Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Saturday, August 15, 2020

thumbnail

Obama Kneecaps Biden. Admits he's a Screwup

 


 
 
Was waiting for this.


"Despite the best-friend bond Joe Biden touts with former former President Obama, tensions have lingered between the two statesmen over their vastly different governing styles, according to a Politico report.

To start, a number of anonymously sourced quotes from Obama leaked out throughout the 2020 Biden campaign where the former president allegedly expressed doubts about his former running mates’ fitness for office.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f--k things up,” one Democrat who spoke to the former president recalled him saying.

When lamenting his own diminishing relationship with the current Democratic electorate, particularly in Iowa, Obama reportedly told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

Some Biden aides pointed out that, when Obama’s endorsement of Biden in 2020 finally did arrive, it didn’t have nearly the energy of his endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,” Obama said of Clinton in 2016 in an endorsement video. “I believe Joe has all of the qualities we need in a president right now … and I know he will surround himself with good people,” Obama said in Biden’s endorsement video.

And while some senior Democrats credited Biden’s ties to Obama for his strong relationship with Black voters, Biden has emphasized that he earned their votes all on his own. He told aides after his South Carolina primary win Obama hadn’t “lifted a finger” to help him."

Obama picked Biden to get the white vote in 2008, nothing more.  But it soon became clear that Biden was a fuck up who told so many falsehoods over the years, basically rending him incapable of truly running for President on his own.



Friday, August 14, 2020

thumbnail

Is Kamala Harris Eligible for Vice President?

 I know, been here with Barack Obama, for which the jury is still out.  But he's gone, now another questionable candidate.


"Put simply, Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States because she is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II (and, by reference, the 12th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president.

What follows is a historically detailed and constitutionally precise analysis of why the Framers of the U.S. Constitution raised the required citizenship bar for those elected president of the United States. I know it’s a bit lengthy, but stay with me. Preventing constitutionally unqualified candidates from usurping power is of critical concern to every American and every man and woman whose life and liberty could be taken by the person with his — or her — finger on the button.

The Constitution does not define natural born citizenship, neither have Supreme Court and Congress. The term "natural born citizen" comes from the English concept of "natural born subject," which came from Calvin's Case, a 1608 decision.

Natural born subjects were those who owed allegiance to the king at birth under the "law of nature." The court concluded that under natural law, certain people owed duties to the king, and were entitled to his protection, even in the absence of a law passed by Parliament."

The short is that this is a disputed opinion, and even though it appeared Trump gave credence to it (he didn't, just another media troll), Harris has enough baggage to get toasted as it is.



Monday, July 20, 2020

thumbnail

The New York Times Criminal Doxxing of Tucker Carlson and his Family






Fox News host Tucker Carlson used the closing segment of Monday night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to blast the New York Times for an upcoming article allegedly set to reveal his home address.

“Last week, The New York Times began working on a story about where my family and I live,” Carlson said. “As a matter of journalism, there is no conceivable justification for a story like that. The paper is not alleging we’ve done anything wrong and we haven’t. We pay our taxes. We like our neighbors. We’ve never had a dispute with anyone.”

Carlson speculated that the intent behind an article of that nature could only be “to hurt us, to injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them.”

“They believe in force,” he said. “We’ve learned that.”




This our course isn't journalism or anything close to it.  This is what is known as Doxxing.  It's a way that media types you to punish or coerce people into obedience to their power, prestiege, supposed importance, etc.

It is also criminal negligence, especially when evidence exists that shows such acts of doxing led to specific threats or actual threats of violence against the victim(s) of doxing.

Years ago I was doxed, I sued and I won, big.

Tucker should do the same, if not Fox News itself to put a stop to this.  In fact in law libel and slander laws should be expanded to include doxing, espeically when the action is mean lead to coersion or harm of the subjected named, outed.

Amendment laws, free speech laws do not apply.

Needs to stop, now.



