Feds Intercepted Package With Ricin Addressed To President Trump
Federal agents intercepted a package
addressed to President Donald Trump earlier this week that was later
discovered to contain ricin, a deadly substance for which there is no
available antidote, according to reports from multiple news outlets.
Citing law enforcement officials, CNN reports
that the substance was confirmed to be ricin with two tests, and the
FBI and Secret Service are conducting an investigation. (Other news
outlets have said the substance was in a letter or envelope, not a
package).
A spokesperson for the Federal Bureau of Investigations told the Wall Street Journal
that there is “no known threat to public safety” at this time, and
confirmed that its agents, in conjunction with the Secret Service and
Postal Inspection Service, are “investigating” a letter that was sent to
a mail facility.
According to The New York Times,
which cites a “law enforcement official briefed on the inquiry,”
officials believe the substance was sent from Canada, although nothing
has yet been determined. It is’t clear whether the delivery actually
made it to the White House.
“Federal
investigators are working to track down who sent it and determine
whether other envelopes have been sent through the postal system,”
reports The New York Times.
Ricin
is created using the waste from processing castor beans, which are the
source of castor oil, and is considered a biological weapon that is
extremely dangerous if inhaled or ingested, according to the Mayo Clinic.
“Signs
and symptoms of ricin poisoning depend on whether a person inhales or
ingests ricin. Inhaled ricin causes fever, chest tightness, cough and
severe respiratory problems, including fluid buildup in the lungs
(pulmonary edema). Ingested ricin causes intestinal bleeding and organ
damage. The poison can kill within three days of exposure. Even a small
amount of ricin may be fatal,” according to the Mayo Clinic’s
informational page on ricin. “No widely available, reliable test exists
to confirm exposure to ricin. There’s no vaccine or antidote for ricin
poisoning. Treatment is primarily supportive care.”
During his softball “town hall” with supporters last night on CNN, Joe Biden claimed that China is not an opponent. They’re just a “competitor” of the US.
The regime that stole American jobs and American manufacturing is not an opponent.
The regime that unleashed on the world a deadly pandemic then lied and covered it up is not an opponent.
The regime that spies on the US, steals our technology and intellectual property is not an opponent.
The regime that is teaming up with the Marxists of Black Lives Matter — the organization responsible for 95% of the riots tearing our cities apart — is not an opponent.
Clearly the Joe Biden has reason to believe China is not an opponent.
After all, the Biden family is making money hand over fist kanoodling with the CCP.
On Saturday, I shared with you the documentary from the Blaze about the Biden family’s nefarious ties to the Communist Chinese government.
Joe Biden doesn’t see China as a threat to our economy, our national security or our health and safety because China has been very good to his family.
This morning, the Washington Free Beacon released a report alleging that Hunter Biden used his business relationship with China as a pay-to-play “influence peddling operation.” Snorty Biden offered access to “influential people in Washington” in exchange for investments in his businesses.
If your loser kid was raking in billions from the CCP by selling access to Washington movers and shakers, would you consider China an opponent?
The Biden family ties to the Chinese Communist Party are far and away more nefarious and damning than the alleged “Trump has ties to the Kremlin” BS the media and the Democrats have been peddling for four years. The Biden/CCP connection is a genuine threat to our national security.
And if we had an actual Free and Independent Press there would be an army of reporters digging into Hunter Biden and his various financial ties to the CCP.
But we don’t have a Free and Independent Press.
The American news media is part of the Biden campaign.
Not only that, if this Wuhan Pandemic has shown us anything, it’s that the American news media is more than willing to serve as Chinese Propaganda.
Trump is right when he says if Biden wins, China wins.
China is the United States’ single greatest geopolitical foe. But China isn’t the Biden family’s foe.
China is the Biden family’s golden goose.
And Joe Biden would happily sacrifice American jobs, American manufacturing, and American national security to keep the cash flowing into his family’s coffers.
Election night – it almost seems surreal to imagine that we may not
have a victor that evening, or even days, weeks or months after.
I'm convinced more than ever that the left has known for months that
Biden won't defeat Trump – certainly not in a straight-up, fair
election. So for months they've been setting up the apparatus of chaos
to be prepared to act when a winner cannot be determined on Nov. 3.
Check that. If Trump doesn't win decisively on election night – if
it's at all close, I now believe that the left's minions in the
mainstream media will, in lock step, not just state that it's too close
to call, but that Trump lost.
