In an effort to bring politics into the modern age and more in line with its sister industries like sports and professional wrestling, prominent politicians have announced plans for each of them to begin using their own entrance theme songs.
In a world exclusive, The Babylon Bee has obtained the following list of songs to be used as entrance themes for some of the country’s most well-known political figures:
Nancy Pelosi — “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits: A song that encapsulates Pelosi’s trademark “get rich without having to do anything” outlook on life.
Alejandro Mayorkas — “Immigrant Song” by Led Zeppelin: The song also doubles as the perfect theme to blare over speakers at the border as migrants rush across.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — “Fat Bottomed Girls” by Queen: Congress’s own big-bootied Latina finally gets the perfect song to dance to.
Elizabeth Warren — “Colors of the Wind” from the soundtrack of the motion picture Pocahontas: The song of her people.
Gavin Newsom — “Greased Lightnin'” from the soundtrack of the motion picture Grease: The slick governor of California will have every homeless tent city dancing to his song.
Dr. Anthony Fauci — “Bad Medicine” by Bon Jovi: This song is scientifically proven to be the perfect anthem to accompany man-made pandemics and the questionable vaccines that follow.
Kristi Noem — “Who Let the Dogs Out” by Baha Men: Be advised that it’s best not to play the song when Governor Noem is armed.
Adam Schiff — “Creep” by Radiohead: A more perfectly descriptive song has never been written.
Barack Obama — “Born in the U.S.A.” by Bruce Springsteen: He’s got the documentation to prove it.
Joe Biden — “Brain Damage” by Pink Floyd: Followed closely by the runner-up song, “Prisencolinensinainciusol” by Adriano Celentano.
Get on the edges of your seats, because whenever you hear any of the songs listed above, you know the fireworks are about to start!
May I see the truth, especially the truth I don’t want to see.
May I see the truth everywhere — in my world, in my nation, in my community, in my family, and in myself — especially in the places I’d prefer not to look.
May I see the truth, even when it hurts.
May I see the truth, even when it’s embarrassing.
May I see the truth, even if it means I was wrong.
May I see the truth, even when it conflicts with my image of myself.
May I see the truth, even when it disrupts my partisan biases and tribalistic loyalties.
May I see the truth, even when it means I’ll have to tear down my entire worldview and build a whole new one — with all the discomfort and disorientation that comes with this.
May I see the truth, even if it means I’ll have to get rid of some part of myself that I hold tightly and treasure deeply.
May I see the truth, even when it contradicts beliefs, values and core parts of my identity that I don’t yet know how to live without.
May I see the truth, even when it means having to go through life with a much greater sense of alienation in this society.
May I see the truth, even if it will permanently damage my view of people I currently love and respect.
May I see the truth, even if it means having to walk away from plans, dreams, and long-sought goals.
May I see the truth, even if it means I’ll have to change my career to be at peace with myself.
“I can tell you that on social media today you can see people saying things like, “The government has an interest in preventing the spread of misinformation during a deadly pandemic.”“
“If you’re like me, that kind of language makes your skin crawl.“
I think privately owned news entities can do what they want with what they own as long as they don’t violate the non aggression principle. It is up to the user to understand what they are dealing with. Can we say the same about publicly traded companies?
That said you have to be an idiot not to understand social media and main stream news media make “adjustments” to the truth.
The Supreme Court just ruled in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, in which plaintiffs (including Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote the foreword to my Diary of a Psychosis) argued that the federal government unconstitutionally outsourced restrictions on speech to third parties, namely Twitter and Facebook, and prevented dissenting views on Covid from receiving a fair hearing.
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to sue, so the merits of the case took a back seat.
Jenin Younes, an attorney who has argued her share of COVID cases and has appeared on the Tom Woods Show, offered her initial thoughts:
As many have likely seen, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs in Murthy v Missouri lack standing, reversing the Fifth Circuit, with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting. While disappointing, the decision is not devastating. It is premised on the fact that a preliminary injunction isn’t warranted because plaintiffs can’t show likelihood of future harm. The majority specifically said they weren’t expressing a view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when private conduct [e.g., suppression of speech at government behest] is turned into state action.
Thus, the underlying case WILL continue. Alito’s dissent is excellent, showing far more familiarity with the record and explaining that the majority opinion will permit an unlawful censorship campaign to operate so long as it’s carried out with enough sophistication.
This fight is not over!!
Jay himself seems less hopeful:
The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn’t like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Supreme Court won’t.
This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana, as well as me and other blacklisted individuals) lacked standing to sue. This means that the Administration can censor ideas & no person will have standing to enforce the 1st Amendment. Free speech in America, for the moment, is dead.
And since it was petty bureaucrats doing the censoring at the behest of elected officals, voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor. Let’s make it a political liability to favor censorship.
Friends familiar with the court proceedings told me the plaintiffs’ case was poorly argued—an inexcusable failing, given the strength and importance of the case.