Thursday, July 02, 2020

thumbnail

Black Lives Matter supporter who threaten to stab anyone who said "ALL LIVES MATTER", fired from new job



"The Harvard graduate who went viral for saying she'd 'stab' anyone who told her 'all lives matter' in a satirical TikTok video has revealed she’s been fired from her consulting job at Deloitte, but says she’ll continue to advocate for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Claira Janover, who graduated in May with a degree in government and psychology, tearfully revealed on TikTok that she lost her job at Deloitte, a renown UK-based accounting firm.

'Standing up for Black Lives Matter put me in a place online to be seen by millions of people,' she said wiping away tears in a new video shared Wednesday afternoon. 

'The job that I’d worked really hard to get and meant a lot to me has called me and fired me because of everything,' she added.  

According to her LinkedIn account she was an 'incoming government and public business service analyst'"


Well not anymore!

Over and over again we see people can get into real trouble posting on TikTok, unfiltered feeling and outright lunacy without gaining unwanted attention.

"Janover, who has 113,000 followers on TikTok, can be heard saying in the clip: 'The next person who has the sheer nerve, the sheer entitled caucasity to say 'all lives matter', imma stab you.

'Imma stab you and while you're struggling and bleeding out, imma show you my paper cut and say "my cut matters too."'

Havard grad huh?  They taught you how to verse your english language?

Indeed!



Wednesday, July 01, 2020

thumbnail

Michelle Malkin Investigates: Black Lives Matter


First of all, it's apparent that the radical group Black Lives Matter is anything but a group who's mission is to bring about change to what they feel is systemic racism by police against blacks. As it's become abundently clear they are anything but that. Through the words of their own founders and leaders it turns out that they have a marxist agenda, and model themselves after other radical domestic terrorists such as Black Panthers. Working especially with their sister organization, ANTIFA, the latter being the strong arm of a plan to completely take over America. Back in 2017 Michelle Malkin did an expose' on BLM which completely covered the movement as it existed at the time.



Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

thumbnail

Cindy Hyde-Smith wins Mississippi senate unoff

There was really no contest, although it was closer than it should have been.

President Trump late Tuesday congratulated incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith for handily defeating an insurgent challenge by Democrat Mike Espy in Mississippi's contentious special election runoff to become the first woman ever elected to Congress from the state.

Hyde-Smith, 59, is an ardent supporter of Trump who was appointed earlier this year by Mississippi's governor to fill retiring Sen. Thad Cochran's seat. She will finish out the remaining two years of Cochran's term in the deep-red state that went for Trump by nearly 20 percentage points in the 2016 presidential election.

"Congratulations to Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith on your big WIN in the great state of Mississippi. We are all very proud of you!” Trump tweeted.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Hyde-Smith had 446,927 votes to Espy's 374,880 -- a commanding margin of 54.4 percent to 45.6 percent, according to state election officials. The race marks the final midterm contest of 2018.

“I want everybody to know, no matter who you voted for today, I’m gonna always represent every Mississippian,” Hyde-Smith said at her victory party late Monday night. "Being on that MAGA-wagon, the Make American Great Again bus, we have bonded, we have persevered, we have gotten through things, we were successful today."

Hyde-Smith's win gives Republicans more leeway to ensure the confirmation of Trump's federal judicial and Cabinet nominees that require Senate approval and strengthens the party's chances of holding the majority in 2020.

"She has my prayers as she goes to Washington to unite a very divided Mississippi," Espy said in his concession speech.

This brings the Senate total for Republicans to 54, a critical number given the sometimes ify voting of Susan Collins, Lisa Ann Murkowski, making them less of a factor, that should mean clean saling for Trump judicial nominees and a possible Supreme Court pick if a retirement occurs.

Monday, November 26, 2018

thumbnail

Dershowitz: Mueller’s Trump Report Will Be ‘Devastating’ But Won’t Lead To Charges

A bit of overselling?

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday that he does not believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump will show any criminality.

Dershowitz told George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s “This Week,” that he does think Mueller’s impending report about Trump and Russia will be politically “devastating.” However, he guessed that there will not be anything in the report that will lead to charges against the president.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and we know the president’s team is already working on a response,” Dershowitz explained. “The critical questions are largely political — when I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating.”

“I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case because collusion is not criminal,” he asserted, adding that conspiracy is “too much of a stretch.”

