Here are some examples.
ABC hosted a townhall Q&A of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden last Thursday, a session in which the network carefully misidentified at least two audience questioners.
One of the questioners at the ABC-hosted event was Nathan Osburn…. Osburn specifically worked for the Office of Public Affairs at the Commerce Department under the Obama-Biden administration and at the Small Business Administration.
Never mind that. As Osburn was asking his question, ABC, in its identifying screamer said he worked in communications.
Mieke Haeck was another questioner. The network claimed she was a physical therapist in State College, PA.
Progressive-Democrats are accusing Republicans of that as they move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court “in a Presidential election year.” Typical of them is this bit by Congressman Gerry Connolly (D, VA):
I’m focused on the hypocrisy of the Republicans who promised, Lindsey Graham [R, SC, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman] being number one, his own words, said they wouldn’t do this.
What Connolly is carefully ignoring is that Graham, subsequent to that commitment and in response to the then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings, said in no uncertain terms, that as a result of Progressive-Democrat (my term) behavior during those hearings, all bets were off.
Jack Dorsey has them for his Twitter. In response to the blowup over his (and Mark Zuckerberg’s over at Facebook) decision to censor the New York Post‘s reporting on emails found on a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden and seeming to indicate connections among Hunter, his business efforts in Ukraine and the People’s Republic of China, and his father Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden—or more likely in response to the pending subpoena compelling his sworn testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next week regarding his censorship—Dorsey had his legal, policy and trust & safety lead, Vijaya Gadde, announce some unspecified changes. Dorsey also said through her, though, that
It’s rampant in the San Diego Unified School District, even as it claims to be “combatting racism.”
Students will no longer be graded based on a yearly average, or on how late they turn in assignments. …
… Board members say the changes are part of a larger effort to combat racism.
Because most of the poor grades went to minority students, and figuring out why that might be and fixing the underlying problem(s) isn’t something for an educational institution to concern itself with.
Things like turning work in on time and classroom behavior will now instead count towards a student’s citizenship grade, not their academic grade.
Or maybe it’s the quote of the week. Or the month. Or the year.
It seems that
[a]t least 44 schools in San Francisco could see their names changed, as officials believe some were named after those with potential connections to slavery, genocide, and colonization, according to a report on Thursday.
The San Francisco School Names Advisory Committee researched school names and identified certain ones for renaming.
The move isn’t sitting well with the folks and their children who will have to live with the outcome of this move. Here’s one concerned parent:
Jason Loftus, CEO of Lofty Sky Entertainment, had an excellent op-ed on free speech in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. He closed his piece with this:
Politicians shouldn’t aim to restrict access to social-media platforms. It is reasonable, however, to require that any platform operating in the US uphold the freedoms that Americans hold dear.
Absolutely. However, since companies in the People’s Republic of China are bound by PRC law to satisfy any request for information made by the PRC government’s intelligence facility, a requirement to uphold American freedoms is impossible for PRC-based or -owned PRC companies to meet.
Paul Wolfowitz had a thought on that last Tuesday. His opening paragraph laid out his thesis.
Beijing has been making a show of hostility toward Taiwan. Last week China released footage of “real combat” it conducted last month in Taiwanese airspace. A Chinese invasion would present the greatest threat to global peace in a generation. The US would confront an agonizing dilemma: risk an armed clash between two nuclear superpowers or abandon a free people to communist tyranny. But there’s an alternative—deter the threat by committing to oppose it, by force if necessary.
I’d be a bit more blunt.
Here are a couple of New York Post items that Facebook and Twitter are so nakedly censoring. These are in their second article:
These items are in the NYP‘s second article, published 15 October, the day after the Post published its first article—which Twitter and Facebook began censoring. These two social media enterprises went so far as to lock White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany out of her personal Twitter account unless and until she deletes her own Twitter post that carried that original Post article, which broke the fact of the laptop and emails thereon.
…on the foreign policy and national security front.
The White House is moving forward with three sales of advanced weaponry to Taiwan, sending in recent days a notification of the deals to Congress for approval, five sources said on Monday, while China threatened retaliation.
The three weapons systems—of seven in the works—have been approved by the State Department and are these:
- High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)
- SLAM-ER, a long-range air-to-ground missile system
- external sensor pods for F-16 jets that allow the real-time transmission of imagery and data from the aircraft back to ground stations.
It’s not from the Right, nor even from the extremists on the Right or the Left.
No, the Mainstream Left and it’s carried through politically by the Left’s Progressive-Democratic Party; they have a virtual monopoly on divisiveness. Here are just a few examples, provided by Jim DeMint in a slightly different, but related context. DeMint suggests these are from the radical Left, but he’s mistaken in that. The Left and Party have moved so far left that these positions are, in fact, their mainstream.