“These four groups form the coalition that makes up the political class. The “establishment” simply refers to the established, or current, political class. And, together, this coalition works to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”
“That is the cycle churning in Washington, DC. The fact that the president is cognitively impaired is essentially irrelevant.”
“That is unless it begins to wake the American public up to the fact that the government does not work for us like we were all taught it does in elementary school. But until then, the churn continues.”
After a disastrous debate performance two weeks ago and a weak damage-control interview last Friday, it’s finally become clear to almost everyone that President Joe Biden is not running the federal government.
Every four years, we’re supposed to pretend that a single individual, who we collectively choose at the ballot box, takes charge of the federal government and acts as we would to address the problems we face at home and abroad.
Biden’s inability to get through a debate and a sit-down interview without issues shatters the illusion that he is the one running things in Washington and across America’s globe-spanning sphere of influence.
So, if Biden is not actually running the government, who is?
There are, of course, the people around Biden. Some of his family members—like his wife, Jill Biden, and son, Hunter Biden—have been especially close by these last weeks as the president weathers the debate fallout. There’s also Biden’s closest advisors and political confidants like Mike Donilon, Ron Klain, Anita Dunn, and Ted Kaufman, who have been at the president’s side since he decided to run in 2020. Finally, there’s the White House staff who does much, if not all, of the day-to-day work.
But this group makes up only a small part of the broader power structure in Washington. To understand where federal power truly lies, we have to zoom out.
The political class in America is made up of countless organizations, departments, and factions. However, four unique groups can be defined.
Globally, the International Energy Agency’s net zero pathway in 2030 requires the energy sector to have $16.5 trillion more capital, 25 million more workers, and extra land area amounting to the combined size of California, Texas, Mexico, and France – all to produce 7% less energy.
Did what, exactly? is a question Britain’s new prime minister should reflect on as he enters Downing Street with a huge 176-seat majority in the House of Commons – because Labour’s mandate from the country is not what it appears. At 34%, Labour’s share of the national vote is the lowest for any governing party in the last century.
Overall, Labour’s vote share this year is five points lower than in the 2017 election under Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer’s much-derided, hard-left predecessor. Its share of the vote improved on its disastrous 2019 showing thanks only to a large increase in Scotland. In England, Labour’s vote was largely unchanged, and in Wales, it actually fell. Despite Labour’s landslide in terms of the number of its Members of Parliament, at the constituency level, seat majorities are tighter than at any point since 1945. On closer inspection, Starmer’s victory resembles Joe Biden’s in 2020 – a rejection of an incumbent rather than a positive mandate for change, the kind that Tony Blair could boast of in 1997.
Starmer’s challenge is compounded by Britain’s enfeebled economy. “Wealth creation is our number one priority. Growth is our core business,” he declared when he launched Labour’s election manifesto last month. “The only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. And that’s why we made it our first national mission in government.”
This prioritization makes political as well as economic sense. In an important eve-of-poll article, Chris Giles, Financial Times’s economics editor, shows that only the bottom 20% of the income distribution saw any real gains after inflation since the 2019 election. “Everyone else was hit harder by high inflation.” In prior years marked by fiscal austerity, income gains were higher for poorer than richer households. “The outcomes for working-age household incomes since 2010,” Giles writes, are “exactly what you might expect a left-leaning government to produce. People hate it.” Generating economic growth should be Labour’s first, second, and third instinct, Giles argues.
But this approach would run counter both to Labour’s instinct to redistribute income and to its history. The British Labour party has never successfully turned around an ailing economy. Blair entered Downing Street with a strong economy, his economic adviser admitting that the economy Labour inherited was better than that of any incoming government in living memory. Blair was no Bill Clinton, whom the maestro of supply-side economics Art Laffer praises to the skies. “Big fan of Clinton,” Laffer told Chris Giles two months ago. “I voted for him and campaigned for Clinton because Clinton did cut taxes.” Nonetheless, Blair had a great facility in articulating economic ideas. Hearing Starmer, a human rights lawyer, talk economics is like listening to someone struggle to speak a foreign language.
Despite his manifesto pledge, Starmer knows that wealth creation is not his government’s top priority. As a matter of law, the Climate Change Act 2008 imposes on his government, as on its predecessor, a duty to reach net zero by 2050. If the courts are persuaded that individual policies interfere with that duty, they can overturn those policies. There is no corresponding duty to grow the economy. Neither should there be: Judicializing policy by creating cast-iron legal duties that require ministers to pursue certain policy outcomes replaces democratic accountability with the threat of judicial review. There is no “get-out” clause in the Climate Change Act, which was piloted through Parliament when Labour was last in power by climate and energy secretary Ed Miliband, whom Starmer has just reappointed to his old job. Starmer’s economic policy is a prisoner of net zero.
