Sunday, November 22, 2020

Sidney Powell Releases Statement After Trump Legal Team Says She’s Not Part Of Team

 

Article by Ryan Saavedra in The Daily Wire
 

Sidney Powell Releases Statement After Trump Legal Team Says She’s Not Part Of Team

Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement late on Sunday after the Trump legal team announced that she was not part of their legal defense team.

“I understand today’s press release,” Powell wrote. “I will continue to represent #WeThePeople who had their votes for Trump and other Republicans stolen by massive fraud through Dominion and Smartmatic, and we will be filing suit soon.”

“The chips will fall where they may, and we will defend the foundations of this great Republic,” she continued. “#KrakenOnSteroids”

Powell’s statement came shortly after the Trump legal team announced that she was not on the team.

“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own,” Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”

The move comes after Powell spoke at a press conference last week with Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis .

At the press conference, she stood behind Giuliani as he said:

Well, this is representative of our legal team. We’re representing President Trump and we’re representing the Trump campaign. When I finish, Sidney Powell and then Jenna Ellis will follow me. And we will present in brief the evidence that we’ve collected over the last, I guess it is two weeks. Also, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing are here with me. There are a lot more lawyers working on this, but I guess, we’re the senior lawyers. And Boris Epshteyn.

Powell’s remarks were also promoted by the Republican National Committee’s official Twitter account.

Trump tweeted over a week ago that Powell was part of his legal defense team, writing: “I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!”

Fox New host Tucker Carlson called out Powell late last week over some of the claims that she made during the press conference this week, noting that she refused to appear on his show and allegedly became angry when repeatedly pressed for evidence.

During the segment, Carlson highlighted the following quote from Powell:

One of its most characteristic features is its ability to flip votes. It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden, which we might never have uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system, and that’s what caused them to have to shut down in the states they shut down in.

“So we invited Sidney Powell on this show. We would’ve given her the whole hour; we would’ve given her the entire week actually and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention — that’s a big story,” Carlson said. “But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either, nor did she provided any today at the press conference.”

Powell made additional claims on Saturday night during an interview on Newsmax TV that were widely criticized.

Washington Examiner columnist Byron York highlighted a portion of the comments that Powell made:

POWELL: Georgia’s probably gonna be the first state I’m gonna blow up. And Mr. Kemp and the secretary of state need to go with it because they’re in on the Dominion scam with their last-minute purchase, or award of a contract to Dominion of $100 million. The state bureau of investigation for Georgia ought to be looking into the financial benefits received by Mr. Kemp and the secretary of state’s family about that time …

NEWSMAX: Just to clarify, you’re saying that Governor Kemp, who’s been a longtime ally of the president, is directly involved because of financial benefit in a conspiracy to defeat the president in Georgia?

POWELL: We have certainly been told that there is evidence of that, and would warrant an investigation if anybody were actually going to do an honest investigation.

NEWSMAX: What more could you tell us about that alleged conspiracy — [as] the governor’s [involvement]?

POWELL: I can’t give you any more details than that now, but it would certainly warrant an investigation. If it had been reported to me as a law enforcement officer, I would be investigating it steadfastly.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/kraken-on-steroids-sidney-powell-releases-statement-after-trump-legal-team-says-shes-not-part-of-team 



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Sunday marks 57 years since John F. Kennedy assassination

 Sunday marks 57 years since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of America.

On Nov. 22, 1963, President Kennedy, was shot while riding in a motorcade in Dallas. He was in the third year of his first term.

Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, rode in a motorcade from the airport. They were heading to a luncheon where he was scheduled to speak. At the time, they were accompanied by Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired shots from a nearby building. The motorcade rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital in response, but Kennedy was pronounced dead within an hour of the shooting.

Kennedy died at the age of 46. He is one of four U.S. presidents who died from assassination, in addition to Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881) and William McKinley (1901).

A Massachusetts native, Kennedy served in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate prior to his presidency. Kennedy, a Democratic president, served at the height of the Cold War and Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960′s.

 

https://www.ky3.com/2020/11/22/sunday-marks-57-years-since-john-f-kennedy-assassination/ 

 


 

U.S. retailer Guitar Center files for bankruptcy

  Guitar Center Inc, the largest U.S. retailer of music instruments and equipment, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Saturday, as music lovers moved their shopping online during the coronavirus pandemic.

 

The retailer has negotiated to have a total of $375 million in debtor-in-possession financing from its existing lenders and intends to raise $335 million in new senior secured notes, the company said https://refini.tv/3fpM2UC in a statement.

Earlier this month the company reached a restructuring agreement with key stakeholders that includes debt reduction by nearly $800 million and new equity investments of up to $165 million to recapitalize the company.

The company in a court filing said it has between $1 billion and $10 billion of both assets and liabilities.

Guitar Center, which owns nearly 300 stores across the country, said business operations will continue without any interruption.

Milbank LLP served as legal counsel, BRG served as restructuring advisor, and Houlihan Lokey was financial advisor to the company.

Guitar Center began in 1959 as a store selling home organs in Hollywood.

The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Virginia.

 

https://www.oann.com/u-s-retailer-guitar-center-files-for-bankruptcy/ 

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

Monster of Their Own Making – a book review

Jack Buckby’s book on how the neglect and demonization of the working class fuels the rise of the Far Right is both timely and necessary.



Jack Buckby’s book Monster of Their Own Making: How the Far Left, the Media and Politicians are Creating Far-Right Extremists came out last April, but I didn’t read it until now.

When I finished it yesterday, I kicked myself for not getting it seven months ago.

Better late than never I imagine.

Fact is, most books and articles written about the Far Right are written by people from organizations solidly on the Far Left. Which, as Buckby puts it in Monster of Their Own Making, “is like asking a vegetarian for their objective views on the best cut of steak. It is utterly farcical.”

When the definition of “Far Right” is determined by groups that view anyone to the right of Mitt Romney as “Far Right,” there can never be a reasonable, honest discussion about it.

Until now.

Who better to discuss the reasons so many young, working class whites are attracted to the Far Right than someone who, as a young working class lad himself, was drawn to it?

Who better to define precisely what the Far Right is than someone who joined its ranks?

As I mentioned last weekend a guest on MSNBC accused the 55% of white women who voted for Trump in this election of “weaponizing their identity against black men” and “taking an active role in the maintenance of white supremacy.”

Why would anyone take the threat of the Far Right seriously when gormless fools like this MSNBC guest lump 55% of white women into the Far Right?

Is it any wonder that conservatives scoff at the notion that the Far Right even exists?

Is it any wonder so many conservatives feel it necessary to get defensive whenever the topic of Far Right extremism comes up?

But as Buckby explains in Monster of Their Own Making, the Far Right does exist. There are extremists on both the Left and the Right. And to deny that extremism only helps to fuel it.

Buckby uses his own experience to provide the framework in understanding why young working class white men find themselves gravitating toward the Far Right.

As Buckby puts it in the introduction:

This book is the culmination of over a decade of learning and real-world experience in the fringes of right-wing politics. It is my goal to deconstruct the current line of thinking about the far right, offer constructive criticism to those who genuinely oppose political extremism, and provide a unique insight into an issue that has been commandeered by dangerous far-left radicals.

Monster of Their Own Making is an attempt to wrest control of the narrative away from those whose motives for explaining or defining the Far Right are far from constructive and in no way sincere.

From Chapter One: “The Path to Radicalization,” Buckby explains:

When you start with a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics, any conclusion—or even hypothesis—is bound to be riddled with errors and unrepresentative of what is actually true.

Meanwhile, those who truly understand the nature and motivation of the far right are routinely ignored. I am one of those people. For years, I sat by and watched in horror as radical progressives and extremists assumed control over the political extremism narrative, labelling the wrong people “far right” and advocating policies that would only further radicalize young, white, working-class men toward the extreme fringe of right-wing politics.

Everything we’re told about the far right is wrong, and I know because I was in the far right.

Buckby does what nobody else has taken the time to do – namely, he explains what makes the Far Right so appealing to white working class (mostly) young men.

It is, in his words, a three-pronged attack that pushes disenfranchised working class men into the arms of the extremist Right.

This triumvirate, the Left, the media and politicians, have created the perfect storm of circumstances that leaves these young men vulnerable to the appeal from Far Right extremists. Which is why Buckby describes the Far Right as a monster of their own making.

Politicians who abandon the working class in favor of globalist trade deals that ship their jobs overseas. Politicians who unilaterally decide to completely remake working class communities by importing thousands of refugees with little or no regard to the impact it will have on those living there. Or, in our current situation, politicians who lock down their cities or states forcing working class folks to lose their jobs while major, multi-billion-dollar corporations like Amazon and Walmart see a windfall in profits.

When the people who are supposed to represent you aren’t even listening to you, is it any wonder that you would be drawn to someone who is more than happy to lend an ear?

Meanwhile, the media smears and vilifies the working class. The most ham-handed example of this, of course, came this past January when Don Lemon and his two guests went into giggling fits of laughter mocking those stupid, uneducated Trump voters.

But the mockery isn’t nearly as dangerous as the demonization. A teenage boy is smeared as a White Supremacist for uncomfortably smiling while a man bangs a drum in his face. Another teenage boy beset upon by radical Leftists, defends himself and is instantly accused by the media (and politicians) of being a White Supremacist.

Working class folks gather in Lansing, Michigan to protest the draconian lockdowns that were killing their jobs, and the media accused them of being “domestic terrorists” and “white nationalists.” Then two months later after the death of George Floyd, when rioters descended on Minneapolis and began to burn the city to the ground, loot stores and attack police, the same media who called those in Lansing “terrorists” declared the rioters “peaceful protesters.”

This sort of defamation of the working class doesn’t go unnoticed.

As Buckby explains from his own experience:

When the media demonize normal people, at a time when the politicians refuse to represent their interests, they create fertile ground for the far right. It made me even more determined, and it did the same for many others who chose extremism when given the choice between the far right and a media establishment that hated them.

And all of this is compounded by a radical, violent Leftist movement that justifies its violence under the guise of “anti-fascism” or “anti-racism.”

Again, from Monster of Their Own Making:

This, as I will argue throughout the book, is a result of the political center shifting leftwards over a period of decades, combined with a concerted effort by anti-racism groups to inflate their own relevance and importance by creating far-right monsters that don’t exist. Nobody understands what the far right really is because so-called anti-racism organizations across America, the UK, and Europe are attributing the label to people who would have been considered centrists or moderate conservatives just ten years ago. There is a dark political agenda behind the far-right witch hunt that makes the problem extremely difficult to solve, but that’s exactly the point. For as long as everybody who expresses concern about mass immigration is considered far right, there will always be monsters to slay and money for anti-racism groups to continue their important work.

The media, aided by the Far Left, naming everyone to the right of Mitt Romney “Far Right” have only muddied the waters making it harder to identify the actual threat posed by the Far Right. As Buckby explains:

Muddying the waters about far-right extremism is a lucrative industry. It creates well-paying jobs in left-wing think tanks and academia, it allows ideologues to manipulate popular culture, and it makes people with very real concerns keep quiet for fear of being called racist.

All the while, the real far right navigates those muddy waters, hard to distinguish from mainstream conservatives and democratic populists. As long as everyone is a neo-Nazi, it is hard to identify the people who genuinely believe white supremacist and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

When an entire class of people are being squeezed out of the public square and assigned the most nefarious motives, is it any wonder so many young people would gravitate toward the Far Right? Is it any wonder the Far Right exploits this perfect storm for their own ends?

Monster of Their Own Making is excellent. It is honest, timely, and extremely well crafted.

Buckby does an outstanding job weaving in his own personal experience to outline the problem and explain exactly what the Far Right entails. He also warns conservatives against falling into the trap of denying the existence or danger of a rising extremist Right.

I still find it utterly amazing that there are some people who just flat out deny the existence of the far right just because it means the far left are (sort of) right about something.

Three years ago after the Tiki Torch March of “Unite the Right,” I wrote a column titled “When Idiots March.” I was attacked by those on the Right for calling out these racists.  The criticisms I received fell in line with what Buckby describes in Monster of Their Own Making – namely, these are people who are sick and tired of being demonized and vilified. Yes, that’s true. And that is precisely what the Far Right preys on, which is why it is so dangerous. And it would be equally dangerous for us conservatives to not call it out.

What makes Monster of Their Own Making such a significant book isn’t just that it explains the three-pronged attack that radicalizes young white working class men; it also makes the argument that conservatives and center-right populists need to get off the defensive and stop pretending that extremism doesn’t exist on the Right simply because it exists on the Left.

Conservatives can stop taking a defensive position every time an atrocity occurs and start drawing attention to the fact that far-right radicals are being created by the negligence of our politicians, the smearing by the international press, and the extreme policy proposals and street activism of radical progressives.

In doing so, “the right” can redefine what it means to be a nationalist in the face of this ugly far-right extremism. Only in being willing to recognize this problem can they effectively fight back against the smears and the lies told by far-left progressives and reassert the real values of democratic populism and nationalism.

One of the most striking things Buckby points out in Monster of Their Own Making is what he says about the election of Donald Trump. Unlike prevailing media/political opinion that Trump “emboldened” the Far Right, Buckby views Trump’s election quite differently.

Had he lost that election and Hillary Clinton won, the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” of feminist congressional windbags would have notably more power than they do now. That would have disenfranchised the American working class even further, and who knows what kind of traction neo-Nazis could have gained. Donald Trump is a relief valve—he took that bubbling anger from working class America who were being smeared by the political class, and he took action. He started giving people the change they had been asking for, spoke up for those without a voice, and helped steady the righteous anger from the forgotten people of America. He also fought back against far-left ideologues, though that war is nowhere near over. [Bold emphasis Dianny’s]

Had Trump not done that, the far left would have something real to worry about. A bigger, stronger, angrier class of people who would have had nowhere to turn but the real far right.

When you understand what motivates people to gravitate toward extremism, this observation makes total sense.

As Buckby says of himself:

I never would have joined the BNP [BNP is British National Party. Did I mention Jack Buckby is a Brit? – Dianny] if the politicians had just listened to the very real concerns of working-class people, and I know that most of the young men from my home county who became terrorists would probably have gone on to lead perfectly normal lives too. If only the politicians had done what they were elected to do from the start, which is to represent the people, then the world we know today would be a very different place.

Couple the neglect from elected politicians with the concerted effort from those in the media and Leftist organizations to silence and marginalize anyone on the Right, is it any wonder extremism becomes appealing?

As Buckby explains:

Banning neo-Nazis from Twitter does not stop neo-Nazis from existing, nor does it stop them from recruiting. Stopping the far right from organizing, deplatforming them, and labelling them hate groups does nothing to deter these people. If anything, it motivates them to continue fighting back against the system and even lends credibility to their argument. When you attempt to silence the far right, you give them the evidence they need to claim their message is being silenced because what they say is true.

Boy, that is one hell of an important point.

Truthfully, I could go on quite a bit more about Monster of Their Own Making. I made pages and pages of notes.  The book isn’t overly long in the least. Even so, Buckby packs so much valuable information in those pages. His writing style is personable and honest. And when he uses his life story and experience, it is both engaging and compelling.

Frankly, nobody within conservative media has written a book quite like Monster of Their Own Making, which is a shame. Then again, I don’t know if anyone other than Jack Buckby could’ve written it.

Monster of Their Own Making is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple iBooks, and other retailers.




The Greatest Electoral Heist in American History

 


Article by Ken Blackwell in Patriot Post
 

The Greatest Electoral Heist In American History

 The pieces are finally coming together, and they reveal a masterpiece of electoral larceny involving Big Tech oligarchs, activists, and government officials who prioritize partisanship over patriotism.

The pieces are finally coming together, and they reveal a masterpiece of electoral larceny involving Big Tech oligarchs, activists, and government officials who prioritize partisanship over patriotism.

The 2020 election was stolen because leftists were able to exploit the coronavirus pandemic to weaken, alter, and eliminate laws that were put in place over the course of decades to preserve the integrity of the ballot box. But just as importantly, it was stolen because those same leftists had a thoroughly-crafted plan, and because they were rigorous in its implementation and ruthless in its execution.

Let’s not forget that liberals have been consumed by a fixation with removing Donald Trump from office for longer than he’s actually been in office. The sordid story of the 2020 election heist begins all the way back in January 2017, when Barack Obama’s former campaign manager and senior advisor, David Plouffe, took a job leading the policy and advocacy efforts of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a “charitable” organization established by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

Earlier this year, just as it was becoming clear that Joe Biden would be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, Plouffe published a book outlining his vision for the Democrats’ roadmap to victory in 2020, which involved a “block by block” effort to turn out voters in key Democratic strongholds in the swing states that would ultimately decide the election, such as Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

The book was titled, A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump, and it turned out that the citizen Plouffe had in mind was none other than his former boss, Mark Zuckerberg. Although Plouffe no longer officially managed Zuckerberg’s policy and advocacy efforts at that point, the political operative’s influence evidently remained a powerful force.

Thanks to the extensive efforts of investigators and attorneys for the Amistad Project of the nonpartisan Thomas More Society, who have been following Zuckerberg’s money for the past 18 months, it is still possible to expose the inner workings of this heist in time to stop it. Perhaps even more importantly, these unsung heroes of American democracy are dedicated to making sure that such a travesty will not become a permanent feature of our elections.

Under the pretext of assisting election officials conduct “safe and secure” elections in the age of COVID, Zuckerberg donated $400 million — as much money as Congress appropriated for the same general purpose — to nonprofit organizations founded and run by left-wing activists. The primary recipient was the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which received the staggering sum of $350 million. Prior to Zuckerberg’s donations, CTCL’s annual operating expenses averaged less than $1 million per year. How was Zuckerberg even aware of such a small-potatoes operation, and why did he entrust it with ⅞ of the money he was pouring into this election cycle, despite the fact that it had no prior experience handling such a massive amount of money?

Predictably, given the partisan background of its leading officers, CTCL proceeded to distribute Zuckerberg’s funds to left-leaning counties in battleground states. The vast majority of the money handed out by CTCL — especially in the early days of its largesse — went to counties that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some of the biggest recipients, in fact, were the very locales Plouffe had identified as the linchpins of the Democrat strategy in 2020.

Zuckerberg and CTCL left nothing to chance, however, writing detailed conditions into their grants that dictated exactly how elections were to be conducted, down to the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places. The Constitution gives state lawmakers sole authority for managing elections, but these grants put private interests firmly in control.

Amistad Project lawyers tried to prevent this unlawful collusion by filing a flurry of lawsuits in eight states prior to Election Day. Unfortunately, judges were forced to put those lawsuits aside without consideration of their merits because the plaintiffs had not yet suffered “concrete harm” in the form of fraudulent election results. The law had no remedy to offer because the left’s lawless schemes had not yet reached fruition.

In the meantime, CTCL continued splashing Zuckerberg’s cash — only now, the organization was intent on finding Republican-leaning jurisdictions to give its donations a veneer of bipartisanship. Of course, the number of votes in play in those counties paled in comparison to those in the liberal counties. Philadelphia County alone, for instance, projected that the $10 million grant it received from CTCL would enable it to increase turnout by 25-30 percent — translating to well over 200,000 votes.

The left didn’t put all of its eggs into the CTCL basket, though. High-ranking state officials simultaneously took significant steps to weaken ballot security protocols, acting on their own authority without permission or concurrence from the state legislatures that enshrined those protections in the law.

In Wisconsin, Democrat Secretary of State Doug La Follette allowed voters to claim “indefinite confinement” in order to avoid having to provide a photocopy of their ID when requesting an absentee ballot. The exemption was intended for legitimate invalids, but COVID offered a convenient excuse for circumventing the law, despite the fact that Wisconsin had no pandemic-related lockdown rules that would have rendered anyone “indefinitely confined.” The impact was far-reaching. About 240,000 voters claimed the exemption in 2020, compared to just 70,000 in 2016.

In Michigan, Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson unilaterally voided the legal requirement that voters provide a signature when requesting an absentee ballot, establishing an online request form. She then took things a step further by announcing that she would “allow civic groups and other organizations running voter registration drives to register voters through the state’s online registration website,” granting partisan groups such as Rock The Vote direct access to Michigan’s voter rolls.

In Pennsylvania, election officials in heavily-Democratic counties that received CTCL funding allowed flawed mail-in ballots to be “cured” — that is, altered or replaced — prior to Election Day. In other counties, officials rightly interpreted this as a flagrant violation of state law. On the night before Election Day, less than 24 hours before polls were due to close, Democrat Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar sought to imbue this illegal practice with the appearance of validity by issuing a statement authorizing counties to contact voters who had cast improper ballots. Even if Boockvar had the statutory authority to do this, which she did not, the timing of her memo made it impossible for rural counties to take advantage of it to nearly the same extent as urban counties.

In numerous states, officials also absurdly consolidated the vote-counting and ballot curing process in sporting arenas and other large venues, rather than the ward- and precinct-level offices that normally handle the job. This made absolutely no sense as a pandemic-related safety measure, but that didn’t stop the officials from citing COVID as their rationale.

Consolidating the vote counting tied the other efforts together. Instead of a manageable number of ballots being transported to small offices and counted in the immediate presence of observers from both parties, truckloads of ballots were brought to a single location, inevitably resulting in confusion and commingling of ballots from various sources. Securing those ballots from the time they left voters’ hands to the time they were officially counted should have been the top priority of election workers, but it’s not even clear whether there were logs kept identifying which ballots were delivered by which trucks and when. If such logs even exist, they have not been disclosed.