First, Dershowitz really has no clue in the matter. He's lately made himself a regular on cable news as a reluctant defender of Trump in the Mueller farce, but he has no clue what the final report will be. In fact, no one will until the AG determines whether to release it.

Mueller is expected to wrap things up now that the midterms have concluded, and so far no proof of conclusion or interference in the 2016 election has occurred. Remember the primary reason this mess began is really just because people simply believed that something had to occur to allow Trump to beat Clinton in 2016. The decision to appoint a Special Council was based as we know now on false evidence and election meddling, most illegal activities of the FBI and IC (spying on Trump) during the campaign. Strong evidence that the Obama administration was behind most of it.

The "politically devastating" reference Dershowitz makes is likely to how the media and the newly minted Democrat congressional majority will attempt to use it to hound Donald Trump out of town(impeach?), or at least paralyze his remaining term and kill chances at a 2020 run.

While that may be true, I doubt it based on polls that the American public, except those with their minds made up (Democrats), will really buy it. Recent polls show Americans mostly believe the probe is politically motivated.

Friday, November 23, 2018

thumbnail

Media Prounouces Trump Re-election DOA (again)

Well you knew this was coming - right?

Donald Trump insists the GOP’s midterm election shellacking had nothing to do with him. Things will be different, he says, when his name is actually on the ballot in 2020.

While it’s true that most presidents who see their party suffer major losses in their first midterm election get reelected anyway, Trump isn’t most presidents — and there are lots of blaring-red warning lights in this month’s election results for his bid for a second term.

Unlike most of his predecessors, he’s been persistently unpopular, with approval ratings mired in the 40-percent range — so far, he’s the only president in the modern era whose job approval ratings have never been over 50 percent, according to Gallup.

Some of Democrats’ biggest gains came in the states that powered Trump’s Electoral College victory in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And while a president’s base has stayed home in previous midterm elections, leading to losses, the record turnout in this year’s races suggests 2018 was more like a 2016 re-run than Trump voters standing on the sidelines.

Thus far, even Trump loyalists in the party haven’t seen the president expand his electoral base beyond core Republicans.

Well I like when the media labels these groups, like, "core Republicans" and "beyond his base".


New Gringrich on Twitter gives us some stats.







Of course the first paragraph tells us that "most presidents" win reelection (except for Democrat Jimmy Carter), but that Trump is somehow "different". We've heard this since he announced his run in 2015. Remember this montage?



thumbnail

Should Trump Bust up Tech Monopolies?

The question, "Should a conservative even entertain the idea of being anti-business?"

Perhaps it depends, especially when it comes to the juggernaut that has become modern day technology companies. Glenn Reynolds writes.

I’ve just finished reading Columbia Law professor Tim Wu’s new book on antitrust, "The Curse of Bigness," and my biggest takeaway is that President Donald Trump has an opportunity to follow in former President Teddy Roosevelt’s footsteps.

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.

Roosevelt operated against a Gilded Age background in which a few companies had, by means both fair and foul, eliminated virtually all competition. This was bad for consumers, as it drove prices up. It was also, surprisingly, bad for shareholders: Wu notes that Standard Oil’s value actually increased post-breakup, as it went from inefficient monopoly to a collection of competitive companies. Most of all, it was bad for American society.

It's an interesting question, but then the size and spread of tech companies far outweigh that of Standard Oil of the time. Oil was used, but not did not infiltrate the lives of people that Amazon, Facebook, and other tech giants do now.

In any case does the Trump administration risk a potential hit to the economy? A look at the crashing of tech stocks in October of this year shows it's volatility. Technology is still a relatively young commodity. Twenty years ago, no one saw the beginning of Amazon - basically a computer driven mail-order company - would rise to the monster it is today, nor the rise of basically a college chat program grow into a system where billions of people connect to one another.

Yet it may force itself to be regulated and broken up especially taken the controversies it's become embroidered with, privacy and political advocacy.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

thumbnail

Don't Blame California Fires on Climate Change

As with any previous disaster, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires in the western US, such as the recent fires in California get the usual push from Climate Change enthusiast, clamoring for more awareness, and yes, change.