Apart from Nigel Farage’s Reform party, now Britain’s third-largest party in terms of votes won, politicians of all other parties subscribe to the fiction that net zero is the growth opportunity of the 21st century. In this, they are aided by the economics commentariat that either downplays, covers up, or outright denies the existence of any trade-off between net zero and economic growth. It is another example of what FT columnist Janan Ganesh, writing of Democrats and the media cover-up of President Biden’s mental impairment, calls “liberal denialism.”
In Britain, net zero denialism extends to official advice provided by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. In its net zero review, the Treasury asserts that “additional investment will translate into additional GDP growth.” The data falsifies the Treasury’s assertion. Between 2009 and 2020, decarbonization of power generation with large additions of wind and solar has seen a 15.5% increase in nameplate capacity produce 17.1% less electricity – a decline of 28.3% in output per unit of generating capacity. It is why Britain has some of the world’s most expensive electricity, destroying the competitiveness of its manufacturing industry and contributing greatly to Britain’s cost of living crisis, which, as Giles shows, has left 80% of British households either worse off or no better off after inflation since 2019.
We see clearly the collapse of the manipulation that has confined discourse to within the various Washington villages.
The third agent to decline lay, Todd argues, with America declaring itself to be the greatest military nation on earth – versus the reality of an America that has long rid itself of much of its manufacturing capacity (particularly the military capacity), yet elects to clash with a stabilized Russia, a great power returned, and with China which has instantiated itself as the world’s manufacturing Behemoth (including militarily).
The Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, says: ‘We’ve been “gaslit’ and deceived” – for years – “all in the name of ‘democracy’”.Who is this Baker trying to kid, the War Street Journal has been an effective enabler.
The Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, says: ‘We’ve been “gaslit’ and deceived” – for years – “all in the name of ‘democracy’”. That deceit “collapsed” with the Presidential debate, Thursday’.
“Until the world saw the truth … [against] the ‘misinformation’ … the fiction of Mr. Biden’s competence … suggests they [the Democrats] evidently thought they could get away with promoting it. [Yet] by perpetuating that fiction they were also revealing their contempt for the voters and for democracy itself”.
Baker continues:
“Biden succeeded because he made toeing the party line his life’s work. Like all politicians whose egos dwarf their talents, he ascended the greasy pole by slavishly following his party wherever it led … Finally—in the ultimate act of partisan servility, he became Barack Obama’s vice president, the summit of achievement for those incapable, yet loyal: the apex position for the consummate ‘yes man’”.
“But then, just as he was ready to drift into a comfortable and well-deserved obscurity, his party needed a front man … They sought a loyal and reliable figurehead, a flag of convenience, under which they could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life — on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery. There was no more loyal and convenient vehicle than Joe”.
If so, then who actually has been ‘pulling America’s strings’ these past years?
“You [the Democratic machine] don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years about how this man was both brilliantly competent at the job and a healing force for national unity – and now tell us, when your deception is uncovered, that it’s ‘bedtime for Bonzo’ – thanks for your service, and let’s move on”, Baker warns.
“[Now] it is going horribly wrong. Much of his party has no use for him anymore … in a remarkably cynical act of bait-and-switch, [they are trying to] swap him out for someone more useful to their cause. Part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. I find myself in the odd position of wanting to root for poor mumbling Joe … It’s tempting to say to the Democratic machine frantically mobilizing against him: You don’t get to do this. You don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years”.
Something significant has snapped within ‘the system’. It is always tempting to situate such events in ‘immediate time’, but even Baker seems to allude to a longer cycle of gaslighting and deception – one that only now has suddenly burst into open view.
Such events – though seemingly ephemeral and of the moment – can be portents to deeper structural contradictions moving.
When Baker writes of Biden being the latest ‘flag of convenience’ under which the ruling strata could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life – “on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery” – it seems probable that he is referring to the 1970s era of the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome.
The 1970s and 1980s were the point at which the long arc of traditional liberalism gave place to an avowedly illiberal, mechanical ‘control system’ (managerial technocracy) that today fraudulently poses as liberal democracy.
Emmanuel Todd, the French anthropological historian, examines the longer dynamics to events unfolding in the present: The prime agent of change leading to the Decline of the West (La Défaite de l’Occident), he argues, was the implosion of ‘Anglo’ Protestantism in the U.S. (and England), with its entailed habits of work, individualism and industry – a creed whose qualities were held then to reflect God’s grace through material success, and, above all, to confirm membership of the divine ‘Elect’.
Whereas traditional liberalism had its mores, the decline of traditional values triggered the slide towards managerial technocracy, and to nihilism. Religion lingers on in the West, though in a ‘zombie’ state, Todd avers. Such societies, he argues, flounder – absent some guiding metaphysical sphere that provides people with non-material sustenance.
However, the incoming doctrine that only a wealthy financial élite, tech experts, leaders of multinational corporations and banks possess the required foresight and technological understanding to manipulate a complex and increasingly controlled system changed politics completely.
MCViewPoint 