At the same time, election officials could claim that they were adhering to legal requirements that observers be “in the room” during the counting process while using COVID as an excuse for relegating those observers to the “penalty box,” far from the actual counting and curing.

This was particularly egregious when it came to ballot “curing,” a process that actually involves election workers filling out brand new ballots on behalf of voters whose ballots purportedly could not be read by machine. This could have been due to something the voter themselves did, such as spilling coffee on the ballot. It also could have been due to something that election workers themselves did, such as crumpling ballots to prevent the machines from receiving them, just as a vending machine rejects crumpled bills.

It’s impossible to know exactly what happened, because Republican observers were denied meaningful access to the process — and in some cases literally locked out of the counting rooms while election workers obscured the windows with cardboard.

These election workers, it should be noted, were paid directly by CTCL’s grants. These supposedly impartial arbiters of our electoral process are supposed to work for the people, but they were on Zuckerberg’s payroll.

All of this sounds like the stuff of fiction — the sort of thing one would expect from a cinematic thriller or a spy novel. Sadly, it’s the reality that our country is faced with after years of placidity in the face of increasingly aggressive intervention into our electoral process on the part of Big Tech oligarchs and activists with deep pockets and shallow motivations.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/75088-the-greatest-electoral-heist-in-american-history-2020-11-21 



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Joe Biden: Why Are Reporters Asking Me Questions?



Former Vice President Joe Biden isn’t used to getting real questions. On Friday, Biden appeared dumbfounded as to why a reporter was asking the projected Democratic presidential-elect a question as the press pool was being scurried away by staff.

“Mr. Biden, the COVID task force said it’s safe for students to be in class. Are you going to encourage unions to cooperate more to bring kids back to classrooms, sir?” asked CBS reporter Bo Erickson. 

“Why are you the only guy that always shouts out questions?” Biden said.


It was a bizarre episode for the 78-year-old Democrat, who enjoyed the least amount of media scrutiny on the campaign trail of any modern candidate running for president. While serious revelations were emerging, revealing Biden’s role in his son’s potentially criminal overseas business dealings, reporters asked hard-hitting questions such as what kind of ice cream Biden purchased at a pit stop.

Erickson was also one of the few reporters to ask Biden about the scandals plaguing his campaign, bombshells suppressed by Big Tech and either ignored or dubiously delegitimized by other mainstream outlets. When pressed on the issue, Biden lashed out at the media.


Erickson’s treatment of the former vice president Friday was the same treatment the media offered to President Donald Trump and his staff throughout the entire last four years, which was on full display again in the White House briefing room on the same day.


Meanwhile, one would be hard-pressed to find California Sen. Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, at any point throughout the entire general election campaign taking a single question from a reporter during a press conference.

The media gave a preview of how it would treat a Biden administration on Monday, when Biden began speaking with reporters, who lobbed him softball questions. Joe Concha, a media reporter for The Hill, dubbed the incoming presidential press corps “The new marshmallow media in the Biden era,” in a column published Thursday.

“Any press conference Biden has held since capturing the Democratic nomination has consisted mostly of questions about President Trump and very few questions about Biden’s own worldview, record, policy stances or perspective on important issues such as trade, foreign affairs, gun control, immigration, education, or taxation as it relates to repealing the Trump tax cuts,” Concha wrote. “Of the 12 questions Biden received Monday, there were zero follow-ups. Zero interruptions during answers. Zero questions about any of the issues above, which rank as among the top concerns on voters’ minds, along with the coronavirus.”


K-12: What's Our 'Stamp Act'? When Will It Be Enough?


Article by Judith Acosta in The American Thinker
 

K-12: What's Our 'Stamp Act'? When Will It Be Enough?

You would think we would finally take a stand when it comes to our children. You would think we would be driven by a primal need to protect. But you might think again. There is a blue bubble over the elementary school in an otherwise pleasant semi-rural community. And the children there are under the most insidious attack.

One resident revealed what had happened to his child. Minding his own business, he was randomly, physically attacked in the playground by the school bully. His child was 6, the bully was 7 or 8 years old. The bully walked up to the younger child, kicked, punched and screamed at him. His child tried to protect himself and screamed back, “Get off of me!” When the bully showed no intention of getting off or of mitigating the attack, the younger child hauled off and kicked the bully in the leg, leaving a mark. The bully fell back and started crying and wailing, dramatically and pointedly (“Ready for my close up, Mr. Demille.”) victimized.

What, then, did the school do? They called the little one’s parent in order to warn the parent and blame the child for hurting the bully. (Sound politically familiar?)

They told the parent, “He should have called a teacher first,” even though the teacher was right there and witnessed the whole attack.

As I listened to this latest version of the Mad Hatter Tea Party, some questions came to my mind:

  1. WHAT THE *&@%#?! (Forgive me. It was an autonomic stun response.)

Then with more normal cognitive function restored, I wondered…

  1. Was he supposed to notify the teacher as he was getting pounded? How? By email? By text? By screaming as he took another hit?
  2. What if he were black?
  3. What if he were gay?
  4. What if he were a girl?
  5. What makes this physical attack different?

Then, the more significant issue came to mind: Whatever the political motivation, what does this process of instinctual castration teach our young people who are in the process of getting their self- and world-view formed by us? When we tell our children to stop defending themselves legitimately in the face of aggression, what are we actually telling them?

These are, in brief, the lessons children learn when they are told to play possum on a regular basis:

  1. There is no good or evil, just our response to it, which then is interpreted by the authorities (blue bubble agents) as good or evil. In an elementary school, the agent of authority is the teacher of tenure. God help us.
  2. There is no longer any personal responsibility nor are there reasonable consequences for idiotic or aggressive behavior. All you need to do if you’re a bully (or a rapist, looter, and murderer) and you’ve been caught in the act is have a well-orchestrated, media-driven tantrum, declaring yourself a victim of some amorphous corporate agenda.
  3. In order to live a comfortable, low-profile life in this brave new world, we must extinguish the God-given instinct for survival and self-defense. The administration’s calculated response to this playground incident increases passivity in the face of obvious and odious aggression. Psychologically, it leaves the child alone to conduct a furious internal search for a cognitive context he can rely on. Meaning, how does he go on in life and still exclude the right of self-preservation? If he doesn’t have a right to protect himself, does he have a right to exist? What does he (or she) do with the question of self-worth and belonging when his or her right to exist is contingent on social approval and protocols? All that is left in many cases is “I’m nice, even in the face of obvious and odious aggression.” Thus, being nice or playing by Gulag-rules becomes the preeminent value. It fosters the new generation of comrades.
  4. In the case of this real victim, he will be asked to “play along.” If he turns himself in, he will be “excused” this time, but the next time he defends himself he will receive a “Don’t Like” on his permanent record.

When I think about this brave little boy and his intrepid parent, I wonder what it will take for parents nation-wide to reach a tipping point. When will it be enough for them? For us? What does it take for ordinary people to say an extraordinary “NO”?  With all the masks in place, I have to ask: What is this generation’s Stamp Act?

For those who might not remember, the Stamp Act of 1765 was a direct tax imposed on the colonists by King George. A stamp would be required on all legal documents and printed materials.

Because this tax was imposed by an act of British parliament with King George’s sanction but no colonial involvement, it led to the now famous cry, “No taxation without representation!”

Of course this famous act came after the Five Intolerable Acts prior to 1764 (the Boston Port Act, the Administration of Justice Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, and the Quebec Act). And even though all the acts were intolerable, it was the Stamp Act that was the last straw.

What is it going to be for us? Which right is the one that finally becomes intolerable for us? What will we finally take a stand to protect? Is it the right to self-defense? Is it the right to raise our own children? To choose our own medical care? To own our own homes? What will our Stamp Act be?

There are only a few rights guaranteed to us by God in our Constitution.  The first of them is the right to exist. This is perverted by the left because in their system only the government can give you the right to exist. In turn, this perversion is twisted into the denial of the right to self-defense, which leads to the corruption of every civil liberty we have enjoyed in this City on a Hill for the last 244 years.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/k12_whats_our_stamp_act_when_will_it_be_enough.html 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The End of the Electoral College Would Lead to the Break Up of the United States



The Left’s unending drive for bigger government now includes, almost as a matter of faith, that the Electoral College must be abolished. The Washington Post most recently has pushed for that. If the Electoral College was abolished, however, it would mean the end of the United States.

The Left wants a national popular vote at all costs because they believe it will guarantee them consistent presidential victories. A careful student, however, understands why the Electoral College came into being and its importance.

At the time of our Founding, Virginia was by far the largest nation state among the Confederation of the former 13 colonies governed by the Articles of Confederation. The smaller states, such as Delaware and Rhode Island, well knew that any new compact that was based solely on the popular vote would mean that the large states would rule the nation.

Independent-minded Rhode Island was so unwilling to go along with the idea of a larger and more powerful federal government, let alone one dominated by the large states, that it refused to send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

In the end, Rhode Island was bullied into joining the United States with the new Constitution by threats of economic ramifications if it did not join the new union. Before it got to that point, the small states obtained concessions that they believed put them on more equal footing with the large states.

Those concessions included two U.S. Senators from each state and the Electoral College. The Senate was a buffer against the large state domination in the House of Representatives and equal representation for all states in the Senate was key. The Electoral College provided a similar brake on the excesses of democracy that even the Founders feared was occurring in the states.

Without those concessions, there would not have been United States in that space and time.

Keep in mind, the large states made the deal because they knew a united set of colonies would benefit them as well. First, it quelled the possibility of civil war. George Washington believed that if the Constitution was not accepted by the states, the next constitution would be “drawn in blood,” while Noah Webster and Alexander Hamilton warned of civil war.

Second, a united set of colonies would be safer against invasion and stronger in international affairs and that included international trade and trade between the colonies. In plain terms, the large states believed their possibilities of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” were greater under the Constitution, a Senate and the Electoral College. In other words, the large states had foresight.

Instead of civil war, the combination of the Constitution and President George Washington created a lasting nation. What followed was orderly growth, trade instead of trade wars, and unparalleled prosperity that no nation in history has even remotely rivaled.

Tested

Even so, we know our Union was more than tested. The South, so fearful of and opposed to control by the North on the issue of slavery and more, seceded from the Union. Their argument was that the Union was voluntary and that they had a right to secede over a dispute as to who should be able to decide policy for whom. We know the result of that conflict.

Today, we live in what I call The Divided Era. Yes, we are divided philosophically—but we have always been divided that way.

According to the legendary Chief Justice John Marshall in his five-volume work, “The Life of George Washington,” first published in 1804, “At length, two great parties were formed in every state, which were distinctly marked, and which pursued distinct objects, with systematic arrangement.”

Marshall describes them as follows:

“The one struggled with unabated zeal for the exact observance of public and private engagements. … The distresses of individuals were, they thought, to be alleviated only by industry and frugality, not by a relaxation of the laws, or by a sacrifice of the rights of others. … The other party marked out for themselves a more indulgent course. … Viewing with extreme tenderness the case of the debtor, their efforts were unceasingly directed to his relief. To exact a faithful compliance with contracts was, in their opinion, a harsh measure. … which the people would not bear.”

We are aligned that same way today with one significant difference.

Today, our differences are played out along the lines of our no longer limited governments which, all combined, are spending nearly the equivalent of 50 percent of our economy. At the time Marshall wrote of our earlier party differences, our governments spent just two to three percent of the economy.

It is one thing to theoretically disagree over policy or minimal spending. Today, a central reason we fight so much is because there is desperate desire to control $10 trillion in government spending, to get that spending and to tax someone for that spending. With every new dollar spent and taxed, our divisions grow.

Incredibly, the American Left wants to dramatically increase that spending. It wants the government to impose government healthcare and even reparations not mention to decide what energy is allowed to be used along with the extent of gun rights and so much more.

Unlike any time before, that fight over control of our governments is spilling into the streets—all across the nation. If the Electoral College was abolished tomorrow, those divisions would reach a breaking point.

Secession

Our red state/blue state divide is reaching proportions reminiscent of our pre-civil war era Mason-Dixon line. Without the Electoral College, the small red states, not to mention Texas and Florida, would have little interest in staying in a union perennially run by California, New York, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Cuomo.

Under the Left’s plans, as spending sky-rocketed, schools adopted San Francisco norms, gun rights eviscerated, and green new deals became the only deal because the leaders on the Left did not value small states and a unified country, we would find law-abiding red state citizens wanting to leave the union and letting the Left pay for their own failures.

Secession movements are real. They exist in democracies like in Venice, Italy, and Alberta, Canada against their governments. They exist against and among those in California and Oregon who want a separate State of Jefferson. Sentiments exist in Texas as well.

The more the Electoral College is threatened the more of that you will see in America. The question today and always is whether our leaders have more foresight than personal ambition and whether the large states understand it is not their role to rule.