Watch: Biden Emerges From Hiding For First Time Since Dropping Out of 2024 Race
Joe Biden has finally appeared in public for the first time since dropping out of the 2024 presidential race on Sunday amid widespread concerns over his physical health.
Biden had not been seen publicly for seven days since he contracted COVID-19 and holed up at his Delaware residence to quarantine.
Biden was seen stepping out of his motorcade in Dover, Del. where he ignored questions from reporters as he shuffled over to board Air Force One.
For the first time since dropping out of the presidential race, and after hiding for 5 full days, Biden is finally seen in public. pic.twitter.com/DI0aY6lTU4
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 23, 2024
This comes a day after Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and media pundits demanded Biden provide proof of life when he announced in a letter posted to X that he’s dropping out of the 2024 race.
Biden had called into a rally for Kamala Harris on Monday, where he said “the name has changed at the top of the ticket, but the mission hasn’t changed at all.”
Biden is scheduled to deliver an Oval Office address to the nation to speak on his decision to drop out on Wednesday, July 24 at 7:00 pm CST.
Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds
Biden Accuses GOP Of Calling For Political Violence After Deep State Tried To Kill Trump
Joe Biden responded on X Tuesday to a remark made by Ohio state Sen. George Lang (R) at a Monday night solo rally hosted by Donald Trump’s vice president selection J.D. Vance.
During the rally, Lang warned he’s “afraid” the country could face a second Civil War if Trump and Vance lose the election.
In response to the comment, whoever runs Joe Biden’s X account shared the video clip and wrote, “Folks, calls to violence threaten our democracy’s foundation. You can’t love your country only when you win. Let’s solve our problems with ballots and elect Kamala Harris as the next President of the United States of America.”
Folks, calls to violence threaten our democracy’s foundation.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 23, 2024
You can’t love your country only when you win.
Let’s solve our problems with ballots and elect @KamalaHarris as the next President of the United States of America.pic.twitter.com/wfREMvAyNo
Lang issued an apology after his statement was shared online, writing, “I regret the divisive remarks I made in the excitement of the moment on stage.”
My statement below on comments made earlier today: pic.twitter.com/44UziIPjSa
— State Senator George Lang (@LangForOhio) July 22, 2024
The Biden account, which is simply a mouthpiece for the current political establishment, is claiming the GOP is calling for violence when Lang clearly said he’s “afraid” of that scenario and would like to avoid a hot domestic conflict.
However, one could argue we’re already in a hot Civil War since the attempted Trump assassin Matthew Crooks appears to have been a Deep State patsy à la Lee Harvey Oswald.
It’s also worth noting the same players who have been openly promoting the assassination of Trump for several years also schemed to oust Biden from the Democrat Party presidential ticket.
Several top U.S. military experts agree there was a stand down during Trump’s Pennsylvania rally and that Crooks’ assassination attempt was not a result of incompetence by Secret Service.
USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned on Tuesday, just one day after being grilled by Congress and directly asked if there was “a conspiracy to kill President Trump.”
Alex Jones has warned since the Monday following the Trump attack that the Deep State will try to kill him again, warning patriots in the resistance against globalism they’ll be targeted once the 45th President is taken out.
He’s also pointed out the elite have false flags lined up to blame patriots ahead of their planned crackdown.
“They’re not gonna just kill Trump, they’re gonna kill all the opposition and they’re gonna kill the governors and they’re gonna nerve gas people and they’re gonna cut the power,” he warned.
Watch below as Alex Jones talks with former DOD intelligence operative Ivan Raiklin about how the elite are trying to push the country into a full-on Civil War.
Infowars and Jones do not support offensive violence as it is EXACTLY what the Deep State wants, but we also must deal with the reality that they just fired the first shot in trying to kill Trump and are likely ready to strike again.
Cringe: Chuck Schumer Suffers ‘Please Clap’ Moment While Endorsing Kamala
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) endured a humiliating “please clap” moment reminiscent of Jeb Bush when he threw his support behind Kamala Harris on Tuesday.
Schumer faced dead silence while attempting to drum up enthusiasm for the Biden surrogate, who’s slated to replace the puppet president on the 2024 Democrat presidential ticket.
“Today is a great, great day for the Democratic Party and the country,” Schumer claimed after Democrats successfully overcame the will of primary voters to boot Biden off the ticket. “We are brimming with excitement, enthusiasm, unity.”
This is how Demtards show support for one another.
— Rob Dew (@DewsNewz) July 23, 2024
Please Clap pic.twitter.com/gJqzYgz0Tb
Chuck Schumer just had a humiliating Jeb Bush moment
He says “we are here today to throw our support behind Kamala!”
*nobody claps*
So he starts awkwardly clapping
Oofpic.twitter.com/uh7Ffqap4d— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) July 23, 2024
“So now that the process has played out from the grassroots to the bottom up, we are here today to throw our support behind VP Kamala Harris!” Schumer told the press Tuesday.
While Schumer was likely expecting cheers and applause, no one said a word, prompting him to clap for himself.
“I’m clapping. You don’t have to,” Schumer told reporters, attempting to spare himself embarrassment.
The incident was reminiscent of 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s infamous “please clap” moment, which signaled the end of his campaign and prompted President Trump’s “Low Energy” nickname.
Since then, other anti-Trump political candidates, including 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have suffered similar fates:
The media’s lack of enthusiasm for Harris is a telltale sign she likely won’t remain the Democrat presidential nominee and will instead be replaced for a more suitable candidate at the DNC next month.
The Censorship Boomerang
Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
They fooled themselves. The censorship meant to keep regular people in the dark instead blinded the pseudo-elite censors and their friends.
The shock – both feigned and real – over Joe Biden’s long-obvious dementia cements our 2022 diagnosis of the ruling class’s dysinformation disorder. Yes, some knew and hid the truth, as the brilliant Timur Kuran explains. But many journalists and Democratic power brokers appear to have been truly clueless. Otherwise, they would have changed course long ago.
The refrain that Joe is “sharp as a tack” was just the latest in two decades’ worth of increasingly preposterous propaganda.
- Iraqi WMD
- Russian collusion
- 51 intel officers
- Everything Covid
- SARS2 emerged in a wet market
- Lockdown
- Mask your toddlers
- Jab the healthy
- Horse dewormer
- Ukraine is winning – escalate!
- The border’s secure
This propaganda is believed most deeply and fervently in Washington, D.C., New York, and Hollywood. Those who think they know the most turn out to know the least. So what? Lots of people are wrong lots of the time.
Well, it turns out self-delusion at scale is no trifling matter. With Covid, it produced the biggest set of policy debacles since the Great Depression and has now brought us closer to nuclear conflict than any time since October 1962.
A Dangerous Info Gap
In June of 2020, we warned of growing censorship spurred by the Internet’s very openness:
The democratization of knowledge, expertise, and opinion is a fundamental and mostly welcome shift. Over time, it should allow us to learn faster and better stumble our way toward the truth. Ideally, preference cascades that expose falsehoods and improve the world won’t take decades to emerge.
But not everyone is happy with this new transparency. Information threatens the totalitarian mindset and its programs. As the internet breaks down the old barriers which hid private truths, the central goal of authoritarians is to erect new structures to maintain public lies.
In May of 2022, we speculated about the self-delusional effects of censorship:
Which brings us to ‘dysinformation’ as a disorder. At some point, the tactic becomes a strategy and then turns to addiction. The power of propaganda and censorship is seductive. Along the way, you mislead your followers over an epistemic cliff, and you lose touch with reality yourself.
And in May of 2023, we said the gap between pseudo-elite opinion and reality had grown into a dangerous chasm:
The online world supercharges all these top-down tactics. We now have demonization and indoctrination at scale. And yet, the infoweb allows for a bottom-up insurgency as well.
In other words, the Internet makes narrative control far more effective or ineffective – depending on the audience. Unprecedented volumes of polished publicity flowing at tik-tok speed from legacy know-nothings etch messages on millions of lazy brains. Herds of online trolls defame anyone who strays from the plot.
Meanwhile, however, alternative exafloods of data and truly expert content, evading gatekeepers for the first time on thousands of decentralized channels, enlighten billions of savvy info consumers, who parse and argue and think critically for themselves…
When the incompetence of the ruling class is exposed and the people lose confidence, the ruling class must construct ever more elaborate and maximal stories to retain and project power.
The gap between narrative and reality grows into a chasm. Each side thinks the other is mad, as in batty and deranged. No doubt, each side has its loons. But – and here’s a crucial difference – only one side insists on a free flow of data and open discussion. The other side believes more information is a threat to “our democracy” and demands data lockdowns.
- The Gurri-Kuran Dynamic: Information Wars, Part II – June 2020
- Dysinformation: How the exaflood caused an information sickness – May 2022
- Our Pseudocracy: How the ruling class constructs ever more elaborate and maximal stories to retain and project power – May 2023
Justice Barrett’s Green Light
Last week, the Supreme Court greenlit more of these data lockdowns. In a 6-3 decision, it allowed government agencies to continue pressuring online platforms to suppress disfavored views and speakers. With the three moderate Republicans joining the three Democrats, the Court reversed a preliminary injunction, issued on July 4, 2023, blocking government-sponsored social media censorship. (We wrote about the case a year ago in the Wall Street Journal – Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly.)
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs, including Stanford medical professor Jay Bhattacharya, lacked standing. They hadn’t shown the specific harms needed to meet the high bar of an injunction, remanding the case to Judge Terry Doughty of the 5th Circuit District Court.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, issued a sharp and persuasive dissent, arguing the plaintiffs had indeed shown, even before trial, both standing and a pattern of egregious First Amendment violations by the government-social media collective.
In one sense, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murthy was narrow – ruling only on the technical matter of “standing,” not reaching the merits of the evidence or First Amendment law.
In other ways, however, Justice Barrett’s majority opinion was devastatingly broad. The majority appears to have established a much higher threshold to sue government censors.
In First Amendment jurisprudence, one factor affecting standing is “traceability.” In this case, can the plaintiffs point to specific government actions that yield specific censorial behavior? Could the plaintiffs show how the government pressured the social media companies to suppress information?
To most of us, the thousands of pages of emails documenting White House, FBI, and CDC coercion and collaboration with Facebook and Twitter showed clear government censorship and harms to individuals. Barrett, however, invented a new, higher standard. It’s not enough to show the government ordered Facebook to take down content opposing lockdowns or supporting school reopenings, and that the social media firms then throttled or suspended doctors advocating those views. Barrett’s new traceability framework seems to insist that a specific government employee writes to a specific private actor calling for the specific censorship of a specifically named person. It’s kind of like insisting on a notarized confession letter of a bank robber while ignoring the bank video showing him entering the building and the million dollars in his suitcase.
Justice Alito showed a much deeper understanding of both the factual record and the novel web of institutional censorship. Barrett, he warned, had offered a roadmap for more data lockdowns. A savvy government censor can easily avoid naming specific victims of censorship and merely suggest to online platforms, wink and nod, they remove this or that viewpoint or even subtly call out individuals with less than explicit targeting. If government can effect the removal of viewpoints without demanding the banishment of a specific person, moreover, how is any individual ever to show harm, gain standing, and bring a case?
As Alito put it:
The Court…permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.
That is regrettable. What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.
Columbia law professor Philip Hamburger identified another major problem with Barrett’s opinion – insisting plaintiffs prove government “coercion” of third parties.
The First Amendment, however, says nothing about coercion. On the contrary, it distinguishes between “abridging” the freedom of speech and “prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. As I have explained in great detail, the amendment thereby makes clear that the Constitution’s standard for a speech violation is abridging, that is, reducing, the freedom of speech, not coercion. A mere reduction of the freedom violates the First Amendment.
The court in Murthy, however, didn’t recognize the significance of the word “abridging.” This matters in part for the standing question. It’s much more difficult to show that the plaintiffs’ injuries are traceable to government coercion than to show that they are traceable to government abridging of the freedom of speech. More substantively, if the court had recognized the First Amendment’s word “abridging,” it would have clarified to the government that it can’t use evasions to get away with censorship.
Under the new Barrett rules, they’ve invented the perfect First Amendment-evading censorship machine.
The Crisis of Credulity
One reason so many hoaxes have gained traction over the last decade is a crisis of credulity among conservative intellectuals and GOP party leaders. Most of them bought hook, line, and sinker the Russian collusion fraud and most of the Covid narrative and policies. If more conservative D.C. think tanks, op-ed pages, and party leaders had not gone along with these swindles, they would have had far more difficulty gaining widespread purchase.
The Supreme Court itself is a victim of the censorship it now downplays. From Justice Barrett’s opinion, one can see that the majority does not understand the new media dynamics of the Internet. It doesn’t grasp the sophisticated, interwoven array of public, private, and non-profit players working to suppress information. In other words, it doesn’t grasp the ‘complex’ in the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Nor does the majority understand the direction and magnitude of the many Covid policy disasters. Justice Barrett simply assumes the government was informing and the plaintiff dissident scientists were misinforming. Because they are so deeply insulated in the D.C. infowarp, Barrett and her majority colleagues can’t see the most potent and prolific sources of misinformation are the government and pseudo-elite institutions who often work hand in glove with government.
During Covid, for example, the FDA, NIH, CDC, and dozens of medical societies were the primary and most authoritative sources of misinformation. In the same way, in the weeks before the 2020 election, five former CIA directors and 46 of their intel colleagues, who received approval for their bogus “Russian information operation” letter from the existing CIA director, were the primary and most authoritative sources of misinformation.
The First Amendment should apply whether the information is true or not. Yet in the Murthy case, it surely would have helped if the justices had understood (1) the hyper-destructive effects of the censors’ misguided propaganda and (2) the true insights of the censored scientists, which if followed would likely have delivered far better results. Understanding the size of the policy mistakes and the real sources of misinformation might have led the majority to dig deeper into the facts and the novel mechanism that threatens free speech. Instead, the narrative that shaped the failed Covid response – fear, lockdown, mask, jab, listen to Fauci – still has a hold on Justice Barrett.
How many more elaborate hoaxes will our leadership class promote and fall for? Could the Biden implosion finally lead to an epistemic reckoning?
The good news is this preposterous episode may help reorient our information landscape, at least for a while.
Google Search Asking ‘Is Biden Dead’ Surges
There has been a surge in Google search requests asking “Is Biden Dead” amid growing speculation over Joe Biden’s whereabouts since he dropped out of the 2024 presidential race on Sunday. A Google Trends graphic […]
The post Google Search Asking ‘Is Biden Dead’ Surges appeared first on The People’s Voice.
‘Net Zero’ And Keynesian ‘Stimulus’ Are Making Us Poorer
If you read the latest OECD publication, “Employment Outlook 2024: The Net Zero Transition and the Labour Market,” you would imagine that the world has not gone through the largest monetary and fiscal stimulus in decades.
The results are so poor, they are embarrassing. Furthermore, the report illustrates the impoverishment of citizens and subtly suggests that achieving the net zero goal will present an even greater challenge. Translation: You will be even poorer.
According to the OECD report, 20% of the global workforce is in jobs that will expand due to the net-zero transition. The report basically tells us that the remaining 80% will face significant challenges.
Furthermore, it highlights that “low-income and rural households usually spend more on goods and services with larger carbon footprints, such as energy and food, because they are typically necessary goods.
Therefore, climate-mitigation policies, by increasing the relative price of carbon-intensive goods, will tend to affect these households as consumers disproportionally, with a strong impact on the real value of their income and wages. Recent carbon pricing reforms in many countries have indeed proved regressive. Recycling the revenue from carbon taxes in the form of transfers to households, however, can make this type of reform progressive. Yet targeting these transfers towards household needs is key to cost efficiency. ” Thus, we are doomed. Just look at the disastrous result of the carbon tax in the European Union, what it has done to price inflation of non-replaceable goods and services and the widespread increase in discontent among citizens.
Why do we know that policymakers will not counteract Keynesian policies’ regressive impact? Because they have never done it. To argue that this time will be different is irresponsible when the same OECD report shows the disastrous results of “inclusive” and redistributive policies since 2019.
The report hails the good news of low unemployment rates. However, this publication fails to acknowledge the ease of manipulating unemployment rates. Indeed, the report does not make that connection but highlights how labour force participation has stagnated or declined and how real wages have fallen while average working hours per employee have slumped in the United States.
If the unemployment rate has fallen but the average hours worked per worker are flat, the labour participation rate has slumped, and real wages have declined, then there is no real improvement in employment.
According to the OECD report, average hours worked per worker have declined in all countries except three of the entire OECD, and real wage growth is negative in the United States as well as many other economies.
Now remember that these dreadful statistics come after the largest so-called “stimulus package” in decades. The largest monetary experiment, combined with an unprecedented level of public debt increase, has left workers poorer. The worst is yet to come.
The OECD report warns that the net zero transition will increase price inflation in essential goods and services as well as generate significant displacement of low-skilled labor. They even warn that low-skilled jobs in high-emission sectors pay better, and this will create challenges for citizens.
There is no way in which one can defend this social engineering. Keynesianism always leads to malinvestment, misallocation of capital, higher indebtedness, and worse outcomes for workers and the middle class for a very simple reason: governments do not have better or more information about the requirements of society, and they spend money that comes from somebody else.
Malinvestment does happen in an open economy. However, creative destruction takes care of it. Malinvestment when the government controls the economy is the norm. And instead of creative destruction, we get subsidized misallocation of capital.
The era of constant Keynesian stimulus plans has eroded the middle class and created record levels of public debt. The net zero plan, which is the ultimate Keynesian top-down government-imposed system, will add scarcity, persistent price inflation, and impoverishment.
The only way to achieve net zero is to let technology flourish, allow free competition and open markets to work their way, and create a transition that benefits the majority with cheaper and cleaner goods and services. When governments make decisions with public funds, they ensure a negative result. They will overspend, perpetuate price inflation, and impoverish the same ones they claim to defend. Socialism never works. Climate socialism is bound to fail miserably, resulting in increased poverty.
MESSAGE TO DEEP STATE MINIONS: Don’t Follow Your Orders, Come Out With Your Hands Up & Join The Resistance