++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Democrats have a pre-existing condition. It is called hypocrisy and it should not be insured.
And:
Hate Trump? Understood. Vote for him anyway
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/
Democrats hate Trump because he kept his word when it came to campaign promises. He did, or tried to do, what he said he would. Another reason to hate him is because, as a president, he is unorthodox.
Biden now tells voters they have no right to know what he thinks about court packing. Hillary called voters deplorable and Biden believes deplorables have no right to ask questions or know his intentions. This arrogance, alone, should disqualify him from being in office.
Go ahead and hate Trump and elect a man who enriched himself and his family while in office, was complicit in spying on Trump and helped to make sure Gen. Flynn was set up because, as head of intelligence, he would have nailed Hillary and the scallywag's Obama called upon and associated with to wreck the administration of his successor.
Meanwhile, no current riots, like the one in Portland last night, reported on by the mass media. Nor any reporting on Biden's unwillingness to tell voters what he intends to do regarding packing SCOTUS, his son's enrichment nor the role he played in spying on Trump and setting up Flynn as well as his own questionable mental health condition?
WATCH the Moment a Biden Supporter Finally Realizes Joe Biden is a Racist
These are simply more reasons why voters need to reject Biden and send an unmistakable message to the mass media shills they need to start doing their job of uncovering corruption rather than protecting those engaged in same.
The rotten smell is not coming from Denmark. It is oozing from the Potomac swamp in D.C, the halls of Congress, the basement of the Democrat's pathetic candidate, the editorial rooms in New York, D.C. and the news rooms of CNN, MSNBC etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you agree with the teacher? Is this a risk that has to be accepted because of virtual education?
HS Teacher Orders Student To Take Down Flag Supporting President Trump Seen In His Room — Or Leave Online Class
Signs That Trump Isn’t
Going to Win on Nov. 3
By: Kevin McCullough
Townhall
It’s a foregone conclusion and must now be faced.
Republicans have worried. Democrats have gloated. Libertarians, Independents, and Reformers have all weighed in. Now it must be acknowledged President Donald J. Trump is just not capable of winning this Nov. 3.
Perhaps the Democrats have finally found the silver bullet. After the Russia Hoax, Impeachment Farce, Lockdown Lies, Evaporative Economic Policies, Debate Blowups, and CoVid Contraction—they’ve even floated the 25th Amendment—which I only thought really bitter and nasty Never Trumpers would ever embrace.
But none of it has worked. Not even Nancy Pelosi’s prayers for the President’s health could keep him in the hospital for more than three days. And here one week after he contracted it — no one’s even discussing him having it because he’s symptom free and feeling twenty years younger.
So no... Donald J. Trump just doesn’t have what it takes to just win on November 3.
Because he’s going to absolutely crush the election that day.
A #Trumpslide if you will.
Now the “smart people” will tell you that’s not possible and that he lags Joe Biden in the polls by margins too big to overcome. If you only look at the selective polls listed in the Real Clear Politics average one might come to that conclusion (Just like they did in 2016).
One thing they won’t tell you though is that the hesitancy to tell pollsters what they think is a real phenomenon. A little more than a month ago Bloomberg published a survey that demonstrated Republicans and Independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats to not reveal to pollsters their true thoughts.
So if the polls that seem to point to a Biden win are wrong what was I depending on when I published my prediction map (the first of a few leading up to Election Day).
To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls.
But here's a short list of considerations that give us a better understanding of the race.
Enthusiasm Gap
The candidates already know that the president is winning by a mile. President Trump can’t help but to continue to draw massive crowds (even while in the hospital.) Every weekend, in every state, in hundreds of cities bikers, truckers, boaters, horse and buggy people, and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma. And we all know people who say “I didn’t vote for him then,” or “I wasn’t really sure about him in 2016,” who have converted to “I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.”
