https://thenationalpulse.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is the 2020 election about?
Democrats: Trump a liar and bigot, plan for Covid 19 i a failure and, he alone, caused deaths of over 200,00 Americans. Trump, accomplished nothing and should be re-impeached if re-elected. Wants to take away health care, is anti-green and wants to re-open the economy and schools and kill more people. Biden wants to raise taxes and re-regulate economy., pack SCOTUS , add two new states and end Filibuster Rule. Need more tolerance of "peaceful protests."
https://spectator.org/trump-
Republicans: Prior to Covid 19, Trump improved economy, increased employment/jobs and economic circumstances of American workers across all racial and ethnic lines, re-balanced America's trade issues, stood up to China and N Korea, brought peace hopes to Middle East and Israeli acceptance, rebuilt depleted military and ended unwinnable wars. Trump believes rioting a threat to law and order, believes America has right to protect borders and wants to update immigration and health care laws. Trump believes school choice for all fair and equitable. Expand Opportunity Zones.
Real Debate: Should we vote to end our republic as we know it because America was founded on racial and systemic hatred, exchange capitalism for socialism, give reparations and follow dictates of radicals who have taken over our society. Institute preferential treatment and order America's school children population to be re-educated per The NYT's 1619 program.
My View: Re-elect Trump so he can continue policies that make America Great Again, allow Durham Report's release and reject anything Democrats embrace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While Obama was busy transforming America and laying the foundation for undercutting everything American, even wanting to substitute another song for our national anthem, which Kapernick used as the basis for his "kneeling protest," China's influence was growing like flood waters seeping into the world's psyche.
Stop and think, is there much difference between The NYT's 1619 program to re-educate American school children to reject our nation's so call systemic racial hatred and what China's Communist leaders are doing to re-educate and even torture, many of their own Muslim population etc.?
World Health Organization (W.H.O.) & Greta Thunberg Top Contenders For Nobel Peace Prize
Say her name? How the Breonna Taylor case became another ADL disgrace
Rather than speaking out against a Jew-hater, the nation’s leading anti-Semitism monitor has made common cause with a notorious Farrakhan supporter.
(October 8, 2020 / JNS) During the course of her debate with Vice President Mike Pence, California Sen. Kamala Harris denounced the killing of Breonna Taylor, saying her life was taken, “unjustifiably and tragically and violently.” She embraced the slogan that Taylor, a 26-year-old Emergency Medical Technician who was killed during a police shooting at her home in Louisville, Ky., in March of this year, “deserves justice.”
Over the last several months, the Black Lives Matter movement has put the issues of racism and allegations of police brutality on the national agenda. During the course of that national debate, the story of what happened to Taylor has, with the exception of the death of George Floyd, been the most-talked-about example of what BLM advocates assert is an epidemic of police murders of African-Americans. As a result, the cause of justice for Taylor, which is best known for its slogan “say her name,” has been embraced by pop-culture figures, athletes, politicians like Harris and the Anti-Defamation League, which is still supposedly the nation’s leading anti-Semitism monitoring group.
For those who were introduced by the vice-presidential debate to the incident, it was not the open and shut case of injustice that Harris claimed. While what happened to the young woman was undoubtedly a tragedy as the grand jury ruled when Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron put the facts before them, it was not murder.
For those who think that there’s nothing wrong with the ADL jumping on the liberal bandwagon in this case, there’s another interesting point about the unjustified effort to portray this incident as evidence of systemic racism. It’s that the person behind most of the agitation in Louisville about it—Tamika Mallory—is also one of the country’s more prominent supporters of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and a notorious anti-Semite in her own right.
It’s not just that Mallory’s role in this effort to attack and subvert the nation’s legal system should have caused the ADL to avoid entangling itself—and, by definition, the American Jewish community as a whole—in this case. It’s that Mallory’s successful reboot of her career as a national figure who purports to be an icon in the civil-rights movement represents a signal failure on the part of the ADL in carrying out the job for which it was created: fighting anti-Semitism.
If Mallory’s name rings a bell, it ought to.
She first became generally known as the president of the Women’s March, the group that organized the massive protest against President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. Along with Palestinian American activist Linda Sarsour and other left-wing figures, Mallory pulled off an extraordinary coup in orchestrating an anti-Trump “resistance” event that overshadowed the nation’s quadrennial celebration of democracy.
The Women’s March received kudos from a mainstream media that shared the organizers’ unwillingness to accept the results of the 2016 election. Flushed with success, the group went on to stage many other protests around the country in the following two years.
But by 2018, it was clear that the top leadership of the Women’s March had another agenda. Mallory and Sarsour made it clear that Jewish women who were also supporters of Israel were not welcome at their events.
