Connect with us

Wire

Psaki: Vast Majority of Parents ‘Appreciate’ COVID Precaution That Forces Their Kids to Eat Lunch in the Frigid Outdoors

Western Journal

Published

on

Making kids eat lunch outside in freezing weather is one of those things parents appreciate, according to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.

Last month, New York City schools were still forcing students to eat outside as a social distancing measure to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, according to the New York Post.

“It’s getting a little ridiculous at this point,” said one mother whose name was not used. “They’ve eaten outdoors every day this week. It’s cold.”

“It’s already hard enough for a little kid to eat outside while sitting on concrete with a mask on,” said a Brooklyn mom. “What does the weather have to be to go inside? How low does it have to go?”

“The problem is that there is no hard metric for when the kids can go inside,” another parent explained. “It’s just up to the principal, whatever they decide goes. Hopefully we’re not out here in February.”

Psaki, however, said Friday that schools parking students outside in all kinds of weather are doing the right thing.

Have children become the lowest priority for schools?

“I will tell you, I have a three-year-old who goes to school, sits outside for snacks and lunch, wears a mask inside, and it’s no big deal to him,” she claimed.

“I’m not saying that’s the case for everybody, but these are steps that schools are taking to keep kids safe. And I think the vast majority of parents appreciate that,” Psaki said in her media briefing according to a White House transcript.

“Obviously, we want to get to a point where we’re turning to a version of normalcy for everybody, right?  Where you’re not sending your kid’s backpack with seven extra masks, right?  Where you’re not adding two hats, so that they’re warm outside for a snack.  There’s no question that’s the case.  But we also think the most important thing should be safety — the safety of kids, keeping kids in school, which the President is very focused on.  And some of these steps — creative steps that schools have taken — have enabled that to be possible,” she concluded.


That’s not how parents in Springfield, Missouri, see it, according to KOZL-TV.

On Friday, parents and students protested at Pershing School over the whole caboodle of mandates enacted by Springfield Public Schools.

“Basically, they’ve been forced to wear masks for almost two years now,” parent Miranda Dusenberry said.

“We don’t really see the point in it anymore. It’s causing a lot of distraction for the students, a lot of stress for the students, trauma. Ultimately what we want is for these masking mandates, for the quarantine mandates, for the vaccine mandates to be dropped within our schools. There’s no place for health mandates whatsoever.”

“I think our point is really clear here,” Dusenberry continued. “Our point is to drop the mandates that are illegally in place right now. SPS has no right to have these mandates going on, especially since our attorney general made it illegal for them to do so. As far as I understand, he does have a lot of authority in the matter.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Elon Musk Announces Twitter Deal ‘Cannot Move Forward’ Unless CEO Proves Key Claim

Western Journal

Published

on

In a tweet that could shake the foundations and future of Twitter, Elon Musk said Tuesday morning he believes fake accounts make up as much as 20 percent of the platform.

The billionaire tweeted that his offer to buy Twitter was contingent on the accuracy of the company’s estimate that fewer than 5 percent of its accounts are spam or bot accounts instead of real people.

As such, Musk said, he will not move forward with his proposal to buy Twitter until company CEO Parag Agrawal proves Twitter’s numbers are accurate.

“20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher,” he said. “My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate.

“Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does.”

Earlier, Musk had responded with skepticism to a series of tweets from Agrawal about the company’s spam calculations.

“So how do advertisers know what they’re getting for their money? This is fundamental to the financial health of Twitter,” he said.

His point was that advertisers pay to connect to real people, and if the platform has fewer real people than it claims, its bottom line could be shakier than it has reported.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO has long proclaimed that Twitter is riddled with fake accounts.

On Friday, Musk posted that the deal with buy Twitter was “on hold” over the issue because the company’s numbers were lower than what he thought they should be.

Twitter had said in a quarterly filing on May 2 that its “estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number,” language similar to that used in its past filings.

Musk followed up shortly thereafter to say, “Still committed to acquisition.”