One could ask – how is this possible? Why on earth would the press risk their reputations this way?
To understand this, one merely has to recall rule No. 1 of leftism.
If one is a leftist, one thinks and acts as an unhinged leftist first
and foremost, no matter what else one is – doctor, lawyer, journalist –
whatever. It's a mental disorder, like Tourette's. They just won't be
able to help themselves.
Now combine hyper-leftism with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and you get insanity.
We've witnessed TDS for long enough to know that if there is the
slightest opportunity to declare Trump the loser, the left won't
hesitate to shout it out, giving no thought to what damage it may cause
them. Their justification to themselves will be that any mess they make
can be swept back under the rug once Trump is gone. And of course,
they're doing it for the good of the country.
And the second this occurs, many conservatives (me included) believe
that leftist Big Tech, also in lockstep, will suspend all Trump's social
media accounts, thereby preventing him from communicating directly to
his base. Network, cable and social media will effectively cut him off
from his allies.
All this sounds, well, insane – like something that happens in movies and Third World countries, not the United States.
However, as Michael Anton, a lecturer and research fellow at
Hillsdale College's Washington, D.C., campus, a senior fellow at the
Claremont Institute and a former national security official in the Trump
administration, recently wrote,
all these "scenarios," these potential outcomes, have already been
"war-gamed" by the anti-Trump left and deep-state right. "100 Democratic
grandees, anti-Trump former Republicans, and other ruling class
apparatchiks got together (on George Soros' dime) to 'game out' various
outcomes of the 2020 election."
However, I think the the key to leftist success at removing Trump will look more like the old Cloward and Piven strategy of overwhelming the system.
On election night, or shortly thereafter, all leftists from
mainstream media, to the aforementioned Big Tech, to prominent social
media influencers, politicians on both sides, past and present, leftist
military commanders, past and present, academics, Hollywood, deep-state
operatives, social science and medical professionals will, with one
voice, declare that Trump lost the election and must be removed from
office.
The cacophony of voices must be loud and constant enough that the
lemming American electorate, who, because of coronavirus, has been
coincidentally conditioned to do what they're told, becomes convinced of
it and accepts that the only "fair" thing to do, for the good of the
nation, for our safety and security, is for Trump to step down.
And if he doesn't … well, there is always civil war. And I say this only half kidding.
The 2000 Presidential Election was certainly one for the books. Most of them, alas, will probably be written by professors who believe that the will of the people was thwarted, if not by the Supreme Court, then by an outmoded and undemocratic method of presidential election. President Clinton aided their cause a few weeks ago by questioning both the legitimacy of his successor and the integrity of the High Court. As if on cue, People for the American Way rounded up 585 law professors who, in so many words, accused five justices of betraying their oath of office for partisan reasons.
More along the lines will be forthcoming in the months ahead, as Democratic propagandists construct a mythology of the “stolen” election in preparation for the 2002 and 2004 campaigns. In due course, the Constitution’s provisions for electing presidents will be targeted as an obstacle to the effectuation of popular will. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the late would-be reformer of the nation’s health-care system, has already announced plans to abolish the Electoral College. The usual academic and television network suspects, who will puzzle gravely over why such a “dangerous” and “undemocratic” system continues to be tolerated, will support her in this. Hearings will be held, polls taken, and national salivations will come forth in favor of so-called “direct” election of the president.
I say “so-called” because we already have de facto direct election of the president. Strictly speaking, voters choose only a slate of electors pledged to one of the nominees, but as a practical matter the office of elector might as well not exist. With but a handful of exceptions, electors have faithfully cast their ballots for the popular-vote winner. The “faithless elector” problem (which is easily enough cured in any event) diverts attention from the larger agenda, which is to remove the states from presidential elections. That step would alter our political customs and constitutional order as nothing before.
We must remember that presidential elections are not a thing apart from the rest of our constitutional and political system. Our major political parties came into being, and exist today, for the primary purpose of capturing the presidency. Their structure follows the structure of the Constitution because the Constitution apportions electoral votes to the states and requires a majority of electoral votes to win. Each state has a minimum of three electoral votes, with the larger states having more in proportion to the number of seats to which they are entitled in the House of Representatives. The Electoral College, in short, is organized on precisely the same principle as the United States Congress, and for precisely the same reason. Neither institution recognizes population alone as the exclusive measuring rod for democratic legitimacy.
Because the presidency is connected to the rest of the constitutional system, candidates must think about the unique structure of the nation they seek to lead. And because the states, whether small or large, are the principal presidential battlegrounds, candidates accommodate interests that might otherwise be ignored if the size of the popular vote were the only criterion for election. It is argued that, as the president represents “all the people,” he ought to be elected by the people considered as a single national mass. But that conclusion conveniently ignores the federated nature of the American republic. Campaigning in New Hampshire is very different from campaigning in California, and representing “all the people” means representing them no less as Texans or New Yorkers than as citizens of an undifferentiated whole.
Once the states are removed from the presidential election system, these important and celebrated features of political locale will lose much of their significance. Voters in the less populous states, indeed in any area that cannot be readily subsumed in a mass media market, will be of decidedly secondary importance to presidential candidates. Politicians naturally gravitate toward the largest pool of voters they can find at the lowest cost per voter. That necessarily means the big television markets, where many millions of voters can be reached at a single thrust. Pitching voters in such fashion is expensive, but on a per-capita basis it is the cheapest way to reach voters en masse. To be sure, mass marketing of this sort already occurs, but it is constrained by the necessity of reaching voters outside the big media markets. With a national plebiscite, national television campaigning will become the order of the day. Say good-bye to state caucuses and primaries, even to national conventions to which delegates now come as members of state delegations. Say hello to slick admen and spinmeisters who will care little about voters at the state and local level, except insofar as they can be melded into poll-driven sub-categories of national voter sentiment. Under direct election, the media mavens will not have to leave their offices in New York, Washington, or Los Angeles to run a presidential campaign. Why should they?
As John F. Kennedy said in defending the Electoral College in the 1950s, changing the mode of presidential election affects not only presidential candidates, but the whole solar system of our constitutional and political arrangements—in ways that are difficult to predict but unlikely to be beneficial. With a national plebiscite, the customary ties that bind state and local party units to national campaigns will necessarily dissolve. The national party committees will have to be radically restructured, with state party representatives being displaced by political operatives bearing little or no allegiance to any state. Their loyalties run instead to the personal campaign apparatus of wealthy or powerful candidates.
* * *
All this in the name of guarding against…well, what? We would face a constitutional crisis, it has been said, were a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes while trailing in the popular vote. That appears to have happened in 2000 (assuming, that is, all votes were honestly cast and counted), but the Capitol still stands and President Bush took the oath of office with the applause and good wishes of his fellow citizens echoing in his ears. With the exception of a few discontented demagogues, the public seems satisfied that the result conformed to constitutional proprieties, and that is sufficient for them. The last time this happened was 1888, with much the same result. But an event that occurs once every 100 years or so without imminent peril to the political order is not exactly the stuff of which constitutional crises are made. (In passing, it’s worth noting that no one really knows the actual popular vote count in any of the historical examples cited by opponents of the Electoral College.)
The truth is that the 2000 election was essentially a dead heat. When 100-million ballots are cast and you have to go to the third decimal place to ascertain a winner, the public is unlikely to be alarmed no matter who is declared the victor. What matters to most people is fidelity to constitutional rules and an orderly sense of finality. The “crisis” appears to exist only in the heads of would-be reformers and certain disgruntled Democrats. The anomalies of 2000 aside, the electoral-vote system has regularly produced not only a popular-vote majority or plurality for the winner, but a geographically distributed electoral vote as well. The overall effect has been to transform the winner’s often narrow popular-vote margin into a politically plausible and potentially powerful claim of victory. The next time you hear someone talk about the paramount importance of the popular vote; ask him about Bill Clinton, who entered office in 1993 after having been rejected by 57% of the electorate.
A quick glance at the electoral map helps to explain why the public is not alarmed by President Bush’s lack of “legitimacy”: His electoral-vote majority was razor-thin, but he carried 30 states and five-sixths of the nation’s counties. Conversely, the geographic pattern of Mr. Gore’s state victories was far less dispersed. Although he appears to have won the national popular vote by a slim margin, the map makes clear that his base of support was far less representative of the nation than Mr. Bush’s. His heaviest vote came precisely from those areas dominated by big-city machines and mass television markets. Under direct election, that geographically skewed pattern, dominated by areas of heavy population density, may be sufficient to carry the country, but will it truly reflect the rich diversity of the nation’s interests? Direct election seeks to guarantee that a popular majority will be a relatively accurate microcosm of the country. The Electoral College, by contrast, almost always does.
