TOP 5 issues that have gotten WORSE since the last State of the Union

From Glenn Beck.com (March 13):

If you saw Biden's State of the Union last week, or Glenn's firey reaction to it, you know that Biden hardly spoke a word that wasn't a flat-out lie.

If you spent the last 12 months in a fallout shelter and Biden's speech was the only media interaction you had since the last State of the Union, you might be tempted to believe that the country has improved in some way over the past year. But the rest of us, who have been living above ground, going to the grocery store, and paying some attention to current events, had only to look around to see that Biden's speech was nothing but hot air.

Here are the TOP 5 issues that have gotten worse since the last State of the Union.

Economy

Biden spent a significant amount of time during the State of the Union boasting about the strength of his economy, but anyone who has checked their bank account lately was left wondering if he was holding his speech upside down. It's not just the cobwebs in your wallet; the numbers show the devastation wrought by "Bidenomics" too. In 2022, American grocery bills increased by 11.4 percent and restaurant bills by 7.7 percent. In 2023 prices only continued to rise, with an additional 1.2 percent increase in food-at-home prices and a 5.1 percent increase in away-from-home prices.

Debt crisis and inflation

The national debt continues to grow, and Biden managed to add almost 3 trillion dollars in just one year. As of December 2022, the national debt was $31.42 trillion. As of January 2024, the national debt has risen to $34.19 trillion.

Inflation didn't fare much better. While the 2023 annual inflation rate did drop from the horror of 2022, from 6.5 to 3.4 percent, that is still significantly higher than anything we saw before 2021. You also have to remember that it CARRIES year to year, as Glenn explained in his response to Biden's State of the Union: "Yes, it's not as bad as it was, but it's still what it was PLUS what it is now."

Border

Biden's mismanagement of the southern border has inflamed the border crisis to all-time highs. In 2022 there were a staggering 2.2 million illegal border crossings, but that wasn't enough for Biden apparently, as an additional 2.5 million illegally crossed in 2023. An estimated 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the southern border since Biden took office, and the effects are being felt. There has been a surge in crime across the country that is impacting millions of Americans, including the tragic murder of Laken Riley.

Fentanyl

The fentanyl crisis has only continued to worsen as more and more synthetic opioids flood our streets. Between the fiscal year 2021 and 2022, there was a shocking 54 percent increase in fentanyl trafficking offenses as more and more of the narcotic is smuggled across the southern border. We also saw an increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. In 2022 there were approximately 73,654 deaths, which is a significant increase from 70,601 in 2021.

Education and mental health

While the pandemic is long over, the lingering effects of the lockdowns are still being felt. Unsurprisingly, missing years of school has a major impact on the educational development of children. Kids across America are STILL struggling from pandemic-related setbacks, reading scores are still falling, and parents are reporting that their kids are struggling in their studies. The mental health crisis, another symptom of the COVID lockdowns, has also continued to worsen. Tragically, suicides increased by 2.6 percent between 2021 and 2022, marking the continued decline of mental health in America. [source]

His state of the union wasn't 'fiery', as the lame mainstream press claims, unless they are saying his pants were on fire. Just because you yell when you do a speech doesn't mean you care and are passionate. It just means you sound angry.

Can You Laugh at Your Enemies and Love Them? Rules for Christian Mockery

From Breakpoint.org (Oct. 19, 2022):

Few websites have the spite, sarcasm, and general nastiness of Twitter. The platform is virtually designed to reward quick, cutting comebacks instead of substance, and “quick and cutting” can often become cruel. Sadly, Christians are often among those engaging in bad-faith speech on Twitter, including against one another.

Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Lying about, belittling, abusing, or otherwise failing to treat people as fully human and made in God’s image is sin. If they’re Christian brothers or sisters, it’s worse. The Bible offers no exceptions for Twitter.

Some argue that, on certain occasions, mockery, if done right, is acceptable. In a time as morally and culturally insane as ours, it could even be useful for discrediting wicked and foolish people in powerful places. Consider the Christian satire site The Babylon Bee. While they don’t always hit the mark, many of The Bee’s headlines, articles, and illustrations are genuinely clever, refusing to take seriously things that truly are absurd. That’s helpful. Not to mention, at times they keep us from taking ourselves too seriously.

Also, a few essays in publications like First Things have reexamined the notion of “winsomeness” for Christians, arguing that a culture as hostile as ours sometimes requires a more confrontational approach. Films like Matt Walsh’s recent What Is a Woman? illustrate this approach. While not overtly Christian, the documentary overall depends on restrained mockery to make its point about how irrational transgender ideology is.* The views of some of the “experts” Walsh interviews truly are ridiculous, not to mention disturbing and dangerous. When he explains to several Maasai tribesmen in Africa how much time is spent in America talking about men becoming women and vice versa, their chuckles say a lot.

On one hand, the Bible tells us to love our enemies, that a gentle answer “turns away wrath,” and to season our speech with grace. It also contains examples of God’s people being anything but gentle and gracious with opponents, such as Elijah on Mount Carmel mocking the prophets of Baal and their god, Jesus calling the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” and the Apostle Paul telling the Galatian Judaizers they should emasculate themselves! While there is a difference between the Bible describing behavior and endorsing it, if our goal is to be Christlike, then what Christ and His closest followers did and said is relevant. 

A couple of months ago, my colleague Shane Morris had a fascinating discussion on the Colson Center’s Upstream podcast with Brendan Case of Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program. Case wrote a thought-provoking essay at Church Life Journal about Christian mockery, using the writings of 17th-century mathematician and Christian apologist, Blaise Pascal.

In his 11th Provincial Letter, Pascal included a surprisingly thoughtful defense of Christian mockery. He believed that poking fun at opponents could sometimes be godly and even loving, and he gave six criteria for when and how Christians can do it.

First, argued Pascal, Christians must speak only the truth. We must never lie about our opponents for rhetorical effect or paint them as worse than they are. Second, we should avoid getting personal. We should ridicule ideas, not people. Third, we should only mock what is evil, never what is virtuous. Fourth, we should always desire the good and ultimately the salvation of those whose behavior and ideas we mock. This, after all, is the definition of loving your enemies.

The last two principles, which Pascal only implies, may be the most important. First, we should punch up, never down. Mockery is a tool to expose evil and folly in powerful places, not for grinding down the weak. And, mockery is a last resort, for use on the unreasonable after appeals to reason have failed.

As Case admitted, “Pascalian mockery” is limited, and is “ripe for abuse by those who have not cultivated a spirit of charity.” Ultimately, no list of rules will keep those with untamed tongues (or keyboards) from doing great damage. But as platforms like Twitter facilitate nastier and hotter debates than ever, Christians who take part would do well to examine our principles and consider how it’s possible to laugh at our enemies and love them.

*Correction: An earlier version of this sentence did not include the word “overall.” It was noted that a brief embedded video in the documentary did include name calling. [source]

Tim Walz’s Brother: He’s ‘Not the Type of Character You Want Making Decisions About Your Future’

From Breitbart.com (Aug. 30):

In a Facebook post from March 2023, Jeff Walz, one of the Minnesota governor’s siblings, responded to comments from people telling him to talk to his brother and to “help MAGA.”

“We’ve just become a third-world banana republic,” Jeff Walz wrote in his post at the time.

One of the commenters on the post told Jeff Walz to “have a talk” with his brother.

“Haven’t spoke to him in 8 years,” Jeff Walz claimed in a comment. “I’m opposed to all his ideology. My family wasn’t given any notice [that] he was selected and denied security the days after.”

In another comment, a person told him to “Help MAGA” and “Get on stage with President Trump and endorse him.”

“Help save this country,” the person added.

“I’ve thought hard about doing something like that,” Jeff Walz responded. “I’m torn between that and just keeping my family out of it. The stories I could tell. Not the type of character you want making decisions about your future.”

Walz, who was named Harris’s running mate at the beginning of August, has faced criticism and accusations of stolen valor after he previously listed in his official biography that he retired at a rank higher than the one he had actually retired at.

As Breitbart News reported, Walz retired from the Minnesota Army National Guard at the rank of sergeant, or an E-8, though his biography had previously implied he had retired as a command sergeant major, or an E-9:

Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard and retired at the rank of master sergeant, or an E-8. However, on his official website bio, he lists a higher rank that he served at for a short period that ultimately was rescinded, as he did not complete all the requirements to serve at that rank. However, his bio implies that he retired at the rank of command sergeant major, or an E-9.

The reference to Walz being a “retired command sergeant major” was later removed from Walz’s biography by the Harris campaign, and it was updated to note that Walz had once reached the rank of command sergeant major.

Walz has also faced criticism after he claimed in a 2018 video posted by the Harris-Walz campaign that he had carried weapons in war:

I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.

Walz has also faced criticism when it was revealed he broke a pledge to deploy to Iraq with his U.S. Army National Guard Unit.

An archived press release from then-congressional candidate Walz’s campaign revealed he was aware the “National Guard Public Affairs Office” had announced there would be a “possible mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard.”

Walz went on to retire from the military while his unit deployed to Iraq.

Retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends, who replaced Walz after he retired from the Minnesota National Guard, described Walz as a “traitor” and “military imposter.”

Walz’s former battalion commander has also criticized the Minnesota governor, stating that he did not “successfully complete any assignment” at the rank of Command Sergeant Major or “earn the rank.”

The Minnesota governor is described as being one of four siblings. His siblings are Sandy Dietrich, Jeff Walz, and Craig Walz, according to Today.

Dietrich reportedly lives in Nebraska, while Jeff Walz is reported as living in Florida, according to the outlet.

Craig Walz, a former high school teacher, reportedly died in June 2016 while camping at Duncan Lake, according to KARE 11 News. [source]

Damn!  That's pretty bad.

25 Lies Kamala Harris Told In Her Debate Against Trump

From The Federalist.com (Sept. 11):

Taking a page out of her boss’s playbook, Vice President Kamala Harris told major whoppers during her Tuesday night debate against Donald Trump. With help from left-wing activists masquerading as debate moderators, Harris whitewashed her extreme record, lied about Trump’s policy positions, and more.

Here are some of the biggest falsehoods she told throughout the evening.

1. ‘Middle-Class Kid’

Harris claimed that she grew up a “middle-class kid.” That is not true. As previously noted by journalist Megyn Kelly, Harris’ father was a professor at Stanford University, while her mother was a biomedical scientist at UC Berkley.

2. Trump’s Tax Cuts

Harris falsely insinuated that the 2017 tax cuts approved by the Trump administration disproportionately benefited America’s billionaires and corporations.

That is not true. Data produced by the IRS has shown that “on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent,” according to Justin Haskins, writing in The Hill.

3. Trump ‘Sales Tax’

Harris claimed Trump will implement a “sales tax.” Trump has not pledged to do such a thing if elected president.

4. Jan. 6

Harris contended that the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was the “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”

Contrary to Harris’ claim, the J6 events did not put American self-governance in jeopardy, nor did it expose Americans to risks like those experienced during World War I, the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, or World War II, to name a few.

5. Project 2025

Harris claimed Trump will implement Project 2025 if elected. Trump has repeatedly said he has nothing to do with Project 2025.

6. Just Restoring Roe

When asked whether she supports any restrictions on abortion, Harris dodged the question, instead claiming that she “absolutely support[s] reinstating the protections of Roe v Wade.”

Moments before that, however, Harris pledged to sign legislation such as the ill-named “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which would codify abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. In addition to her history of co-sponsoring the original version of that legislation, Harris also voted against protections for babies born alive after botched abortions.

7. Pro-Life Laws Criminalize Miscarriages, Ectopic Pregnancies

Harris claimed that several states have “Trump abortion bans” that “make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care,” threaten women with prison time, and “make no exception, even for rape or incest.”

The lifesaving laws designed to protect thousands of innocents every year from elective abortions, however, do not criminalize treatments for spontaneous loss or complications. In fact, every single pro-life policy on the books includes exceptions for abortion when it is deemed necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

8. Trump’s Abortion Stance

Trump, Harris told Americans on Tuesday night, will sign a national abortion ban and hire a national “abortion … monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages” if he is elected.

The Republican’s 2024 abortion platform, however, explicitly states decisions about ending life in the womb should be left “up to the states” and mentions nothing about crowning a national pro-life coordinator. The GOP presidential nominee has also sworn multiple times that he would not sign federal legislation curbing abortion.

9. Ninth Month Abortions Don’t Exist

Harris also used her time on the debate stage to assert that “nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion.”

“That is not happening. It’s insulting to the women of America,” Harris claimed.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, shows that thousands of abortions are performed after 21 weeks gestation. The CDC’s findings do not include reporting from at least four abortion-friendly states (California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey), which suggests the number of late-term abortions in the U.S. is likely much higher.

10. Border Bill

Harris claimed a congressional border bill proposed earlier this year would have stemmed illegal immigration and fentanyl at the U.S. southern border.

That statement is categorically false. The bipartisan measure would have enshrined the existing invasion into federal law. [read more]

The debate was basically a wash. Trump should have gone on the offensive more like he did in his closing statement. He also started out strong too.

The so-called moderators "fact-checked" Trump but never Comrade Kamala. Also, Harris dodged the question a lot more than Trump. Again, the moderators let Harris get away with dodging the questions. Trump's microphone was lower than Kamala's, etc.

Oct. 1 is the VP debate. That should be good. JD Vance should wipe the floor with Tampon Tim.

Other reactions to the debate:

• Trump vs. Harris Debate Reaction
• Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly
• 4 Takeaways From the Trump–Harris Presidential Debate
• Megyn Kelly: 'Disgusted,' 'Ashamed' of ABC's Muir, Davis
• Megyn Kelly EVISCERATES ABC Debate moderators for Kamala bias [video]
• A Forgettable Warped Debate
• An Anatomy of the Post-Debate Detritus
  
• Trump Says He Will Not Participate in Another Debate With Harris

Trump vows to release Epstein client list along with other docs long hidden from the public

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 4):

President Donald Trump has vowed to release damning documents if re-elected, which might complicate life for a lot of powerful people and institutions.

The titular host of the "Lex Fridman Podcast" asked Trump in an episode published Wednesday whether he would seek the release of additional documents pertaining to the associates of the late, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump said he would have "no problem" doing so.

"There's a moment where you had some hesitation about Epstein — releasing some of the documents on Epstein. Why the hesitation?"

The Republican did not appear to accept the premise, stating, "I don't think I had — I'm not involved. I never went to his island, fortunately. But a lot of people did."

Trump explained why various powerful people allowed Epstein to get close: "He was a good salesman. He was, you know, a hale and hearty type of guy. He had some nice assets that he'd throw around like islands."

"A lot of big people went to that island," continued Trump. "But fortunately, I was not one of them."

Trump initially suggested that the list of clients who went to Epstein's island, Little Saint James, would "probably" be released.

Late last year, Manhattan federal Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the release of over 150 names of people referenced in Epstein lawsuit documents. The documents subsequently made public the names of some of the pedophile's friends, associates, and alleged victims.

Flight logs for the pedophile's private jet, the so-called "Lolita Express," publicly available since December 2021, also identified a number of individuals who were in Epstein's orbit.

Fridman appeared particularly interested, however, in the names of those affluent individuals who visited the pedophile's island, Little Saint James.

"It's just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public," said the podcaster.

"Yeah, it's very interesting, isn't it? Probably will be," said Trump. "I'd certainly take a look at it."