Between Friday’s tweet and Tuesday’s, experts and analysts have offered three groupings of opinion.

One is that Musk is using the issue of bots to walk away from the deal.

Others believe that he wants to use this to lower the price of the purchase.

Tim Draper, an investor in Tesla and SpaceX as well as the Twitter venture, said he thinks the deal will eventually go through, according to the New York Post.

“I think so,” Draper said. “But I think he’s going to get a better deal because he found out that, whatever, two-thirds [of users] are bots or something.”

Axios pointed to a third option: “Some are even wondering whether the entire takeover attempt is anything more than Musk trolling Twitter, using Twitter.”

On Monday, Musk had brought up the subject of bots while speaking at a tech conference in Miami and estimated that the 20 percent number he tweeted Tuesday could be accurate, according to Bloomberg.

“Currently what I’m being told is that there’s just no way to know the number of bots,” he said. “It’s like, as unknowable as the human soul.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

In a tweet that could shake the foundations and future of Twitter, Elon Musk said Tuesday morning he believes fake accounts make up as much as 20 percent of the platform. The billionaire tweeted that his offer to buy Twitter was contingent on the accuracy of the company’s estimate that fewer than 5 percent of its accounts are spam or bot accounts instead of real people. As such, Musk said, he will not move forward with his proposal to buy Twitter until company CEO Parag Agrawal proves Twitter’s numbers are accurate. “20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher,” he said. “My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate. “Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does.” 20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher. My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate. Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 17, 2022 Earlier, Musk had responded with skepticism to a series of tweets from Agrawal about the company’s spam calculations. Let’s talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts, and context… — Parag Agrawal (@paraga) May 16, 2022 Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information (which we can’t share). Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as mDAUs on any given day. — Parag Agrawal (@paraga) May 16, 2022 “So how do advertisers know what they’re getting for their money? This is fundamental to the financial health of Twitter,” he said. So how do advertisers know…

Continue Reading

Wire

Op-Ed: Xi Jinping Is Watching Putin to Decide When to Attack Taiwan

Western Journal

Published

on

Chinese President Xi Jinping is watching Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine to decide when to attack Taiwan. At this point that decision is made, but the timing won’t be settled until this fall and before President Joe Biden leaves the White House.

Let me untangle some issues that will dictate Beijing’s timing for its assault on Taiwan: Xi’s enemies and economic challenges, Biden’s green light indicators for Putin’s war, a growing list of battlefield lessons, and Biden’s broken foreign policy.

Beijing regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, and Xi stakes his future on returning it to Chinese rule.

Last fall, he declared the Chinese people have a “glorious tradition of opposing separatism” and that “complete reunification of the motherland must be fulfilled, and will definitely be fulfilled.” The communist chairman added, “The Taiwan question is purely an internal matter for China, one which brooks no external interference,” and he warned last year, “Anyone who would attempt to [interfere] will have their heads bashed bloody.”

Yes, Mr. Xi is committed to reunification, but the timing is bound by two realities.

The first is the possible confirmation of his third term in office, an unprecedented eventuality since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976. Xi’s third term would begin this November.

Xi’s hold on power, however, isn’t assured. Feng Chongyi, a professor at the University of Technology Sydney, said last year that some officials are “in strong opposition and are trying their best to prevent Xi’s next possible term.”

Those enemies know Xi’s Achilles heel: a sagging economy. According to the Communist Party’s “Shanghai Gang” faction, Xi is ruining the Chinese economy and must be ousted.

So, if Xi is to gain a third term, he must balance his domestic opposition and his economic vulnerability before assaulting Taiwan. After all, he learned from the Ukraine war that an attack on the democratic island nation will earn him severe economic sanctions, further threatening China’s economy. Thus, he intends to delay any invasion until after he is assured another term.

The other reality for Xi’s anticipated assault is identified by Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s economic adviser for almost six years in the early 2000s.

Illarionov, now a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, said the Chinese are learning from Putin’s war. He explained that Putin’s “decision to invade Ukraine is based on his absolutely correct understanding of President Biden. Without Biden in the White House, Putin would never invade Ukraine.”