The Framers understood the limits of simple-minded majoritarianism of the sort embraced by direct election. If elections were simply a matter of counting heads and stopping when you got to 50% plus one, we could dispense with all the checks and balances of the Constitution, including federalism, bicameralism, the separation of powers, and, yes, the Electoral College. The point of these time-honored devices, which are all part of an integral whole, is not to circumvent popular sentiment, but to shape and channel it in ways that support the principal end for which popular government is constituted: to secure the equal rights of all. Majority rule can become majority tyranny, as the wisest thinkers on politics have always known. The trick in establishing popular government is to empower the majority without endangering the rights of minorities. Thomas Jefferson said it well in his First Inaugural Address, following one of the most bitterly contested elections in American history:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
Not just any majority will do in a government dedicated to protecting the equal rights of all. One must pay heed not only to the numerical size of a winning coalition, but to the manner of its composition. The Electoral College has been notably successful in producing Jefferson’s reasonable majorities. That is no small accomplishment in a nation of this size and diversity, whose natural tendencies are centrifugal. Political passions run deep and never more so than when one is on the losing side. In losing, we are often heatedly disappointed that our policy preferences must bow to those of the opposition. But even as we rail against our opponents and vow to oust them the next time around, we do not seriously fret that the winning party will endanger our basic rights. Part of the reason is that the electoral-vote system, reinforced by the winner-take-all custom prevailing in 48 states, requires all national candidates to solicit support from most of the same voters. That requirement drives major candidates toward the center while helping to ensure that the winner, once in office, will take care to govern from the center. Winner-take-all also induces interest groups, in turn, to moderate their demands and to accommodate them as best they can to both major parties during and after elections.
A national plebiscite conducted without reference to winner-take-all in the states (indeed, without reference to the states whatsoever) has no mechanism to ensure that the major party candidates will appeal to all or most of the same voters. It cannot even ensure, the way the Electoral College does, that we will have only two major parties; on the contrary, direct election will encourage the formation of all sorts of narrow-interest parties. Direct election has no mechanism, in short, to ensure that the majority coalition will be reasonable, in Jefferson’s sense, either during the campaign or after taking office.
* * *
The United States has never known plebiscitary politics of the sort envisioned by direct election. While it is hard to say for sure, the almost certain result will be much sharper ideological, geographical, racial, and religious divisions. And because direct election will produce a runoff election virtually every time, there will be little incentive for candidates to moderate their stands until after the first vote. Coalitions will be hastily assembled in between the first election and the runoff, but hastily assembled coalitions are also hastily disassembled. A notable and dangerous instability may thus become a permanent feature of American politics under direct election. The Electoral College is not solely responsible for inducing a spirit of moderation and compromise, but it exerts a powerfully moderating influence over candidates’ thought and behavior. By dictating the strategy and rhetoric of campaigns, it guides political ambition into politically constructive channels that at once reflect and reinforce the principles of the regime.
We cannot say for sure what forms presidential ambition will take under direct election, but we know this much: It would be most unwise, even dangerous, to disconnect our chief executive from the rest of our constitutional and political system without compensating for the loss of the Electoral College’s moderating influences. Take another look at the electoral map of 2000 and ask yourself what incentives to compromise would exist under direct election. Ask whether voters in the less populous states would matter in a national campaign that focused almost exclusively on mass media markets. Or consider the Florida imbroglio and ask whether we would be better off if such squabbles took place in dozens of places at once throughout the country, as they almost certainly would under a national plebiscite. Then ask yourself which system would be more likely to contain fraud. (There are approximately 200,000 polling places in the United States. Under direct election, as Everett Dirksen might say, a few votes here, a few votes there, and pretty soon it all adds up.)
Ever since the presidency became a popularly elective office, campaigns have been conducted on a state-by-state basis. Most of our political habits, customs, expectations, and opinions about presidential politics are informed and mediated by the principles of federalism. The same holds true for the candidates, who learn much about this nation’s diversity by being forced to campaign throughout the country—and much also about our unique constitutional system and the political culture it inspires. Once election to the presidency is severed from the rest of our constitutional system, new incentives will be created, and new lessons taught, none of which will have very much to do with the way elections have been conducted in the past. If “the will of the people” is seen as an independent force, separate and apart from the rest of our constitutional structure, how shall we constrain a president who invokes the “moral mandate” of popular will as his reason for ignoring that structure once in office?
Article by Brian Jones in The American Conservative
Science and Soft Totalitarianism
One would be hard-pressed to find a scientist who has shed more light on the limitations
of scientific and medical research than Dr. John Ioannidis, C.F.
Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention and Professor of Medicine, of
Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford University.
While Ioannidis’ work has acutely demonstrated
the increasing unreliability of large swaths of peer-reviewed
scientific research, the SARS-COV2 pandemic has helped to manifest an
even darker framework surrounding the present conditions of contemporary
scientific inquiry. Dr. Andrea Saltelli speaks precisely to this
problem, which is the conflation of scientific knowledge with political
power, observing that:
The
modern model of influence of science and technology on public policies
has resulted in a situation where the crisis of the political system and
that of science conflate one another–as witnessed by the post-truth,
post-facts debates, challenging the arrangements whereby knowledge–in
the form of science–and power legitimize one another.
The editorial published in the well-known journal Scientific American
is perhaps the most recent incarnation of the admixture of science and
politics. The editors begin the essay by offering a rather
ground-breaking announcement: “Scientific American has never endorsed a
presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are
compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.” The political support of
a Joe Biden presidency is equated with “good science” and “following
the data.”
What is perhaps most striking about the
editorial is its list of overwhelming political objectives in the name
of science. Whether or not the authors understand the implications, the
logic of the piece delivers a rather significant and damaging blow.
However, the damage is not inflicted upon their intended target in the
way they assume. Rather, it is the very possibility of scientific
inquiry itself that is the true victim. The editors have fundamentally
missed the reality before them, which is that the politicization of
reason and science does not lead to freedom of thought and discovery.
What results, instead, is the absolutization of politics itself.
The protection and flourishing of scientific inquiry that is needed has slipped through the intellectual fingers of Scientific American‘s
editors. Generally speaking, scientific or medical conclusions are not
as certain as the expert class would like people to believe. The authors
presume, and explicitly defend, conclusions which require greater
nuance than is either provided or even alluded to. One pertinent example
of this can be seen in the editorial’s defense of mask effectiveness.
Perhaps it is the case that masks can, and do, protect people from
transmitting SARS-COV-2. At the same time, there is a rather strong case
to be made that we do have a medical and scientific body of data and
knowledge that disputes the current narrative regarding mask effectiveness. Even the World Health Organization has admitted
to a lack of substantive evidence for the effectiveness for masks.
Additionally, a 2006 study on the effectiveness of mitigation measures
for controlling an influenza pandemic concluded
that there is rather scant data that would even support the
effectiveness of N95 masks outside of a hospital setting. There is good
reason to support the counterpoint to the editorial, which is that the
effective capacity of a mask appears to range from rather insignificant
to moderate in preventing the transmission of a respiratory virus such
as SARS-COV2.
While this specific reference to masks is
worth unpacking in greater detail, we should not lose sight of the
larger issue at hand. Returning to Ioannidis’ own meta-research, it has
been repeatedly shown why scientific certainties are so hard to come by.
Breakthrough discoveries that move the needle of progress are extremely
difficult and rare. Yet, the real potential of scientific knowledge can
only exist in a regime that neither seeks to politicize reality, nor
the proper objects of the various scientific disciplines. Oddly enough,
the editors of Scientific American have not shown that science
and data are going to be protected under a Biden presidency. What they
have revealed is that science will be allowed to affirm only those
conclusions that the progressive political doctrine pre-approves.
Speaking precisely to this ceremony of political correctness, the philosopher and motorcycle mechanic Matthew Crawford wonders,
“At what point do the ceremonies of political correctness become a mere
façade, a set of dogmas that nobody actually believes, but which make a
useful instrument of social control?”
We need to push
back against the prevailing narrative surrounding science, which has too
readily become a “useful instrument of social control.” What is
ultimately needed is the recovery of a practice of scientific inquiry
grounded in humility and the affirmation that truth is something we come
to discover. Science is not merely a tool for foisting our own will
upon reality. To echo Ioannidis and Saltelli, science will recover its
true aim if, and only if, it becomes capable of transcending politics.
Article by J. Robert Smith in The American Thinker
The Biden Hoax
Joe
Biden’s nomination is the Democrats’ crowning insult. They’re making
another go at playing voters for chumps. Democrats, the D.C.
establishment, and the left started hoaxing Americans back in 2016. The
Russia Hoax was about destroying candidate, and then President, Trump.
The conspirators dragged the nation through nearly three years of
divisive and costly investigations and hearings. Framing Trump and
destroying his presidency was worth stoking enmity. The Russia Hoax
morphed into the Impeachment Hoax, wherein vindictive congressional
Democrats abused their powers to -- yes -- try to frame the president.
The Democrats’ malice knows no bottom.
Biden’s
nomination is more than a go at sly stagecraft; it’s the most audacious
gaslighting in American history. Everybody and his sister can see that
Biden is suffering early onset dementia. If not, then let’s see the
neurological evals, because Biden’s compass isn’t pointing true north.
He’s slow, often confused, irritable, and, increasingly vacant. He
shuffles when he walks. Trotting ten feet to a podium -- once --
doesn’t count. He takes days off, and his availability is strictly
limited. Packing Biden off for a quick, canned event in Florida isn’t close to Trump’s indefatigable stumping. Most days, Biden lives out the campaign at his spacious Wilmington, Delaware house.
Not
surprisingly, the MSM throws Biden softballs. That’s a given among
Fourth Estate bulldogs. Democrats always get passes, even when their
minds are intact. But you’d expect so-called journalists to give enough
of a damn about the nation’s welfare that Biden’s fitness would merit a
few questions.
Simple
question: Does the Democrats’ nominee -- the man put forward to occupy
the most powerful elective office on the planet -- have the mental
acuity and stamina to meet the job’s 24/7 demands? China is
increasingly an adversary. The nation faces stiff challenges
domestically. The MSM are reckless in their disregard. They’re so
corroded by cynicism, so in the tank for the Democratic Party, that they
maintain a monkish silence. Or glide over the obvious about Biden’s
decline.
Future
generations will ridicule what passes for journalism today. An entire
generation of journalists is, in fact, made up of shills --
propagandists -- eagerly participating in a con.
With Biden’s self-awareness drifting away, maybe he doesn’t grasp that he’s been set up. Biden is the second coming of Chauncey Gardner. The Democratic establishment wants addled ol’ Joe to be the empty vessel that voters pour whatever they want into.
Orange
Man bad? Joe’s un-orange. Hanker for an old-fashioned liberal
Democrat? Find a Kennedy to backslap Joe. Need Joe to be a race
healer? Forget about his earlier anti-busing stance and ‘hood busting stands
on crime. Need him to be a working man’s friend? Slap a little grease
on his chin. He’ll play that role. Just skip over his support for the
Green New Deal. Speaking of which, want Joe to be pro-environment?
Why, pimp him as for the Green New Deal! Want him to be a straight
talker? Deep-six his chronic lying and plagiarism.
The
Democratic establishment, in cahoots with the party’s ascendent left,
has no illusions. For them, Biden isn’t an empty vessel. He’s a prop.
They want nothing more from him than to hit his marks and read the
teleprompter without too many stumbles.
Democrats
and the left have their agendas. They’ve cut a deal so that each can
grab their pieces of the pie -- for the time being. In time, they’ll be
at each other’s throats. But for now, a deal.
The
establishment wants something close to the status quo ante, whereby
they can reclaim sinecures while growing fat off our tax dollars. The
left wants power and loot, too, but it also wants to pick up where Obama
left off: “transforming” America. That’s always been code for
destroying America as founded to impose the left’s anti-liberty schemes
-- schemes that cement their power and access to plunder.
Wavering
voters need to wrap their minds around this fact: President Trump isn’t
squaring off against Joe Biden. He’s battling the cabal that Biden is
fronting. If through some perversion, some warping of sensibilities --
or epic fraud -- Biden is elected president, it isn’t just Kamala Harris
who becomes de facto president. It’s the entire depraved enterprise
that comprises the Democratic Party and the left. Harris may well be
the General Secretary in a “Harris Administration,” but you can bet that she’d have a Politburo to answer to.
If
Democrats steal the election, then for years ahead, a spiderweb of
lies, fraud, and venality will stretch across America. America will be
run by some amalgam of Sacramento, Portland, and Chicago -- or, in other
words, some combo of Big Brother, lawlessness, and corruption. The
country may not free itself for decades. Or the nation could break
apart.