However is it the Climate, or simply the way it is in a dry climate that needs only a spark or strike of a match to get going. According to Chuck DeVore writing in the Federalist, it's more the latter.

Climate change is a danger to us all and President Trump must be stopped — that’s the chorus we always hear when new climate reports are released and destructive fires ravage California. But is it true?

On Oct. 31, six days before the midterm elections, the journal Nature published an article suggesting that the world’s oceans were absorbing much more heat from climate change than previously calculated. The research, by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and New Jersey’s Princeton University, was obligingly picked up by the national media with alarming headlines such as:

Study: Oceans warming faster than anticipated giving humanity even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change — San Diego Union-Tribune

Oceans warming faster than anticipated, giving even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change, study finds — Los Angeles Times

Startling new research finds a large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming — The Washington Post

Oceans Warming Much Faster Than Thought, Study Finds – The New York Times

Politicians and their campaigns quickly followed suit. California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, running for re-election against a fellow Democrat, tweeted this on Oct. 31: “New science shows the oceans are warming more than we thought. We may have to cut emissions 25% faster to avoid a disastrous 2°C of global warming. It’s time to stop pretending climate change isn’t a real threat—our future depends on it.”

As with many scientific studies in the climate science realm, this one had been weaponized in the service of politics. But the study was deeply flawed. On Election Day, after five days of extensive and frequently breathless media treatment of the ocean warming study, British mathematician Nicholas Lewis posted some doubts on Dr. Judith Curry’s blog:

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view.

… A quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Soon, the authors of the study admitted to fundamental errors in math that unraveled their frightening conclusions. Many of the stories in the mass media were corrected and, in some cases, editors felt the need to change their headlines. The New York Times now heads their shortened story from Oct. 31 with the pedestrian, “Scientists Find a New Way to Take the Oceans’ Temperature.”

His point is very valid. First, more and more of the wealthy are moving more and more into the "woods" and therefore more collateral damage happens. Secondly, President Trump was criticized for blaming much of the fires on lack of proper forest management.

President Trump’s critics are belittling him for not buying the lefty narrative that global warming is to blame for the California wildfires. Instead, Trump points to decades of mistakes by government agencies that caused the woodlands to become overly dense and blanketed with highly flammable dead wood and underbrush.

Turns out he’s exactly right.

Just ask California officials. Two months ago, the state legislature enacted a measure that would expedite the removal of dead trees and use “prescribed burns” to thin forests. In other words: the very same reforms that Trump is now being mocked for proposing. The September law followed a Gov. Jerry Brown executive order earlier this year that also called for “controlled fires” to improve forest health.

This scientific approach isn’t easily conveyed in Trump’s preferred mode of communication, the 280-character tweet. But University of California forest expert Yana Valachovic conceded in a Washington Post interview that Trump’s “general sentiment is correct — that we need to manage fuels.” That is, to get rid of dangerous buildups of dead and dying trees.

Read more.

thumbnail

Report: House GOP 'Working With Whistleblowers' In Clinton Foundation Probe

Trick to see is whether how long this will last with Democrats taking the House in January 2019.

Meadows - chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The Hill that it's time to "circle back" to former Utah Attorney General John Huber's probe with the Justice Department into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in improper activities, reports The Hill.

"Mr. [John] Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an investigation – at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation, so we’ve set a hearing date for December the 5th.," Meadows told Hill.TV on Wednesday.

According to a report by the Dallas Observer last November, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July, 2016.

Meadows says that it's time for Huber to update Congress concerning his findings, and "expects him to be one of the witnesses at the hearing," per The Hill. Additionally Meadows said that his committee is trying to secure testimonies from whistleblowers who can provide more information about potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

"We’re just now starting to work with a couple of whistleblowers that would indicate that there is a great probability, of significant improper activity that’s happening in and around the Clinton Foundation," he added.

The Clinton Foundation - also under FBI investigation out of the Arkansas field office, has denied any wrongdoing.



More at Zerohedge.

Powered by Blogger.

Followers

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Pages

Pages

Pages - Menu

Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio

About

Go here.