Black Votes Matter
Is it significant that Candace Owens led a “Back the Blue” march through DC and to the White House yesterday consisting of thousands of African American voters? Is it important that President Trump received them? Does it seem to make an impact that President Trump oversaw the fastest job creation for Black Americans with the fastest growth in wages among the poorest Black Americans in the modern era? Evidently it does because he’s currently enjoying (what I perceive to be understated) support anywhere from 18 to 25 percent of Black Americans. When narrowed down to Black men he’s consistently in the low to mid-30s percentage wise. The modern era high for a GOP president is 11 percent. Democrat’s consistently need 90 to 95 percent support of Black voters to win. If Trump gets anything above 11 percent he wins big. If he takes 20 percent or more it starts to reshape states like Pennsylvania where he runs up the score in the west and enjoys enough Black support around Philadelphia so as to win the state convincingly. Carbon copy that for Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, etc.
Latino Support Sans Pandering
Biden also has challenges with Hispanic voters. The president has seen a broad based support with Latinos that similarly to Blacks defies modern era history. One veteran of elections going back multiple decades told me last week that the president may enjoy support as high as 45 to 50 percent of the Hispanic vote. A number that big just seems so unheard of for a Republican. It’s hard for me to grasp. But just realize this: if the president gets anything above 35 percent he will again shatter recent history and entire state compositions begin to shift.
Promises Kept
I’m also very bullish on an old fashioned idea, that if you keep a promise, you’ve earned a second-term. You do realize don’t you that Trump presents the opposite problems of most politicians? Usually a candidate makes a ton of promises and then either breaks them or does very little to fulfill them once in office. Clinton kept three over eight years, Bush kept two (outside of 9/11 related items), Obama a big fat one in his first-term. The president came to office and went to work on day one. He’s lifted more than 2,000 regulations on small businesses, got tax reform done, and started in on his list. By my count 127 promises later he’s still not finished.
It’s still the economy, stupid.
As insulting as it sounds it’s still the bottom line. People vote their pocketbook. Voters know this instinctively. Biden has nothing to show for 47 years in DC. The president built the fastest growing economy the world had ever seen. In the past four months he’s produced the fastest job growth in history at just shy of 12 million jobs created, with more than half of those lost only months before due to the virus and ensuing lockdowns. It was precisely the tax reform and deregulation of businesses that allowed the rebound to occur so quickly. And just imagine how much more the recovery would be underway if governors and mayors who are keeping their cities and states locked down for political reasons would allow them to actually open up.
Oh the pundits, Never Trumpers, and Democrats will explain away Biden’s every foible. When he says the voters “don’t deserve to know” his view on a 150-year precedent breaking idea of randomly packing the Supreme Court, they will give him a pass. When the Biden-Harris bus rolls in and six people sit in a gym in big circles drawn on the floor, the media will ignore the contrast of 40,000 supporters on a rainy tarmac in Minnesota.
But this election won’t be decided by the pundits, Never Trumpers, and swamp monsters.
The American people are the only poll that matters.
On November 3rd, President Trump won’t just win, he will break records, shift turn out patterns, and crush his way to the biggest re-election victory since Ronald Reagan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sent to me by a long time friend and fellow memo reader. I have not verified.
Last year 449,163 Californians received a jury
duty summons to which they declined, using the "I am not a citizen,
therefore I cannot sit on a jury" provision.
The source for jury duty summons candidates is
the VOTER REGISTRATION list.
Think about that for a minute, and then tell
me there is NO Voter Fraud.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The mass media never reports but trees do fall in the forests even though you may not hear them.
A toppled statue of President Theodore Roosevelt on Sunday in Portland, where a a mob also took down a statue of President Abraham Lincoln.
Photo: Nathan Howard/Getty Images
A group of protesters toppled statues of former presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and shattered the entrance to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland’s South Park Blocks late Sunday before moving into other areas of downtown, smashing storefronts and engaging in other acts of destruction...
The organizers had signaled their aggressive stance for the night, calling for “direct action” and demanding that the video live-streamers and photographers who had become staples of such events stay away.
People in the crowd were repeatedly admonished not to film. Passersby who happened upon the group were ordered by demonstrators to stop filming or delete photographs, including an apartment resident who had lasers shined at his eyes and a liquid thrown in his face as he appeared to shoot video of the scene from his terrace.
Mr. Kavanaugh reports that “Dakota 38” now appears in spray paint on the base of the vandalized Lincoln statue, which he describes as “a reference to 38 Dakota men executed after the Dakota-U.S. War of 1862... (Lincoln commuted the same sentence, handed down by a military tribunal, for 265 others.)”
