Not surprisingly, “Benedict Arnold” ‘Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Tuesday in a CNN interview that if former President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the NATO alliance would be significantly damaged. Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said NATO members would wonder whether they could continue to count on the United States.
“If he were to come back as the U.S. president, I think it would represent a pretty dramatic departure for the world, and they would rethink whether they can count on the United States to lead NATO to lead other nations as they push back against China and against Russia,” Romney said’https://www.aol.com/news/romney-nato-rethink-u-relationship-204421021.html
How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: When he open his mouth. That’s why you should vote Trump; because he isn’t a politician. However, Biden ‘Apparently awakening to the absurdity of his initial plan to forego campaigning in the days remaining before the election, Joe Biden summoned up the energy to make his way to Warm Springs, Georgia today, the home of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Little White House. In keeping with his gloomy portrait of a country ravaged by pandemic and hopelessly afflicted with institutional racism, in the course of his speech Biden inspiringly noted: “It was here on April 12, 1945 that President Roosevelt died.” That made it a perfect setting for a speech by an elderly, low-energy candidate that many assume will not live long into his presidential term if elected.
Biden tried to mix his doomsaying about the virus that is going to get all of us whose lives haven’t already been destroyed by The White Man with some positive notes: “It is hard when you drive in here,” he observed, “not to think of the circumstances President Roosevelt faithed [sic] and how he overcame so much for so many.” Biden played up the hopeful aspects of Roosevelt’s history in Warm Springs, asserting that it was “a good place to talk about hope and healing,” since it was to that “Franklin Roosevelt came to use the therapeutic waters to rebuild himself” after he contracted polio.
Yes, that’s all true. In an uncomfortable parallel with the Biden campaign, not only did FDR die in Warm Springs; he did so after deceiving the American people for many months about the seriousness of his condition. Despite Joe’s numerous verbal slip-ups and increasingly obvious signs of dementia, the Biden campaign continues to insist that their man is just fine, and in fact more vigorous and in the pink of health than the president who is traversing the country holding three rallies a day.
Yet Nancy Pelosi’s recent introduction of legislation that would make it easier for Congressional Democrats to implement the 25th Amendment (which discusses the removal of a president who is incapacitated and unable to perform his duties) was not, she said, directed at President Trump, but rather at his successors. It was easy to see who she had in mind: Speculation is rife that if Biden wins, he will quickly step aside or be pushed aside to make way for Kamala Harris, who is more palatable than old Joe to the party’s increasingly strong far-Left wing.
In that scenario, Hale and Hearty Joe is being sold to the American people in a classic bait-and-switch operation, reminiscent of the snow job the Democrats pulled off on the electorate back when FDR was running for his fourth term in 1944. Photographs of Roosevelt made it obvious that he was gravely ill: he had lost a considerable amount of weight and looked sallow and haggard. Yet as Republicans began to charge that Roosevelt was too ill to serve yet another four years as President, FDR’s physician, Admiral Ross McIntire, stepped up with an outright lie: “The President’s health is perfectly OK.”’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/10/biden-tries-to-project-energy-by-going-to-where-fdr-went-to-die?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_10_30_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-10-30
‘”No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.” —Samuel Adams (1775)’
‘If not for Iowa’s distinction as holder of the nation’s first primary on 3 February, the latest Demo debate in Des Moines wouldn’t matter much. Iowa’s 3.1 million residents put it 30th in population, and the Hawkeye State suffers from the undue influence of leftists from nearby Chicago, who treat the eastern part of the state like a dude-ranch suburb.
The Iowa primary is actually composed of secret closed caucuses promising a prize of 49 delegates, of which 41 are pledged, so all eyes are on Iowa until its caucuses conclude.
Last night was the seventh dull debate, but the first of the election year. It was hosted by the Democrat Party’s public-relations firm, CNN. Participants included frontrunners Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg, along with outliers Amy Klobuchar and billionaire leftist Tom Steyer.
That’s a large field of candidates given how close we are to voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it reflects both the lack of unity and strength within the Democrat Party. It’s now a uniformly white field of candidates after New Jersey Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker dropped out — except, of course, for “Honest Injun” Warren, who has been certified 1/1024th Cherokee or some other indigenous flavor.
Noticeably absent from the “oh so important” Iowa Demo debate was Michael Bloomberg, the mega-billionaire former nanny-state New York City mayor whose political platform is laughably focused on his abjectly hypocritical concern for “income inequality” and his dangerous gun-confiscation agenda.
In order to qualify for the debate, candidates had to first demonstrate broad-based funding support from 225,000 unique donors (at least 1,000 of whom had to be from each of 20 states). Second, they had to meet popular political polling thresholds.
Bloomberg made the polling thresholds (5th place at 5.8%), but he’s intentionally not soliciting individual donations. However, his ad buys now total more than $200 million, almost as much as the rest of the Democrat field’s combined $222 million — effectively doubling their collective strategy to defeat Donald Trump.
Fact is, Bloomberg had no intention of being on the debate stage with his fellow leftists, because that is not his objective.
The stage podium Bloomberg wants is the big one at the Demo convention in July, where he is betting that it will be tough for any of the candidates to win a majority of the party’s delegates. That will enable him to broker a path not for his own nomination but more likely for his preferred candidate. That brokering will take place behind the scenes.
And given Bloomberg’s $52 billion net worth, he will have an outsized influence on which candidate ultimately wins the nomination. After the convention he has vowed to spend hundreds of millions more on advertising to defeat Trump.
Sidebar: This is yet another example of why I believe a candidate should not be able to make limitless donations to their own campaign or on behalf of others (buy the office). They should be subject to the same limits imposed on every other American — $2,800 in a primary and general election.
Who, then, will win Bloomberg’s convention favor and affection?
Biden’s views align most closely to those of Bloomberg, and he is the “establishment candidate.” Thus, he is biding his time as the mainstream Demo favorite, pacing his campaign accordingly and benefiting from a mainstream media that seems shockingly disinterested in the fact that Biden is virtually non compos mentis.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls, and the 78-year-old Vermont socialist is leading in Iowa and California, while tied for the top post in Nevada and New Hampshire. Notably, he’s also surging in fundraising, having raised more than $34 million last quarter, compared to Buttigieg’s $25 million, Biden’s $23 million, and Warren’s $21 million. As I warned a year ago, “Take Sanders’s 2020 Campaign Seriously and Literally.”
Democrat Party poobahs are certainly taking him seriously, and they’re concerned about a repeat of 2016, when Hillary Clinton and the DNC conspired to sandbag Sanders in order to secure the nomination for her. The end result of their malfeasance was, of course, a shocking Electoral College victory for Donald Trump and the sudden onset of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The “Sanders Surge” is thus creating a lot of heartburn for the Demos, who know that his nomination could be “an epic nightmare for them.”
I believe Bloomberg is positioning himself as an insurance policy against Sanders’s nomination.
Warren is doing her best to move Sanders out of the way, and their dustup will benefit Biden.
Moreover, in the RealClearPolitics polling average (the poll to watch), Biden has a substantial national lead over Sanders (27% to 19%) and has marginal leads over Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
I profiled the threat he and his club of wealthy leftists pose to Liberty in a column two years ago: “The Archenemies of Liberty — Soros, Steyer, Bezos, and Bloomberg,” noting that this megalomaniac has “an insatiable narcissistic quest for power, including centralized government power.” Typical of rich leftists, he does not want to play by the rules, just dictate the rules for others.
Whomever Bloomberg and his sidekick Tom Steyer back at the convention, that nominee will be beholden to them and most certainly will comply with their wishes. We call this arrangement a “quid pro quo.”
And on that note, the Demos’ “urgent” articles of impeachment, which were held hostage by Nancy Pelosi for more than a month, are on the way over to the Senate this week.
Some are suggesting that Pelosi’s delay was intended to help Biden’s candidacy, because now Sanders and Warren will be distracted by their obligatory attendance at the Senate impeachment trial just ahead of the early primaries. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said: “This is the dirty little secret that nobody is talking about, why the speaker held these papers. … This benefits Joe Biden. This harms Sanders, who … will be stuck in a [Senate] chair” instead of out campaigning.
Shades of the 2016 Sanders sandbagging…
In response, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff declared, “Impeachment has nothing to do with politics or the presidential race.” Seriously, that is the best reply he could script. (Big Lie playbook rules: When trying to deflect from the truth, always leave the denial to a cutout at least two steps removed from the originator of the lie!)
Moving forward, Bloomberg will also be noticeably absent from the unending flood of upcoming Demo debates: 7 February in New Hampshire, 19 February in Nevada, and 25 February in South Carolina. Again, he’d rather buy ads than engage in debates.
Finally, while I’m neither a gambler nor a prognosticating political pretender, if I was, I would suggest you keep your eye on this potential combo ticket: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I know, crazy, right? I think Biden will be Bloomberg’s water boy, and he’ll have to go younger and non-white in order to abide by his party’s obsessions with race and identity. Booker would be another option, but I suspect Biden’s advisers will insist he go female, and Harris is that default.
Of course, in the unlikely event that Bernie survives the slings and arrows of the DNC, he could choose metrosexual Beto O’Rourke, who can pass as both female and Mexican.’ https://patriotpost.us/alexander/67925-bloombergs-brokered-demo-convention-gambit-2020-01-15
‘IF YOU thought it was cold at your place last night, spare a thought for the people of Goulburn.
The NSW Southern Tablelands city shivered through the night as temperatures plummeted as low as minus 10 degrees Celsius, with the apparent temperature scale hitting minus 13.1.
And it wasn’t the only place driven to cranking the fire and powering up the heaters.
Much of south eastern Australia was held in winter’s icy grip.
Bathurst froze with the temperature hitting -5.7 at 6am, in NSW’s Hunter Valley Scone hit -3.1 at 7am, on the Northern Tableland’s Glen Innes dropped to -4.8 at 5am, while in the south Bega hit -2.8 at 6am.
In Sydney it was north-western suburb Richmond that hit the lowest temperature of -0.8 at 6:30am.
In the Illawarra Moss Vale dropped to -4.9 at 7:30am, while in the Snowy Mountains it was certainly frosty with Bombala hitting minus 5.7 at 7am, in the Central West Cowra dropped to -4.9.
Heading south and Hay hit -6.3 at 7:30am, Braidwood shivered at -7.2 at 7am, and Canberra dropped to -8 at 6:30am.
In Victoria it was a similar story with Swan Hill dropped to minus four at 7am, Horsham hit -1.2 at 8am, Avalon dropped to -3.6 at 6:30am, while Bendigo dropped to -1.2.’ http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/4764873/winter-freeze-hits-south-eastern-australia/?cs=2452
‘”We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” he told BBC News.
“Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it’s one we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.”‘ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726
The sad part is that even those who are freezing through another typical Australian winter believe Hawking and the other climate change global warming dots!
John Bolton has written that ‘The headlines out of Syria are eye-catching: There are signs the Assad government may be planning another chemical attack. American pilots have struck forces threatening our allies and shot down a Syrian plane and Iranian-made drones. The probability of direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia has risen. Yet the coverage of these incidents and the tactical responses that have been suggested obscure the broader story: The slow-moving campaign against Islamic State is finally nearing its conclusion — yet major, long-range strategic issues remain unresolved.
The real issue isn’t tactical. It is instead the lack of American strategic thinking about the Middle East after Islamic State. Its defeat will leave a regional political vacuum that must be filled somehow. Instead of reflexively repeating President Obama’s errors, the Trump administration should undertake an “agonizing reappraisal,” in the style of John Foster Dulles, to avoid squandering the victory on the ground.
First, the U.S. ought to abandon or substantially reduce its military support for Iraq’s current government. Despite retaining a tripartite veneer of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, the capital is dominated by Shiites loyal to Iran. Today Iraq resembles Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, as the Soviet anaconda tightened its hold. Extending Baghdad’s political and military control into areas retaken from ISIS simply advances Tehran’s power. This cannot be in America’s interest.
Iraq’s Kurds have de facto independence and are on the verge of declaring it de jure. They fight ISIS to facilitate the creation of a greater Kurdistan. Nonetheless, the Kurds, especially in Syria and Turkey, are hardly monolithic. Not all see the U.S. favorably. In Syria, Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are linked to the Marxist PKK in Turkey. They pose a real threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity, even if it may seem less troubling now that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans have turned so profoundly contrary to the secular, Western-oriented vision of Kemal Atatürk.
Second, the U.S. should press Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf monarchies for more troops and material assistance in fighting ISIS. America has carried too much of the burden for too long in trying to forge Syria’s opposition into an effective force. Yet even today the opposition could charitably be called “diverse.” It includes undeniably terrorist elements that are often hard to distinguish from the “moderates” the U.S. supports. Getting fresh contributions from Arab allies would rebalance the opposition, which is especially critical if the U.S. turns away, as it should, from reliance on the Iraqi forces dominated by Tehran.
Third, the Trump administration must take a clear-eyed view of Russia’s intervention. The Syrian mixing bowl is where confrontation between American and Russian forces looms. Why is Russia active in this conflict? Because it is aiding its allies: Syria’s President Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs. Undeniably, Russia is on the wrong side. But Mr. Obama, blind to reality, believed Washington and Moscow shared a common interest in easing the Assad regime out of power. The Trump administration’s new thinking should be oriented toward a clear objective: pushing back these Iranian and Russian gains.
Start with Iran. Tehran is trying to cement an arc of control from its own territory, through Baghdad-controlled Iraq and Mr. Assad’s Syria, to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon. This would set the stage for the region’s next potential conflict: Iran’s Shiite coalition versus a Saudi-led Sunni alliance.
The U.S.-led coalition, enhanced as suggested above, needs to thwart Iran’s ambitions as ISIS falls. Securing increased forces and financial backing from the regional Arab governments is essential. Their stakes are as high as ours — despite the contretemps between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and others) — but their participation has lagged. The U.S. has mistakenly filled the gap with Iraqi government forces and Shiite militias.
Washington is kidding itself to think Sunnis will meekly accept rule by Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government or Syria’s Alawite regime. Simply restoring today’s governments in Baghdad and Damascus to their post-World War I boundaries would guarantee renewed support for terrorism and future conflict. I have previously suggested creating a new, secular, demographically Sunni state from territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria. There may well be other solutions, but pining for borders demarcated by Europeans nearly a century ago is not one of them.
At the same time, the U.S. must begin rolling back Russia’s renewed presence and influence in the Middle East. Russia has a new air base at Latakia, Syria, is involved in combat operations, and issues diktats about where American warplanes in the region may fly. For all the allegations about Donald Trump and Russia, the president truly in thrall to Moscow seems to have been Mr. Obama.
Russia’s interference, particularly its axis with Mr. Assad and Tehran’s mullahs, critically threatens the interests of the U.S., Israel and our Arab friends. Mr. Assad almost certainly would have fallen by now without Russia’s (and Iran’s) assistance. Further, Moscow’s support for Tehran shatters any claim of its truly being a partner in fighting radical Islamic terrorism, which got its modern start in Iran’s 1979 revolution. Both Iran and the Assad regime remain terror-sponsoring states, only now they are committing their violence under Russia’s protective umbrella. There is no reason for the U.S. to pursue a strategy that enhances Russia’s influence or that of its surrogates.
As incidents in Syria and Iraq increasingly put American forces at risk, Washington should not get lost in deconfliction negotiations or modest changes in rules of engagement. Instead, the Trump administration should recraft the U.S.-led coalition to ensure that America’s interests, rather than Russia’s or Iran’s, predominate once ISIS is defeated.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10601/post-isis-strategy
The following is a portion of a speech by Michael Goodwin ‘…delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.’
‘I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
A New Dimension
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.’ https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?appeal_code=MK617EM2&utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2016_election_demise_journalistic_standards&utm_campaign=imprimis&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xC9qvSWV5-xz889Lo2pUynHpbDIeJNdI0N-j9LKB2mTI5Caki20vGUTsvAzQhXcBZKR0gt3XOpDvyC_vrvbTlKbiHlw&_hsmi=53242815