The
convenient forgetting of Biden’s corruption is another aspect of the
hoax. If Biden is upright than crooked is straight. Caught on
videotape, Biden bragged about strongarming the Ukrainians. Why? To pull Hunter Biden’s, and Hunter’s business associates’, nuts out of a legal fire in the Ukraine.
We
know about Hunter and associates raking in millions of dollars from the
Chinese. Merely coincidental, goes the party line. Joe confabbing
with Xi Jingping and other Chinese oligarchs just days ahead of Hunter and company inking a deal
with a state-owned bank there is pure chance. Where were the packs of
reporters hounding the Bidens? No calls for congressional
investigations from CNN or CNBC talking heads. Instead, shrugs and
offhand dismissals of Joe Biden’s highly suspect role. What would be
the point of Joe influence-peddling? To make Hunter rich? Any
curiosity about a Biden skim? Like the Clintons, Biden, now useful, is
granted generous license.
Understand
what we’re up against. We’re up against a Democratic Party that began
unraveling in the late 1960s. It’s policies and governance failed then,
and have failed ever since. Progressive (aka, liberal) economics
needed bailouts from Reagan and Trump. Progressive social policies have
created the dysfunctions that are causing the lawlessness and collapse
in Democrat-run cities. Black generational poverty -- a root cause of
urban derangement -- was spawned by LBJ’s Great Society. Cronyism and
corruption -- always rife in the Democratic Party -- are historic today
in terms of pervasiveness. Democrats are bankrupt. What do they have
left but bolder subterfuge and criminality?
Then
there’s the left. Communism -- Marxism, in fashionable parlance --
started failing shortly after the Russian Revolution. Communism’s ideas
-- tried across the globe -- never worked. Human nature -- hundreds of
thousands of years of human development -- make it so. Yet, those who
are insatiably power-hungry love communism, because it’s a vehicle to
unfettered power. In little more than a century, to make communism
stick, some hundred million people were killed, from Russia to China to
North Korea to the Killing Fields of Cambodia and elsewhere.
Intimidation and violence are, finally, all the left has to gain the
power it craves.
Are
American leftists any different? In 2020, what have we witnessed
unfold in blue cities from Seattle to New York? The street thugs and
shock troops now present on Democrat turf are mere prelude to what
American leftists intend to unleash in their quest for dominance.
The
Biden Hoax is the crudest of the hoaxes yet perpetrated by Democrats
and the left. They’re playing, perhaps, the last card in their deck of
hoaxes. What comes next will have less to do with deception. What’s
next is the fully unleashed rage of a flailing party and ism.
Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden made a statement after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading from a script and opining that whoever wins the presidential election should nominate her replacement.
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us," Joe Biden says, following her passing. https://t.co/UOOiOEjFei
“She was not only a giant in the legal profession, but a beloved figure, and my heart goes out to all those who cared for her and cared about her.
“She practiced the highest American ideals as a justice, equality and justice under the law….She led the advance of equal rights for women.
“It’s hard to believe it was my honor to preside over her confirmation hearing.
“Tonight and in the coming days we should focus on the loss of her – the Justice, and her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt – let me be clear that the voters should pick the President, the President should pick the Justice for the Senate to consider.”
Biden looked up from his notes only three times, each time looking completely confused and overwhelmed. He stumbled over his words and looked unsure about what he was saying, which is stunning considering that Biden has known her personally for decades.
Biden’s performance tonight was a stark illustration of his woefully inadequate mental capabilities and a real-life demonstration for the American people of how President Joe Biden would handle a crisis situation.
About
200 "irreplaceable" books worth more than £2.5m ($3.2m), which were
stolen from a warehouse in London, have been found buried under the
floor of a house in rural Romania, police say.
The works include first editions of Galileo and Isaac Newton.
They
were taken by thieves in January 2017 who cut holes in the roof of a
warehouse in Feltham then abseiled in, dodging sensors.
The men were identified as being part of a Romanian organised crime gang.
Officers
discovered the books underground during a search of a house in the
region of Neamț, in north-eastern Romania, on Wednesday.
The
find follows raids on 45 addresses across the UK, Romania and Italy in
June 2019, investigators say. Thirteen people have been charged, 12 of
whom have already pleaded guilty.
The
hoard includes rare versions of Dante and sketches by the Spanish
painter Francisco de Goya, as well as the titles by Galileo and Isaac
Newton dating back to the 16th and 17th Centuries.
"These
books are extremely valuable, but more importantly they are
irreplaceable and are of great importance to international cultural
heritage," said Det Insp Andy Durham, from the Metropolitan police's
Specialist Crime South command.
The
works were being stored in a warehouse ahead of being transported to a
specialist book auction in Las Vegas, in the US, when they were stolen.
The
thieves cut through the roof of the warehouse in Feltham, near Heathrow
airport, and abseiled 12m (40ft) to the ground, dodging movement
sensors, according to AFP news agency.
Total Panic: Liberals Rehash Old Plan to Save SCOTUS from Trump After Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Death
As Bronson wrote last night,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at the age of 87. No doubt she
left a lasting imprint on our history and that of the Supreme Court. Her
close friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia was notable, as
it showed that people with very differing opinions can indeed get along.
In fact, the two were quite funny together. As the late Justice Scalia
once said in an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes—and I’m paraphrasing
here, I don’t attack people, I attack ideas. And some very good people
have some very bad ideas. If you cannot separate the two, he offered
words of wisdom: don’t become a judge.
Yet,
with Ginsburg gone, the Left is panicking. A true conservative majority
is emerging on the Supreme Court. Trump derangement has led this sad
army of clowns to view both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as
illegitimate…because that’s just how they feel. It’s truly a sight to
behold—this derangement syndrome, which is marked by intense illiberal
tantrums.
Ginsburg’s passing has brought many to see this as the
only way to fix the Court. Liberals want to start packing it. you see,
this isn’t about Ginsburg or her legacy. It’s not. This is about power.
And when the Left feels like their losing it, which exposes their gross
entitlement, then they will employ some of the worst measures to regain
and consolidate it. It’s an old tale, but one that’s reared its ugly
head again (via Vox):
Biden should tonight announce if Trump rushes through confirmation, Biden’s first act as president will be to expand Supreme Court
Again. You can’t do this, you can’t work this problem unless you’re starting by saying what you’ll do if Republicans push through a second corrupt Justice. (Gorsuch being the first.) Adding new members to the Court is the only viable solution.
…if Democrats win both the presidency and the Congress,
they can ensure that the GOP supermajority on the Supreme Court will be
short-lived. They could pack the Court.
The Constitution provides
that there must be a Supreme Court, but it does not set the number of
justices — that number is set by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789
originally established a six-justice Court, and this number vacillated
considerably during the nation’s first century. The number of justices
briefly grew to 10 during the Lincoln administration, before finally
settling at nine under President Ulysses S. Grant.
If Democrats
control the White House and the Congress, in other words, they can pass a
law adding additional seats to the Supreme Court. If Biden is
president, he could then quickly fill those seats (with the consent of
the Senate) and give the Court a Democratic majority.
[…]
Trump’s
two previous Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett
Kavanaugh, also share a dubious distinction. They are the only members
of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost
the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less
than half of the country. If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat, fully
one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic
legitimacy.
[…]
Democrats may also be able to use the threat
of court-packing to convince four Republican senators to hold off on
confirming a new justice. Even if Biden fills the Ginsburg seat,
Republicans still control a majority of the Supreme Court. They have a
lot to lose if Democrats successfully pack the Court.
If Biden,
congressional Democrats, and Democratic candidates for Congress all
pledge that they will immediately pack the Court if they prevail in
November, and if Republicans confirm a Ginsburg replacement, that threat
might be enough to sway a few more Republican senators.
Yeah,
there’s a lot to unload there, especially with the whole jab at the
Electoral College and the grossly dishonest way of detailing
representation in the Senate, but that’s liberalism for you. The best
part is the last line of this piece which says if Democrats don’t
threaten this, Trumpism will dominate the Court for decades. Yes, how
dare we have a majority of jurists who correctly interpret the
Constitution remain on the Court. Societies don’t change through courts.
That’s one thing liberals don’t understand, but conservatives do.
Liberals could very well fight for a woman’s right to an abortion
through the legislature. There is nothing in the Constitution
prohibiting any law that recognizes such a right and the equal
protection clause was never meant to be used in the ways most liberals
argue nowadays. Why doesn’t the Left go this route? I don’t know—maybe
because baby-killing isn’t all that popular when you get down the
messaging strategies.
Anyways, the total panic here is bound to get more intense and more
insane as we come closer to Election Day. Oh, and you can bet that COVID
panic porn is over.