Xi learned from Putin that Biden is weak and broadcasts what he will and won’t do — a predictable enemy.

“Mr. Putin is a very good psychologist,” Illarionov said. “He studied [security agency] files for Mr. Biden. He understood that’s a person who would never do anything against his invasion against Ukraine.” In fact, Biden showed his hand long before the war began.

Last year, Biden removed sanctions on Nord Stream 2, renewed the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms agreement without negotiations, did nothing about the buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border and ordered U.S. warships out of the Black Sea after a Russian-Dutch naval confrontation. Putin perceived these moves as weaknesses, an effort on Biden’s part to avoid confrontation.

Biden’s representatives weren’t any better.

He sent William Burns, the CIA director, to Moscow, where, according to Illarionov, he offered guarantees “on issues of security, even when Russian troops [were] on the Ukrainian border and ready to attack Ukraine. That can be understood only in one way: Biden administration is giving green light for Putin to attack Ukraine.”

Then, in December, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with his Russian counterpart to discuss the Ukraine crisis. However, Illarionov said, “90 percent” of the discussions were about the Iran nuclear deal, yet again “giving a green light to Mr. Putin to attack Ukraine.”

On other fronts, according to Illarionov, Biden recalled American citizens and military personnel from Ukraine. He even offered to help President Volodymyr Zelenskyy leave Ukraine. Once again, Illarionov said, “Mr.  Putin understood these signs in the exactly right way”: as weakness and a go-ahead to invade.

Xi understands that Biden was never serious about stopping Putin’s war. In fact, Illarionov said Xi, like Putin, “understands very well that there is a unique window of opportunity … when Mr. Biden is the president. With any other U.S. president … [an invasion of Ukraine or Taiwan] would be impossible.”

The Russian concluded, “This dangerous moment will last at least until January 2025, until hopefully another president will be in the White House.”

Of course, there are numerous other lessons from Russia’s war for the Chinese dictator. His invasion of Taiwan will be tougher than Putin’s assault on Ukraine because the Chinese are attacking a well-fortified island nation 160 miles from the mainland, a true logistics nightmare. Further, unlike the go-it-alone fight forced on Kyiv, the government in Taipei expects the U.S. and other Western powers to directly intervene.

The most important lesson for Xi is that Biden is a predictable, weak enemy who broadcasts his intentions. So unless the Biden team finds better foreign policy acumen, we could as soon as late fall see the skies reflect green lights signaling Xi to assault Taiwan.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is watching Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine to decide when to attack Taiwan. At this point that decision is made, but the timing won’t be settled until this fall and before President Joe Biden leaves the White House. Let me untangle some issues that will dictate Beijing’s timing for its assault on Taiwan: Xi’s enemies and economic challenges, Biden’s green light indicators for Putin’s war, a growing list of battlefield lessons, and Biden’s broken foreign policy. Beijing regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, and Xi stakes his future on returning it to Chinese rule. Last fall, he declared the Chinese people have a “glorious tradition of opposing separatism” and that “complete reunification of the motherland must be fulfilled, and will definitely be fulfilled.” The communist chairman added, “The Taiwan question is purely an internal matter for China, one which brooks no external interference,” and he warned last year, “Anyone who would attempt to [interfere] will have their heads bashed bloody.” Yes, Mr. Xi is committed to reunification, but the timing is bound by two realities. The first is the possible confirmation of his third term in office, an unprecedented eventuality since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976. Xi’s third term would begin this November. Xi’s hold on power, however, isn’t assured. Feng Chongyi, a professor at the University of Technology Sydney, said last year that some officials are “in strong opposition and are trying their best to prevent Xi’s next possible term.” Those enemies know Xi’s Achilles heel: a sagging economy. According to the Communist Party’s “Shanghai Gang” faction, Xi is ruining the Chinese economy and must be ousted. So, if Xi is to gain a third term, he must balance his domestic opposition and his economic vulnerability before assaulting Taiwan. After all, he learned…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week