CNN implies it’s not news when they say “Republicans pounce”


CNN18 sets the stage for politicizing Democrat corruption by labeling it

“GOP targets the Bidens”

Consider also the message displayed across the bottom of the video

Whether the message was included by CNN18 or YouTube, I am not completely sure.

However, of several things I can be certain. I can be sure that social media companies (Google, Facebook, and Twitter) worked to bury the Hunter Biden story (and, thus, sway the election). I also remember how the members of the coalition between never-Trumpers and Democrats bragged about the way they “save the election” and took Trump down.

Therefore, as long as there is an opposition to Democrats, I expect that this blatant bending of the truth and eventual censure of conservatives will continue.

Cancel culture observed from differing sides


Clarence Thomas predicted cancel culture long before it came for him

The Washington Examiner explains how Clarence Thomas foresaw the development of the cancel culture even before it started to come after him.

Critics of Justice Clarence Thomas are working overtime to cancel him. That’s no surprise. A longtime thorn in the side of liberal causes, Thomas has evoked a particular hatred from the proponents of cancel culture since he put them on notice over a decade ago.

Thomas not only blasted their unseemly tactics, but he tried to do something about them. In a concurring opinion in the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, Thomas called for stronger privacy protections to fight this toxic trend.

The core of Citizens United was not about privacy at all. The case primarily concerned a nonprofit group’s ability to promote and distribute a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton. But the Supreme Court also reaffirmed by an 8-1 margin its past decisions allowing certain invasions of privacy when citizens contribute to a campaign for election. The lone holdout was Thomas.

Terms such as “cancel culture” and “doxxing” were still years away from catching on, but Thomas described something almost identical. He wrote of political activists using new internet tools to wreak havoc on the lives and careers of ordinary people. He told the stories of everyday people who had lost their jobs, reputations, and even their sense of safety after supporting a California ballot proposition on traditional marriage in 2008.

“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters,” Thomas  warned . “Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. … The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”

The risk of harassment and retaliation may be even higher today, thanks to our hyperpolarized political climate. A majority of people hold political views they  do not feel comfortable  sharing and  believe  that our growing culture of silence and intimidation is a problem.

Fortunately, our history offers solutions. In 1958, the Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP could conceal its members’ names and home addresses from state officials in Alabama. The court  noted  that disclosing this sensitive personal information would result in NAACP members suffering “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.”

That precedent was reinforced and strengthened in subsequent cases. The court struck down laws forcing political pamphlets to list who sponsored them or public school teachers to report what organizations they belonged to. Causes on the Right and the Left benefited from the ability to meet and speak with one another in private.

(Read of the specifics of the Citizens United case at the Washington Examiner)

Just as when Senator Joe Biden led the opposition to the confirmation of Justice Thomas, this is a high tech lynching

Democrats, in large part, do not wander far from their racist past. It was Democrat Senator Joe Biden that eulogized Democrat Senator Byrd (formerly of the KKK).

Furthermore, it was Joe Biden who led the opposition to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, stooping so low as to recruit Anita Hill along with her “pubic hair on the Coke can” story (despite the fact that she had followed Thomas from legal job to legal job).

The current investigations into trips sponsored by other people (something that all of the justices have taken part in, including RBG) stands as more of the same.

Liberal-leaning USA Today tries to swipe conservatives with the “cancel culture” brush

USA Today tries to explain how calling out cancel culture makes conservatives into hypocrites due to the way we have reacted to their liberal campaigns.

When Republican lawmakers and talking heads speak these days, this is what I hear:

“I HATE liberal cancel culture and believe in absolute free speech! I would also like to ban, do away with or silence Disney, NPR, Bud Light, the FBI and CIA, this big pile of books over here, M&Ms, Mr. Potatohead, college professors, any Democratic lawmaker I don’t want to hear speak, “wokeness,” any mention of diversity, drag shows, people who defend drag shows, people who defend people who defend drag shows, any mention whatsoever of the existence of LGBTQ people, this other big pile of books over here, the entire Department of Education, PBS and Oreos.”

It all makes perfect sense if you have too much time on your hands and too few functioning brain cells to process the meaning of the word “hypocrisy.” And it confirms that today’s mainstream Republican Party — the party of Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — has become the party of cancel culture, a bubble-dwelling collection of right-wing caricatures who speak an intolerant and often conspiratorial language most regular Americans, and particularly most younger Americans, can’t understand.

And it’s happening all over the country.

DeSantis would welcome Twitter to Florida, but not any woke employees

Consider a recent comment from DeSantis when he was asked about the possibility of Elon Musk relocating Twitter’s headquarters to Florida: “You know, I know Elon Musk, and what I would tell him is like, ‘Ok, if you’re going to move Twitter to Florida, are you bringing woke employees to Florida or are you bringing just your people?’ If it’s just his people then it may be good.”

So the “woke” are unwelcome. People who disagree with DeSantis’ anti-woke stance — whatever that happens to be, since it changes from day to day — are unwelcome.

(Read more of this whine-fest at USA Today)

Conservatives need to follow the same playbook as liberals; therefore, they should expect more

In order to at least get on close-to-equal footing with the liberals, a number of conservative organizations and individuals have come to understand that we need to incorporate some of the tactics of the left. Therefore, Rules for Radicals will get applied to both sides.

Expect a mega-whine from the liberal press when they realize that they will get subjected to things they have been dumping on conservatives.

Conservatives have a habit of playing by the rules: passing laws and boycotting products

Up to this date, conservatives have been passing laws and using the market to punish those who put unreasonable constraints on conservatives. If the “woke unwelcome” really had any teeth to it (like the times that a small liberal group goes to Google and gets Parler deplatformed or one person complains to Facebook and gets a group banned), then they might start to scream. But it will not happen and they will not say anything beyond this little self-promoting complaint.

I cannot promise that a Democrat will oppose cancel culture, but this one opposes one facet of it

“I don’t think it’s fair:” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voices opposition to transgenders in women’s sports

Breitbart opens a perspective into Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Junior and his stance on biological males competing as transgenders in women’s sports.

Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has come out in opposition to transgender athletes participating in women’s sports, a departure from the Biden administration.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who will be opposing Biden in the 2024 primary, told CNN on CNN on Saturday that “biological males” threaten women’s sports.

“I am against people participating in women’s sports who are biologically male,” Kennedy said. “I think women who have worked too hard to develop women’s sports over the past 30 years I watched it happen and I don’t think that’s fair.”

Kennedy said his opposition to trans athletes in women’s sports represents another area where he and Biden “differ really dramatically.” The politician also recently came out in opposition to cancel culture because his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, allegedly lost jobs for supporting his candidacy.

President Biden has been a fierce supporter of transgenders in women’s sports. As Breitbart News reported, the Biden administration’s Education Department has been moving to block schools that receive federal funding from “categorically” banning biological males from girls’ sports.

In its proposed rule, the Department of Education said it would “establish that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are.” However, the proposed rule also says that it will recognize “in some instances, particularly in competitive high school and college athletic environments, some schools may adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation.”

(Read more of Biden’s evisceration of Title IX at Breitbart)

So, we will see if a sane Democrat can stand up to a Democrat who wants to make men eligible for women’s rights

This may be worth watching.

Unintended consequences of the Tucker Carlson firing


Newsmax ratings climb after Tucker Carlson’s exit at Fox

The New York Times has even recognized the sea change created by the kneejerk reaction firing of Tucker Carlson at Fox News.

Newsmax, the niche conservative news channel that has long played David to Fox News’s Goliath, has seized on Tucker Carlson’s shock dismissal from its rival network and declared itself the true TV home for right-wing Americans.

So far, the strategy is showing some promise.

Viewership of Newsmax remains far below that of Fox News. But its audience at certain hours has doubled, and in some time slots tripled, in the immediate aftermath of Mr. Carlson’s exit — an abrupt spike that has turned heads in conservative circles and the cable news industry.

On Monday evening, Eric Bolling’s 8 p.m. Newsmax program drew 531,000 viewers, according to Nielsen. One week earlier, it had 146,000. On Tuesday, Mr. Bolling’s audience grew to 562,000 viewers, equal to about 80 percent of Anderson Cooper’s CNN viewership that evening. Newsmax’s other prime-time shows also experienced big jumps.

The sharp rise in viewership can be timed almost to the minute of Fox News’s announcement on Monday that it was parting ways with Mr. Carlson, in part because of private messages sent by the anchor that included offensive and crude remarks.

Executives at Newsmax quickly sensed an opportunity.

Starting on Monday, Newsmax programming has aggressively pushed a narrative that Mr. Carlson’s dismissal was a capitulation to the left by Fox News and the Murdoch family.

One pundit mused on the air that Lachlan Murdoch, the executive chairman of the Fox Corporation, was “much more liberal” than his father, Rupert. Andrew Napolitano, a Newsmax pundit who was fired by Fox News in 2021 over a harassment allegation, said Fox News dismissing its top-rated anchor “is like the 1927 Yankees firing Babe Ruth for his table manners — I don’t get it.”

Anchors and guests harped on a recent appearance by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, in which she called for Mr. Tucker’s firing. “A.O.C. speaks, and now Fox listens,” grumbled the Newsmax anchor Chris Salcedo. “These really are end times.”


At the time, Newsmax saw a burst in viewership, even recording higher ratings than the Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum one evening in December 2020. (Ms. MacCallum was switched to a different time slot not long afterward.) But its audience eventually shrank. And despite Mr. Trump’s complaints, Fox News continued as the undisputed ratings king of cable news, powered in part by Mr. Carlson’s increasingly provocative program.

(Read even the bilge I skipped at the New York Times)

The Tucker viewers will not go to CNN, no matter how much the Times wishes

No matter how much body english the Times applies to its words, they will not be able to bamboozle conservatives by twisting the facts. First off, any conservative reading the Times is doing it with an eye not to be fooled. They know the constant Marxist diatribe to be expected from the Times. Second, in sheer numbers, those numbers of conservatives reading the Times are small.

Now we know how much more Tucker knows his brand than Fox

NewsMax outlines the business and media savvy of Tucker Carlson as he traverses the ever-changing landscape.

Tucker knows his brand, Fox, not so much

One thing is for sure: Tucker Carlson understands branding. Whether you like him or not, the conservative firebrand knows his brand and appreciates all its benefits.

His departure from the “fair and balanced” network — FNC, has prognosticators speculating on what happened, leading to the news of why he left the Fox News Channel.

Some have identified his moving on from being one of the casualties of the Dominion Voting Machines lawsuit, where Fox had to pay over a half-billion dollars in damages, to speculation there were additional lawsuits that Carlson was involved in, to the simple old idea, that Rupert Murdoch didn’t like Tucker.

It is no secret that the news business is a personality industry replete with egos that can turn a career faster than a speeding bullet or, for that matter, a news cycle.

There is also the theory that Mr. Murdoch was over Carlson’s prima-donna antics. His airing of additional January 6 footage challenged the Democrat’s insurrection theory, his anti-Ukraine anti-war position, and his many other nonconventional opinions that only reinforced his brand to his countless and loyal audience.

This series of events didn’t wear well with the elder Murdoch and led to the parting of ways between these grand brands.

If Tucker understands his brand, what can be said about the Fox News Channel? It doesn’t say a lot. From a branding perspective, Fox has lost sight of its brand and appeal to its loyal audience over the years.

(Read more at NewsMax)

Yes, there is a bias at this blog

I do hope that Tucker enjoys greater success, at least for the short term, than Fox.

Additionally, there is the input of Victor Davis Hanson

To get the outside perspecitive of the Telegraph, here is a long-format interview of Victor Davis Hanson by the Telegraph on the firing of Tucker Carlson.

For those seeking their next Tucker Carlson Tonight fix, you’re in luck and Fox News is not.


If you are ready to see the Tucker Carlson that you have missed, follow these instructions

First, pull your phone out (or whatever you use to send and receive text messages).

Text tucker to 44055. Upon sending that text, you will receive a response asking for your email address. Send that.

Once that is complete, go to for a link of the video of the last show broadcast on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Also available shows from 19 and 20 April 2023 and three videos labeled Tucker Carlson Originals.

Fox News Bleeding: $500M Drop in Market Cap, $77M Advertising Revenue in Jeopardy | Facts Matter

Roman Balmakov of The Epoch Times laid out these facts in the 26 April 2023 edition of Facts Matter.

Two days ago, in a truly shocking move, Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News or, as the official statement claims, “Tucker Carlson and Fox News have agreed to part ways.”

Now, to anyone that was actually paying attention to the media landscape over the last several years, this was indeed a shocking development because Tucker’s show was far and above the most popular program over on Fox. Actually, it was one if not the most popular news progam across all of cable tv.

For instance, if you (bringing up the 24 April 2023 edition of TV Newser) look at the ratings on the very weke that Tucker was canned — well (showing Tucker with 270 as opposed to Cooper with 94 and Hayes with 133), you’ll see that in terms of viewership, he was blowing CNN and MSNBC completely out of the water. That’s (of course) not even mentioning ABC, CBS, and all of the different networks.Furthermore, financially, this is going to hurt Fox News quite a bit, because not is only the Tucker show bringing in a cool $77.5 million in advertising per year — but also, right after his departure was announced Fox‘s share price just tanked. Within a matter of hours, they lost close to a billion worth of market value. Eventually, it did bounce back a little bit, but as of this recording, it was still down about $0.5 billion.

Furthermore, you may not know this, but Fox News has a subscription platform called “Fox Nation.” And, while the number of Fox Nation subscribers isn’t publically known, what is publicly known is that (right after Tucker was gien the boot) the hashtag: #CancelFoxNation trended on Twitter.

(Watch the video below for the full text)

Tucker Carlson Out At Fox News Channel


A story that makes no sense: Tucker Carlson Out At Fox News Channel

Why would the #1 cable news company fire its #1 host?

The Daily Wire brings out the bare minimum for a story which seems to consist of only the bare minimum (so far).

Tucker Carlson, Fox News Channel’s biggest prime time star, has left the cable news giant.

“FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways,” Fox News said in statement. “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”

The network said Carlson has already hosted his last episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“Mr. Carlson’s last program was Friday April 21st” the statement continued. “Fox News Tonight will air live at 8 PM/ET starting this evening as an interim show helmed by rotating FOX News personalities until a new host is named.

Carlson was almost always at the top of the ratings in prime time, drawing a massive audience that often dwarfed several of his competitors combined. As The Daily Wire previously reported, Carlson’s show in reruns often eclipsed the audience of original programming at other networks.

A source told The Daily Wire Carlson’s staff was blindsided by the news and only learned late Monday morning when members received an email from the prime time star.

(Read of other media consutant input on Tucker’s exit at the Daily Wire)

So is this how Biden gets back into the White House — by silencing the major voices?

Has Fox just self-neutered itself as part of the cowardly Dominion settlement? Ot was this the action of a nework convinced that it should provide equity, not excellence, in news reporting?

If so, then what liberal outlet should we sue for their suppressing the Hunter laptop story? Should PBS or CBS be the first?

Isn’t a call for the silencing of Tucker Carlson a call for violence?

Since we know that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “I genuinely want to know why Tucker Carlson is allowed/paid to engage in clear, targeted, libelous harassment that endangers people and drives so many violent threats that people have to fundraise for their own safety.” — doesn’t it seem that she might be pushing for violence against him?

Let’s make some lists of firsts for and against President Trump

Firsts for President Trump

President Trump accomplishments in office

During four years, President Trump:

What is it exactly that Joe and the Democrats have accomplished since 2020?

Have they conquered climate change? (That’s a trick question: you know they never will conquer climate change even if there were a simple answer to the questions at the bottom of the “crisis.”)

It’s 2023. Has the “transitory” inflation they talked about turned out to be transitory?

Considerting that Joe sent us all home with his COVID restrictions, he can’t take credit for a “recovering” jobs outlook while the economy teeters on banking collapse.

More to the point, why should we re-elect woke, open border politicians of any party

Since I have followed the habits of Senator John Cornyn, I know what a turn-coat he can be for conservatives. Although he seems to pull out the conservative catch words only every six years (and otherwise keeping his liberal likeness to former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison), he always seems to stab conservatives in the back early in his term.

Therefore, I know that both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for the lousy state of:

The things endured by President Trump during his administration and following that

President Trump is the first president:

  • To be wiretapped by the FBI before taking office
  • To be banned from social media platforms
  • To be impeached twice
  • To be raided by the FBI
  • To be indicted by a district attorney who has downgraded multiple felonies to midemeanors

Tell me what the press has not shielded Joe Biden from when it comes to scandal

We know that Joe was the genesis of or was very closely associated with the genesis of the following scandals:


Democrats pounce!

Democrats jump at the chance to get a kindred soul in Wisconsin’s high court

Lawfare at work: Pelosi, Soros, and other Democrats pour money into “nonpartisan” Wisconsin Supreme Court race

The Daily Caller shows us how Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and other top Democrat movers and shakers have started pouring money into the “nonpartisan” Wisconsin race for a Supreme Court position.

Top-Democratic leaders are funneling millions of dollars into the Democratic Party of Wisconsin ahead of the state’s “nonpartisan” Supreme Court race, according to finance reports released Monday.

Both George Soros and Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker funded the party with $1 million each, and Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California donated $12,000, according to finance reports for this period, Feb. 7 to March 20. The liberal candidate, Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz, received roughly $8.7 million from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in funds.

“Janet Protasiewicz’ campaign is being bankrolled by far-left Democrats responsible for soft-on-crime policies, liberal prosecutors, and catch and release DAs nationwide,” Rachel Reisner, a Wisconsin GOP spokesperson, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “George Soros and J.B. Pritzker’s million-dollar contributions underscore that Protasiewicz will simply be a progressive rubber stamp, and they’ll drop whatever cash needed to buy her a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat because her pro-criminal record aligns with their agenda, one that has wreaked havoc on Democrat-run cities throughout America.”

Protasiewicz received just over $8 million in monetary donations and more than $700,000 in non-monetary funds from the state’s Democratic Party, the finance reports show.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Does it seem that Democrats want to skip the messy part of writing the law

Just have a sympathetic judge go in there and re-interpret the law to say 1,000 genders or a universal basic income.

This could be key when the next federal election occurs and ballot boxes get stuffed.

Luckily for Jane, those at The View agree with her

Jane Fonda says “murder” is the solution to anti-abortion advocates

Little Rock, Arkansas, ABC affiliate KATV reports that Jane Fonda went on ABC‘s day-time talk show The View to announce that the solution to pro-life advocates is not to debate them, but to murder them.

Actress Jane Fonda has been reported to the Capitol Police by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., for her suggestion that “murder” is a solution to anti-abortion legislation and its advocates.

During a recent appearance on “The View,” Fonda was chatting with show hosts about abortion and the fact that women no longer have the federally protected right of access to abortion after Roe V. Wade was overturned.

We have experienced, many decades now, of having agency over our bodies, of being able to determine when and how many children to have,” Fonda said on the show. “We know what that feels like, we know what that’s done for our lives.”

We’re not going back, I don’t care what the laws are,” Fonda added as the show’s audience begins to applaud. “We’re not going back.”

The show’s hosts then smiled, agreed and said “there’s the activist” in reference to Jane before asking her what, besides protests and marching, pro-abortion advocates can do in response to anti-abortion legislation and its advocates.

Well… murder,” Fonda says with a straight face.

(Read more at KATV)

If ABC doesn’t agree with this, why is The View still on the air?

This, in contraposition to what the press now says, was not a joke. Look at the video and see. This was a point of agreement to murder the opposition. Joy Behar, Jane Fonda, and the rest all agreed with the outcome.

Katie Hobbs’ press secretary obviously also believes in Jane Fonda’s solution as it would apply to those who disagree with trangenderism

AZ Central points out how the spokesperson for Katie Hobbs called for “transphobes” to be shot rather than debated. This envoking of gun violence sounds like a hate crime.

A social media post from Gov. Katie Hobbs’ spokesperson suggesting the use of violence against those who disparage transgender people has prompted a backlash and calls for the governor to take action.

Hobbs spokesperson Josselyn Berry late Monday posted an image on Twitter from the 1980 movie “Gloria,” showing a woman with a handgun in each hand. “Us when we see transphobes,” Berry wrote in an accompanying post that followed a prior message.

The post was made hours after a mass killing at a Nashville school where the shooter was identified by law enforcement authorities as a transgender person. The tweet was amplified Tuesday by Republican lawmakers and consultants, who panned it as tone deaf and advocating violence.

The Arizona Freedom Caucus, which includes the state Legislature’s farthest-right members, called for Berry’s dismissal, saying that “calling for violence like this is un-American & never acceptable.”

The caucus and its leader Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, is often at odds with Hobbs and has threatened to sue her over her first executive order. That order expanded protections from discrimination to include gender and reaffirmed that in matters of state employment and contracts, sexual orientation could not be considered. Hoffman charged that Berry was “threatening to shoot people Democrats disagree with less than 12 hours after the Nashville shooting.”

(Read more at AZ Central)

It turns out that this spokesperson was eventually let go

Although the spokesperson was eventually let go, the lag time between the event and the dismissal shows (like the event on The View) there to be a degree of agreement between the governor and her murder-preoccupied spokesperson.

So, if you are pro-life and have a meeting with the Arizona governor, watch your six.

Just when the press was resisting reporting on one attack by a transgender

Stop me if you’ve heard this: In little over 4 years, 4 transgender-identifying mass murderers have attacked

Breitbart lays out the facts regarding mass murders perpetrated by men identifying as women and women identifying as men.

In November of 2018, Snochia Moseley, a man who identified as a woman, wounded three and killed three after opening fire at his place of employment in Aberdeen, Maryland.

In May of 2019, a Colorado woman who identified as male shot up a school, killing one and wounding eight.

In November of 2022, a Colorado man who shot up a gay nightclub, killing five and wounding 18, was identified as transsexual.

On Monday, 28-year-old Audrey Elizabeth Hale, a woman who identified as a man, entered a Nashville Christian elementary school with a firearm. She murdered three adult staffers and three nine-year-old children.

In less than five years, that’s four mass shootings committed by people who make up about one-half of one percent of the population. So that works out to around 2.75 mass shootings per million transsexuals over four years.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Something tells me that, were this reversed, we would not be hearing the mocking of Christians across the air waves

Were this a case of four pastors having each committed multiple murders (the most recent including three children), we would be hearing of the dangers of Christians daily.

After Matt Taibbi explains how Biden and his FBI collude with Twitter to suppress free speech, …

Biden’s IRS visits Matt Taibbi and the Biden regime remains silent (since the IRS owes Taibbi money)

The New York Post digs into the case of official oppression by Biden’s jackbooted thugs in the IRS.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday on an IRS agent’s visit to journalist Matt Taibbi’s home on the same day that he testified to a House subcommittee investigating the “weaponization” of government.

The surprise March 9 door-knock came as the “Twitter Files” collaborator described his reporting on how the government pressured social media platforms to censor online speech.

The Post asked at the first White House press briefing since the news of the visit broke Monday about whether the visit was “part of a campaign to harass or intimidate [Taibbi] related to his journalism.”

White House spokesman John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council, declined to provide a substantive reply.

“I’m afraid I’m going to have to refer you to the IRS,” he said succinctly.

“Federal law prohibits the IRS from commenting on individual taxpayer matters,” spokesman Robert Marvin told The Post.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, whose department includes the IRS, also was pressed for answers Wednesday by House lawmakers.

“What are the chances of that being just luck?” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asked Yellen of the timing of the visit.

“That the IRS appeared at someone’s home while he’s testifying about the weaponization of the federal government before Congress? Because I think it’s minuscule. I think it’s one in a million or less,” Stewart said.

“It’s certainly something that I would want to look into,” Yellen replied.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Think about this. Biden using the IRS as a weapon. Biden using the courts as a weapon. Biden using the FBI to pressure the instant press (Twitter) to publish only what he approves. Does this sound like a dictatorship?

If you read the heading above and come to another conclusion than that of a dictatorship, I would love to see your full reasoning and would invite you to comment below. Be forwarned, though. I will erase all profanity.

Controversial group behind “Trans Day of Vengeance” raised money for firearms training

The Daily Mail tells us how the Trans Radical Activist Network (TRAN) organized to raise money for firearms training by sponsoring dance events. Additionally, when conservatives publicized the matter, it was conservatives who got banned from Twitter and other social media.

Despite three nine-year-olds being gunned down by a transgender shooter at a private Christian school in Nashville, activists are still rallying the troops to protest for a ‘Trans Day of Vengeance’ – months after raising money for firearms training. 

Transgender shooter Audrey Hale opened fire on the Covenant School in Nashville at 10.30am on Monday, killing Hallie Scruggs, William Kinney and Evelyn Dieckhaus during her rampage at the school.

But despite rising political tensions across the country, which saw a press secretary for Arizona Democrat Governor post a Tweet about shooting transphobes, the Trans Radical Activist Network (TRAN) is pushing forward with their protest in DC.

The Virginia chapter of the group held a ‘dance party fundraiser’ in Richmond ‘benefiting firearm/self-defense training for trans-Virginians’ on March 7, before the mass shooting had taken place. 

In statements, the group has taken pains to distance themselves from Hale, and her actions, and changed the name of the protest before the brutal slayings.  

The protest on Saturday was initially meant to be called a ‘day of visibility’ but rebranded before the shooting to vengeance because it means ‘fighting back with vehemence’ – though the group was quick to say they do not ‘encourage or promote violence’ when contacted by

But one activist appears to have taken the movement to the next level, posting a picture of a heavily armed person with an assault rifle and threatening to ‘kill christcucks’ – as Twitter removed thousands of posts with flyers for the event. 

Twitter has been removing the posts that could be deemed threatening or involve guns associated with the ‘TransDayofVengeance’ hashtag – but it is unclear exactly how many were others posing with weapons as they have since been deleted.

Ella Irwin, Twitter’s head of trust and safety, wrote that the company removed more than 5,000 tweets that included a poster for the event.

She said: ‘We do not support tweets that incite violence irrespective of who posts them. 

‘Vengeance’ does not imply peaceful protest. Organizing or support for peaceful protests is ok.’

Two other trans activists have since posted footage and photos of themselves with rifles, which appear to be in direct response to the Nashville shooting. 

One says that she will use the weapon for ‘protection’ against ‘transphobes’ who  target them. 

Kayla Denker, who describes themselves as a ‘communist, archaeologist and writer, posted the video of herself with her gun after the incident in Nashville – despite saying ‘advocating for trans people to arm ourselves is not any kind of a solution to the genocide we are facing’.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

I support anyone’s right to protect themselves; however, I don’t support intimidation

Protect yourself and I am behind you. Start inciting violence against others and you will have won an enemy.

Additionally, be forwarned that (unlike the liberal press that will call laws forbidding talking about sex with children under the age of majority to be “killing transgenderism”) I see these matters as black and white. Protecting children from pornography is not book banning. Protecting children from inappropriate topics that their parents have not approved is not killing. However, making verbal and printed threats are a form of assault. Therefore, to encourage people to “behead christcucks” is to promote violence and should be punished as such.

It has been and will be conservative voices that Twitter continues to ban

Tell me again how we cannot abandon Twitter and just regularly monitor (and boycott) everything on Twitter

The Daily Beast informs us of the deplatforming of Representative Majorie Taylor Greene over her exposure of the “Trans Day of Vengeance.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s congressional Twitter account was restricted Tuesday after the Georgia Republican shared an image about a “Trans Day of Vengeance.” Greene said the graphic was promoting an “Antifa” event next month in Washington, D.C. Twitter has since removed the post, with the company’s head of trust and safety, Ella Irwin, explaining that Twitter had to automatically remove more than 5,000 tweets and retweets of the poster. “We do not support tweets that incite violence irrespective of who posts them,” Irwin said. “‘Vengeance’ does not imply peaceful protest. Organizing or support for peaceful protests is ok.” Irwin also wrote that Twitter “did not take a ‘strike’ approach with restricting” the tweets sharing the poster, instead only restricting the media being shared. “There is no impact to users for having tweeted it unless it is reposted after removal or was posted with additional calls for violence/ wishes of harm,” Irwin added. Using her personal Twitter account, Greene later wrote: “Twitter’s [Ella Irwin] claims no one was given a ‘strike’ for warning the American people of political violence planned at the Supreme Court. Yet my official CONGRESSIONAL account was banned for 7 days for exposing Antifa’s plan for violence on the ‘Trans Day of Vengeance.’ [Elon Musk], can you explain?”

(Read Twitter’s scant responses at The Daily Beast)

Now we know why Elon Musk was stopped by the Twitter board

It looks like the old guard has taken control again.

Tell me again how conservatives should expect anything but suppression on Twitter.


An addendum to “Proof positive the press … (part 3)”

Biden shows his wish to force Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity on America

Biden defends stability of US banking system after Silicon Valley Bank’s stunning collapse

The New York Post at least outlines Biden’s words as he gaslit us all by his claim to secure our nation’s banks without having to perform another taxpayer-funded bailout.

President Biden defended the stability of the US banking system on Monday morning after the stunning collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sparked fears of a major economic crisis.

“Thanks to the quick action of my administration over the last few days, Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe,” Biden said. “Your deposits will be there when you need them.”

The president sought to reassure worried Americans and small business owners even as regional bank stocks led by First Republic Bank plunged in premarket trading Monday due to fears that SVB’s meltdown would prompt a nationwide flurry of withdrawals.

Biden also blasted executives at SVB and other failing banks, declaring that those whose actions prompted the current crisis “will be fired.”

“If the bank is taken over by FDIC, the people running the bank should not work there anymore,” Biden said.

The feds will get a “full accounting of what happened and why,” Biden added.

“Those responsible can be held accountable. In my administration, no one is above the law,” he said.

While the holdings of impacted depositors will have their money guaranteed, Biden noted that “investors in the banks will not be protected” because they “knowingly took a risk” by pouring cash into SVB.

Biden also took aim at former President Donald Trump, arguing his administration rolled back regulations that could have helped to prevent the current crisis.

He pledged an overhaul that will “make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again and to protect American jobs and small businesses.”

(Read more from the New York Post)

When these banking wokesters invest in pie-in-the-sky ESG projects and the money gets spent before the company and then bank fails, the money goes somewhere

So since the money will have been spent by the time that the next bank fails (three since Silicon Valley Bank started the trend), where will Biden pull the money? He claims he will get it from FDIC dues. Who pays those dues? Is it anyone with a bank account or the taxpayer?

I smell gaslighting.

Other Americans face a limit of $250,000 on their deposits. Why did the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank merit additional monies (possibly into the millions for some, like Roku)? Was it that thousands of green-oriented companies depended on Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank? Was it that Silicon Valley Bank seemed more focused on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity than profits?

It’s not just the food on your plate being threatened

Silicon Valley Bank collapse threatens climate start-ups

The New York Times has been so gracious to point out the green largesse made available through the Silicon Valley Bank. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

As the fallout of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continued to spread over the weekend, it became clear that some of the worst casualties were companies developing solutions for the climate crisis.

The bank, the largest to fail since 2008, worked with more than 1,550 technology firms that are creating solar, hydrogen and battery storage projects. According to its website, the bank issued them billions in loans.

“Silicon Valley Bank was in many ways a climate bank,” said Kiran Bhatraju, chief executive of Arcadia, the largest community solar manager in the country. “When you have the majority of the market banking through one institution, there’s going to be a lot of collateral damage.”

Community solar projects appear to be especially hard hit. Silicon Valley Bank said that it led or participated in 62 percent of financing deals for community solar projects, which are smaller-scale solar projects that often serve lower-income residential areas.

(Read more at the New York Times)

SVB hired board obsessed with diversity, invested $5BN for “healthier planet,” and held month-long Pride celebration, but had NO chief risk officer for eight months last year

The Daily Mail provides a wide-angle view of the wokeness within Silicon Valley Bank, along with an overview of its recklessness. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

Executives at Silicon Valley Bank focused on woke initiatives to increase diversity amongst its ranks and invest in startups promoting a ‘healthier planet,’ but failed to spot its glaring problems with investments as interest rates rose.

The now-failed bank had an A rating for its Environmental, Social and Governance policies according to the MSCI index after creating its own initiatives to ‘advance inclusion and opportunity in the innovation economy’ and investing in clean energy solutions over the past few years.

It even announced that it would invest a whopping $5billion by 2027 to support sustainability efforts, while its European offices held a monthlong Pride celebration and promoted ‘safe spaces.’

But for eight months last year, the bank did not have a chief risk operator, as it invested clients’ money in low-interest government bonds and securities.

Then when the Federal Reserve increased interest rates, the value of SVB’s assets fell while customers tried to withdraw their money.

Now, many are slamming the financial institution for focusing too much on woke policies and not enough on its investments.

Silicon Valley Bank has long touted its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as it built its banking franchise around startups.

It said in its 2022 ESG Report that the bank strives to ‘create a more just, equitable and sustainable world.’

Among the initiatives included in that report are a ‘commitment to provide at least $5billion by 2027 in loans, investments and other financing to support clients’ sustainability business.

‘SVB’s Sustainable Finance Commitment aims to support companies that are working to decarbonize the energy and infrastructure industries and hasten the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon, net zero emissions economy,’ the report states.

It also notes that the bank implemented ‘a diverse candidate slate for US leadership roles’ and introduced its first six Employee Resource Groups for Asian, black, Hispanic, LGBTQ, veteran, military and female employees.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

Well, woke Democrats flock together and don’t allow one another to go under, do they, Biden?

It looks like the one reason for saving this bank is the same reason Obama “saved” Solyndra with tons of taxpayer cash.

Green job money laundering that turn into cash donations to Democrats. A good Democrat cannot stop that.

Of course, the previous two articles highlight the previous wokeness of this Democrat bank; however, …

Although the previous two articles accentuate the woke nature of SVB, we cannot forget how this hurts the Democrat cause. It stops Democrat funding. It interrupts monies flowing to climate-related projects, race-related projects, trans-centered initiatives, and more.

Let’s not forget Signature Bank, friend of crypto and their board member Barney Frank

Yes, don’t forget that Signature Bank closed the Trump account when it was offended by his actions

The New York Post reminds us that Signature Bank has Barney Frank (former Representative in the U.S. House and half of the genesis of the Dodd-Frank Act that over-regulated banking) as a board member.

Barney Frank — the retired congressman who co-authored the Dodd-Frank Act to tighten bank regulations after the 2008 financial crisis — is under fire over his role in the latest US banking disaster.

The 82-year-old Democrat is on the board of directors at Signature Bank — a New York lender that was shut down by state regulators over the weekend, becoming the industry’s third major casualty since Silicon Valley Bank was abruptly shuttered on Friday and the crypto-focused Silvergate Capital shut down a week earlier.

In an interview with Bloomberg late Sunday, Frank partly blamed cryptocurrencies, which hadn’t existed when he and fellow lawmakers in Washington were grappling with the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

“Digital currency was the new element entered into our system,” Frank told Bloomberg. “A new and destabilizing — potentially destabilizing — element is inatroduced into the financial system. What we get are three failures.”

Frank didn’t address the fact that crypto had become a key growth vehicle for Signature Bank under the direction of himself and others — despite widespread concerns about the risks of the notoriously volatile sector.

(Read more at the New York Post)

If you go beyond reading the words of Mr. Frank and read the context, you’ll see this bank is a grow-rich land for Democrats

It may involve crypto. It may involve high tech or green technology. Any which way, it will involve money to Democrats.

Signature Bank de-banked Trump after Jan 6—now the regulators have shut them down

The Post Millennial reminds us that it was Signature Bank who closed Trump account after they were offended by the 6 January events.

Regulators shut down New York City based Signature Bank on Sunday, a financial institution which had previously cut ties with President Donald Trump following the riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Signature Bank is the second financial institution shuttered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) this week after Friday’s collapse of Silicon Valley BankAccording to CNBC, “Signature is one of the main banks to the cryptocurrency industry. As of Dec. 31, Signature had $110.4 billion in total assets and $88.6 billion in total deposits, according to a securities filing.”

On January 12, 2021, the bank told The New York Post that it had begun the process of closing Trump’s two personal accounts and “will not do business in the future with any members of Congress who voted to disregard the Electoral College.”

According to the outlet, Signature also posted a “scathing statement” on its website slamming Trump stating, “We have never before commented on any political matter and hope to never do so again.”

The statement continued, “We witnessed the President of the United States encouraging the rioters and refraining from calling in the National Guard to protect the Congress in its performance of duty. At this point in time, to ensure the peaceful transition of power, we believe the appropriate action would be the resignation of the President of the United States, which is in the best interests of our nation and the American people.”

(Read more at the Post Millennial)

So it looks like being woke was more important than a lucrative account

Whether this won brownie points with the Germans cannot be measured through this article; however, it seems the monies associated with the Trump organization was not enough to motivate this bank into sane practices.

One for all the Democrats who believe Biden’s fairy tales on SVB and the rest

Biden’s Bank bailout Whoppers

The Wall Street Journal examines the major lie that Biden told about the bailout of Democrat money-laundering banks. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

President Biden tried to reassure Americans early Monday morning that the banking system is safe and not to worry about the failures of Silicon Valley (SVB) and Signature banks. Markets didn’t believe him because bank stocks took another plunge, with some down 60% or more.

Perhaps investors don’t believe the Administration’s Sunday interventions solve the problems. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. says it couldn’t find a private buyer for SVB, though a source tells us Treasury and the Federal Reserve favored one. FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg nixed it owing to hostility to bank mergers.

Instead the regulators offered solutions that bail out even uninsured bank depositors and other banks at unknown costs that Mr. Biden isn’t acknowledging. Take Mr. Biden’s pledge that “no losses will be borne by the taxpayers.” He said “the money will come from the fees that banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund.”


That’s not nearly the full story. The FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund normally guarantees up to $250,000 in deposits, which protects small retail customers including mom-and-pop businesses. Banks pay for this guarantee with insurance premiums, but the insurance fund isn’t intended to backstop deposits of bigger customers with more capacity to weather losses if a bank goes under.

Yet after venture capitalists (Democratic donors) and Silicon Valley politicians howled, the FDIC on Sunday announced it would cover uninsured deposits at SVB and Signature Bank under its “systemic risk” exception. Apparently, Silicon Valley investors and startups are too big to lose money when they take risks. They benefited enormously from the Fed’s pandemic liquidity hose, which caused SVB’s deposits to double between 2020 and 2021. SVB paid interest of up to 5.28% on large deposits, which it used to fund loans to startups.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

For the idiot Democrats who don’t live on the coasts, but continue to vote for this idiot

Deposit insurance encourages bank failures like SVB

The Wall Street Journal explains how making a built-in escape hatch makes one less committed to taking the mission to completion. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

Silicon Valley Bank’s failure makes many Americans grateful for deposit insurance, which protects accounts holding $250,000 or less. But the SVB episode also illustrates the dangers of deposit insurance. A banking system dominated by government insurance, plus too-big-to-fail protection that effectively insures all deposits at the largest banks, lacks essential market discipline, is systemically unsafe, is more likely to see episodes like SVB’s failure, and is more costly to taxpayers and bank customers.

Historically, unprotected well-informed depositors, especially other banks, gauged and responded to each bank’s risk, creating an incentive for banks to manage risk responsibly. Uninformed depositors—like those now at risk at SVB — were free riders on informed discipline. Now, informed depositors can easily get around the $250,000 limit on insurance, which eliminates their incentive to monitor banks. The recent disappearance of the interbank loan market means that banks don’t monitor each other to gauge creditworthiness as short-term borrowers of reserves either. That leaves only bank regulators to mind the store, and they often lack incentives and knowledge to measure and punish risk on a speedy basis. That’s how predictable messes like SVB happen.


Deposit insurance was absent from nearly all other countries’ banking systems before 1980, and from the U.S. (with some temporary exceptions) until 1933. It was adopted for political reasons, and it hasn’t been a stabilizing influence. Virtually every academic study of deposit insurance shows that it promotes, rather than reduces, banking system fragility, with major costs borne by the insurers — which means ultimately by insured depositors and potentially taxpayers. The popularity of deposit insurance reflects public ignorance about its costs and about how a disciplined, uninsured banking system could operate as an alternative.


This episode points to a continuing failure of regulatory discipline, which lacks the incentives and smarts of the market, to substitute for market discipline. It also points to the need for business managers to learn more about banking, and for the Fed to learn that its own monetary-policy mismanagement for many years has lots of consequences for reducing financial stability. Those consequences include the insidious elimination of interbank discipline by ending the last vestige of informed discipline on imprudent risk management by banks.

Again, for Democrats not on the coasts who don’t benefit from Biden’s largesse

Regional banks are seeing flight of deposits to too-big-to-fail megabanks

Market Watch points out how local banks are now seeing depositors leave for larger banks that might be classified as “too big to fail.”

The unexpected demise of Signature Bank over the weekend, along with the failure of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday, ignited a shoot-first-ask-questions-later reaction among regional-bank investors as customers moved deposits to the largest U.S. banks for perceived safekeeping, observers said Monday.

Stocks of regional banks such as First Republic Bank (FRC), Western Alliance Bancorp (WAL), PacWest Bancorp (PACW) and Zions Bancorp (ZION) dropped Monday even after U.S. bank regulators set up a new emergency-loan program as a backstop for deposits.

(Read more at Market Watch)

Finally, to name Democrat beneficiary names

Here’s who benefited from their executive, PAC donations

Fox Business lays out a little of those who benefitted from the SVB largesse.

Silicon Valley Bank, the nation’s 16th-largest bank, failed Friday after depositors hurried to withdraw money amid anxiety over the bank’s health. It was the second-biggest bank failure in United States history after the collapse of Washington Mutual in 2008.

The bank’s California executives and political action committee have propped up a handful of politicians in recent elections, which has primarily benefited Democrat lawmakers.

Greg Becker, the bank’s president and chief executive officer, cut two maximum checks totaling $5,800 to the campaigns of New York Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner during the 2022 midterm election cycle. The two Democrat senators are the only politicians Becker financially backed directly during the most recent cycle.

Becker also gave $2,500 to the New Democrat Coalition Action Fund in May last year. The New Democrat Coalition Action Fund sent $1 million in contributions to numerous Democrat politicians during the 2022 elections.

Becker’s most recent donations came on the heels of $5,600 he donated between President Biden’s 2020 campaign and victory fund.

Jeffrey Leerink, the chief executive officer of SVB Securities, donated $1,250 to Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss during the 2022 and 2020 elections.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley Bank’s chief credit officer, Marc Cadieux, poured $250 into Biden’s campaign during the 2020 elections.

The bank’s political action committee has received around $40,000 from its employees over the past two election cycles. In turn, it contributed thousands to Warner, New York Democrat Rep. Gregory Meeks and North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry during the 2022 elections.

(Read more Democrats, Democrats, and more Democrats at Fox Business)

What did you expect when the bank was all Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity?

Did you expect a better job than Mayor Pete has provided to the Department of Transportation?

Still, let me try to get this straight. Biden says that he will use the bank assets to pay off the multi-billion dollar debt

Biden says that the tax payers will not be on the hook for this bailout. I am sure that includes tax payers not having to pay seven times the rate current during Trump years for eggs, milk, meat, and other necessities. Surely Dementia Joe would not just print millions of dollars and hand it over to his Democrat friends, causing even greater inflation.

Still, let’s go through the numbers:

Joe’s claims Reality Monies available
Assets would be sold SVB was encouraged to buy T-bills at $1K (which mature in 5 years) and forced to sell at $750 immediately This does not present a newly available cash stream.
  SVB was invested in 10-year mortgage-backed securities that had to be sold at a loss (no sources divulged how much of a loss) This does not present a newly available cash stream.
  SVB was invested in green projects. We know how well Solyndra did. This does not present a newly available cash stream.

So please tell me how America does not eat this loss.

One final point: Beside selling stock in the bank just before the collapse — this is what the bank management did

Silicon Valley Bank gave company-wide bonuses hours before it collapsed

Fox Buisness reported in a 12 March 2023 article that SVB issued company-wide bonuses before the collapse.

Silicon Valley Bank employees received their annual bonuses on Friday just hours before the government took control of the company, according to reports.

SVB traditionally processes annual bonuses on the second Friday of March, unnamed sources associated with the bank told CNBC. The bonuses were reportedly for work completed in 2022.

SVB did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

The Santa Clara, California-based band collapsed last week and is now under the control of federal regulators. SVB had been the 16th-largest bank in the U.S. prior to the bank run that led to its downfall.

(Read more at Fox Buisness)

As mentioned at Bunkerville, this came after the bank leadership rewarded itself

Bunkerville pointed out in a 15 March post that the SVB leadership rewarded itself before the collapse by selling large chunks of bank stock.


Proof positive the press has their heads pushed so far up Joe Biden’s backside as to give him an upper endoscopy (part 3)

When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall

Who killed the Silicon Valley Bank?

The Wall Street Journal gives us an idea of what the screwballs at Silicon Valley Bank did to drain the bank. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

That giant slurping sound on Friday was Silicon Valley Bank imploding. America’s 16th-largest bank had some $175 billion in deposits and disappeared by breakfast. It wouldn’t have happened if not for management mistakes. This was a 21st-century bank run—customers tried to withdraw about $42 billion, a quarter of all deposits. But what triggered the collapse?

Let’s go back. In January 2020, SVB had $55 billion in customer deposits on its balance sheet. By the end of 2022, that number exploded to $186 billion. Yes, SVB was a victim of its own success. These deposits were often from initial public offerings and SPAC deals—SVB banked almost half of all IPO proceeds in the last two years. Most startups had relationships with the bank.

That’s a lot of money to put to work. Some was lent out, but with soaring stock prices and near-zero interest rates, no one needed to take on excessive debt. There was no way SVB was going to initiate $131 billion in new loans. So the bank put some of this new capital into higher-yielding long-term government bonds and $80 billion into 10-year mortgage-backed securities paying 1.5% instead of short-term Treasurys paying 0.25%.

 This was mistake No. 1. SVB reached for yield, just as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did in the 2000s. With few loans, these investments were the bank’s profit center. SVB got caught with its pants down as interest rates went up.

Everyone, except SVB management it seems, knew interest rates were heading up. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has been shouting this from the mountain tops. Yet SVB froze and kept business as usual, borrowing short-term from depositors and lending long-term, without any interest-rate hedging.

The bear market started in January 2022, 14 months ago. Surely it shouldn’t have taken more than a year for management at SVB to figure out that credit would tighten and the IPO market would dry up. Or that companies would need to spend money on salaries and cloud services. Nope, and that was mistake No. 2. SVB misread its customers’ cash needs. Risk management seemed to be an afterthought. The bank didn’t even have a chief risk officer for eight months last year. CEO Greg Becker sat on the risk committee.

As customers asked for their money, SVB had to sell $21 billion in underwater longer-term assets, with an average interest rate around 1.8%. The bank lost $1.8 billion on the sale and tried to raise more than $2 billion to fill the hole.

The loss flagged that something was wrong. Venture capitalists, including Peter Thiel, suggested that companies in their portfolios should withdraw their money and put it somewhere safer. On Thursday the dam broke and there was no way to cover billions in withdrawal requests.

Mistake No. 3 was not quickly selling equity to cover losses. The first rule of survival is to keep selling equity until investors or depositors no longer fear bankruptcy. Private-equity firm General Atlantic apparently made an offer to buy $500 million of the bank’s common stock. Friday morning, I’d have offered $3 billion for half the company. Where was Warren Buffett? Or JPMorgan?

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

This is where maturity-mismatch comes into play. If the bank buys long-term securities and a customer comes to the bank needing the money, they have a liquidity crisis.

Rules of Democrat debate: fast forward to censoring everyone on this subject also

Remember the rules of Democrat debate:

  1. If you have a strong topic, beat the topic
  2. If you don’t have a strong topic, beat the table
  3. If you still don’t gather an audience, take away the table

If you did not look at the tweet’s attached graphics, it would behoove you to take a glimpse. First, the report to the CISA director defines misinformation/disinformation concerning finances (shown in top illustration) (sentence continues below top illustration)

(sentence continued) in much the same way CISA defined misinformation/disinformation when suppressing it on social media.. (Note the scribblings of Representative Thomas Massie, who surely must have known about the censorship and likely been subject to it as it spread across social media and is now widely contested in the lying press.)

If you refer back to the Wall Street Journal’s “mistake no. 2,” you will note the inclusion of inflation in the equation

Since inflation can be created by governments that throw too much money into the market through reckless spending (such as multi-trillion dollar deficit spending), maybe Dementia Joe and the Cash-Burning Democrats might take note and not continue by creating conditions that create more of these failed banks.

White House launches full court press against House Freedom Caucus’ debt ceiling demands

Is Biden trying to create more inflation and crash more banks?

The Washington Times details the Biden regime opposition to a measure that would at least level off the current forty-year-high of inflation.

The White House stepped up its offensive against the House Freedom Caucus over the weekend after the bloc of conservatives laid out a series of demands for securing their vote to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

In a press release formatted as a memo addressed to television show producers on Saturday, White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt accused the Republican lawmakers of threatening to cut funding for law enforcement, border security, education and manufacturing while introducing “tax breaks for the super-wealthy and wasteful spending for special interests.” 

“MAGA House Republicans are proposing, if spread evenly across affected discretionary programs, at least a 20% across the board cut,” the press release read. “That means a 20% cut to law enforcement, border security, education, and manufacturing.

“These cuts will weaken our competition with China, raise costs for working families, and threaten our national security,” the release read.

The Freedom Caucus lawmakers laid out their series of demands on Friday, setting the bar in the Republican Party ahead of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy‘s return to negotiations with the White House.

(Read more at the Washington Times)

As much as Biden claims he will save Social Security and Medicare, he seems set on screwing things up

When even liberal outlets like CNN counter the Biden line, you know that Biden has gotten himself deep into a senseless lie. In this case, if he continues to do nothing, even CNN acknowledges that Social Security and Medicare will be out of money by 2035.

In fact, a recent report found that COVID graft during the Biden regime cut the life of Social Security and Medicare down to 2033.

The “not a bailout” bailout for the “not a recession” recession

Bloomberg goes to bat for its fellow Democrat and claims this bailout is not a bailout

BNN Bloomberg goes to bat for Hochul and Biden as they individually claim the economy is not teetering on the brink of what it is.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the takeover of Signature Bank by federal regulators on Sunday “was not a bailout” that puts state taxpayers at risk.

“This is simply using fees that are assessed on all banks,” Hochul said at a briefing Monday with Adrienne Harris, superintendent of the state Department of Financial Services. “This is an unusual circumstance, but the main message I want to deliver to New Yorkers is that their money is secure.”

Federal regulators swept the lender into receivership just days after the demise of fellow crypto-friendly bank Silvergate Capital Corp. and SVB Financial Group’s Silicon Valley Bank. The announcement coincided with a slate of measures out of Washington, including the Federal Reserve’s creation of a new lending program for banks, aimed at ensuring they can meet any customer requests to withdraw money.

New York officials said on Sunday that they were closing Signature Bank and turning it over to federal regulators amid a broader effort to prevent the crisis from spreading further.

(Read more at BNN Bloomberg)

How many will believe the Democrat gaslighting?

Biden and Hochul claim that this is “not a bailout;” however, the funds needed would outweigh the resources set aside for FDIC-member banks. Whether we pay for it though higher inflation or through government funds, I am sure Biden is lying.

Still, if you believe Biden’s bailout gaslighting, you probably cannot see through Biden’s border gaslighting:

The biased press reaches a new low

Liberals blame Trump for Silicon Valley Bank collapse citing 2018 bipartisan bill

Fox News reports on the measures some “news readers” will take to blame the Silicone Valley Bank failure on President Trump.

Shortly after the second-largest bank collapse in United States history, many liberals took to social media to place the blame on former President Donald Trump.

“By the way, Trump deregulated banks like Silicon Valley Bank, which failed Friday,” Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton, posted on Twitter Friday after news that Silicon Valley Bank had been shut down by FDIC regulators in an effort to protect customers as the bank faced a liquidity crunch after losing $2 billion.

Reich was joined by other liberals on Twitter attempting to place the blame on Trump for signing a bipartisan bill in 2018 that rolled back elements of Dodd-Frank.

“It seems likely that this could have been avoided if it weren’t for the roll-backs by the Trump administration,” journalist Ed Krassenstein tweeted.

“Quick reminder: 50 Republican senators and 17 Democratic senators voted to ignore warnings and weaken risk regulations for Silicon Valley Bank,” journalist David Sirota tweeted. “Donald Trump signed the bill into law. And now the bank is the 2nd biggest bank collapse in American history.”


EJ Antoni, research fellow in regional economics with The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, told FOX Business on Saturday that the collapse had “nothing to do with Trump or Dodd-Frank” and more to do with an “unusual confluence of events.”

Antoni explained that the bank “dealt almost exclusively with tech firms which usually rely on continuously rolling over large debts” which means that the firms are “not paying off their debt but simply taking out new debt to pay off the old.”

“Second, SVB put a disproportionate amount of its cash into long-term bonds. Ordinarily, that’s not a bad strategy, but it’s unwise when interest rates are zero because those rates must rise eventually,” Antoni said. “When rates rise, bond prices fall. This is because an investor with the choice to buy an existing bond at a low rate or a new bond at a high rate will choose the new bond since it’s a better return on investment. If you want to sell the old bond with its lower interest rate, you must be willing to sell it at a discount; otherwise, no one will buy it.”

Antoni explained that SVB’s undiversified clientele meant “too many depositors needed cash all at once” forcing the liquidation of bonds that had lost value and a “death spiral” quickly ensued.

(Read more at Fox News)

Here is an example of a news reader who learned President Trump’s bill was not at fault

If you don’t believe that our press would stretch to blame President Trump like this, look at the following:


Proof positive the press has their heads pushed so far up Joe Biden’s backside as to give him an upper endoscopy (part 2)

On COVID, what happened to the debate on the right and the pressure on the left?

At the Right’s Wall Street Journal: Intelligence on sick staff at Wuhan lab fuels debate on Covid-19 origin

The Wall Street Journal points out a debate on the right during 2021 where some were duped by the Biden line and others saw the logic of a Wuhan virus having come from a Wuhan lab.

Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory.

The details of the reporting go beyond a State Department fact sheet, issued during the final days of the Trump administration, which said that several researchers at the lab, a center for the study of coronaviruses and other pathogens, became sick in autumn 2019 “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”

The disclosure of the number of researchers, the timing of their illnesses and their hospital visits come on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization’s decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into Covid-19’s origins.

Current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed differing views about the strength of the supporting evidence for the assessment. One person said that it was provided by an international partner and was potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and additional corroboration.

Another person described the intelligence as stronger. “The information that we had coming from the various sources was of exquisite quality. It was very precise. What it didn’t tell you was exactly why they got sick,” he said, referring to the researchers.

November 2019 is roughly when many epidemiologists and virologists believe SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind the pandemic, first began circulating around the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where Beijing says that the first confirmed case was a man who fell ill on Dec. 8, 2019.

The Wuhan Institute hasn’t shared raw data, safety logs and lab records on its extensive work with coronaviruses in bats, which many consider the most likely source of the virus.

(Read more woo-hoo from China and their friends as repeated by the Wall Street Journal)

Ok. There are a hew more steps in the logic chain than stating the Wuhan virus came from a Wuhan lab

To condense the creation of the COVID virus through the help of Dr. Redfield’s testimony before the House COVID-19 panel (and the summarizing skills of the Daily Signal), here are six take-aways concerning COVID’S origin:

The House on Wednesday held its first hearing investigating the origins of COVID-19 after two federal agencies suggested the pandemic likely began when a new coronavirus escaped China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. 


Here are six highlights from testimony before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee’s subcommittee on the pandemic

  1. What’s Ahead?

    Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, chairman of the select subcommittee, provided a glimpse of what his panel will delve into during future hearings.


    Unfortunately the question of the origins [of COVID-19] has been politicized,” Wenstrup said. “That’s no secret. It has driven most people to their corners, rather than driving apolitical scientific debate or discussion.”

  1. ‘No Doubt’ US Tax Dollars Funded Gain-of-Function Research

    The key witness was Dr. Robert Redfield, who was director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Trump administration when the pandemic emerged. 


    The term “gain of function” describes a risky process of making a disease more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response.

    “Do you think that Dr. Fauci intentionally lied under oath to Sen. Paul when he vehemently denied NIH’s funding of gain-of-function research?” Malliotakis asked Redfield. 

    Redfield responded: “I think there is no doubt NIH was funding gain-of-function research.”

    The former CDC director didn’t address whether Fauci was truthful under oath. 

    Malliotakis then asked: “Is it likely American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?”

    Redfield responded yes, but that the NIH wasn’t the only factor. 

    “I think it did, not only from the NIH but the State Department, from USAID, and from DOD,” Redfield said, referring to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense. 


    The subcommittee chairman then asked: “Has gain-of-function research stopped a pandemic, in your opinion?”

    Redfield: “No, on the contrary, I think it probably caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen.”


  1. ‘Three Things Happened in That Lab’

    Wuhan Institute of Virology officials deleted chronological logs of past research data, put the lab under military control, and redid the ventilation system in fall 2019, months before the rest of the world became aware of a new coronavirus and COVID-19, Redfield noted. 

    Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked Redfield: “Do you believe that we can have certainty that the virus did not come from the Wuhan lab, and that U.S. funding was not used for COVID-19-related research? 

    Redfield responded that the public can read recently unclassified information that shows those in charge of the Wuhan lab engaged in unusual conduct. 

    “The declassified information now shows in September 2019, three things happened in that lab,” Redfield said. 

    “One is they deleted the sequences,” he said, referring to sequencing, a laboratory technique used to determine the exact order of nucleotide bases, which compose individual genomes. 

    “That’s highly irregular. Researchers don’t usually like to do that.”

    “The second thing they did is they changed command and control of the lab from civilian control to military control. Highly unusual,” Redfield said. 

    “The third thing they did, I think is really telling, is they let a contractor redo the ventilation system in that laboratory,” Redfield added. “So, I think clearly, there is strong evidence that a significant event happened in that laboratory in September. It has now been declassified. You can read it.”

  1. ‘Donald Trump’s Culpability’**

    Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the full House Oversight Committee, argued that regardless of the origins of the pandemic, it happened on former President Donald Trump’s watch. (Read below at **A double asterisk to the baseless accusations by the Democrats on this committee)


  1. ‘Bunch of Yokels Are Eating Bats’

    (continued with numerous biased Democrat memes on the Chinese equivalent of Walmart shoppers)

  1. ‘Antithetical to Science’

    Fauci, who became the face of the nation’s fight against COVID-19, has said that “attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science.” 

    However, Redfield said actions taken by Fauci and other officials to shut down discussion of the pandemic was “antithetical to science.”


(Read the whole thing, including the Democrat excuses, at the Daily Signal)

**A double asterisk to the baseless accusations by the Democrats on this committee

First, regarding trying to link Trump to the major effects of COVID, let us remember that:

However, it was Biden who:

  • Mandated the shut-down of the “non-essential businesses” (as if this geezer with an orbit of inexperienced socialists would know an essential business if their lives depended on it)
  • Mandated wearing of masks (something proven in many studies to be ineffective) in public
  • Used his war-time powers to mandate the manufacture of masks, swabs, and other equipment
  • Ramped up free COVID testing (which always seemed to be for the previous variant and which had an inflationary effect similar to giving out free money)
  • Pushed through the American Rescue Plan (largely a money hand-out — spell that: inflationary)
  • Required all military personnel to get vaccinated (though most fell within the age range that easily developed natural immunity and a number had developed natural immunity through recovery from the virus)
  • Announced his attempt to use OSHA to require businesses with more than 100 employees to get those employees vaccinated
    • By announcing this, he bullied a number of large companies into forcing the jab
  • Essentially confiscated personal property by announcing his Eviction Moratorium

The New York Times formerly shamed us with: The Lab-Leak Theory

The New York Times tried to school all of us Walmart shoppers on 27 May 2021 in how it was non-scientific and racist to believe anything but the bat soup theory of COVID origin.

Suddenly, talk of the Wuhan lab-leak theory seems to be everywhere.

President Biden yesterday called on U.S. intelligence officials to “redouble their efforts” to determine the origin of Covid-19 and figure out whether the virus that causes it accidentally leaked from a Chinese laboratory. Major publications and social media have recently been filled with discussion of the subject.

Today, we offer an explainer.

What are the basics?

The origin of the virus remains unclear. Many scientists have long believed that the most likely explanation is that it jumped from an animal to a person, possibly at a food market in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Animal-to human transmission — known as zoonotic spillover — is a common origin story for viruses, including Ebola and some bird flus.

But some scientists have pointed to another possibility: that it escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As in other laboratories, researchers there sometimes modify viruses, to understand and treat them.

“It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident,” Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told senators yesterday.

Why now?

The subject is getting more attention because some scientists who were once skeptical of the laboratory theory have expressed new openness to it.

Two weeks ago, 18 scientists wrote a letter to the journal Science calling for a new investigation and describing both the animal-to-human theory and the lab-leak theory as “viable.” And three scientists who last year dismissed the lab-leak explanation as a conspiracy theory have told The Wall Street Journal that they now consider it plausible.

Among the reasons: Chinese officials have refused to allow an independent investigation into the lab and have failed to explain some inconsistencies in the animal-to-human hypothesis. Most of the first confirmed cases had no evident link to the food market.

What changed?

In some ways, not much has not changed. From the beginning, the virus’s origin has been unclear. All along, some scientists, politicians and journalists have argued that the lab-leak theory deserves consideration.

Almost 15 months ago, two Chinese researchers wrote a paper concluding that the virus “probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.” Alina Chan, a molecular biologist affiliated with Harvard and M.I.T., made similar arguments. David Ignatius and Josh Rogin, both Washington Post columnists, wrote about the possibility more than a year ago. Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, didn’t mention the lab-leak theory in early 2020 but he did argue that the U.S. should “not be taking China’s word” for how the outbreak started.

But these voices were in the minority. The World Health Organization initially dismissed the lab-leak theory as implausible.

(Read more “take the word of Chinese Socialists” at the New York Times)

By the way, Apoorva was/is the COVID reporter for the New York Times.