Snowman

[il Donaldo Trumpo @PapiTrumpo]

HOLY WATER WORKS LIKE A CHARM!!!😘😘😘

[C3 @C_3C_3]

Feminism explained.👇

[Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋 @SharylAttkisson]

2008 was an interesting year for vaccines.

That's the year the formerly-sealed case of Hannah Poling leaked to the public. (I later reported on the case for CBS News. I'll link to that in this thread.)

In Hannahs' case, the govt. (which represents vaccine makers in court, believe it or not) conceded that Hannah's vaccines caused her autism.

Mind you, the govt. and head of CDC were denying this in public.

We didn't know it at the time, but the govt's own top expert witness in vaccine-autism cases, pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, had shocked the govt. by telling them (DOJ lawyers) that vaccines can cause autism, after all. But instead of helping kids and revealing the truth, the DOJ fired Dr. Zimmermand as an expert witness and misrepresented his opinion in court thereafter.

Anyhow, the govt. secretly paid the Poling family a multi million dollar settlement, but then had the case sealed so no other parents would find out. Public health officials continued to tell other parents they were imagining things.

Meantime, many experts said that separating multi vaccines into individual doses is inherently safer. Some parents were opting to get their kids Measles and Mumps vaccines separately, for example, rather than giving them the combo Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot.

How did the maker of MMR, Merck respond?

Merck stopped making the individual shots in the U.S.

All around 2008.

[Bert Mizusawa @GenBert2026]

When elected, I pledge to oppose any tax increases Congress tries to impose on the people. Virginians are fed up with Mark Warner constantly voting in favor of tax increases, and I'm ready to fight for the people.

[Adam Carolla @adamcarolla]

Yes

[Rachel Alexander @Rach_IC]

I have a new respect for Kim Strassel of WSJ after reading this article from her revealing how the fake news covers the left's lawfare dishonestly, to make anything Trump and conservatives look bad and losing and anything the left does look legitimate and winning. "The state of legal reporting has reached peak national embarrassment."
---

The Media's Lawfare Enabling

The Supreme Court last week allowed Donald Trump’s ballroom construction to proceed, eliciting shock from the press corps. The court on Monday allowed the president’s mail-in voting order to continue, eliciting the same shock. This follows the shock after Trump administration wins on immigration enforcement, personnel firings, DEI and transgender orders, and dozens of other issues.

How long is the public meant to treat the press’s pearl-clutching as genuine, rather than part of a campaign to undermine the administration and the credibility of the high court?

The state of legal reporting has reached peak national embarrassment, a master class in fiction that rivals the reporting about Russia “collusion” and Joe Biden’s undiminished capacity. The media’s contribution to lawfare began in the earliest days of the first Trump term and has become only more brazen. The swings and misses are there for all to see, every day. Yet the formula is now so routine that nobody pushes back.

It works like this: The administration takes an action that offends liberal sensibilities. Interest groups rush to litigate, sometimes with prepackaged lawsuits. The press quotes liberal law professors and the litigators themselves as to why the suits are worthy. A liberal judge issues an injunction, which is treated as further proof of a lawsuit’s merit. The stories omit any critical analysis of standing, jurisdiction, merits or precedent. When a higher court corrects the legal overreach, the media, rather than acknowledge it got it wrong, insists the judges are in the tank for Mr. Trump.

Consider that ballroom case. When the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last December to halt the project, the press corps pushed the litigation as a slam dunk. The stories all led with a quote from the suit, presenting as fact that “no president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever.” The pieces cataloged the laws the administration had supposedly violated, and the claim that any building required the “express authority of Congress.” Critics hailed the early August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to halt the project as evidence of the trust’s legal firepower.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s order last Friday staying that injunction wasn’t accompanied by an opinion and isn’t a ruling on the merits. But any reporter with a half-sharp pencil might have reported the potentially fatal problems with this suit. These were nimbly outlined by Judge Neomi Rao, who dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s injunction.

She argues the trust has no standing to bring the suit: It wasn’t chartered to look after the White House, and its one member who occasionally walks past the complex and expects to dislike the new structure, can hardly claim a concrete “injury.” Judge Rao also makes a persuasive case on the merits, noting that the trust’s ultra vires claim (that the administration is acting in obvious excess of its powers) is “essentially a Hail Mary pass,” since at least one federal law authorizes the president to use funds for the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration” and “improvement” of the executive residence.

The courts will decide the merits. But it’s ludicrous that the country’s ace legal reporters never provided the public even an inkling of these legal defects. It’s much more fun, as numerous stories about last week’s order did, to suggest slyly that the chief justice is doing a personal favor for the president.

This is the cynical game—jerryrigged reporting to give life to lawfare and to set false expectations, the better to smear legal grown-ups. How unrelentingly were we told Mr. Trump’s 2017 “travel ban” would never stand? That there was no such thing as presidential immunity? That of course a president can’t fire independent-agency heads? That the administration’s firings, and DEI rules, and immigration actions all offended the law?

