Some day three analysis

This comes from the legal expert from Legal Insurrection who has press credentials to cover this

Second, while being questioned by Prosecutor Eldridge, McMillian was asked how Floyd appeared to him while being restrained, with Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck. I expect Eldridge was hoping for a reply along the lines of “he looked like he was being killed.”

Instead, what Eldridge got was McMillian stating that Floyd had foam running out of his mouth. A perhaps stunned Eldridge responded with, “Foam in his mouth?” and McMillian immediately affirmed, “Yes, foam in and out of his mouth.”

Foaming in the lungs, and by extension out the mouth, is, of course, a notable indication of pathological fentanyl overdose. This would obviously reinforce the likely defense narrative that Floyd was killed not by Chauvin’s knee but by the three-fold fatal dose of meth/fentanyl speedball drug cocktail he rapidly ingested to avoid its discovery by the police.

That was about all the substantive value contained in McMillians’ testimony on direct.

With a trial that will likely last as long as this one, you look for one or two tidbits per day that might stand out. The prosecution continued it's case by interviewing more of the people on the scene. Probably the two most notable was the clerk who assisted Floyd when he passed the counterfeit $20.00 bill and the elderly McMillian who told the court that he had stopped to "snoop" at what was going on.

The clerk suggested multiple times (and even ended his testimony) making a point of saying that Floyd was high. Not so high that he couldn't communicate that he wanted to buy cigarettes, but high enough that he it drove the cashier to eventually call the police. 

The older man broke down crying on the stand. Not sure that this helps either side, other than it makes him appear overly emotional. But as noted in the text I pasted, McMillian seemed to surprise the prosecutors by making a point of saying Floyd had foam coming in and out of his mouth. This is a point that will likely be hammered by the Defense when their time comes. Foaming of the mouth is a very strong indicator of drug overdoses, seizures, or rabies. Of the three, quite obviously the opioid overdose seems most likely given the evidence on hand. 

The other officers on the scene are also seen and heard on video referring to the fact Floyd was foaming, even before he was place in the knee to the neck restraint. So it's likely that Floyd's reaction to the three times the lethal dosage of Fentanyl was happening prior to any actions by Officer Chauvin. 

Hart finally concedes Iowa 02 race

Statement from Rita Hart

“After many conversations with people I trust about the future of this contest, I have made the decision to withdraw my contest before the House Committee on Administration. Since Election Day, and throughout this entire process, my mission has been about ensuring the voices of Iowans who followed the law are not silenced. I am saddened that some Iowans’ votes will not count through no fault of their own,” she said.

click to read full statement

“Despite our best efforts to have every vote counted, the reality is that the toxic campaign of political disinformation to attack this constitutional review of the closest congressional contest in 100 years has effectively silenced the voices of Iowans. It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility.”

The interesting thing here is that Pelosi and gang seemed poised to try to take this seat too. But the pressure from everyone else seemed to push Hart to this decision. Sadly, she attempts to make herself and Iowa voters out to be the victims, when in fact she was doing everything in her power (including bypassing a legal challenge in Iowa) to ignore the certified results of her race. Rather than fight this legally within the Iowa process, she wanted Democrats in the House to basically hold a vote to overturn the election results.

At no time during this race was Hart ever ahead and contrary to her repeated attempts to suggest differently, no legal ballots were tossed out. Her issue (as it generally is with Democrats) was to demand that illegal ballots be counted as legal. More to the point, she went out of her way to simply identify enough illegal ballots to challenge to overturn the results. Of course if she is allowed to go find 10 votes, then would you have to allow Miller-Meeks to pick 10 illegally cast votes for her to be included as well? When does it all end? Well the answer is simple. When all "legal" ballots have been counted. 

Chauvin trial - Day two trial recap

This will start to get a little mind-numbing, considering the prosecution witness list is in the hundreds and their case will take several weeks if not months. But if yesterday is any indication, we are going to be hearing many many people saying largely the same thing over and over. Observations from several legal analysts are suggesting that the witnesses all appear well coached.

There is still a bit of division between those who feel that these emotional appeals are largely effective and that the defense is not doing a very good job in mitigating that and those who feel that the prosecution's case so far feels too contrived and is not really attempting (so far) to prove a cause of death. There seems to be no witnesses that have come across as either completely effective or completely ineffective.

The last witness (a firefighter who was also a bystander to the events) was definitely something to see. She was contrived to the point where she literally refused to acknowledge that any amount of citizen interference would ever effect her ability to do her job. It was if she was testifying that she was a robot with no emotions. At one point she claimed she didn't recall something asked of her (that she obviously did). She then refused to look at a document to refresh her memory. After being ordered to look at the document, which she already knew what is was, she made a somewhat belligerent argument as to why she claimed she didn't know. Shortly after that, the Judge cleared the Jury from the court and chastised the witness. She will be back on the stand this morning.

At the end of the day the prosecution would like the jury to make a raw emotional decision based on how the events made people feel. There is a sentiment by certain Americans that this trial is not about Officer Chauvin, but rather a statement about race in America (yada yada). They feel that anything other than a guilty verdict would be akin to a slap at all minorities. Obviously the defense wants people to draw a legal and logical conclusion not based on raw emotion. 

But, but, but... this happens every year!

Twice as many children are in Border Patrol custody under Biden than Trump peak in 2019

The number of migrant children being held in Border Patrol facilities is more than double the record that was set in June 2019 during the Trump administration, the Washington Examiner has learned. As of Sunday, 5,767 unaccompanied minors were being detained inside cells at Border Patrol facilities near the U.S.-Mexico border. In comparison, only 2,600 children were documented in custody at the height of the 2019 border crisis, according to federal data exclusively obtained Monday evening.

The figures underscore the magnitude of the situation on the border, which President Joe Biden and Democrats have refused to recognize as a "crisis." The number of children in Border Patrol facilities is also far higher than the number of children separated from their parents under President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" initiative that mandated children be taken from their parents so that the adults could be prosecuted. In other words, Biden is presiding over more unaccompanied children in government custody than when Trump intentionally separated migrant children from their families. Federal data for the end of Trump's tenure were not available.

Prosecution calls a 9 year old to testify?

Found someone impressed with the prosecution on the first day...

Certainly an outlier, but worth a look

Although I was surprised by his detached tone, I thought Blackwell did an excellent job. I was not surprised by his use of the famous bystander video that everyone has seen.

An opening statement is not argument. It is to be limited to a summary of the evidence that will be introduced in the case. It should provide a roadmap to the case the attorney will present to the jury.

The underlying message of Blackwell’s opening is that the State has a ton of evidence they will introduce to prove up the charges against Derek Chauvin. Among the witnesses who will testify against Chauvin are the Minneapolis Chief of Police and other Minneapolis police officers.

Blackwell anticipated and undercut the testimony of Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker. He will call a raft of experts to deal with it, including a doctor who trained Dr. Baker as medical examiner.

I watched the testimony of martial arts expert David Williams II on my cell phone. Williams was a bystander on the scene at the time of the incident. He can be heard on the video. I didn’t realize that martial arts experience made him an expert on cause of death, but he opined on the “blood choke” he observed Chauvin working on Floyd. He watched it kill him like a fish.

Williams’s testimony beyond his observations at the time are objectionable in my opinion, [UPDATE: but Judge Cahill disagrees. See his order on defendant’s motions in limine paragraph 22. I regret this oversight in my original comments here. Consistent with his ruling, Judge Cahill struck Williams’s assertion that Chauvin’s choke killed Floyd, but the jury heard it.]

This guy is a devastating witness for the State. Williams continues this morning.

Not everyone was impressed with the prosecutions opening statement or dismissive of the defense, and there was others who felt that a local bouncer trained in MMA was a not a very good choice of experts on the subject of choke holds.

But clearly the man who shares most of my name believes in the prosecutions case. There is no doubt that they have both a litany of powerful people working on behalf of the state and will provide compelling testimony from other important people from the Minneapolis area. 

More clearly,  this is a David vs Goliath sort of match up where the State will be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at these Police officers and they appear to have the help and support of most local officials including the Police Chief (who has plenty of incentive to not want to see the city burn down again if Chauvin is acquitted). The defense, on the other hand, is one local attorney with limited support from anyone. 

Where is Covid now?

I keep hearing from liberals and even some health officials that this is making a comeback in red state areas where restrictions are being lifted too soon?

Information from the CDC

New York City*	450.4
New Jersey	346.4
Michigan	326.7
Rhode Island	258.3
Connecticut	238.9
New York*	237.3
Pennsylvania	199.1
Massachusetts	191.5
New Hampshire	182.7
Delaware	182.3
Minnesota	174.4
Vermont	173.1

Boy oh boy, but this does not look anything like what people are making it out to be. I have heard wild criticism of leadership of Florida, Iowa, Texas, and all sorts of place for lifting restrictions and seeing their infection rates "soar". But it still appears that much of the trouble is in those pesky blue states in the Great Lake and upper East Coast areas, in spite of most of them now wearing two masks (because the CDC recommends it). 

Of course these criticisms are generally knee jerk and based on faulty or misleading information... you know like claiming an Islamic guy with the name Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa must be an angry white supremacist and lighting up social media with attacks 

Meanwhile, we have now gone over 150,000 deaths under Slow Joe Biden which makes up approximately 27% of the total deaths, in spite of only being President for about 10 weeks. Will there ever come a time when liberals will stop getting angry at other parts of the country or red state governors, when much of the problem continues to surround their own areas.  

And this is why Chauvin and the other cops cannot get a fair trial...

This is what happens when emotions take over and judgement falls to the wayside!

Were the Court TV legal analysts bigger hacks than me for
 thinking the prosecution was trying to lose on purpose?

Keep in mind that this particular person has made numerous attempts to demand that he was impartial and listening to both sides. Yet after the first day of a trial where the analysts on Court TV actually had a discussion on whether or not the prosecution was "throwing the case on purpose" and where almost every legal observer suggested a very bad day for the State... Roger loses his cool and demands all of the cops will be "convicted felons". 

So was this "convicted felons" argument based on any reasonable evidence presented? 

Was it the dispatcher who stated on the witness stand that she never saw any actual excessive force, but did see signs of a mighty struggle? Was it the witness who claimed that she didn't remember when she moved to Minnesota, much less what happened on that day? Was it the angry bouncer with a low grade MMA background who suggested (without any police training) that Officer Chauvin was using trained techniques to tighten the choke hold with his knee, or was it when the angry bouncer suggested that blaming Floyd and drugs was what "America does"? 

Because other than that, the prosecution offered nothing that we already didn't know. Opening statements are not proof of fact and are not a determination of guilt or innocence. None of the witness held any real compelling testimony (unless you take Donald "Dwill" Williams at face value that as a bouncer he has a medical understanding of how the esophagus or trachea work). 

Perhaps the prosecution has better witnesses to come. But perhaps it doesn't matter if enough Rogers sit on the jury and are willing to take out their own anger on four police officers who put their lives on the line for our safety, and throw them under the pass to make themselves feel better. Either way, nobody will trust Roger to be providing us with any "objective" feedback on this case. His mind was made up a long time ago.

Chauvin Trial updates

Opening statements: Nothing other than exactly what you would expect. Prosecution hammering on the video taken showing Chauvin with a knee to the neck of George Floyd. They also appear to have settled in on strangulation as the cause of death rather than heart attack. This also suggests that they will be putting more credence on the cause of death opinions provided by the bought and paid for medical examiner (who argued strangulation), rather than the Hennepin County medical examiner (who suggested it a heart attack). 

The defense provided a fairly quick opening statement, basically suggesting that there is a lot more to the case than the nine minutes or so on the video. It seemed largely a plea for the jurors to keep an open mind and promise to take everything into account. Keeping the emotional aspects of this case in check is likely their biggest challenge. 

Witness One - Jena Lee Scurry: Scurry is a 911 dispatcher who took the call and also stated that she watched the video of the events and ended up calling a Sergeant/Supervisor in order to report that something seemed wrong. She claims that she was unsure of whether or not there had been any undue use of force, but had a gut feeling. The defense cross examination brought forward a couple of interesting things. Number one, Scurry testified that the car was rocking back and forth at times, suggesting a fairly significant struggle between Floyd and the two officers. Secondly, the Emergency Medical team dispatched originally went to the wrong address, which clarifies why it took so long for medics to get to the scene. Not sure she is a particularly good opening witness.

Witness Two - Alicia Oiler: The first comment made by one of the live bloggers I am reading suggested this witness looked "bored". She was a witness who took some video on her phone while working at a convenience station across the street from the scene. She is from Arizona and response with "a while ago" when asked how long she was in Minnesota. She seems to not "recall" much of anything. Court TV analysts suggests she was a poor witness for the State and the only reason to call her was to admit her cell phone video, which also was fairly poor all things considered. The cross examination was quick and she was done.

Witness Three - Donald Williams: This witness is interesting in that he appears to be a bystander who witnessed the events and also happens to be a former Wrestler and eventually an MMA fighter. He claimed to have over 40 fights, but a quick search on the internet shows he fought locally and had a 5-6 record as a semi-professional in mixed martial arts. What is interesting is that the State appears to be using Williams as their MMA choke hold expert. While obviously someone who was both a wrestler and an competitor in MMA deserves all my respect, he seems to have a relatively loose concept of what he is talking about. He suggests that Officer Chauvin is actually using trained choke techniques to "tighten" the choke. I suspect that Williams has never witnessed an MMA event where someone taps out from a knee to the neck choke.  Unfortunately he also comes across as abrasive and anti-cop and even anti-American as he suggested that the officers at the scene were blaming the situation on Floyd being black and Floyd being on drugs. In his own words. The officers "did what America does" by putting the blame on Floyd. Could have probably done without that commentary. Knew he was black by just reading the transcript. 

This was the end of the first day: Tomorrow will start with the defense cross examining Williams, which I suspect might get ugly. I seriously hope that this is not actually the best "choke hold" expert that the State will present. Because the defense will present experts who are more than just local fighters who happened to be at the scene. 

This is why narratives succeed and fail all at the same time....

The Media Desperately Wants to Push the Anti-Asian Hysteria and Desperately Wants You to Avoid the Figures

We heard repeatedly how this shooting was an extension of the steep rise in anti-Asian hate crimes, a figure said to have spiked by 150% last year. While numerous outlets have repeated this figure, the source from where it has been referenced is less enthusiastically cited. This comes from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. While that 150% rise sounds jarring, what we come to learn when looking over the figures is that it is rooted in a number that was significantly low to begin with. Get ready to be unimpressed.

This ‘’spike’’ in hate crimes has been described as ‘’soaring’’, ‘’jumping’’, and any other dramatic adjective. Last year, across the top urban centers, the amount of anti-Asian hate crimes was tabulated at — ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO. You read that correctly. 122 is the entirety of the anti-Asian hate crimes counted in the big cities. Understand this includes all manner of reports, including possibly racist words spoken or other non-violent confrontations.

So instead of saying that hate crimes against Asians went up by 73 cases, we use a percentage (150%) to make it appear all that much worse. Now obviously nobody likes to see hate crimes at all. Certainly I don't want to see hate crimes against Asians, considering I have an Asian wife, Asian sister-in-laws and Asian nieces. But let's keep this in perspective. This "increase" amounts to one more hate crime per city approximately every 11 weeks or so. 

But that isn't the only problem with the narrative. This study says we have seen an increase of 73 from 49 to 122. What about that 3800 number I keep seeing on Twitter being tossed around by liberal bloggers and such? How is one study seeing 122 (even just looking at the biggest cities) whereas others are tossing around a number that is thirty times that? What am I to believe here? That there were 122 hate crimes in the large metropolitan areas that make up a large chunk of our country, but another 3678 crimes committed elsewhere? That makes no sense considering a large chunk of minorities (Asians included) live in metropolitan areas. 

Moreover, I am still privy to the 2 million number, which represents the number of violent interracial incidents that are reported in an average year. That includes approximately 138,000 violent incidents against Asians by members of other races. The number 122 and 3800 are dwarfed by the much larger number of incidents that are obviously not found to be a "hate crime".  So the reality is that there is actually no good way to "objectively" define or measure hate crimes in order to accurately make any determination as to whether or not they are up, down, or holding steady.

Chauvin Trial starts today - Opening statements

Can Chauvin get a fair trial?

If you count the number of white guys, you could probably guess the number of these labeled "hate crimes"

What a great illustration of objective fact defying liberal reality

I'm hearing it repeated as gospel truth that "nearly all" American mass shooters are white. Here are the photos of mass shooters from 2019 (defined as four or more shot in a single incident). It shows quite a diverse set of faces. #Boulder #Atlanta pic.twitter.com/z4eGq8mCiW

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) March 24, 2021

So ask yourself a simple question. How many of these mass shooting incidents where the perpetrator appears black did you read about in the newspaper? If the answer is zero (which I believe it will be) then ask yourself why? Why does our media today only report mass shooters if that shooter is carrying a rifle and happens to be White? Think about how quickly the Bolder Colorado shooting disappeared from our news cycle the minute it turned out that the killer was not a White Supremacist, but rather a Islamic Middle Eastern refugee. If it had been a White guy, we would still be talking about it 24-7 and how it proves the narrative about a rise in White Supremacy. 

I thought we were a racist society where Whites are treated so much better than minorities and society automatically believes minority (especially black people) are more violent and we are more apt to draw attention to their violence than we would be if the perpetrator was White. Black and minorities called out while Whites are given a pass for the same behavior?

Does anyone "actually" believe that is true to any degree anymore? 

Do Liberals even have the energy to heighten their rhetoric to where it will need to be?

It's not just Georgia... 43 states are reported to be proposing election law updates

As it stands, we have three cases already that have been returned by the USSC that ruled executive orders from Governors that largely reduced security standards for the 2020 election were illegal. Obviously these are rulings that came several months too late to make a difference, but they definitely change the playing field moving forward. 

There are 23 states that are currently completely run by Republicans, as in the Governor and all chambers of Congress belonging to Republicans. It's likely that after the 2020 fiasco that Georgia will not be the only state to start to tighten the screws on what has becomes a generally careless state of affairs in our elections. While there are also 13 states where the Democrats control all of the aspects of the Government, but these are in states where almost nothing can still be done to make it any looser to vote. 

If you wonder why Democrats in Congress are pushing for a "Federal revamping" of the election laws, that is entirely because they do not have any real advantage at the State level. Short of that, they will move forward at warp speed with the dishonest political narrative to attack the various election law changes that will likely keep being proposed and passed by local Republican states that for some reason still have purple federal leanings.  

So look for more comparisons to "Jim Eagle" or whatever as Republicans attempt to drag Democrats into the 21st Century with laws such as requiring ID that every other first world Democracy already have.  Look for more strange rhetoric from Democrats that suggests minorities are somehow less capable of understanding laws, following laws, garnering an ID, being able to sign their name in a manner that matches what is on file.... all while simultaneously suggesting that Republicans are being racist for treating everyone the same. 

All I know is that this could all get rather entertaining.

Sunday Funnies

Some more statistics that go against the narrative

Sorry folks, but Whitie is not the problem here!

I think the first graphic might actually be the most telling. Of all of the races, White people are the only ones who apparently do not see their own "superiority". All other races (Black, Hispanic, and Asian) all see their own particular race as better, while all three look down on White people. While this might draw some confusion with liberals, I think most people who are a little more objective and grounded on how the world works in 2021 would not be a bit surprised.

Nor would they be surprised that the largest amount of hate crimes are aimed not at people of color but of people of different religions. Jewish and Muslims are much more likely to be the victims of a hate crime than anyone of any color. In fact, 80% of all hate crimes are aimed at people of religion. Only 20% are aimed at people of color. Of course, this graph does not allow for the idea that either Christians or White people are even capable of being victims of a "hate crime" which is why most "hate crime" statistics are largely inaccurate and irrelevant.

Lastly, we see another statistic that shows that ultimately the people "most likely" to commit a violent hate crime are Black. This is hardly surprising considering that black people are responsible for the largest share of violent crimes in general, and the most violent interracial crimes to boot. Hard to lead both those categories without also leading in hate crimes. 

Putin challenges Biden to a live debate after Biden made absurd claims

This is inappropriate in a way that would make Trump blush!

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos that aired this morning on “Good Morning America,” Biden referred to Vladmir Putin as a “killer” and then claimed that he told Putin in 2011 to his face that he was soulless, a claim that we observed in a earlier story to likely be one of Joe’s exaggerated stories that didn’t sound like it had a lot of truth in it.

Russia then recalled their ambassador to reevaluate their relationship with the U.S. Putin then challenged Biden to a live debate and Biden said he was “too busy,” backing down (link).

So is "this" really the way you show that you are tough on Russia? By making personal insults of another nation's leader? Well yeah... as witnessed here almost every day. Liberals love to argue using personal attacks and insults. Way easier than having a real argument or making real points. I guess Joe is just taking his personal leadership to a new place!

Oh, and he is now underwater in the most recent likely voter Rasmussen poll...

Joe Biden Approval Rating Starts to Erode amid U.S. Border Crisis

President Joe Biden's approval rating has slipped over the past week as he faces continued scrutiny over the situation at the southern border. There has been a surge of migrants at the border and criticism leveled at the administration from across the political spectrum over issues there.

Republican lawmakers have rounded on the problems and blamed Biden's stances on immigration as having exacerbated them. Meanwhile progressive lawmakers have questioned how those at the border are treated, with concerns raised over the detention of unaccompanied minors.

It's only a matter of time before the Biden "honeymoon" is over. More to the point, eventually people will want more  from Joe Biden than not being Donald Trump. The question is whether or not Joe Biden can actually bring "anything" tangible to the table. At least tangible in the eyes of those most likely to wane in their support of the nearly 80 year old man.

The interesting thing about the Biden cheerleaders are that they are still nearly 100% tied to comparing him to Trump. Those who are under the illusion that the "press conference" went well are primarily speaking from the standpoint that he was less abrasive than Trump or otherwise had some comparison to Trump that they felt was relevant. None of had to do with appearing competent or confident.

But ultimately the President of the United States is not responsible to get along with the Press or coming across as a nice guy. They are responsible for having a handle on the state of the country, being a leader who people will follow, and being someone people have confidence in to make the big decisions. When you need handlers to literally provide you with the pictures of the people you are going to call on to ask questions, that is a problem. Doesn't make people want to follow you.

We should remind ourselves of one reality...

An Asian is more likely to be attacked by a black person than by any other race, including other Asians.

An unhinged Black man was caught on police bodycam video going on a vile, racist rant at an Asian-American NYPD detective during a protest in Manhattan. pic.twitter.com/aZY60E953m

— H̶y̶e̶i̶n̶ ₿🚀🇺🇸🇰🇷 ✝️ (@BabeeHyeinK2021) March 24, 2021

I know it doesn't fit the narrative that our racism problems are driven almost entirely by White people, but the statistics clearly show otherwise. This is a classic example of unhinged racism that most liberals will tend to ignore or otherwise defend because it involves a person of color.  

The biggest criticisms regarding the Biden press conferences not what you might think...

Reading the afterthoughts of the usual suspects, the main issue was not a lack of cognitive abilities but rather a lack of honesty and the fact that it wasn't really a press conference.

Obviously there was a lot of attention given to some of the glaring cognitive issues displayed by the President, but the most scathing reviews were in regards to a couple of other subjects. 

First and foremost, the President seemed to have trouble with the truth. Demanding (for instance) that there was no actual crisis at the border or that we "always" have a crisis at the border are simply untrue. Likewise, he made several dishonest statements about our overall Covid response before and after he became President.

But possibly just as important was the fact that this was not in fact an actual press conference. Joe Biden literally had a list of reporters he was to call on and looked to have been provided with a cheat sheet as to how to answer those questions. The only other possible explanation is that the Joe Biden simply enjoys looking at pictures of reporters and his press team just was able to guess correctly as to what "random" reporters might ask him.

In this image, it shows pictures of the reporters with markings for those he is supposed to call on.

In this image there just "happen" to be crib notes that coincidently have
answers to the "random" questions that were asked.

So it would appear that the reporters who were called on to ask the questions were actually prechosen and that Joe Biden was given a "picture book" to direct him to the correct reporters, down to the actual particular order. Did anyone else find it amazing that the first reporter he called on provided us with a question that actually suggested that the border crisis was created from the fact that Joe Biden is a decent and honest man and that his personal attributes makes more refugees want to come to America? Is that even a question?

There were literally no "hard" questions asked and quite obviously nothing was asked that was not answered by Biden's prewritten crib notes. So to a large degree this was not a press conference as much as it was political theater. It was clear that even the Press was in on this, likely pre-submitting their questions to the White House for approval and promising to ask them as submitted. Possibly they were even told that only the biggest kiss ass soft ball questions would be chosen, so submit carefully.

Could you imagine a scenario where Donald Trump only called on reporters from from Newsmax, the Powerline, Red State, maybe FOX news and then read from a script to answer these sorts of obvious kiss ass softball questions? Heads would have exploded.

At the end of the day... this was one of those "why even bother" moments. I have a gut feeling that this will be the overriding theme from President Joe.

We can sum up the President's first press conference with these!

We know he is old and senile, but.... 

Joe Biden says he came to the Senate “120 years ago” https://t.co/PIDxgsCrq5 pic.twitter.com/CG1hCqGTHu

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 25, 2021

So far nobody has explained exactly who Jim Eagle is... much less how these proposals look like Jim Crow? I am guessing Jim Eagle will top the Google, Yahoo, and Bing search counts for the next couple of days.

President Biden says that Republican voter integrity initiatives "make Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle." pic.twitter.com/PLTpRsOJGW

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 25, 2021

Oh and who knows if there will even be Republican Party in four years? 

Certainly not Demenia Joe.

President Biden is asked if he believes he'll be running against Donald Trump in 2024:

"Oh, come on. I don't even think about — I have no idea. I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party. Do you?" https://t.co/En0Jq7Xzd0 pic.twitter.com/YAiufcKBMp

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 25, 2021

Three times I got pictures sent to my twitter account from Roger...

Apparently attempting to prove that someone named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa who claimed to be a victim of Islamaphobia, hated Donald Trump, and killed a bunch of white people, was a White Supremacist.

This white guy was the shooter! 

No, wait - this white guy was the shooter!

I guess this guy was the shooter, but he still looks white?

Yes there is a border "crisis" and it is 100% Slow Joe's fault!

Poll: Half Of Voters Now See A Crisis At The Border, 50/34

A plurality of Democrats (48 percent) said the United States is facing a “problem” with illegal immigration, compared with 74 percent of Republicans who dubbed the issue a “crisis.” Overall, half of voters said the United States is facing a “crisis,” while a third called it a “problem.”

The migrant surge has gained prominence in the national media as the conversation in Washington moved past the haggling over the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief legislation. By the time the March 19-22 survey was conducted, 40 percent of voters said they had seen, read or heard “a lot” about the increasing number of child migrants arriving at the southern border – more than those who said the same of former President Donald Trump’s last-hour pardon spree earlier this year, but fewer than the share of voters who heard “a lot” about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot or Biden’s signing of the coronavirus package.

One has to wonder how long the Biden Administration believe it can get away with simply blaming all of their woes on Trump. Even the media has been fairly luke warm about repeating the Administration rhetoric as it pertains to finger pointing. At this point there is no logical means to really shift the blame for the border surge on Trump.

I will say that the Washington Post did put out an article suggesting that apparently there was not really a large border surge, while also arguing that there IS a large border surge, but then arguing that it is just not Joe Biden's fault. While they do not attempt to shift the blame to Trump, they suggest that the border surges is just make up because Covid made migrants less likely to come to the border. It's a dubious argument at best.

What it interesting about a "news story" such as this being published in a newspaper is that it really isn't news at all. Its a political opinion being treated as if it is news. There is no actual proof that migrants decided not to travel during Covid. Only proof that the Trump administration had been closing off the border both prior to and during Covid and that they became more determined to travel once Biden became President. 

More to the point, there was no Covid at this time last year and Covid still exists today and is as bad right now as it was at anytime during the Trump administration. Why would these people just decide to travel during a peak of Covid, if they had previously determined Covid was too dangerous to allow for it? A better question might be why are way more people migrating during Covid than they were prior to Covid if Covid is a deterrent. Seems there must be a non-Covid reason why people suddenly started to migrate en-mass once Biden became President.

But apparently the obvious does not make for a good news story?