If recent history is any guide, upcoming discussions of the case for Lincoln’s cancellation will require rigorous fact-checking. Even among nonviolent leftists, the reputation of America’s 16th president has lately been mistreated.
Last week this column noted the many historians identifying flaws in the “1619 Project” from the New York Times. Much of the controversy is related to errors about the American founding, but the paper’s treatment of the age of Lincoln has also attracted its share of criticism. Historians at Yale, Princeton and other universities wrote last winter:
The 1619 Project construes slavery as a capitalist venture, yet it fails to note how Southern slaveholders scorned capitalism as “a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.” Although the Project asserts that “New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City,” the phrase “banking capital” elides the reality that on the eve of the Civil War, New York possessed more banks (294) than the entire future Confederacy (208), and that Southern “banking capital” in 1858 amounted to less than 80% of that held by New York banks alone.
Again: we are presented with an image of Abraham Lincoln in 1862, informing a delegation of “five esteemed free black men” at the White House that, because black Americans were a “troublesome presence,” his solution was colonization -- “to ship black people, once freed, to another country.” No mention, however, is made that the “troublesome presence” comment is Lincoln’s description in 1852 of the views of Henry Clay, or that colonization would be “sloughed off” by him (in John Hay’s diary) as a “barbarous humbug,” or that Lincoln would eventually be murdered by a white supremacist in 1865 after calling for black voting rights, or that this was the man whom Frederick Douglass described as “emphatically the black man’s president.”
Those seeking a fuller history might consult a new Lincoln biography by David Reynolds. Gordon Wood’s recent review of the book in the Journal notes how Lincoln used the seminal work of 1776 to spark a new liberation movement decades later. As Mr. Wood describes, Lincoln was motivated to act by a particularly odious government project in 1854:
The Kansas-Nebraska Act in that year aroused Lincoln as nothing before ever had: The act permitted the settlers in those territories to exercise their popular sovereignty and establish slavery if they wished. Stephen A. Douglas, Democratic senator from Illinois, had engineered the act and became its principal defender. Lincoln, who had always hated slavery, now emerged as a notable opponent of Douglas and of the South’s efforts to extend slavery into the West...
In 1856 Lincoln helped found the new Republican Party in Illinois, and in 1858 he engaged Douglas in seven debates that established him as a significant national figure. In his confrontation with Douglas, says Mr. Reynolds, he had to use “a conservative cover to appeal to moderates while delivering a fundamentally radical message.” Instead of focusing on the forefathers, who for most Americans had been the Puritans and other 17th-century settlers, Lincoln put the 18th-century revolutionaries and framers front and center as the proper Founding Fathers. Lincoln made the Declaration of Independence, together with its proposition that all men are created equal, the most important document in American history.
As for the Times telling of this history, even one of its own writers, former Journal columnist Bret Stephens, is now flagging problems with the 1619 Project. But that doesn’t mean readers should expect a retraction. Times media columnist Ben Smith writes this week:
The paper is in the midst of an evolution from the stodgy paper of record into a juicy collection of great narratives, on the web and streaming services.
Times readers can’t say they haven’t been warned. But even for news consumers who avoid the Times, it’s been increasingly hard lately to get the straight story about Honest Abe.
Viewers who tuned in to the vice-presidential debate heard Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) tell this whopper:
Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection, and it was 27 days before the election, and a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge, not only in the White House, but the Senate. But Honest Abe said it’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court.
The Associated Press now acknowledges that “there’s no evidence that Lincoln said anything as Harris described.” According to the AP report:
“I would describe Senator Harris’s interpretation as fanciful, based on no evidence that I have seen in my 36 years conducting research on — and writing about — Lincoln,” said Michael Burlingame, the distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield.
Burlingame told The Associated Press in an email Saturday that Lincoln actually delayed a nomination for more practical reasons — the Senate had been out of session for months... and it was not scheduled to reconvene until December, after the election.
With his reelection chances already looking strong, Lincoln delayed announcing his pick of Salmon Chase, a political rival known for his anti-slavery views, to avoid offending conservatives and moderates before the election who did not share Chase’s “radical” Republican views, according to Burlingame.
This follows Dan McLaughlin’s report last week at National Review:
Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.
Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment