Joe Biden is now POTUS

Politic Negro

Rising Star
Registered Investor
DOT halts Texas highway project in test of Biden’s promises on race
The department’s use of civil rights laws has buoyed activists on the ground and surprised even seasoned regulators in Washington.

President Joe Biden's Department of Transportation is invoking the Civil Rights Act to pause a highway project near Houston, a rare move that offers an early test of the administration's willingness to wield federal power to address a long history of government-driven racial inequities.

DOT's intervention follows complaints from local activists that the state's proposed widening of Interstate 45 would displace an overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic community, including schools, places of worship and more than 1,000 homes and businesses.

It also comes as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has identified racial equity as a major priority for his department — after decades in which federal highway money has paid for projects that leveled minority and low-income communities.

"I think this project is the poster child for [the administration's] policies," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat representing the Houston area, who has joined local officials in challenging the project.
In a March 8 letter to the state, the Federal Highway Administration, citing complaints from local activists and Jackson Lee, requested that the Texas Department of Transportation hold off on its expansion of I-45, including initiating more contract solicitations, until the federal DOT has time to review civil rights and environmental justice concerns.
Federal officials could ultimately allow the project to proceed, but the action to freeze it at all, and in particular DOT's use of civil rights laws to underpin that decision, has buoyed activists on the ground and surprised even seasoned regulators in Washington.
“This is a big deal,” said Fred Wagner, an attorney who served as general counsel at FHWA for three years during the Obama administration. "It just doesn’t happen very often."

Known as the North Houston Highway Improvement Project, the proposal would widen I-45 in three sections. TxDOT’s environmental review of the project, completed in February, found it would have a massive impact on the communities it would roll through, displacing more than 1,000 homes and housing units, 344 businesses, five places of worship and two schools.

Local activists say the communities that would be harmed are disproportionately home to Black and Hispanic residents. And the impacts go beyond the direct displacements: Twenty-six schools would be brought within 500 feet of the highway, increasing children's exposure to pollution in a metropolitan area that's already rife with car exhaust.

“How can we accept a project like that? It stays with us for a generation at least,” said Lina Hidalgo, the elected county judge for Harris County, which primarily contains the Houston metro area and its exurbs, in an interview.

Opponents of the project have proposed an alternative that Hidalgo said has a narrower footprint and allows for transit. The county recently sued TxDOT, saying it failed to take the environmental impacts into consideration during its planning and review.

“I can’t tell you the number of conversations we had with the state on this,” she said, adding that she has received “nothing but lip service.”

“You can imagine the frustration,” she said. “It’s been so much time, effort, and heartache by the community as well.”

DOT’s intervention was a welcome surprise, Hidalgo said, adding that it gives opponents of the project a “more realistic opportunity” to get redress.

"I think [Buttigieg] was engaged, interested and fair," said Jackson Lee, who said she spoke to the DOT head recently about the project. "And I think he was chagrined at federal dollars being used with such disregard of community views."

The Houston project, with its promises of displacement and disenfranchisement echoing the destructive historic highway building that Buttigieg has repeatedly cited, is a test case for Buttigieg, Wagner said.

“It’s going to be the first kind of test of the new administration to demonstrate how it’s going to apply its standards for more equitable transportation on a megaproject like this,” the former FHWA counsel said.

The project has been in the works for years. So "for DOT to step in, potentially, and say 'We don’t think it’s an appropriate solution,' would be a really huge deal,” he said.

Part of the reason the situation is so unique is that Texas is a so-called “assignment state," one of seven designated as able to serve as a proxy for the federal government when it comes to administering the National Environmental Policy Act.

In most states, the federal government could raise issues with disproportionate impacts through the normal federal environmental review process. But Texas, as an assignment state, already completed that process which resulted in the Record of Decision finalized in February.

So the federal DOT has turned to Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act to justify its pause, which states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

"Clearly the TXDOT blatantly violated that, recklessly violated it," Jackson Lee said.

Next steps could include DOT ordering Texas to redo its analysis of the project, or more drastically, fully reject it under civil rights laws.

“They didn’t necessarily play their hand when they said we’re going to take a pause,” said Wagner.

Neither FHWA or TxDOT responded to specific questions.

“FHWA and USDOT officials are evaluating several Title VI concerns raised by Houston-area community groups regarding the project,” a spokesperson for the federal agency said.

And TxDOT spokesperson Adam Hammons said that the agency is “in contact with FHWA seeking clarity around what a pause might mean as far as timing is concerned for future contract solicitation efforts.” He would not comment on specifics, citing the pending legislation.


International Member

Will Biden’s budget emphasize domestic investment and allies over military hardware?

The Biden administration has made clear that its chief focus in the coming days and months will be, in some ways, to reverse the status quo that has defined the past 30 years of US engagement with the world. The administration has pledged to “build back better,” and create a “foreign policy for the middle class,” which means joining with others to address America’s “growing debt, rising poverty, deteriorating food security, and worsening gender-based violence,” and elevating diplomacy “as (a) tool of first resort.” But with near-record high levels of military spending, the administration’s topline budget, expected in the coming days, looks like more of the same.

Biden’s stated agenda is sweeping and necessary, but it won’t happen in a vacuum. The US Congress is deeply concerned about China and sees little solution to counter the threat beyond military force. If the administration hopes to sell Congress the type of structural change that will be necessary to follow through on its vision, it will first need to sell a new national narrative—one in which the type of “winning” it envisions is valued over brute measures.

Narratives are stories. For a nation, a viable narrative is crucial for reflecting the shared identity of a people and its institutions. At the grand strategic level, a useful narrative should capture the priorities, threat environment, and strategic pathways that are relevant as the nation seeks to navigate the international system. Most importantly, a grand strategic narrative should tell us who we are as a nation and what we want to be in the world. Some aspects of America’s grand strategic narrative are relatively fixed (“democracy,” “free markets”), while others change over time (“global policeman,” “no entangling alliances”). As America pivots from the global war on terror to one of great power competition, a purposeful narrative needs to be shaped. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) this cannot be accomplished by some “planning cell” in the Defense or State Departments. It will need to be an emergent property of changed policies, new debates, and messaging. The administration and various departments will need to shape and amplify this emerging narrative, but it needs to be real to be become reality.

Moving away from an outdated focus on military primacy—especially a military primacy built on legacy systems—to make room for a more balanced narrative that emphasizes allies and domestic investment as critical components of national security is a key part of this effort. Though the Biden administration already seems to be charting a course in this direction, it has struggled to define a narrative that truly breaks free from the nation’s status quo. Defining a clear path forward will be necessary not only to overcome partisan resistance to proposed policy, but to provide a shared understanding—from Main Street to Wall Street to Silicon Valley—of what the United States aspires to be.

America’s new narrative. America’s new grand strategic narrative will require three specific components: a reduced emphasis on military primacy, a nuanced approach toward allies, and an elevated domestic investment in human and physical capital in the realm of national security. Rebalancing this narrative will help the average citizen realize that America is powerful when it is healthy and productive—not only when it is amassing military hardware.

Current US foreign policy is rooted in military competition, and US national identity has followed suit. Conversations about grand strategy carry either an implicit or explicit assumption that the US capability to conduct unilateral military interventions anywhere around the globe is absolutely critical. These conversations ignore the fact that the US military primacy of the last three decades is purely by accident: Unipolarity was a dividend of the Cold War after all. But that “accident” has now turned into a mindset where the United States thinks it has a God-given right to remain on top, but one that is steadily slipping away under its feet. US failure to adapt to a world in which it is not the sole military superpower has left it struggling as warfare has moved away from the type of conventional operations in which US forces excel. Furthermore, confusing the quest to maintain military primacy with having a viable grand strategy plays right into US rivals’ hands. China probably breaks open a champagne bottle every time the United States announces a new aircraft carrier.

This narrative feeds—and is fed by—a failed defense acquisition system that prioritizes a handful of large defense firms that thrive on legacy platforms. Plowing more defense dollars into building and maintaining a force structure that looks very similar to those fielded in World War II (i.e., carrier groups, manned aircraft, tanks) will not serve and strengthen America’s defense preparedness for the coming decades. China isn’t interested in competing with the United States in matching legacy platforms. Instead, China has built a military ecosystem aimed at offsetting and crippling these cumbersome platforms. We need to free up the people, money, and energy to compete in this new era of warfare, rather than double down on 20th-century forces. In an era of rapidly changing technology, such investments constitute a hedge against rapid obsolescence of military weapons and platforms and represent a prudent grand strategic investment in the human and physical capital that will pay dividends for decades. And narrative can serve as a powerful tool to shift the emphasis off of these archaic symbols of power.

The second component of this narrative must offer an updated vision of our allies and partners—replacing a characterization as “burdens” and “free riders” with one that affirms US allies are valuable assets and reliable partners in a shared mission of maintaining the international system. This would involve the collective task of sorting through the fracturing liberal order and salvaging those aspects that are practicable and enjoy widespread support. It would also involve looking at ways to bolster technology transfer and defense preparedness of key partners as the United States seeks to reduce its military commitments overseas. Lastly, it would mean working to treat allies as true partners, rather than proxies or client states or simple “access and placement” for American military activity. If America’s allies clearly don’t want to participate in something, it is probably a sign it should reconsider the mission.

The transnational nature of today’s challenges makes it abundantly clear that America alone cannot be the world’s sole problem-solver, and that global military reach isn’t always helpful when trying to address modern problems. There is also an ongoing debate on whether America’s role as a global policeman—where it has a moral responsibility to uphold freedom and democracy around the world, maintain free shipping lanes and free trade agreements, sustain military coalitions, etc.—helps to maintain global peace and stability or is destabilizing and deeply entrenches America in a vicious cycle of endless conflict. What seems certain is that America’s security and national interests are better served when it leans on its partners. At the Munich Security Conference, President Joe Biden stated that the United States will be working in lockstep with allies and partners to meet a range of shared challenges, a move that is long overdue.

Finally, a US focus on over-militarization abroad has, to a great extent, contributed to neglect at home. The fractures in American society witnessed during the last several years demonstrate that American military primacy does not resolve domestic challenges and instead makes America weak and hollow from within. Professor Ganesh Sitaraman argues that in the coming decades, countries will face major disruptions in the form of global health crises, climate shocks, cyberattacks, and geoeconomic competition among great powers. An overt focus on the idea of military primacy subtracts from addressing fragilities and weaknesses that undermine America’s democratic and societal fabric from within—and its ability to tackle modern challenges.

How to create a new American narrative. In its Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, the Biden administration attaches high priority to the threat of climate change and directly links the climate change challenge to the health and economic security of the planet. To adapt and mitigate the risks of climate change, the document points to the need to build climate-friendly infrastructure, increase federal procurement of critical clean energy technologies, and modernize the energy grid. Strengthening the health care system in America and around the world in order to hedge and prevent against future pandemics also features prominently. And the administration has already issued an Executive Order providing a roadmap to build and ensure that American supply chains are diverse, secure, and resilient in an effort to help rebuild American domestic manufacturing capacity, create well-paying jobs, support small businesses, and foster cooperative economic prosperity with allies.

Equally investing in these pillars enables America’s “winning” in a manner consistent with a newly balanced American self-conceptualization. But beyond simply stating that “America is back,” the Biden administration needs a comprehensive plan to present this new national narrative. Pitching smart investment in human and physical capital as a national security priority may help to ease some partisan tensions that divide the left and the right. De-linking obsolete metrics (such as relative numbers of military platforms) from discussions of security, and instead investing in a newly conceived method of “net assessment” can shape debates around force structure. Explaining to the public precisely how alliances and international institutions contribute to (rather than hinder) American interests is equally critical. Finally, encouraging civil discourse in all fora around what America is, and aspires to be, will be critical.

The Biden administration can chart a new course for the future—it can “build back better.” But it will not do that by sticking to the status quo.

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor

Biden has a major victory as the Senate 'parliamentarian' ruled the 'infrastructure bill' could go thru "Budget Reconciliation" meaning 50 votes not 60 and no filibuster?

How many trillions will the Democrats put thru this last chance opportunity?

Some day we may look back at this arcane Senate ‘parliamentarian’ ruling to allow the Biden infrastructure bill to get passed via ‘budget reconciliation’ and avoid the 60 vote / filibuster as one of the most significant events in US 21st century history to date.

President Joe, looking to the future, learning from the past, transforming America for the 21st century
If the parliamentarian had ruled against Biden and said no more bites of the cherry, you are done or infrastructure doesn’t match the criteria which is fairly narrow as it must be only on certain kinds of federal spending not for instance and on the $15 minimum wage which had to be dropped to get the $1.9 Trillion stimulus passed.

But she ruled in Biden and the Democrats favor.

So where are we?

Republicans are now completely and officially irrelevant. Biden can do whatever he wants as long as he has all of his 50 Democrat Senators including of course Manchin and Sinema and other ‘moderates’. But that is not such a big deal as everyone loves infrastructure and one way or the other Manchin is not going to vote against an infrastructure bill though you can bet he will tweak it to make it look like he has done something and been fiscally prudent if there is such a thing at this point in Washington.

What happens now is the House gets busy and the Senate does too. There is a lot on their agendas including approving federal judges which is all that McConnell did for the last 2 years and there is racial justice/police reform and lots of other areas like HR1 which I predict is where the Republicans will draw the line. As that will clearly need 60 votes, no way is it getting support from Republicans so they can show their constituencies they did something, stopped the Democrats and minorities from voting en masse and obliterating any chances for the Republicans. So they will focus on that and other ‘cancel culture’ wars while the Democrats fundamentally alter the US for the next generation.

HOW MUCH WILL THE DEMOCRATS PUSH ON TO ‘INFRASTRUCTURE’(Build Back Better) + THE AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN which I predict will be combined together.

Hold on to your seats folks, yes we are looking at, least at $5 Trillion maybe more.

$5 Trillion and the Democrats will do it as this is the last and only chance and they don’t want to go back to the Senate parliamentarian again nor do they want to touch the filibuster.

Joe Biden is turning out to be the the most astute politician in a generation, already wiping out Trump and anything he did. And before that Obama who was finished after the ACA and a relatively small stimulus and spent the next 6 years of ‘I have a pen’ which Trump quickly undid and Biden has redid.

Bush? Nothing other than a tax cut and less regulation but no big transformative legislation. Clinton, nope, Bush the elder, nope, Reagan, no way just more for the military and tax cuts. Carter, impossible, Ford zero. Nixon, the EPA and some other solid stuff in a big mess of a presidency including ‘opening’ to China.


All the way, back at least to LBJ.
I did this explanation to make sure we get it how transformative this is by Biden and how big this little arcane maneuver which Biden was counting on, but hadn’t yet got, is now in the bag. With it done, Biden is ready to roll one last big roll of the dice.

Watch for some of the greatest whinging, crying, end of the world, America will never be the same, Socialism, you name it, Republicans will try it all. And I predict they will fail.

By July this $5 Trillion “Build Back Better + American Family Plan’ will have been passed without a single Republican vote. It may be tweaked a bit but it will change America and the fortunes and opportunities of the middle class, the working class and minorities for a generation. It will include a tax hike on corporations and the rich and maybe a wealth tax too. It will begin the transformation to the end of fossil fuels in the USA and a greener approach to climate change. It will bring back key security related industries, make some, though not enough new roads and yes, broadband.
It will power the US economy for at least the next 2 - 4 years, flush with cash the US economy, consumers, building of infrastructure, science spending and money passed to hundreds of millions will be the envy of the world.

Within 2 years after the Democrats will retain both the House and the Senate in an upset of the century, the US will cruise into 2024. At that point, Biden will need to make the only real decision currently on his agenda, to run again and enjoy the fruits of the greatest moves in recent US legislative history, or sail off into the sunset.

Endless amounts will be written about what he will do, but if you think he already did it with the $1.9 trillion stimulus and the vaccine rollout, well, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.

It will even include AI and other science based research to put the USA back ahead of China to lead the world which is Biden’s ultimate goal, to beat China.
And most importantly of all, we now know it will get done.


The Black Bastard
BGOL Investor
I’m skeptical about polls since the 2016 fiasco.

But if FOX News is reporting on positive poll numbers for Biden, something must be right.

And NBC Chuck Todd, who is conservative is giving Biden props.

Chuck Todd: Biden's 53 percent approval rating is 'the new 60'

NBC's Chuck Todd wowed by Biden's 'really solid' poll numbers

"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd praised President Biden for the 53 percent approval rating he received in a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, a number that Todd said is "the new 60" in an appearance on the "TODAY" show on Sunday. The numbers come just shy of Biden's first 100 days in office.

"He's riding the momentum of a recovering eocnomy and the escalation of the vaccinations," Todd suggested.

Todd noted that some may argue that the uptick in vaccine distribution might have happened whether Biden was president or not, but "at the end of the day, this is happening on his watch."

"And things looked like they weren't going to go well," Todd said. "He took over and things seemed to smooth out. Some might argue they always would have, but it doesn't matter it's on his watch. And that has given him political capital."

"And anytime you're over 50 in this polarized environment that's really solid," Todd added. "It's sort of the new 60 percent of the way when you and I grew up in the 80s and 90s."

There are "warning signs," Todd admits. Americans' approval of Biden's effort on immigration and taxes are "upside down." But Todd says the public's discontent in those areas are "not bad enough" to impact his overall number.

Soon after he was sworn in, President Biden signed several executive orders into law that reversed President Trump's border agenda. Now, the numbers of migrants coming across the border is ovewhelming, with a record amount of unaccompanied children arriving in the States. Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris as his border czar, but critics note that she has yet to hold a press conference to discuss how she plans to address the crisis.

"TODAY" anchor Willie Geist noted that relative to past presidents, Biden's approval at this stage isn't all that high. President Obama had a 61 percent approval rating at this time in office, but compared to his predecessor President Trump and "given where we are in the country, it's a pretty decent number," Geist argues.

A new Fox News poll put Biden's approval rating at 54% and also found that Americans are souring on his immigration and economic agendas. By a 31-point margin, voters agree that border security is worse than it was two years ago, a 56 percent majority thinks Biden winning the election is completely or mostly behind the increase of migrants at the U.S. southern border, and 67 percent are extremely or very concerned about illegal immigration. As for the state of the economy, only 29 percent rate it as excellent/good and 69 percent say it's fair/poor.

President Biden will deliver his first joint address to Congress on Wednesday, April 28. Republicans like Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., have ripped Biden for waiting so long to address Congress and for delivering the speech during a week when most lawmakers will be out of town.

"President Biden, for his State of the Union, will be addressing an empty room with only special, hand picked members of Congress," Mace tweeted.

"Basement Biden is back," she added


The Black Bastard
BGOL Investor
Fox News host admits his show was wrong about Biden limiting red meat consumption

By Daniel Dale
Updated 8:05 PM EDT, Mon April 26, 2021

Washington(CNN) A Fox News anchor admitted on air on Monday that his show was inaccurate when it claimed on Friday that President Joe Biden is trying to require Americans to sharply reduce their consumption of red meat.

John Roberts, co-host of the afternoon show "America Reports," made the Monday concession after CNN and other media outlets published fact check articles explaining that Biden does not have any plan to restrict red meat consumption.

Roberts acknowledged Monday that "a graphic and the script" from his Friday show "incorrectly implied" that a 2020 academic study about meat-eating and greenhouse gas emissions is "part of Biden's plan for dealing with climate change."

"That is not the case," Roberts said.

Roberts had falsely claimed on Friday that the study -- which is not connected in any way to Biden's actual policies -- found that people need to "say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up to the Biden climate agenda." As Roberts spoke on Friday, Fox aired a graphic that claimed "Biden's climate requirements" are to "cut 90% of red meat from diet, max 4 lbs per year, one burger per month."

The graphic went viral online; it was amplified on Twitter by Donald Trump Jr., the Republican governors of Texas and Idaho and others. But it was entirely wrong.

Biden has not put forward any proposal to force Americans to change their diets. And the study Roberts cited -- which was published before Biden had even won the Democratic presidential nomination -- was not about Biden at all.

The study from scholars at the University of Michigan and Tulane University looked at what would happen to greenhouse gas emissions if Americans hypothetically decided to reduce their meat consumption to four pounds per year. It said nothing about a government-mandated reduction to four pounds per year -- and did not even mention Biden's name.

The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, baselessly linked the study to Biden in a Thursday article. A series of Fox personalities then did the same thing on Friday and Saturday.

Fox News hosts Jesse Watters and Ainsley Earhardt also pushed false claims about Biden and red meat. So did Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, the former Trump administration economic official.

Carly Shanahan of Fox's media relations department declined to comment on Monday when asked whether these hosts would also acknowledge they were inaccurate.

Fox chief White House correspondent John Roberts is seen before a briefing at the White House in 2018.


The Black Bastard
BGOL Investor
Nation’s Imbeciles Lose Their Minds Over Fake News Biden Is Taking Their Red Meat Away

APRIL 26, 2021 12:00 PM

Last Thursday, President Joe Biden pledged at a virtual climate summit that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50%–52%, from their 2005 levels, by 2030. Among the efforts cited by Biden and the White House that will help the country meet such a target were “cutting-edge tools” to make American soil “the next frontier in carbon innovation,” retrofitting buildings, and improving vehicle efficiency.

At no time during his speech, before his speech, or after his speech, did the president make any mention, direct or indirect, of requiring Americans to change their diets. Nor did the West Wing, or anyone employed by the U.S. government, say one single thing about mandating that anyone stop eating anything. Not! One! Single! Thing! You might be wondering why we’re taking such pains to note the absence of Biden saying, again, literally anything about forcing people to stop eating certain foods, and the reason is because in the days since his pledge, numerous Republican members of Congress, Fox News hosts, and Donald Trump Jr. have lost their minds over the extremely fake news that Biden is going to pass a law saying they can only eat four pounds of red meat a year.

As CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale notes, the origins of this not-at-all-real story appear to have begun, ironically, with an article by the British tabloid The Daily Mail, which, per CNN, baselessly connected Biden’s climate proposal to a 2020 academic paper estimating how greenhouse gas emissions would be affected if Americans, in theory, change their diets in a variety of ways, one of them being reducing their consumption of red meat to four pounds a year. Crucially, the paper was (1) published before Biden won the Democratic nomination (2) does not mention Biden at all (3) has never been publicly mentioned by Biden and (4) “says nothing about the government imposing dietary limits.” In other words, it could have been about Miley Cyrus‘s quarantine mullet and The Daily Mail would have linked it to Biden’s climate proposal. And people like Don Jr., Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Larry Kudlow would still have had an epic meltdown over the fake news because they collectively make up America’s biggest imbeciles.

Per CNN:

“Joe Biden's climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030. They want to limit us to about four pounds a year. Why doesn’t Joe stay out of my kitchen?” Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert wrote on Twitter on Saturday. No fewer than five Fox News or Fox Business personalities told versions of the scare story on the air since Friday morning. For example, Fox News host Jesse Watters said Saturday that “Americans are going to have to cut their red meat consumption by 90% in order to reduce emissions to hit Biden’s target. That means you’re only allowed to eat four pounds of red meat a year. That adds up to a burger a month. That’s it.”
In a particularly odd moment on Twitter on Sunday, two Republican governors, Greg Abbott of Texas and Brad Little of Idaho, tweeted their opposition to the Biden red meat policy that doesn’t exist—and cited a Fox News graphic that listed the supposed elements of the nonexistent policy.

Others chiming in to proudly display how easily duped they are included Taylor Greene:

Click Above Link To View Social Media Post

Rep. Madison Cawthorn:

Click Above Link To View Social Media Post

Right-wing radio host Todd Starnes:

Click Above Link To View Social Media Post

And, of course, Donald Trump’s not very bright son, who should probably have his arteries checked sooner rather than later:

Click Above Link To View Social Media Post

Perhaps the biggest WTF moment though came from Kudlow, the 45th president’s former National Economic Council director, who, in his haste to jump on the not-real news seemed to suggest that, at present, most beer people drink is meat-based:

Click Above Link To View Social Media Post

“Speaking of stupid,” he said on his show over the weekend, “America has to, get this, America has to stop eating meat, stop eating poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, and animal-based fats. Okay, you got that? No burgers on July Fourth. No steaks on the barbie…. So get ready. You can throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled brussels sprouts and wave your American flag.”

As many have since noted, most beer, at present, is plant based, so it’s not clear what Kudlow has been drinking or, for that matter, smoking. (On the other hand, Kudlow has been famously wrong about everything for most of his career, so there’s that.)

In a statement to CNN, one of the coauthors of the academic paper that, again, has nothing to do with any real government proposal said: “Our goal is simply to illuminate through research the potential impacts that various behavioral changes can make on greenhouse gas emissions. It is up to individuals to then choose their own behaviors that can address the drastic environmental situation in which we find ourselves. And it is up to society, all of us collectively, to incentivize those behaviors.” He added: “I think the right-wing media is fear-mongering about our scientific studies as a way to score 'red meat' points with their base.”

Last edited:

Rembrandt Brown



darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor

NEW YORK — Brendan Hunt, an enthusiastic Trump supporter who called for killing members of Congress days after the Jan. 6 insurrection, was found guilty Wednesday of making a death threat against elected officials.

It took the jury in his case about three hours to reach a verdict, finding that comments Hunt made in a disturbing video posted online two days after the U.S. Capitol riot amounted to a genuine threat to murder elected officials in Washington.
He faces up to 10 years in prison.

The jury also concluded that menacing social media posts Hunt made in 2020 — including one directed at Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), then the Senate minority leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — did not rise to the level of criminality.

Hunt, 37, was charged with one count of making a threat to assault and murder a United States official. He was arrested Jan. 19, a day before President Biden’s inauguration, after the FBI received a tip about his video, titled “KILL YOUR SENATORS: Slaughter them all.”

The clip had been posted on BitChute, a hosting site popular with far-right conservatives, after the deadly riot in Washington.