How do we know this misreporting is intentional? The press corps is quite capable of providing good analysis about cases the president is actually poised to lose, as with his emergency tariffs and his executive order on birthright citizenship. It would be easy to call any right-leaning lawyer to get a read on a liberal suit’s flaws. It doesn’t happen.

Don’t expect it to end, since the tactic continues to work for the left. The lawsuits—and the cheering coverage—keep the Democratic base motivated. The flood of litigation—and the hyped coverage—maintains the narrative that the president is daily exceeding legal boundaries. And the purposeful presentation of Supreme Court rulings as political or partisan—rather than straightforward legal correctives—gives ammunition to elected Democrats making the argument that they are justified in blowing up the judiciary to achieve partisan objectives.

The real scandal is the press’s role. No one is surprised to see elected officials or political partisans engaged in partisan tactics, which now includes lawfare. But this particular ruse doesn’t work without the media’s cooperation—its willingness to suspend disbelief, omit key facts, and pretend higher courts are acting out of bounds. It’s doing terrible damage. Where are the professional media critics when you need them?

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@MichelleMaxwell Increasingly not sure the new owners are much better than the previous one, who was abysmal.

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@greta Nor will you ever. Ruffalo is a Democrat.

[Gerry Callahan @GerryCallahan]

ABC News has now officially spent more time with the family of violent agitator Alex Pretti than the families of Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, Stephanie Minter, Mollie Tibbetts and Sheridan Gorman combined.

Gee, I wonder if they have an agenda.

[GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE @GOP_is_Gutless]

You can’t make this up 😂
Hakeem Jeffries loves calling out anyone who ever stood near Jeffrey Epstein.

His own campaign fundraisers invited the convicted pedophile to dinner in 2013 so Epstein could “get to know” Jeffries.

Democrats took his money, flew on his plane, and invited him to events for years.

The moral lectures only started when it became useful.
#HakeemJeffries #EpsteinFiles #Hypocrisy #Democrats

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@nickshirleyy @Tim_Walz And taxpayers all around the country. We fund Medicaid. Walz and Minnesota Democrats ripped us all off in their rampant fraud to buy votes.

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@GioBruno1600 Absolutely! But with one clarification: not just “now”; she has been for years.

[Steve 🇺🇸 @SteveLovesAmmo]

In the United States, if you destroy a Bald Eagle egg:

$100k fine.
1 year in prison.

Because an unborn Eagle.
Is still an Eagle.

I wonder how else this applies.

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@SteveLovesAmmo Very, very poignant, and spot on.

[Snowman @BroyhillStephen]

@C_3C_3 There is no greater fake, phony, and con artist in politics than Bernie Sanders. It’s truly astonishing how many suckers fall for his BS.

[Mike Collins War Room @TeamOverhaulGA]

Jon Ossoff woke up in the Hamptons this morning to beg Hillary Clinton and the Soros Family for campaign cash.

Ossoff works for his elite donors, not Georgians.

[Ron DeSantis @RonDeSantis]

Well, it is true after all…

[Lee Thompson @thompsonlee17]

Obama in 2009 tore up a structure at the White House and spent nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars, during a recession, to build a basketball court. CNN gushed over him.

Trump is building a ballroom, spending LESS, $300 Million, for a magnificent ballroom, and not a penny of that is coming from taxpayers. CNN is furious.

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is guarded twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year.

It has been guarded, without interruption, since 1937.

In September of 2003, Hurricane Isabel reached Washington. The National Park Service, out of concern, gave the sentinels of the Old Guard permission to stand down for the storm.

They did not stand down.

The sergeant of the guard on duty that night refused the permission, calmly, and without further comment. He would later say, in an interview, only that permission was not the same as an order, and that in the absence of an order, the walk continues.

The walk continues.

Twenty-one steps. Turn. Face the tomb. Twenty-one seconds. Turn. Face the other way. Twenty-one seconds. Twenty-one steps.

The rain came sideways.

A tree fell in the cemetery a hundred yards to the east.

The wind lifted a portion of the roof from a nearby maintenance shed.

The sentinel did not break stride.

He walked. He turned. He walked.

At 3 a.m. the wind reached seventy miles per hour, and a sentinel weighing 175 pounds in soaked wool, carrying a rifle, and wearing sunglasses in the dark because the manual requires them, walked twenty-one steps, turned, and walked twenty-one steps back.

Nobody was watching him.

Nobody could have watched him. The cemetery had been closed. The public had been evacuated. The only witness was the storm.

He walked for six hours.

He was relieved at 6:12 a.m.

The tomb had not been left, at any point during the storm, uncovered.

There is no medal for this.

There is no ribbon. There is no citation. There is no commendation in his file.

The Old Guard does not require one.

The walk is the point.

The walk was the walk before there was a country to record it, and the walk will be the walk after everyone who remembers this night is gone.

Somewhere in America, at this moment, in whatever weather, a sentinel is walking twenty-one steps beside a marble slab, facing an unknown man whose name he does not know, for an oath he took to a country that will never see him take it.

That is what the promise looks like when nobody is watching.