It should also be noted that among Mallory’s targets was the ADL. It was Mallory who helped pressure Starbucks to drop the Jewish group as one of those organizations hired by the coffee company to conduct anti-bias training for its employees.
By December 2018, when Tablet magazine published a devastating exposé about the pervasive anti-Semitism at the Women’s March, the group’s cover was blown.
Sarsour’s vicious anti-Zionism and attacks on Jewish women became well-known. Mallory’s record as a hatemonger was equal to, if not greater than, that of her colleague. Mallory, who got her start in activism as a supporter of veteran race-baiter Al Sharpton, was, according to The New York Times, also a public supporter of the Farrakhan, who is arguably the most influential anti-Semite in the country. And, as Tablet’s report testified, her hatred had made itself felt in the way the Women’s March discriminated against Jews, as well as in opposition to Israel’s right to exist.
As a result, chapters around the nation disassociated themselves from the march, and by the end of 2019, both Mallory and Sarsour left the group. But, like Sarsour, who has continued to stay in the news as a surrogate for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and as a speaker at the Democratic National Convention, Mallory has also resurfaced.
She created a new group called Until Freedom that jumped on the Taylor case even before the death of Floyd put the BLM movement on the map. Mallory, as much as anyone else, has been responsible for creating a false narrative about the incident in which Taylor has been depicted as the victim of a wanton murder that has gone unpunished, a public-relations triumph that is every bit as impressive as her work at the Women’s March.
Statements like those of Kamala Harris have obscured the facts of Taylor’s killing, which they don’t back up her claims. Taylor died when police executed a legal search warrant on her home seeking a drug suspect and evidence. Contrary to Mallory’s claims, it was not a “no knock” warrant, but, as a neighbor testified, the police did knock and identify themselves. Taylor’s boyfriend—out of fear or because he didn’t hear the police warning—fired on the police with a legal weapon from within the apartment, wounding one officer. When the cops returned fire, Taylor was shot dead.
No reasonable person can argue that officers carrying out their duties in a legal manner haven’t the right to defend themselves against hostile fire. Taylor’s death is a tragedy but, as the grand jury ruled, not a crime. The one officer who was indicted was charged with firing indiscriminately in a manner that could have injured others.
Yet Mallory and the host of BLM sympathizers that have bought her campaign hook, line and sinker have blasted this perfectly reasonable conclusion as racist. Even worse, many people in the media have mimicked her racist comments about Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who is African-American, as a race traitor and the moral equivalent of “sellout negroes” who participated in the slave trade for doing his job, as well as for urging the people of Louisville not to engage in mob violence.
Mallory’s efforts have paid off in a number of ways.
It’s not just that prior to the grand jury decision, her credible threats of inciting further violent protests helped intimidate the city of Louisville into making a lucrative financial settlement with the Taylor family. The case has also propelled her back onto the national stage as liberal media outlets treat her as an authoritative source about the case. It even earned her a photo spread and fawning interview in the prestigious fashion magazine InStyle, which never mentioned her support for Farrakhan and anti-Semitism.
One would think that a group whose brief was combating anti-Semitism would have something to say about Mallory’s involvement in the Taylor case, as well as the flattering attention she’s gotten in the media. But the ADL, which has also embraced Sharpton as a partner in the anti-Trump resistance, had no reaction to any of this. To the contrary, it echoed Mallory’s outrageous denunciations of the grand jury’s sensible ruling.
To those who have followed the group’s descent into leftist and partisan activism from its previous stance as a defender of Jewish interests and Israel, none of this is surprising. But it is no less appalling for being consistent with so many other of the ADL’s other recent disgraceful failures.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below are a variety of topics pertaining to articles that might/should be of interest. You can read at your leisure.
In addition, I would also make these comments regarding Pelosi's efforts regarding the 25th Amendment. I accept the fact that her investigation is not directly aimed at Trump but she is exploring the ground for gutting Biden so Kamala can become president.
For those who caught on, I began a tongue in cheek sardonic random additions to the bottom of many memos about Biden's 78 days and followed it with his imagined diary entries. My latest entry covered days 36-43.
My point is, Biden will not last and Kamala is who you are actually voting for and this is why Holder and Soros wanted her and Obama will be behind the curtain pulling strings. Of course Biden and Jill may fight for him to remain president but Pelosi will gut him preferring a California female than a man from Delaware. Kamala, on the other hand, might give Obama heartburn, as well as America, because, should she become president through intrigue. There is no way she would become president through the normal voting process. This is why I posted the article below about likeability. We have come from the Smurfs to Smirks.
Stay tuned as the Democrats plot and plan the taking over of America regardless of what the Hillary Deplorables want.
+++
Sanders Haunts Biden-Harris
Pence corners Harris on Biden’s embrace of the Vermont senator’s radical agenda.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
The Plexiglas at Wednesday’s vice-presidential debate made for some strange reflections. Squint hard enough, and you might even have seen the ghostly image of the evening’s third, silent participant: Bernie Sanders.
Debates rarely produce clear winners, though they often produce clear wins. Vice President Mike Pence’s victory of the evening was successfully exposing for viewers who is really running today’s Democratic Party. And give him credit. Just three weeks from an election, not one member of the Beltway media, including the debate moderators, has been willing to challenge Joe Biden on his leftward lurch. It was left to Mr. Pence to take the Bernie wraps off.
Kamala Harris had her good moments, but it was these exchanges on Mr. Biden’s agenda that were memorable for her nonanswers. And no surprise, since The Socialist Who Must Not Be Named poses the true liability for the Harris-Biden ticket. Mr. Biden rolled over for many of Mr. Sanders’s more radical policy ideas (and picked a lefty running mate) to keep the party peace. To broadcast this agenda now would risk scaring off middle-of-the-road Americans. But to disavow it risks alienating the progressive base Mr. Biden needs to turn out.
Which is why every Pence exposé of Biden plans left Ms. Harris responding with half-truths or nonanswers. Nowhere was this more on display than the vice president’s deep dive into the Biden energy plan, which has become a problem for a Democrat in search of blue-collars workers in states like Pennsylvania. “The both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and banning fracking,” stated Mr. Pence. “That’s not true,” retorted Ms. Harris. But it is true, and Mr. Pence was able to provide the citations. “You yourself said on multiple occasions when you were running for president that you would ban fracking. Joe Biden looked his supporter in the eye and pointed and said: ‘I guarantee, I guarantee, that we will abolish fossil fuels.’ ” This is a clip any novice YouTuber can easily find.
Mr. Pence also pointed out that Ms. Harris is an original Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a Bernie-promoted $16 trillion regulatory straitjacket that would (among other things) get rid of coal, oil, natural gas, gas-powered cars and potentially cheeseburgers. That’s a campaign killer, even as it’s a litmus test for the left. Mr. Biden’s answer has been to claim disingenuously that the Green New Deal is the “crucial framework” for his own plan, which is nonetheless somehow “different.”
Even moderator Susan Page didn’t let that one go, and asked Ms. Harris to explain how her campaign can simultaneously tout the Green New Deal on its website and disavow it. Ms. Harris’s response was to talk about taxes, and wildfires, then the Senate Environment Committee. Mr. Pence referred to the Green New Deal 11 times; Ms. Harris not once—and you can bet smart voters noticed.
Mr. Pence called out the $4 trillion in tax hikes Mr. Biden would impose to pay for Bernie-style programs like free public-college tuition. Ms. Harris made the mistake of promising Mr. Biden would repeal the Trump tax cuts “on day one” while also promising he would “not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year”—two statements that cannot both be true. “Is he only going to repeal part of the Trump tax cuts?” Mr. Pence quipped. The vice president also called out Mr. Biden’s timid history on fighting terrorism. Ms. Harris’s response? To complain Mr. Trump wasn’t nice to soldiers.
The stand-out moment of the debate (as even liberal commentators were forced to acknowledge) was Ms. Harris’s refusal—yet again—to come clean on packing the Supreme Court. Average Americans reject this; progressives demand it; the Biden campaign says it will explain its own view only after the election. Three times Mr. Pence challenged Ms. Harris to say whether a President Biden would add “seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way.” Three times Ms. Harris dodged, along the way telling a canned but irrelevant story about Abraham Lincoln.
More than 20 million Americans watched Wednesday’s debate, and many were likely getting the facts about the Bernie-Biden agenda for the first time. Such is today’s media. The big question is whether Donald Trump was also taking notes. Granted, the president has a very different style than Mr. Pence. At the same time, the formula the vice president laid out is as simple as is it effective: Point out the Biden-Harris radicalism; contrast it to a positive Trump agenda.
The media intends to spend the next 25 days making every moment about Mr. Trump. While it goes against his instincts, Mr. Trump needs to make every one of those moments instead about Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris—their plans, their inconsistencies, their refusal to answer questions. Mr. Pence proved on Wednesday that this can done. But it will be up to the Trump campaign alone to do it.
+++
Breaking: Here’s What Bernie Sanders Just Called Dibs on Running In a Biden Administration
+++
Non-Partisan Pollster Says Voters HATED Kamala Harris’ “Condescending” Tone In Debate
Why are Cuomo and de Blasio singling out Orthodox Jews as COVID scofflaws?
There are good reasons to worry about a spike in infections in haredi enclaves, but the double standards used to justify new lockdowns undermine faith in government.
(October 7, 2020 / JNS) According to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, cracking down on Chassidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn that he termed “COVID clusters” and imposing new lockdown restrictions on them is just a matter of following Jewish law. