+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G\How to get bitten by Bitcoin:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Democrats are smart enough to know they can win by running against Trump. Trump is to blame for hurricanes, Haitians, horse whipping, Afghanistan withdrawal, Covid, Gov. Newsom going to fancy restaurant, BLM attacking diners etc.
. Trump is an amazing man because he is everywhere all at once.
+++
Democrats Keep Playing the Trump Card to Win Elections
It worked for them in 2020 and the California recall election, and they’re trying it again in Virginia’s race for governor this November.
By Mark Kelly
Joe Biden and the Democratic Party won in 2020 by campaigning on two main issues: Donald Trump’s personality and his administration’s handling of Covid-19. Today, Democrats are doubling down on that strategy. They realize that the specter of the former president will be more effective than any policy at turning out Democratic voters in next year’s midterm elections.
“Virginia voters might well think Donald Trump is on the ballot,” said journalist Susan Page while moderating a gubernatorial debate between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin on Sept. 16. Her question to Mr. McAuliffe: “Why have so many of your paid ads and your rhetoric mentioned Trump in an election focused on the people of Virginia and an election that presumably should be focused on your own proposals for what you would do as governor?”
“Because my opponent is a Trump wannabe,” Mr. McAuliffe replied. He then quoted his opponent’s claim that Mr. Trump was “so much of the reason why I’m running.”
“That’s his quote,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “So he’s the one who’s inserted Donald Trump here. And we know the damage that Donald Trump has done to this country.”
Getting the Trump label to stick to opposition candidates is a strategy that’s already working for Democrats. Polling in September’s California recall election was initially close, but then Gov. Gavin Newsom stopped running on his own record and started campaigning against Mr. Trump.
“ Larry Elder not only supported Donald Trump, he’s to the right of Donald Trump,” said Mr. Newsom at a rally on Sept. 7, distorting the Republican candidates views and turning the election into a referendum on the alternative.
“He’s the clone of Donald Trump,” President Biden told a rally in Long Beach, Calif., on Sept. 14. “Can you imagine him being governor of this state?”
“The 2018 midterms were a referendum on Donald Trump’s governance, and Democrats won back the House for the first time in eight years” says Jason Willick, a Journal editorial page writer. “In November 2020, Trump lost the White House. But Republicans looked poised to keep the Senate, until the president made the 2021 Georgia special elections about himself. Then Republicans lost both seats and control of the upper chamber.”
No one knows whether Mr. Trump will run again in 2024, but his persistent claim that the 2020 election was stolen puts Republicans running this year and in 2022 in a tough spot. If they say they agree with Mr. Trump about the allegedly stolen election, they risk losing support from Republicans and independents who dislike sore losers and want elections to be about the future. But if they say the election was free and fair, they could lose support from Mr. Trump’s ardent supporters and his endorsement.
The Democrats’ strategy also explains why those who pushed the Russian-collusion narrative now want to keep the investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot front and center.
“ Nancy Pelosi made certain to get a committee that would guarantee a one-sided report right in time for midterms,” says Kimberley Strassel, the Journal’s Potomac Watch columnist and a member of its editorial board. “She’s stacked it with Democrat partisans like Adam Schiff. She blocked Republican picks so there’s no real balance. Instead of getting real answers about Jan. 6, this is just another political exercise aimed at keeping Trump the issue.”
In both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, Mr. Trump ran as a kind of anti-politician, who would clean up the Washington swamp, memorably telling Mr. Biden, “You’re a politician. I ran because of you.”
Today, Mr. Trump’s focus on the past and on denying his defeat in 2020 is dividing the GOP and helping the opposition.
“You’ve said the most important issue facing Virginia is election integrity,” said Mr. McAuliffe, playing his Trump card in the first Virginia debate, “That’s the Trump crazy 2020 stuff.”
Mr. Kelly is the Journal editorial page’s senior producer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What England needs is a bit more openness. Perhaps, eventually, Charles will let the public come into the bathroom while he is taking a shower.
How about converting some of the Castle's rooms into a Mosque?
Now that would be real Democracy at work.
+++
Queen Elizabeth Worried About Prince’s Idea Of Turning Palace Into Museum
(RoyalPatriot.com )- Earlier this year, Prince Charles said that he would like the Royal Residences to be transformed from “private spaces to public spaces.” To that end, Charles envisions turning Buckingham Palace, that has been home to the Royal Family since the time of Queen Victoria, into a museum.
And apparently, his mother, Queen Elizabeth II isn’t particularly thrilled with the idea.
In fact, Charles has long said that once he becomes King, there would be some major shake-ups within the Royal Family – which may be one of the reasons the Queen is holding on so long and depriving him of his moment on the throne.
In addition to opening the royal private homes to the public, Charles also wants to streamline the monarchy down to just seven senior working royals.
But according to one royal expert, his plans won’t be happening anytime soon so long as the Queen remains on the throne.
As it is, since 1993, members of the public have been permitted to visit parts of the palace from April to September every year. But Charles isn’t satisfied with six months. He wants to fling open the doors to every royal residence all year round.
For the Queen, while the palace may be a fancy place the public is eager to visit, it remains the family home, so she isn’t keen on the idea of allowing year-round visitors.
Queen Victoria was the first British monarch to take up residence at Buckingham Palace in 1837. Queen Elizabeth II moved into the palace in 1936 after the coronation of her father King George VI.
Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing a restoration that began in 2016 and is expected to be completed by 2027. The palace’s last renovation was during the Second World War. During the Blitz, the Palace suffered nine direct hits from German bombings.
Currently the Queen divides her time between Windsor Castle, which she considers her main London home, and two to four days a week at Buckingham Palace.
The palace remains the working royal residence, housing among its 775 rooms the Queens offices. It also contains 52 royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AOC and The NYT's join hand so they can draw more Jewish blood:
+++
NY Times blames powerful ‘rabbis’ for crushing AOC’s principles
Will editors admit to echoing anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power used against good, and apologize?
By Gilead Ini
The New York Times was the subject of uncomfortable attention for its coverage of a House of Representatives vote in favor of helping Israel procure more interceptors for its Iron Dome missile defense system.
In a piece that spent nearly as much time promoting the anti-Israeli arguments of the eight Democrats who voted against the bill as it did sharing the views of their 210 party colleagues who supported it during the Sept. 23 vote, reporter Catie Edmonson also focused on one representative who voted “present.”
Along with most other members of the so-called “Squad” of like-minded legislators, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had initially voted against funding for the Iron Dome, which was put into heavy use last May to combat barrages of indiscriminate rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. A short while later, though, she changed her vote from the House floor.
Edmondson had ideas about why the vote was changed:
“Minutes before the vote closed, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tearfully huddled with her allies before switching her vote to ‘present.’ The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis.”
Jewish clergy were nowhere to be seen on the House floor. And for some reason, they didn’t get to Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and the small handful of others opposed to the Iron Dome funding.
But, yes, it was apparently powerful “rabbis” who, in the middle of the vote, helped cajole Ocasio-Cortez into abandoning her principles, the Times told readers. Not her ambition for higher office. Not principled voters. Not New Yorkers who believe Palestinian rocket fire targeting civilians is a problem that should be combatted. But “influential lobbyists.” And those rabbis.
As the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) brought the language to the attention of a Times editor, commenters on social media commented on Edmondson’s language. “Chalking this up to ‘influential lobbyists and rabbis’ is an especially bad look,” wrote Zachary Braiterman, a professor of Jewish studies and philosophy.
“This really is bad,” noted law professor David Schraub.
The Times framed the vote as “pitting ‘principles’ — the honorable goal of Israeli civilians getting murdered by Hamas — and the raw naked power of the evil Jew Lobby. Including rabbis!” wrote journalist Gary Weiss.
It appears that some at the newspaper might agree that there was a problem with the language. The Times story, which was published online after the vote on Sept. 23, was edited later that night to eliminate the reference to lobbyists and rabbis. Although a prior change to the article was noted in a correction appended to the bottom of the story, no indication was given of this corrective edit.
Although the online copy was “stealth edited,” print editions went out unchanged, and so readers of the print copy were still told of the nefarious rabbis. With no published “correction” to be found on the website, it’s unclear whether the paper will inform print readers that it doesn’t stand by the problematic language. Will editors admit to echoing anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power used against good, and apologize? Or will they pretend the edit, made as news of the language was spreading on Twitter, was just an inconsequential change made to save a bit of space?
This wasn’t the first time Catie Edmondson stumbled in her coverage of Jews and the Squad. When covering the controversy over Rashida Tlaib’s comment that pro-Israel Democrats “forgot what country they represent,” which was broadly criticized as a for of the antisemitic “dual loyalty” slur leveled at Jews, Edmondson actually concealed the offending words, making it appear that she was unfairly criticized for innocuous comments.
She has also whitewashed the anti-Israel BDS campaign by telling readers it is a group that merely “seeks to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank.” (In fact, BDS leaders and critics of the campaign agree that it is opposed to Israel’s very existence.)
Nor is it the first time the New York Times has published, promoted, or covered up for anti-Semitism. In 2019, it published a cartoon that closely resembled anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda cartoons. It interviewed an author who, as one journalist described it, “has flirted with anti-Semitism for years,” and published her recommendation of a virulently anti-Semitic book. In covering a candidate for office, it ignored the candidate’s assertion on Twitter that “America’s Jews are driving America’s wars.” And more.
Editors apologized for the cartoon. They defended their promotion of the anti-Semitic book. What, if anything, will they say about their charge that powerful rabbis stomp out the principles in the halls of Congress?
Gilead Ini is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). His commentary has appeared in numerous publications, including “The Jerusalem Post,” “The Christian Science Monitor,” “Columbia Journalism Review” and “National Review.”
This article was first published by CAMERA.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment