For nearly an hour, [Atlantic monthly writer] Ann Applebaum had effused about how important it is to fight disinformation. So I asked her if she thinks the media acted inappropriately in immediately dismissing the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Files as Russian disinformation — a claim we now know to be completely false.
… Applebaum gave a stupefyingly arrogant (and borderline incoherent) answer: “My problem with Hunter Biden’s laptop,” she said, “is I think [it’s] totally irrelevant. I [mean], it’s not whether it’s disinformation, or I mean, I don’t think the — Hunter Biden’s business relationships have anything to do with who should be president of the United States. So, I didn’t — I don’t find it to be interesting. I mean, that would be my problem with that as a major news story.”
Nonsense. Back when the Hunter Files were a live crisis for the Biden camp, Applebaum published a lengthy essay in The Atlantic that aimed to discredit the reporter who broke the laptop story. So if she doesn’t find the story interesting, why did she—along with the entirety of the corporate media apparatus—dedicate so much time and effort to trying to legitimate censorship of the Post’s reporting?
The Question Anne Applebaum Refused to Answer | Compact Mag
-
Help Max Blaska and Karla S. Bryant adapt Stephen King’s “Last Rung On the Ladder” into a video feature. Crowd fund it here and pick the perk and the amount you wish to donate from the column on the right.
-
-
‘Roe v. Wade was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.’
Excerpts from Justice Alito’s draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred a right to obtain an abortion, but it failed to ground its decision in text, history, or precedent.
It relied on an erroneous historical narrative; it devoted great attention to and presumably relied on matters that have no bearing on the ‘meaning of the Constitution; it disregarded the fundamental difference between the precedents on which it relied and the question before the Court; it concocted an elaborate set of rules, with different restrictions for each trimester of pregnancy, but it did not explain how this veritable code could be teased out of anything in the Constitution, the history of abortion laws, prior precedent, or any other cited source; and its most important rule (that States cannot protect fetal life prior to “viability”) was never raised by any party and has never been plausibly explained.
Overuling precedent
Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. … In Brown. v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities. In so doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule.
Roe legislated from the bench
[Roe’s] elaborate [trimester] scheme was the Court’s own brainchild. Neither party advocated the trimester framework; nor did either party or any amicus argue that “viability” should ‘mark the point at which the scope of the abortion right and a State’s regulatory authority should be substantially transformed. … This scheme resemble[d] the work of a legislature. …
Roe certainly did not succeed in ending division on the issue of abortion. On the contrary, Roe “inflamed” a national issue that has remained bitterly divisive for the past half-century. … Indeed, in this case, 26 states expressly ask us to overrule Roe and Casey and return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives.
Blaska Policy Werkes 
The MSM censored the NY Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop because they are morally bankrupt. At the very least, I will write a letter to NPR, and to my member of Congress, to say that NPR should no longer feel welcome to tax funding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good luck trying to distract NPR from its latest crusade: defending the “rights” of the transgendered freaks who are destroying women’s sports–to say nothing of common sense gender distinctions, i.e., those based on Science.
LikeLike
Correction Gary, it is called “the science” . Lol
LikeLike
51 Intelligence Experts REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE For Smearing Hunter Biden Story
Notice anything out of the ordinary with the NY Post Front Page?
Rather a complete lack of melanin, there, am I right?
The Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion people may want a word…
The Gotch
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gotch,
You make a really good point here. I wonder just how many of the top reporters and the top brass of media companies are as diverse, equitable and strive to include all people of all races, colors and creeds. Males, females, transgenders, questioning, asexual, bisexual and so on.
That group makes the statement that media companies want Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for thee but not for me.
Oh, and someone else made the excellent point that if you took the first initials of Brian Stelters first and last name you would come up with the initials of B.S. How appropriate.
LikeLike
She’s right of course. Compared to Trump’s mean tweets the laptop is irrelevant.
/s
LikeLike
Watch the video of Appelbaum swatting away the question about Hunter’s laptop. That woman is the embodiment of arrogant, supercilious liberal elitism–to say nothing of hypocrisy though those two qualities usually go hand-in-hand. Take a stroll through the UW-Madison campus and you’ll see countless Appelbaum clones, most of whom have tenure in Gender Studies or some other bogus academic department.
LikeLike
Folks, I watched this in horror. It is from Tucker Carlson titled: Our leaders are defending what China is doing to it’s people in regard to the latest strain of covid.
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-our-leaders-are-defending-what-china-is-doing/
Chinese authorities dragging people out of their apartments; putting them in covid jails so they are locked away from their families. Killing the pets of those taken away. Beating dogs with a shovel until they die. Killing cats by putting them in garbage bags and letting them die. (If someone even tried to do that to my pets, they would be mailed home to mama in a pine box.) People screaming out that they are starving and that they will die if they don’t get food. People not being allowed to leave their apartments to get food or medicine.
But what will we hear from our government or our press about what is going on in China?
Nothing!
Is this what our leaders want for us?
Since the Biden family has had extensive dealings with Communist China, what did Hunter and more importantly Joe Biden know about covid before it became a pandemic?
Are we as Americans willing to give up our freedoms in order to prevent a pandemic that may or not come upon us?
Are we as Americans willing to give up our second amendment rights in order to defend ourselves against the tyrannical excess of government control over us?
To those in leadership positions all over the world. The book of Mark says the following:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?”
Mark 8:36
When you die, you will stand before Almighty God, with the souls of those you put to death accusing you of being the one that put them to death, you will have to ask God for His mercy.
Good luck with that.
LikeLike
I wonder how many progressives in this country use video of the Shanghai lockdown as a masturbatory aide?
LikeLike
National Peoples Radio
LikeLike