Trump added, "Yeah, I'd be inclined to do the Epstein — I'd have no problem with it." [read more]

Good! Crooked Joe won't release the list. Probably Comrade Kamala won't either. I wonder what Congress thinks about releasing the client list. They should take a vote about releasing it.  Anyone who votes against releasing it or abstains should be voted out of office.

The Kennedy assassination report should be released too. Something is up with the CIA not releasing it. 

Trump Outlines '9 Steps' He'll Use to 'Drain the Swamp'

From Newsmax.com (Sept. 7):

Former President Donald Trump, speaking at a rally at the Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, Wisconsin, railed against Vice President Kamala Harris while outlining his "nine steps" to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C.

"Our country is a failing nation right now," Trump told supporters. "It's a laughingstock all over the world. Over the past four years, our country has seen the sickness and corruption of the Washington swamp exposed like never before."

First, Trump said he will end what he calls the weaponization of government and the abuse of law enforcement against political opponents.

"Under comrade Kamala [Harris], Christians and pro-life activists are rotting in prison for the crime of praying in public," Trump said during his rally, which aired live on Newsmax and simulcast on the Newsmax2 online streaming platform. "We will completely overhaul Kamala's corrupt Department of Injustice and turn the DOJ back into the best law enforcement agency on the planet."

He added that under his presidency, the Department of Justice will focus on "taking down bloodthirsty cartels, transnational gangs, and radical Islamic terrorists" rather than focusing on persecuting Republicans such as himself.

Second, Trump said that he will bring back free speech in America.

"Fake news is a threat to this country," Trump said. "Some are good, but most of them are absolutely terrible human beings. They are the police force for bad. They are very dishonest. When you're a politician and happen to be a Republican, they write just the opposite of what the facts are."

He added that as president, he will "sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech — and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime."

The third step will to "expel the warmongers" and to "carry out a much-needed cleanup of the military-industrial complex," said Trump.

"We have these people who want to go to war all the time," said Trump. "You know why? Missiles are $2 million apiece ... I had no wars. Remember crooked Hillary [Clinton] used to say, 'Look at him; he's going to cause wars.' No, my personality stopped wars."

The fourth step, he said, will be to curtail the power of federal bureaucrats.

He added that at the suggestion of tech billionaire Elon Musk, he will create a Government Efficiency Commission to conduct a financial and performance audit of the full federal government.

Trump promised as his fifth step, his administration will "drain the government education swamp and stop the abuse of your taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America's youth."

This includes eliminating the federal Department of Education and sending control of schools back to the states.

For the sixth step, Trump said his administration will not tolerate equity policies "that punish Americans based on race or gender."

"America will return to the merit principle, which has just been approved by the Supreme Court. And hard work will get you there."

As the seventh step, Trump said his administration will work with former independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take on corruption at the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, "and other institutions that are dominated by corporate power and China."

"We will establish a panel of top experts to investigate what is causing the decades long increase in chronic health problems and childhood diseases, including auto-immune disorders, autism, obesity, infertility, and more," he added.

The eighth step will be to ask Congress to pass sweeping reforms preventing foreign influence-peddling "like we have seen with the Biden crime family."

And as the ninth and final step, Trump said he will support modifying the 25th Amendment "to make clear that if a vice president lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president of the United States, it is grounds for impeachment and removal from office," said Trump.

He said that would be because of what happened this past summer with Biden dropping out of the race after questions arose about his capabilities following the first presidential debate of the season.

"If he didn't go to that debate, he'd still be running," said Trump. [source]

Nice plan! Drain away! I wonder how much of it Comrade Kamala will steal from Trump. I'm guessing not much. The far-Left likes big government and the swamp.

The Metaverse Is Not Morally Neutral Technology

From Thomas Holman on The Public Discourse.com (Oct. 10, 2022):

French philosopher Gabriel Marcel’s writings on “intersubjectivity” help us see why the metaverse impedes our ability to grasp reality’s most important truths. When every aspect of how I present myself to others is a choice, all my relations become objects of manipulation. Without the authentic connections of involved, concrete, and personal relationships, I become irretrievably disconnected from reality.

In a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal, former Amazon executive and metaverse promoter Matthew Ball claims that the advent of the metaverse should not be alarming, because “as with almost all technologies, it is neither moral nor immoral.” According to Mr. Ball, once this augmented version of the internet becomes widely available, “customers can choose to accept or reject” this new technology, becoming “co-authors” in the history of the future. Once again, a powerful corporate voice is reassuring us that we will remain in control while using their technology. Can we take Mr. Ball at his word? Is the metaverse really a morally neutral innovation?

But before we analyze whether the metaverse has ethical significance, we need to clarify what the metaverse is and how it differs from other online interactions. According to Forbes magazine, the metaverse is a “combination of the virtual reality and mixed reality worlds accessed through a browser or headset, which allows people to have real time interactions and experiences across distance.” In essence, it is an online environment augmented and made more immersive with virtual reality technologies. You might think of it as a combination of your social media platform and a video game. Your social network becomes like an online meeting or party where your “avatar” (a three-dimensional image that you choose for yourself) interacts with other avatars in a curated digital environment.

Thankfully, philosophy provides us with a host of conceptual tools to analyze this kind of technology. One thinker who can help us understand the meaning of a technology like the metaverse is the twentieth-century French philosopher Gabriel Marcel.

Intersubjective Reality

Marcel’s philosophical approach is difficult to pin down. Known as a “Catholic existentialist,” he stands astride several intellectual currents that emerged in the first half of the twentieth century. For our purposes, a key theme of his thought is his attempt to ground his metaphysical outlook in the intersubjective (that is, in the relations between persons). For Marcel, I can only know reality insofar as I get outside myself and engage with you. René Descartes’s vaunted “I think, therefore I am” is a philosophical trap for Marcel: by using the subjective thought as a conceptual starting point for knowledge of reality, I put myself at risk of being cut off from reality. I may get stuck in an ego trap, and no further philosophizing can provide an escape.

If we grant Marcel this intersubjective basis of reality, new technologies like the metaverse present certain difficulties. If reality in some sense is an unfolding between persons, the structure of an augmented reality platform must have some very fundamental philosophical implications. The key question becomes: what is the nature of our relationship when we encounter each other in the metaverse? Before we pose this question, however, we must first examine the inner workings of Marcel’s intersubjective paradigm.

To illustrate what he means by an intersubjective constitution of reality, Marcel invokes a classic play by Pierre Corneille in which the main character (who happens to be Caesar Augustus) grapples with a recently unveiled assassination plot. At first glance, the necessary reaction for a Roman emperor is obvious: kill everyone involved. But upon deeper reflection, Corneille’s Augustus realizes that he cannot, in good conscience, simply kill those who plotted against him, for he has been involved in many such plots himself. And who can count the number of soldiers who have died trying to achieve his goal of becoming emperor and expanding the empire? Indeed, his career has been nothing if not a bloodbath.

Through this “second reflection,” Augustus is able to step outside himself, to see things as others might, to engage with their point of view, and to understand them in a deeper sense than he might have otherwise. Augustus is changed as he becomes involved with the mysterious depth of these thinking, willing, acting persons. Rather than have the knee-jerk reaction that one expects of a Roman emperor who has just been threatened with murder, Corneille’s Augustus exemplifies what Marcel calls “creative fidelity.” That is, by exercising his freedom to get outside himself and engage with other persons, he puts himself in touch with that unimaginably vast potential that constitutes his personhood in the highest sense.

High political drama aside, Marcel’s teaching is clear. To connect myself most fully to reality, I must be involved and engaged with other persons. This requires that I open myself to the possibility that who I am and who you are become fundamentally changed by our interaction. Through the (often unpleasant) give-and-take of living our lives with others, we become more fully ourselves, even if things don’t unfold exactly as we might want.

This fascination with the philosophical significance of the intersubjective has deep roots in Marcel’s biography. His visceral distaste for the eminently abstract philosophy that was so common in the early twentieth century arose out of his experience in the First World War. As a worker for the Red Cross, his primary duties included investigating the whereabouts of soldiers who had gone missing in battle. Every single request that came across his desk was a “heart-rending personal appeal.” In most cases, he ended up reporting deaths to the families who had come to him hoping against hope for the safe return of their sons. Each case on which he worked became real in a way that casualty statistics or philosophical appeals about the justice of the cause could never capture. He became involved with each and every case; every distraught family member meant something that could never be analyzed in the abstract.

At this point, one might be asking: doesn’t Marcel’s philosophy actually support the goals of those who promote the metaverse? If being is founded on my connections with other people, doesn’t Meta’s goal of “bringing people closer together” actually help strengthen one’s grasp on reality? Wouldn’t more quality personal interactions online actually enhance reality? In other words, what is it about the metaverse that distorts reality? [read more]

A new mapping algorithm aims to steer drivers towards the safest route

From Popsci.com (July 27, 2023):

Traffic mapping apps allow you to choose the fastest route, avoid highways or tolls, and even determine the most eco-friendly paths.  But the newest choice could provide commuters a completely different peace of mind: the safest drive possible.

According to their paper published in Analytic Methods in Accident Research, a team at the University of British Columbia has designed an algorithm capable of analyzing real-time traffic data to determine which routes offer the least risk of accidents and road hazards. To test their system, researchers deployed 10 drones over downtown Athens, Greece to monitor the area’s vehicle speeds, acceleration rates, and positions. That data, which included “near-miss” assessments, was then fed into their newly crafted algorithm to assess the safety of various routes and options.

“This research is the first to use real-time crash risk data to provide navigation directions and give you the safest possible driving route through a city,” said Tarek Sayed, a civil engineering professor at UBC said in a statement. “The algorithm is capable of adjusting directions in real-time, suggesting detours to avoid hazardous locations. This helps enhance road safety for all users. For instance, companies will be able to route their fleet efficiently, prioritizing safety and reducing crash risk.”

Interestingly, the researchers also discovered that a map’s fastest routes frequently did not overlap with its safest directions. In one section of the Athens roadways, for example, just 23 percent of its fastest routes were also considered its safest. On average, the area’s safest options used a little over half of the same roads determined for the quickest routes.

“There was a clear trade-off between safety and mobility,” explained Tarek Ghoul, a PhD student involved in the study. According to Ghoul, their algorithm’s safest routes were on average 22 percent less hazardous than its fastest route alternative, “suggest[ing] that there are considerable gains in safety on the safest routes with just a small increase in travel time.” Additionally, “intermediate routes” that balance both safety and drive times could offer pathways whose benefits “by far outweigh” any minor increased roadtimes.

Such safety-focused algorithms aren’t only limited to vehicles, say Sayed and Ghoul. In the future, the same systems could also be applied for cyclists who often face less-than-hospitable road conditions. The team hopes such real-time information could soon be implemented into popular map apps to provide travelers with safer routes—be it by car, bike, or simply on foot. [source]

Interesting. Yea, a driver has to find a balance between the safest and fastest route.

Maine Residents’ Data Stolen In Large-Scale Cybersecurity Attack

From OANN.com (Nov. 10, 2023):

Nearly the entire population of Maine reportedly fell victim to a cyberattack, exposing residents’ Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other confidential information.

Maine officials announced on Thursday that 1.3 million people had their data stolen by a “Russia-linked ransomware hacker group,” which means that hackers secured their data and required ransom money to unlock it.

According to the state government, the group gained access to residents’ files belonging to certain state agencies between May 28^th and May 29^th, according to the statement.

Additionally, the information stolen in the hacker attack varied based on the person, but possibly stolen information included “full name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license/state identification number, and taxpayer identification number.”

Over half of the stolen data was from Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, while a third of the stolen data was taken from the state’s Department of Education, as well as Maine’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Corrections.

The Pine Tree State is now offering those who have been affected two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection.

Currently, over 1.3 million people reside in the state of Maine. [source]

If Putin doesn’t know about the hack he surely would not complain about it—even applaud it as long as the hackers aren’t doing it to his country.

Tuition of terror: Qatari money flowed into U.S. universities - and now it's fueling violence

From calcalistech.com (Oct. 30, 2023):

Until three weeks ago, this issue was of no particular interest to anyone. The money flowed through the usual channels, under the surface without any hindrance. We’re not talking about the flow of Qatari money to the Gaza Strip, but to another, less predictable destination - American academia.

According to a study published in 2022 by the National Association of Academics in the United States, a study that did not cause too much noise at the time, in the period between 2001 and 2021, precisely after the September 11 attacks, the Qataris donated a whopping $4.7 billion to universities in the United States. The recipients, however, did not report part of the money received, as required by law.

An event that was waiting for the right moment

In fact, Qatar has become the largest foreign donor to American academia in the two decades since 9/11. What has been going on since the outbreak of the war on the campuses of the prestigious American universities, is a multi-participant event that was organized in advance and waited for the right moment. This moment came after the massacre of October 7.

Some of the incidents that happened in the United States in the last few days will testify to this. At serene Amherst University in Massachusetts, 57 anti-Israel students were arrested after rioting and taking over the administration building. At Tulane in New Orleans, arrests were made following a fight that broke out between Jewish students and a pro-Palestinian group. The fight began after pro-Palestinian demonstrators who were traveling in a truck (reminiscent of the ones used by Hamas terrorists who invaded Israel) began not just waving the Palestinian flag, but burning the Israeli one.

In a surreal scene at the small private college Cooper Union in New York City's East Village, the administration decided to lock the Jewish students in its library to protect them from an angry mob of pro-Palestinian protesters who were banging on the doors and windows after they burst through the campus security guards. At George Washington University, one of the students projected anti-Semitic messages on the library wall - "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" and "Glory to our martyrs". In the weeks since the October 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel, more Jewish and Israeli students across the United States have said that they fear for their safety in the face of the culture of anti-Semitic demonstrations and events, which are becoming increasingly violent.

In the last week, it seems that the universities themselves are beginning to understand that these events have gone beyond the boundaries of the progressive concept that flourishes on campuses. Historically, universities are homes to free speech and critical thinking, but the speed with which the demonstrations are organized, and the availability of resources for them, raise questions like those that have arisen in recent days in London, in the face of huge demonstrations with huge quantities of Palestinian flags that were quickly distributed to the many participants. Without realizing it, or realizing but thinking that these were harmless youthful demonstrations, it seems that elite universities have become hotbeds of anti-Semitism.

In the United States, it was believed that deepening the cooperation with Qatar and receiving donations to establish branches of prestigious American universities were another way to expand its soft power, but in practice, it became the opposite. Through its vast capital, Qatar is paving the way for the deepening influence of its shadows over more and more fields and geographical areas. The American universities that received the most significant funding from the Qataris, including Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, and Carnegie Mellon, established branches in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Cornell, which belongs to the American Ivy League, opened a medical school for $1.8 billion, Georgetown received $750 million for a school of government and Northwestern established a journalism school for which it received $600 million in 2007.

Apparently, this is not an unusual event in the era of globalization of the last decade, since the Technion also received a donation from the Chinese billionaire Li Ka-shing to establish a branch there. But in the Qatari case, the decisive share of the donations comes from the Qatar Foundation, a non-profit organization established by the government in 1995 to promote education and science in the country.

Against this background, the best academic institutions were also forced to make "adjustments" in their branches established in the so-called "Education City" on the outskirts of Doha, such as removing some of the too-liberal books from the reading list or signing a cooperation agreement between Northwestern's journalism school and controversial media outlets like Al Jazeera, which acts as a mouthpiece for Hamas.

An examination conducted back in 2020 by ISGAP, The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, of which Elie Wiesel served as Honorary President, revealed disturbing findings. The study found a direct connection between the amount of donations from Qatar and other Persian Gulf countries and the presence of pro-Palestinian groups that today feature on college campuses, led by SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine. In some universities, SJP groups organized demonstrations and days of rage immediately on October 8, even before Israel began carrying out significant operations in Gaza.

Even Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard who was the first to be caught in the eye of the storm, already understands that things are out of control. She spoke at a Shabbat dinner at the university’s Hillel, where, contrary to her hesitant words the week prior, she was much more decisive. After quoting from the Bible, Gay openly admitted that "for too long, Harvard has done too little to deal with the continuing presence of anti-Semitism, which has a long and shameful history with us." Gay announced the formation of a group of consultants that would formulate recommendations on how to handle the events.

Many would prefer to return to Israel

Anti-Semitic sentiments are indeed nothing new in prestigious American universities, and the very existence of Brandeis University, which was established as the "Jewish Harvard" at a time when it was difficult for Jews to be admitted there, is the best evidence of this. However, in recent weeks, the current is too strong and the damage is deep. This was even before a series of mostly Jewish business people announced a halt to donations and warned that their companies will not hire university graduates who facilitate violent demonstrations against Israel.

In addition to losing financial support, there is something else that is undoubtedly starting to worry the presidents of the universities. In all of them, there is a large presence of Jewish and Israeli lecturers and doctoral students. These are considered the best minds, especially in science and medicine, and not only the American universities are competing for them, but also academic institutions in Israel that would love to have them. In the current reality, it is not impossible that many would now prefer to return to Israel after the war, even at the cost of less favorable economic conditions. This might be the best revenge for the anti-Semitic currents, the possibility that future Nobel Prizes, which the Jewish population in general and the Israeli population, in particular, hold a weight disproportionate to their size, will be registered in the name of Israel instead of the United States. [source]

China does it, so why not Qatar? The Briben regime won't take a stand against this indoctrination. Heck, they probably endorse it.

Ex-intelligence officials who undermined Hunter Biden laptop story included active CIA contractors

From Washington Examiner.com (June 25):

Former intelligence officials who wrote a controversial public statement casting doubt on Hunter Biden’s laptop data ahead of the 2020 presidential election included active contractors working for the CIA, a report published Tuesday reveals.

The report, released by two Republican-led House committees, provides the most direct link yet between the government’s premier intelligence agency and the infamous statement. It also shows several internal emails about the matter, which include two CIA employees expressing reluctance about the political nature of the statement.

“This frustrates me. I don’t think it is helpful to the Agency in the long run. Sigh,” one CIA employee, whose name is redacted, wrote to a colleague on Oct. 20, 2020, about the statement, according to the report.

The colleague, whose name is also redacted, responded minutes later, saying that some of the 51 signers were actively working for the CIA.

“I also love that at least a few of the random signatures belong to individuals currently working here on contracts…,” the colleague wrote.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, which compiled the report, wrote that they asked the CIA to identify the contractors who wrote the statement, and that the agency provided names of two of them: former CIA acting Director Michael Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley. Morell was also the lead organizer of the statement, according to emails and testimony included in the committees’ report.

Despite providing those two names, the CIA has not declassified a “complete list of individuals” who were on contract on Oct. 19, 2020, the day the statement was made public in Politico, because of “purported operational security,” the committees wrote.

The 51 officials who wrote and signed the statement included intelligence community heavyweights such as Morell, former CIA Directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, and former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper.

They wrote days after the New York Post published a story containing a damning narrative about the Biden family that the “arrival on the US political scene” of the information in the story “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The New York Post story was based on data from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop.

The remark, coming from officials who once worked at the highest and most classified levels of government, carried significant weight at the time, and many, including then-candidate Joe Biden, relied on the statement to dismiss the New York Post’s story as a Russian attempt at election interference.

“This revelation shows that Morell, Buckley, and likely other signatories were receiving U.S. taxpayer funds while engaged in a politicized project to mislead American voters on behalf of the Biden campaign,” the committees wrote in the report.

The Hatch Act prohibits CIA employees from participating in campaign activity, but it does not apply to contract workers. The committees recommended in the report that Congress “consider” incorporating CIA contractors into the statute.

The statement from the former intelligence officials has long been a source of scrutiny for the impact it may have had on the 2020 election. It received a renewed round of criticism this year when the Department of Justice used various forms of Hunter Biden’s computer data as evidence in a prosecution against the first son, effectively verifying that the data on the laptop was authentic.

The DOJ revealed that it had obtained some of the data by subpoenaing Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and external hard drive from a repair shop. The New York Post wrote in its story that the repair shop owner made a copy of the hard drive and handed the copy off to Republican operatives, who, in turn, gave it to the New York Post.

Morell, who drafted the statement, said he and the co-author of it, Marc Polymeropoulos, wrote it in part to provide Joe Biden a “talking point” in the final presidential debate that was coming up in four days. Joe Biden did indeed use it to dispute the New York Post’s story, which alleged the now-president worked to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor to help Hunter Biden maintain a lucrative board position in the country.

While several witnesses involved in U.S. policy on Ukraine have since rejected the notion that Hunter Biden had any impact on their work, the emails and photos from Hunter Biden’s data that the New York Post used to raise the idea have repeatedly been corroborated and no one has ever brought forth evidence to dispute them.

“The October 19, 2020, statement on Hunter Biden’s laptop signed by 51 former senior intelligence community officials served to interfere in the American electoral system in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election,” the committees concluded in their report on Tuesday.

A CIA spokesperson addressed the statement that its former officials and contract workers wrote, telling the Washington Examiner that an agency board reviewed it, which was in line with CIA policy. The spokesperson noted that the board’s approval of published content is “never an endorsement” of it.

“CIA officers, as a condition of their employment, are required to sign a secrecy agreement that includes a lifelong obligation to submit any and all intelligence-related materials to CIA’s Pre-Publication Review Board (PCRB) before they are published,” the spokesperson said. “That process was followed in this case. The PCRB reviews material to determine if they contain any classified information. The PCRB’s confirmation that information is unclassified is never an endorsement of the reviewed content or its veracity. These former officers were not speaking for CIA.” [source]

Not surprising, since the CIA heads are never-Trumpers, why wouldn't the contractors be never-Trumpers too? Even if the contractors are exempt from the Hatch Act, they should still be fired (and probably won't be) because they interfered with the election.

Civil Rights in American History lecture notes part 1

According to the American Founders, a human being understands “the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God” by means of his reason.

Thomas Aquinas defined natural law as the “rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”

According to Frank Goodnow in his essay “The American Conception of Liberty,” social expediency rather than natural rights.

Substantive rights are derived most directly from the natural law.

As a description of the state of nature, Dr. Portteus [lecturer] references this passage from the Book of Judges: “In those days, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Procedural rights do not necessarily exist in nature, but they are created as a way to secure natural rights.

In 1848 John C. Calhoun  said that the principles of natural liberty and equality professed in the
Declaration of Independence were “the most false and dangerous of all political errors.”

In response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, Northern states began passing personal liberty laws, which aimed to provide procedural rights to an alleged fugitive slave.

Abraham Lincoln argued that Southern people’s contempt for the slave dealer revealed their recognition of the humanity of slaves.

In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson argued that slavery provides the slave master and his children a constant education in tyranny.

In an effort to protect slavery, Southern states sanctioned homes to be searched without warrants, the suppression of free speech. and the inspection of mail.

In 1865, Frederick Douglass argued that he is for “immediate, unconditional, and universal” enfranchisement, because without it “liberty is a mockery.”

