and nobody is talking about that.
INGRAHAM: And Dr. Drew, I was traveling over the weekend, four different flights. And people are wearing masks on the plane. Now, it makes traveling kind of interesting, you can’t really see their facial expressions. But that does zero to prevent you from getting the flu. Zero, correct?
PINSKY: It’s panic. It’s panic. That is panic. That is people engaged in panicked behavior. And that is what concerns me. It is a press-induced panic that will have real consequences. It will not be the virus.
Listen, The Journal of the American Medical Association published lead articles this week about what they were reporting on the coronavirus. But one of the things they asked was why did the Chinese government clamp down so hard? Was there something special about this virus?
The report was, the reason was the holiday, the Chinese New Year was coming, and during the New Year, apparently everybody travels, and they wanted to get it under control before the holiday, so they clamped down quickly. They got it under control. The holiday came, people traveled. It did not spread. They did exactly what they needed to do.
And then we need to calm down. It is here, it’s mild, and the press needs to shut up. It’s really getting to be a problem.
On Monday, Tucker Carlson reviewed the state of the Democrat party in light of the several 2020 candidates who recently quit the race. He judged Tom Steyer as a poor dancer, Mayor Pete to be rather robotic and identity politics ending up as a big loser for the party as a whole.
After a few minutes he was joined by Victor Davis Hanson who thought this is “the worst field we’ve seen since Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.”
The candidates do seem like the B-team of the D-party, but who else is there? When the leadership of the Democrat party is considered among the serving governors, senators and members of Congress, nobody appealing springs to mind. Over recent years, the whole party seems to have lost track of the major purpose in governing — namely to lead with policies that will help the American people.
Instead the Democrats support bad ideas like open borders, including crazy unaffordable freebies for foreign lawbreakers.
Who can forget the moment in last October’s Democrat debate in which all candidates agreed to support taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens?
When the debate moderator asked Democrat candidates to “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide [medical] coverage for undocumented immigrants,” all responded affirmatively.
How would that policy benefit Americans, many of whom find their own medical coverage to be inadequate? Healthcare polls consistently as a top concern — particularly its high cost — but citizens show no desire to pay for illegal aliens’ medical coverage.
Democrats are united that they want to beat Donald Trump and gain power, but an affirmative message to voters is lacking. For example, over the last two years, House Democrats managed only to impeach the president, with no legislation to advance the well-being of citizens.
Hanson agrees the Democrats have lost track of the big political picture — to win elections, a party has to offer something to voters beyond wokeness and diversity.
Audio version:
TUCKER CARLSON: So over the next few weeks, all the attention will of course be on Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and maybe Michael Bloomberg. So we want to pause and remember the candidates we lost over the weekend — not permanently, they’re just not in the race.
For all of them, their failure to win the nomination is reason for all of us to feel a little better about ourselves. We’re not as dumb as we thought we were. Tom Steyer disproved that simply because you’re a billionaire doesn’t mean you’re an oligarch. Steyer spent more than $100 million dollars of his own money. And in the end, did an embarrassing dance on stage and then got nothing.
His sad presidential run ought to be encouraging to every person in America, particularly the slower among us. If that guy can make a billion dollars, you can, too.
Pete Buttigieg’s defeat proves that while Americans may be willing to vote for socialists or plutocrats or adulterers, they are pretty open minded actually. They still want their Presidents to be human. Creepy robots with biographies crafted in a Silicon Valley lab are going to have to wait till the 22nd Century to have their chance. Here’s Buttigieg minutes ago backing Biden.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: It is an honor to be here with Vice President Biden. You know, when I ran for President, we made it clear that the whole idea was about rallying the country together to defeat Donald Trump and to win the era for the values that we share and that was always a goal that was much bigger than me becoming President.
And it is in the name of that very same goal, that I’m delighted to endorse and support Joe Biden for President.
CARLSON: I think Barack Obama gave that exact same speech, but I don’t have Google in front of me, but you can check it.
And of course, Amy Klobuchar dropped out as well. Her defeat is good news for anyone who cares about proper comb hygiene. The Democratic race may be smaller tonight, but it’s not more amicable. Why? Because Elizabeth Warren is still running and now she is openly campaigning for a divisive brokered convention next July, which would be really like Christmas day for the rest of us.
Warren’s only reason for staying in the race right now is to sabotage Bernie Sanders, but many Democrats are happy to play along.
The weird neuroses anxieties and just strangers in the Democratic coalition are coming to the surface. It’s like pulling up a rock and all these things crawl away or try to.
We’re learning a lot about what they really care about. So over the weekend, the Boston Globe ran a piece arguing — and this is for real — that it was “disrespectful” for Bernie Sanders to try and win the Massachusetts primary since it would be a “major humiliation” for Elizabeth Warren.
That’s really identity politics taken to its endpoint. It’s the state of the Democratic race right now. If you’re too extreme for the donor class, then it’s sexist to try and win an election.
Victor Davis Hanson, one of the wisest people we know, is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution out in California. He joins us tonight. Professor, you look on at this and what do you make of it?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Well, this latest dropout group of Klobuchar and Buttigieg is same thing as the first round of dropouts with Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, Julian Castro and how to sum it all up, Tucker, is after a year of all of this wokeness and diversity and white privilege, what do we end up with?
We ended up with three old white guys that are 77 and 78, with a Marxist — Neo-Marxist — as the presumptive leader, and all of them have a history of insensitive remarks about women or things they’ve written.
So it’s a complete antithesis of the whole premise of the Democratic Party and we don’t have anybody who is a charismatic character other than Bernie Sanders, and his criticisms are sometimes legitimate of American society, but his bromides are frightening.
So they are in a real — and then they’ve got this outside billionaire who is coming into save everybody from Bernie Sanders, on the premise that Biden was fading, but Biden is not quite dead yet — his candidacy, I mean that metaphorically — and now Bloomberg is going to be blamed for you know, dividing the moderate vote and handing the nomination to Sanders.
And then this was supposed to be the transparent new reformist party and they’re going to go back to an old 1950s, 1940s brokered convention with guys and cigars in the back room, horse-trading jobs and employment and entitlements to get delegates. It’s completely — the reality is completely opposite to the rhetoric of the whole progressive movement. Continue reading this article
Tech and business publications routinely chat up the advantages of transitioning away from human workers and into smart machines, but it’s less often that the mainstream press emphasizes the cost saving of companies switching to robots.
It’s interesting then to see a recent edition of the Los Angeles Times cite the savings to be had by replacing restaurant employees with automation — thousands of dollars per month, we read. Flippy the burger robot now is “costing less to employ than a minimum-wage worker.” What business manager wouldn’t take that opportunity?
The robot burger flipper doesn’t mind working the grill 24/7 with no breaks.
So does it make sense for America to continue immigrating millions of low-skilled workers from abroad?
In a test kitchen in a corner building in downtown Pasadena, Flippy the robot grabbed a fryer basket full of chicken fingers, plunged it into hot oil — its sensors told it exactly how hot — then lifted, drained and dumped maximally tender tenders into a waiting hopper.
A few feet away, another Flippy eyed a beef patty sizzling on a griddle. With its camera eyes feeding pixels to a machine vision brain, it waited until the beef hit the right shade of brown, then smoothly slipped its spatula hand under the burger and plopped it onto a tray.
The product of decades of research in robotics and machine learning, Flippy represents a synthesis of motors, sensors, chips and processing power that wasn’t possible until recently.
Now, Flippy’s success — and the success of the company that built it, Miso Robotics — depends on simple math and a controversial hypothesis of how robots can transform the service economy. Costing less to employ than a minimum-wage worker, Flippy is built to slip in right alongside humans on the fast-food line.
Off-the-shelf robot arms have plunged in price in recent years, from more than $100,000 in 2016, when Miso Robotics first launched, to less than $10,000 today, with cheaper models coming in the near future.
As a result, Miso can offer Flippys to fast-food restaurant owners for an estimated $2,000 per month on a subscription basis, breaking down to about $3 per hour. (The actual cost will depend on customers’ specific needs). A human doing the same job costs $4,000 to $10,000 or more a month, depending on a restaurant’s hours and the local minimum wage. And robots never call in sick. (Continues)
A lot of political pundits remark about candidate Bernie Sanders that at least he’s the same Vermont socialist he has been for the last 30 years.
But that assessment is not true. Bernie has flipped over to the side of the deep-state globalists who think borders and national sovereignty are obsolete and need to go. He once supported American workers and understood that excessive immigration drove down wages.
No longer. He has succumbed to the open-borders insanity of the left including free healthcare and college for the invaders. Bernie has also embraced the scary-bad New Way Forward Act that threatens the basic law and order we all expect.
Under Bernie’s generous plan, why wouldn’t a hundred million foreigners come? Or a billion? Unlimited free stuff from the most desirable nation on earth would be irresistible.
Not to mention the money-making opportunities in a wide open America for drug cartels and other criminal enterprises from abroad.
On Thursday Tucker Carlson examined Bernie’s embrace of extreme open borders:
However, Tucker did not speculate on why Bernie switched to the dark side.
TUCKER CARLSON: All of a sudden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the frontrunner in the Democratic race. As of tonight, Sanders has by far the best chance in the whole Democratic Party of getting the nomination. So how should you feel about that?
Well if you’re conservative, it’s probably a little hard to take the whole thing seriously. For one thing it seemed to come out of nowhere — nobody expected it, nobody on TV warned you it was gonna happen.
For another thing, Sanders isn’t half as gut-level offensive as someone like say Elizabeth Warren. Unlike Warren, Sanders is obviously sincere about what he believes; he means it.
He’s got the right enemies too. CNN appears to hate Bernie Sanders every bit as much as they hate Donald Trump. That’s a plus, and unlike everyone else on the left Sanders talks mostly about economics rather than Putin and non-binary bathrooms. And it’s refreshing to hear someone focus on things that matter for once. Plus it’s not like Sanders is gonna win the presidency. You keep hearing people on both sides saying there is no possibility, no chance in the world that Bernie Sanders will get elected president in November, and that sounds right basically.
The guy calls himself a socialist — come on now, this is America. That’s what we’re telling ourselves, but are we absolutely sure that that’s true? But ask yourself this — who was the last candidate they told you on television could never ever win? — oh yeah, the current president. So ignore the people on TV. They’re morons, they lack wisdom, they lack imagination, they’re almost always wrong about everything.
Of course Bernie Sanders could win the general election. A year from now we could be in the first months of a Bernie Sanders administration, and this would be a completely different country. What kind of country would it be?
Well tonight we’re beginning a series on Bernie Sanders’ America. We take Sanders seriously; we think you should take him seriously too.
So we’re starting tonight with Sanders’ views on immigration. It’s a topic that affects this country on every level. For decades Sanders had what would now be considered conservative views on immigration: he cared about higher wages for workers — that was his issue.
Mass immigration lowers wages, so Sanders was against it. It’s that simple. Then Sanders ran for president and his views changed completely. Now Sanders is as radical on immigration as anyone else in the race.
For example, he’s come out against virtually all deportations — all. Watch:
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: A moratorium on deportations for the 99 percent of the people is nothing to be cynical about. I think that is a significant step forward, and the undocumented community would be very proud of that.
CARLSON: Ending 99 percent of deportations to please the undocumented community. You should know that that number includes violent felons. Sanders went on to say only if an illegal alien commits a quote terrible terrible crime — only then, Sanders quote might consider deporting that person — might.
Now Sanders wouldn’t have to change any laws to do this; he could simply order federal authorities to stop deportations. He could do that day one, and that’s his plan. Imagine what that would mean for this country — foreign nationals commit crimes, and we can’t send them home. Continue reading this article
In the annals of Sanctuary zones for protecting illegal alien criminals, Montgomery County Maryland might be considered notorious. Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur remarked in an August 28 interview with Tucker Carlson, “Montgomery County probably has one of the strongest anti-ICE policies that I can think of.”
Fast forward to the present, and the Sanctuary policy and illegal alien crime both remain in the county.
On Wednesday, Laura Ingraham presented a brief history of Trump vs. sanctuary, then followed with the most recent illegal alien sex crime.
Spare audio:
TUCKER CARLSON: The Trump administration won a victory in Federal Court today and its ongoing fight against the nation’s many sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. Chief breaking news correspondent, Trace Gallagher has the details on what happened. Hey, Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER: Hey, Tucker. This is a big battle victory for the President because it means he might go on to win the war.
Remember back in 2017, the administration moved to withhold about $400 million in federal grant money from cities and states that have implemented sanctuary laws and policies where they refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants.
The cities and states quickly filed lawsuits and a series of lower courts ruled in their favor. Later, the more liberal 3rd, 7th, and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal upheld the lower court decisions saying the administration had to give up the grant money.
But now the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has sided with the administration and because there is now a major conflict between the various Circuit Courts, it’s likely the Supreme Court will step in to make the final call and decide from the court leaning five-four conservative, SCOTUS has repeatedly and long said the Federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies — Tucker.
CARLSON: Interesting. Trace Gallagher, thanks for that.
GALLAGHER: Sure.
LAURA INGRAHAM: This was a huge victory for the Trump administration today. A federal appeals court ruling that he can in fact withhold funding from so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE. Perhaps the president should start with the sanctuary in his own backyard, the D.C. suburb of Montgomery County, Maryland, just a few miles from where we are broadcasting tonight.
In the span of just two months in 2019, the county saw at least nine illegal aliens arrested for rape and sex abuse crimes, many of them against children. And this week we saw perhaps the most disturbing case yet. Two high school students aged 19 and 20, yes, you heard that right, were arrested and charged with raping two different 11-year-old girls — 11-year-olds. One of the suspects, the 20-year-old, is a Salvadoran national who is living here illegally. Continue reading this article
Here’s more information about the special unit within the DOJ recently created to go after criminals who obtained US citizenship fraudulently that I reported the other day.
One interesting item is that “20 to 30 lawyers” will comprise the new group, indicating there are quite a lot of fake citizenships to investigate.
But there’s still no mention of how many miscreants will advance to the deportation round, and inquiring minds want to know.
What’s the point of merely demoting the bad guys if they are allowed to stay here?
LAURA INGRAHAM: And speaking of illegal alien criminals, the Trump administration is creating a special unit within the DOJ to denaturalize foreign-born individuals who lied about their criminal pasts in order to get citizenship in this country. The fraudsters that they are going after include not only serious criminals like sex offenders but also terrorists and war criminals. Given the massive spike in referral to the DOJ for these types of cases, this new task force is absolutely necessary.
Joining me now exclusively from Mexico City is John Bash, U.S. attorney for the western district of Texas. John, what can you tell us tonight about this new DOJ unit? We were dealing with county issue right outside of Washington, D.C., which is troubling. Tell us about this new unit.
U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN BASH: Thank you, Laura, for having me on. This new unit addresses exactly the kind of issue you were just talking about, people who molest children, terrorists. We have stood up a unit of 20 to 30 attorneys who are going to work civil denaturalization cases.
And what those cases are is when someone lies in the process of trying to get naturalized to be a citizen, usually about their criminal past, but then nevertheless obtain citizenship, we can actually go after the fact and strip them of citizenship so long as the judge agrees.
And we have been doing that. We have stepped that up 200 percent in the last three years. But it’s getting to the point where we are getting enough referrals that it’s time to stand up a standalone unit, and so we have 20 to 30 lawyers dedicated to bringing justice to victims of child molestation, to victims of terrorism, war crimes, and so forth. Continue reading this article
It can be hard to keep up with all the verbal bloopers of candidate Joe Biden, and his recent gun gaffe was a fine example. In the recent Democrat debate, he said that 150 million Americans had been killed by guns since 2007 — something which would be very noticeable.
Tucker Carlson is sure that Old Joe meant 150 thousand — but the goof shows how ragged things are getting among the 2020 Democrats as Super Tuesday looms. The urge is to cite the most extreme statistic — even a wrong one — as a quote that will show up on the news the next day.
Plus, gun grabbing is practically a religion among the left. They cannot imagine armed citizens in a free country — where’s the power and control in that?
Democrats really do have a different idea of how this nation should be run — with open borders and no way to defend yourself from illegal alien criminals.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans understand that the Second Amendment is vital to keeping the First and will not give up their rights as citizens.
TUCKER CARLSON: Well during the Democratic debate last night, Joe Biden made a remarkable claim about the level of gun violence in this country. Watch:
JOE BIDEN: A hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on.
CARLSON: Vietnam? More than that? A hundred and fifty million. That’s almost half the country, dead in 10 years. That’s a lot of empty buildings.
Presumably Biden meant to say 150,000. That’s roughly the number of gun homicides in this country during that period. But Democrats are doing their best to drive that number up. How? By attacking police and letting criminals — real criminals — go free.
Instead of fighting gun violence by fighting actual criminals who are trying to destroy the NRA and take guns from people who didn’t vote for them with assault weapons ban.
Do assault weapons bans work? Well, there’s just been a big study on this question from Johns Hopkins, the Party of Science is ignoring it, but the answer is no. They don’t work. Not that they’ll stop trying to push somebody in.
Colion Noir is a Second Amendment advocate. He joins us tonight. Thanks so much for coming on. Have you noticed there seems to be a connection between the vehemence of gun control advocates and their lack of knowledge about firearms?
I mean, some of these people — Biden is a perfect example — don’t know what end the round comes out of. They don’t know what a muzzle is. And yet they’re sort of posing as experts. Am I imagining this?
COLION NOIR: No, you’re not imagining. It is exactly what they’re doing. And to me, that’s the most disheartening aspect of this. We’re talking about one of the most important constitutional rights in this country. But yet these individuals who are calling themselves leaders don’t know the first thing about the subject they’re talking about.
They just get their talking points, get in front of the camera, and then spew a bunch of misinformation to millions of people, and then the people believe it.
CARLSON: So what’s interesting is that the same people who lecture you constantly about science and climate change and look at the data, essentially ignore the data when it conflicts with their social engineering.
So Johns Hopkins, which I think is a legitimate institution, or was anyway, has a new study showing that assault weapons bans do not or there’s no evidence to show that they do reduce mass shootings. Continue reading this article
The Department of Justice has announced the formation of a new group to facilitate the removal of US citizenship from criminals who obtained it by lying about their previous unlawful activities.
There’s no new law or presidential edict involved, so presumably there are so many foreign bad guys who have illegally gotten citizenship that the numbers require an organized unit to chase them down.
These are serious criminals, yet they felt secure enough in this country to get on paper. So much for the “nation of laws” mythology: the welcome mat has been there for years for some of the nastiest thugs on earth.
President Donald Trump’s administration announced a new Justice Department unit focused on revoking U.S. citizenship obtained through fraud.
The new section will function as another arm of the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation. Its purpose will be the denaturalization of those who obtained citizenship “procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Specifically, they will target those who neglected to disclose previous terrorist or criminal activities or affiliations on their “N-400” naturalization form.
Part 12 of the N-400 asks pointed questions about prior affiliations and activities. It includes questions about far-ranging potential involvement in anti-American interests: from Nazi, communist, and totalitarian loyalties, to involvement in torture, murder, and weapons trade. Those who were granted citizenship from lying in whole or in part on the N-400 will face a reckoning.
“When a terrorist or sex offender becomes a U.S. citizen under false pretenses, it is an affront to our system — and it is especially offensive to those who fall victim to these criminals,” Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt said. “The new Denaturalization Section will further the Department’s efforts to pursue those who unlawfully obtained citizenship status and ensure that they are held accountable for their fraudulent conduct.” (Continues)
Is it not suspicious that the coronavirus first showed up near an advanced bioresearch facility in Red China? At least it appears that’s the case because the Chinese have been extremely tight-lipped on every aspect of the disease situation there.
China expert Steven Mosher is President of the Population Research Institute, and his investigation convinced him that there was some funny stuff going on in the People’s Republic.
Tucker Carlson invited Mosher to his show on Monday for a discussion:
TUCKER CARLSON: So for weeks there have been suggestions on the margins that the Chinese coronavirus outbreak may have begun when the disease escaped from a lab in China, and for just as long, this idea has been rejected as a conspiracy theory. And maybe it is, but maybe it isn’t.
Steven Mosher is President of the Population Research Institute and author of “Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to the World Order.” He just wrote a fascinating piece in the New York Post and explained that there is in fact evidence for the lab origin theory of the coronavirus.
Steven Mosher joins us tonight. Steven, thanks so much for coming on. So this is one of those topics nobody wants to touch.
But because we don’t actually know where it came from, in point of fact, I think it’s worth exploring all potential explanations. Tell us why you think it’s possible this virus escaped from a lab?
STEVEN MOSHER: Well, I think it escaped from the lab, because we have the Chinese government basically telling us that it did. Let me be specific: on the 14th, President for life, Xi Jinping held a meeting at which he talked about the need to increase biosecurity lab safety at biological research laboratories.
If that wasn’t clear enough, the following day, the very next day, the Ministry of Science and Technology produced a long document entitled “Restrictions on Strengthening Bio Security Management in Microbiology Labs that Handle Advanced Viruses like the Novel Coronavirus” — like the novel coronavirus.
They are strengthening the handling of dangerous pathogens and viruses in the middle of an epidemic, which suggests what? That they mishandled the virus that they were experimenting on in their lab in Wuhan.
Wuhan is the only Level 4 laboratory in all of China. So that’s where you would put a dangerous pathogen, whether you were a genetically engineering it to be a weapon or not, that’s where you would be experimenting on it.
So it makes sense that the epicenter of the epidemic, that the lab there would be the source of that virus.
And the other thing, how would it get out of the lab? Most people would think well, a technician got infected through poor lab procedure and then walked out on the street and infected his family and friends and so forth.
But there’s another way it could have gotten out of the lab because we know that in China, some researchers, not all, but some researchers have actually taken their lab animals after they’re done experimenting with them, after they’ve been infected with various viruses so forth.
If the lab animals aren’t dead, they take the bats and the rats and the snakes and everything to the local fresh meat market and sell them on the fresh meat market to make extra money.
So the virus may have passed to human beings by that means, through the avenue the vector of someone’s stomach, Tucker.
CARLSON: That’s one of the most repulsive things I’ve ever heard in my life. But I’m glad that you raised that possibility because of course, it is a real possibility.
And of course, both our government and the Chinese government are anxious to pretend, you know, that didn’t happen they know for sure. But of course, once again, we don’t know for sure. So Steve Mosher, I appreciate your coming on tonight for that. Thank you.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