Dr. Portteus argues that Lincoln’s statement that Americans should proceed “with �rmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right” is an appeal to return to the founding principles of natural equality and liberty.

Source: Civil Rights in American History from Hillsdale.edu.

11 things desperate Dems are willing to do to beat Trump

From Wayne Allyn Root on Wnd.com (Feb. 3):

This country is such a mess under President Joe Biden. It's hard to even believe what's happening is real. How can this many things be going wrong at once? It seems like fiction. Or a nightmare.

If you ever pitched this as a screenplay in Hollywood, they'd laugh you out of town.

The borders are open and millions of foreign migrants, murderers, terrorists, rapists and dangerous military-age males from Hamas, Hezbollah, MS-13 and our mortal enemy China are pouring in.

Crime is out of control. In Washington, a former Trump administration official was just carjacked and almost killed on a busy street just blocks from the White House.

In New York City, a mob of illegal aliens beat two NYPD cops in the middle of a busy street. Then, after being arrested, they were released within hours with "no bail."

Biden says the economy is roaring, yet UPS just laid off 12,000 employees nationwide. UPS obviously knows Biden is lying.

Inflation is still raging – ask Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She just admitted high prices are here to stay. But I didn't need Janet Yellen to tell me. Almost everything I spend my money on is at record highs – my electric bill, car insurance, health insurance, groceries and restaurant bills.

Even worse is the weaponization of government. It feels like we are living in prewar Nazi Germany. Just days ago, a jury convicted a group of peaceful, pro-life, religious Christians of "conspiracy" for praying and singing hymns at an abortion clinic. They face 11 years in prison.

And then there's wars starting around the globe under Biden. Things are so bad, the No. 1 question I get asked at parties is, "Wayne, tell us, what is coming first – a civil war, or World War III? Can we fight both at the same time? Is that possible?"

Everyone is stocking up on guns in preparation for what's coming.

It's no wonder four-times-indicted President Donald Trump is beating the pants off Biden. According to the latest Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll, Trump is winning by wide margins in all seven swing states. He's up by 10 points in North Carolina, and 8 points in Nevada and Georgia.

………..

Knowing these corrupt creeps and traitors like I do, here is a list of what I believe is coming down the pike in the next nine months, courtesy of the Democrat playbook:

1. We could see more indictments of Trump from now through the election. Maybe even a big one out of left field close to the election – a so-called October surprise.

2. They will try to convict Trump before the November election – and if possible, lead him out of the courtroom in handcuffs, straight to prison.

3. They will keep trying to disqualify Trump – at least until they get a final ruling out of the Supreme Court.

4. If all else fails, I fear the deep state will try to assassinate Trump. They really are that evil.

5. And if all that fails, Biden will drop out of the race for health reasons, and Democrats will choose Michelle Obama as their 2024 presidential nominee. I'm no Johnny-come-lately to this prediction. I made it in print a year ago – on Jan. 22, 2023.

The only issue here is, does Michelle want it? If not, they'll either replace Biden with California Gov. Gavin Newsom or stick with Biden but double down on the other 10 planks in this column to rig the election against Trump.

6. In conjunction with all the above, Democrats will try their best to start World War III as both a WMD (weapon of mass distraction) and to stir up patriotism for the incumbent Democrat president.

7. Democrats could cancel the election with the country paralyzed by waves of deadly terror attacks (with terrorists that Biden waved in with his open borders) or an EMP attack that cripples our water, sewage, electric grid and infrastructure.

8. China will invade Taiwan this year. China needs to move before the election – while the brain-dead man with dementia and diapers, who is bribed and blackmailed by China, is still in control.

9. The COVID pandemic was just a trial run. Another pandemic could strike America in the run-up to the election – but this one will be far deadlier. This will result in panic, hysteria and a 100% mail-in ballot election (the perfect recipe for voter fraud).

10. Black Lives Matter was just a trial run. Expect mass anarchy in the run-up to the election, but much larger than the BLM demonstrations in the summer of 2020 – this time involving not just disgruntled black rioters and looters but millions of illegal aliens combined with pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protesters.

11. And most importantly, combine everything above with the same game plan from 2020:

– Mail-in ballots combined with no voter ID.

– Ballot harvesting (a crime everywhere else in the world but America).

– Unsupervised ballot drop boxes.

– No signature match on ballots.

– Billions of dollars spent on "election integrity" by globalist billionaires – with the real purpose to rig the turnout in favor of Democrats.

– Social media rigging the election by censoring the news feed to allow only fake positive news about Democrats and only negative stories about Trump.

And of course, the simplest scam of all:

– Keep counting votes for days after election night until Democrats win.

[read more]

Sadly, Mr. Root is probably right about his predictions. The Dems are power hungry and would do just about anything to keep their power.

Since Mr. Root wrote this column, Comrade Kamala has been Briben’s replacement—not Michelle Obama. Probably a good thing. And there was an attempted assignation against Trump but not by the Deep State. Although, they and the Left and it’s surrogates has defined Trump as the “enemy of the deep state” in so many words. So, there’s that. As for the rest, we’ll have to see.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

From Daily Caller.com (Aug. 22):

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it’s also arguably the most anti-democratic.

Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that former President Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic.

That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency and now his third and final run for the White House.

A near decade ago, we witnessed the 2015-2016 Hillary Clinton/Democratic National Committee/FBI-assisted effort to plant the false accusation of Trump-Russian collusion to warp the 2016 election.

That gambit centered around the fraudulent Steele dossier and nearly fatally crippled the Trump 2016 campaign. That hoax would later sidetrack 22 months of his presidency before being proven a fantasy.

On the eve of the 2020 election, the left next birthed the Russian laptop disinformation campaign. That hoax also warped a presidential debate with false charges that Hunter Biden’s own incriminating laptop was once again the work of Russians seeking to conspire with Trump.

Those unusual efforts continued during the Biden administration.

For the first time in election history, the allies of one campaign sought to persuade some 16 states to try to remove a major party’s likely nominee from their primary and general election ballots.

The plan was to smother a Trump third presidential bid in its infancy, and thus once again not allow the people to accept or reject his candidacy.

Nearly simultaneously, four federal, state and local prosecutors filed dozens of felony charges against Trump.

They all shared some strange similarities.

These indictments would likely not have been filed, had Trump not run for office. Nor would any of them have proceeded had Trump not been a controversial conservative Republican seeking reelection.

Almost all the charges had not been filed against any other prior candidate and rarely a private citizen.

Some of them could just as easily have been lodged against President Joe Biden and his son.

Some indictments and convictions may still achieve their objectives of bankrupting, jailing or keeping Trump inert during the final weeks of the campaign.

One of the Georgia prosecutors had undisclosed meetings with the Biden White House counsel.

Biden himself, on the eve of the federal prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment, all but declared his campaign rival Trump guilty.

Biden’s own chief of the White House had also met privately and secretly with a Smith aide.

In an unprecedented fashion, Smith rushed his prosecution to ensure it synchronized with the 2024 campaign.

Similar federal charges could just as easily have led to the indictment of Biden — if the special counsel in that case had not claimed that he could not convince a jury to convict a culpable but cognitively challenged Biden.

Another Biden prosecutor mysteriously left his top position at the Justice Department to join the Alvin Bragg Manhattan prosecutorial staff.

Nonetheless, Trump had survived collusion, disinformation, de-balloting, lawfare and a subsequent assassination attempt to surge far ahead of Biden in the June presidential polls.

Biden’s poll collapse prompted Democratic donors and high-ranking politicos to force a stress-test presidential debate before either candidate was even nominated at their respective conventions.

When Biden imploded in the debate, a supposedly once-fit president was suddenly declared impaired. And a previously uninspiring Vice President Kamala Harris was abruptly transmogrified into a superb replacement candidate.

Biden was forced to resign his candidacy to save his last five months in office from a Democrat-threatened removal via the 25th Amendment.

The primary votes of nearly 15 million voters were abruptly nullified.

Harris, who had neither won a primary nor a single delegate through an election, was suddenly coronated as the new Biden-replacement candidate — and without an open convention contest or vote.

The donor-politico class further decided that, like a challenged Biden in 2024, Harris could not be allowed to hold press conferences. She would do few if any live interviews, unscripted town halls or any other venue given fears her visible liabilities might endanger her candidacy.

So, the Party that had proclaimed democracy dies in darkness now favors the shadows as the preferable means to obtain and retain power — whether by ignoring primary voters, open conventions or transparent venues with the voters.

Add up the last decade’s purchased collusion caper, unprecedented two impeachments, orchestrated disinformation hoax, efforts to de-ballot Trump, warping of the legal system to jail him and destroy his candidacy, forced removal of an unpopular but unwilling President Biden from the Democrat ticket, virtual anointing of Harris by fiat in his place and the current collusion with a compliant media to avoid public scrutiny and cross-examination of Harris.

And the conclusion?

Have those who lectured us about democracy in danger now decided to save it by destroying it? [source]

All the Left cares about is power. Notice how during the convention they changed the word "democracy" to "freedom"? They don't really care about freedom either, or they wouldn't be trying to put Trump in jail or putting J6 protestors in jail for so long. Another great article by VDH.

Anti-Trump Legal Pundits Meet for Private Weekly Call: Report

From Newsmax.com (Apr. 26):

A group of anti-Donald Trump legal analysts from cable television outlets meet every Friday on a weekly Zoom call to discuss the former president's legal problems, Politico is reporting.

The meetings are hosted by Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official and CNN legal pundit, who was a key member of the legal team put together by House Democrats to handle Trump's first impeachment, according to Politico.

Regularly attending the meetings are longtime conservative commentator Bill Kristol, liberal constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, John Dean, who served as White House counsel under Richard Nixon, and conservative lawyer and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project George Conway, the news outlet noted.

Also joining the calls are Andrew Weissmann, a longtime federal prosecutor who served as one of the senior prosecutors on Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation and is now a legal analyst for MSNBC and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who once was caught exposing himself during a meeting with colleagues from The New Yorker.

Others who occasionally join the legal pundits' calls include CNN commentator Elliot Williams, a former federal prosecutor, as well as Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and other recognizable names in politics, law, and media.

The New York Post referred to meeting attendees as "a cable cabal of anti-Trump legal pundits."

A legal commentator who does not participate in the meetings told Politico, "It runs the risk of creating the impression that there is an agreement or cooperation or conspiracy across mainstream media entities, and that could feed into some false and damaging perceptions, particularly on the right."

"It feels almost like a seminar in law school," said another participant in the group. Most calls comprise "deliberation, debate, and discussion," albeit "with a distinct anti-Trump tilt to it."

The meetings have been held since 2022, Politico reported. They have included a briefing by the Jan. 6 House Committee staffers as the panel was working on its investigation of the attack on the Capitol building. [source]

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Then again it could just be a secret (?) club (cabal?) of Trump deranged people.

Trump campaign hacked with documents sent to news outlets: What we know

From Washington Examiner.com (Aug. 11):

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign fell victim to foreign hackers, the campaign acknowledged after internal vetting documents were emailed to news outlets.

On Friday, Microsoft revealed that an Iranian group sent a spear phishing email to a high-ranking official on a presidential campaign. The email came from a compromised email account of a former senior adviser. At the time, it was not clear which campaign was involved, but over the weekend, Trump posted about the incursion on social media.

A 271-page vetting document about Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), was emailed to at least two news outlets, Politico and the Washington Post. The former outlet said that the document was “based on publicly available information about Vance’s past record and statements.”

The hacked document was sent using an AOL email address by someone identifying themselves only as “Robert.”

“We were just informed by Microsoft Corporation that one of our many websites was hacked by the Iranian Government – Never a nice thing to do!” Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social. “They were only able to get publicly available information but, nevertheless, they shouldn’t be doing anything of this nature.”

“Iran and others will stop at nothing, because our Government is Weak and Ineffective, but it won’t be for long,” he continued. “What Iran doesn’t realize is that I will make the World a better and safer place, and that’s good for them, also!”

In addition to the vetting document about Vance, there was also a document on Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was a contender for Trump’s vice presidential pick before Vance was ultimately selected.

There has been concern that foreign actors such as Russia and Iran may try to use technology to meddle in the coming election, which features Trump facing off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the White House. [source]

Sounds like election interference since Trump's campaign was the only one hacked. Does Iran want Kama Chameleon to win? 

The Five Virtues of a Good Writer

From Dan Sanchez on FEE.org (Oct. 6, 2022):

The great journalist and author Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993) offered the following excellent advice to writers:

“The reader who seeks to write well and think well should aim first at the essential qualities—coherence, clarity, precision, simplicity, and brevity. Euphony and rhythm are of course also desirable, but they are like the final rubbing on a fine piece of furniture—finishing touches justified only if the piece has been soundly made. As a method of procedure, the apprentice writer may often find it advisable first of all to root out his faults. He should try to acquire the Five Virtues of Coherence, Clarity, Precision, Simplicity, and Brevity by vigilant abstention from the Five Vices of Incoherence, Obscurity, Vagueness, Pedantry, and Circumlocution.”

Here are a few of my own thoughts on these writing virtues and corresponding vices.

Coherence (as opposed to Incoherence) is the quality of forming a unified, integrated whole. For a writing piece to have coherence, it must have a clear purpose, and every constituent part of it must contribute toward that purpose. Long digressions and non sequiturs can make a piece incoherent.

Clarity (as opposed to Obscurity) in writing is about being easily understood by the reader. A writer who wants to be understood must think in terms, not only of expression (sharing one’s thoughts) but exposition (sharing ideas intelligibly). Often attaining greater clarity in exposition goes hand-in-hand with attaining greater clarity in your own understanding of the topic. Comprehension and comprehensibility are two sides of the same coin.

For a piece to be clear, it must flow well: both narratively and logically. Each passage must advance the story and/or argument of the piece in a way that naturally follows what came before it. A piece that is disjointed and “jumps around” too much will confuse the reader.

Clear writing must also be complete. It must not omit any points that are necessary for the reader to understand what you’re saying. Missing context will obscure your message. Unfamiliar, un-introduced jargon will also make your presentation opaque to the lay reader. Remember that the reader does not share all your knowledge. Be wary of presuming that a necessary connection will “go without saying.”

Precision (as opposed to Vagueness) in writing is about being exact and specific in conveying your meaning. Attaining precision is often a matter of “playing around” with a sentence to find just the right wording and phrasing to accurately get your meaning across. Consulting a dictionary and a thesaurus can be helpful for this.

Simplicity (as opposed to Pedantry) in writing is about limiting your exposition only to the essential. Writers with extensive knowledge of their subject are often tempted to over-share arcane details that would overload the reader. Don’t try to cram a comprehensive education of your subject into one piece. Shoot for the realistic aim of providing your reader an important lesson that is simple enough to be fully digested in one sitting.

Brevity (as opposed to Circumlocution) in writing is about getting your meaning across in as few words as necessary. (But no fewer. Brevity in excess can result in vagueness and obscurity.) Often one’s first stab at a sentence will be needlessly wordy and thus unwieldy to the reader. See what you can do to cut, compress, and recombine your wording to make your sentence more concise and elegant. Prune any sentences that don’t “carry their weight”: that don’t contribute enough value to your presentation to justify the additional work they demand from the reader. Sometimes this can mean cutting whole sections. You have to be willing to “kill your darlings” as William Faulkner put it.

I highly recommend using Hazlitt’s Five Virtues/Vices as a handy checklist for evaluating and improving your own writing:

1. Coherence vs. Incoherence
2. Clarity vs. Obscurity
3. Precision vs. Vagueness
4. Simplicity vs. Pedantry
5. Brevity vs. Circumlocution

[source]

Good advice any writer.

5 Massive Lies at the Democratic National Convention

From The Daily Signal.com (Aug. 22):

As Democrats nominated Vice President Kamala Harris in Chicago this week, speakers repeated multiple blatant falsehoods. The legacy media seems unlikely to expose these lies, so The Daily Signal will break them down here.

Each lie framed former President Donald Trump—the Republican nominee—and his party as more radical than they really are, or shifted responsibility to them for the Biden-Harris administration’s record on key issues such as inflation.

1. A Nationwide Abortion Ban

Multiple speakers, including the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, claimed that Trump or the GOP would pass a nationwide ban on abortion.

“And we know if these guys get back in the White House, they’ll start jacking up the cost on the middle class,” Walz said on Wednesday night. “They’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act. They’ll gut Social Security and Medicare, and they will ban abortion across this country with or without Congress.”

On Monday, President Joe Biden declared, “And you know, Trump will do everything to ban abortion nationwide.”

Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and he has repeatedly stated his opposition to a nationwide abortion ban. He says he supports states making their own laws on abortion, as the Supreme Court allowed when it overturned 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision with 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

As president, Trump supported a national ban on abortion after 20 weeks gestation, and earlier this year, he suggested he might support banning abortion at the 15- or 16-week mark.

Since April, however, he has stated that he would leave abortion legislation “up to the states” and insisted that he wouldn’t sign a national ban even if Congress passed one. Trump has always supported exceptions for rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.

2. Trump Would Ban In Vitro Fertilization

Multiple Democratic leaders suggested that Trump would ban in vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment in which a man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs are fertilized in a dish and then doctors implant one or multiple embryos inside a woman’s uterus. The IVF process often involves the creation of several human embryos that may never be used, raising ethical questions. Some same-sex couples have used the process to produce children with their combined genes and the help of an opposite-sex donor, and, with male couples, the help of a surrogate mother to carry the baby to term.

Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who shared her struggles with infertility and celebrated the birth of her children through IVF, warned that Trump would ban the practice.

“Trump’s anti-woman crusade has put other Americans’ right to have their own families at risk, because if they win, Republicans will not stop at banning abortion,” she said on Tuesday night. “They will come for IVF next.”

Walz suggested Wednesday that Republicans would threaten IVF. He also bragged about protecting “reproductive freedom” in Minnesota, a euphemism for abortion.

“In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and the personal choices they make,” he said. “We’ve got a golden rule: Mind your own damn business. And that includes IVF and fertility treatments.”

He spoke about how he and his wife needed “fertility treatments” to have their children, saying, “I’m letting you in on how we started a family because this is a big part [of] what this election is about.”

While Walz has occasionally suggested that his family used IVF, his wife Gwen clarified that they used intrauterine insemination instead. (While intrauterine insemination involves the insertion of sperm into a woman’s uterus, IVF involves further steps, including the conception of a baby outside the womb.)

“Americans want the hope of IVF, not the fear that it might be taken away,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said on Tuesday night.

Yet Trump does not oppose IVF, and the threat to IVF—even in Alabama—has been widely exaggerated.

The issue emerged after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the destruction of unused embryos conceived through IVF constituted the wrongful death of a minor and that embryos had inherent human rights because they represent unique individuals with human DNA. This decision led some fertility clinics in the state to shut their doors because they routinely destroy unwanted embryos.

Yet the Alabama legislature quickly passed—and Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, quickly signed—a bill shielding IVF clinics from liability for the destruction of embryos. The clinics resumed services shortly afterward.

After the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, Trump strongly defended IVF.

“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder,” he said. “That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.”

“I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious little beautiful baby,” Trump added. “I support it.” He went on to call on the Alabama Legislature to act to support IVF, and it did so with the legislation above. [read more]

That's all the Left knows how to do: Lie and scare. They probably even haven't read Project 2025.

The other three lies are:

1. Project 2025
2. Book Banning
3. Greedflation

Other articles on the DNC:

• Five things that stand out in the Democratic Party platform
• 4 misleading claims Kamala Harris made about Trump in DNC speech
• 28 thoughts on the Democratic National Convention.
  

Trump’s Secret Service driver wanted to quickly refute Cassidy Hutchinson’s J6 tale but was rebuffed

From Just the News.com (June 4):

House investigators have obtained evidence showing that former President Donald Trump’s Secret Service driver wanted to quickly refute testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a struggle in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots but the Democrat-led January 6 committee rebuffed him for months.

The evidence was confirmed to Just the News both by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 tragedy now for Republicans, and a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify.

Loudermilk on Tuesday evening decried the delay by the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee, saying it kept Americans in the dark for months ahead of the 2022 midterm elections that there was firsthand testimony refuting Hutchinson’s sensational hearsay narrative that Trump tried to violently commandeer his Secret Service limousine on Jan. 6, 2021, to take it to the Capitol.

Hutchinson, a former Trump White House aide, gave the account during nationally televised hearings in June 2022, more than five months before the elections, but the Secret Service agent’s refutation wasn’t solicited until the day before the November Election Day, after millions of early ballots were cast.

The transcript of the driver’s testimony reviewed by Just the News shows his lawyer complained that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the January 6 committee led by Chairman Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican, both fierce opponents of Trump.

“We're talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail,” Loudermilk said during a wide-ranging interview with the "Just the News, No Noise" television show. “They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren't brought in until November.

“It was in June when they paraded Hutchinson before the world, and they let the world hear the stories. And what's interesting is in the very beginning of the driver’s testimony, his attorney starts off by chastising the select committee,” Loudermilk also said. “And he said we offered to come in July, August, September, and now it's November. So we found out for the first time that the driver had been offering to come in and testify under oath as far back as just a few weeks after Cassidy made these claims, but the select committee would not bring them in.”

Loudermilk’s description is confirmed by the transcript, which also shows the Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV as Hutchinson, who wasn’t in the vehicle, alleged in her testimony.

The transcript also shows that Cheney tried to explain to the driver’s lawyer why there was such a long delay in accepting his offer to testify, claiming the committee wanted to wait until the Secret Service produced all documents in the January 6 investigation.

Cheney did not explain why the committee allowed Hutchinson to testify in summer 2022, before the documents were turned over, but then delayed the driver's refutation until much later.

During his interview Tuesday, Loudermilk made clear that he has deep concerns about the way Thompson and Cheney conducted the January 6 investigation, noting they kept transcripts from his committee for months after he took over and still have not produced videotapes of many of the interviews.

“Well, it's kind of clear that it either was the worst case of preserving documents in the history of the House of Representatives, or that they were only trying to keep those testimonies away,” he said. “Because, you know, immediately they bring Cassidy Hutchinson to the forefront, then they wait until November to even bring in the Secret Service agent.”

Also, Loudermilk on Tuesday requested Alyssa Farah Griffin, former White House director of Strategic Communication and co-host on ABC's "The View," provide her communications with the Democrat-led House Select Committee on Jan. 6 and with Hutchinson.

Loudermilk wants the exchanges prior to Hutchinson's public testimony.

He requested the communications records by June 18. He also asked Griffin in his letter to her to appear for a "transcribed interview" in Washington, D.C., at a "mutually agreeable date and time."

The letter, also addressed to her attorney, notes that Griffin spoke with Hutchinson about her options prior to her formal public testimony before the Jan. 6 Select Committee and Griffin "agreed to contact Liz Cheney" on Hutchinson's "behalf about scheduling another interview" with the select committee. [source]

Common sense refutes Cassidy Hutchinson's tale. But hey, don't let truth and common sense get in the way of a good "get Trump" narrative.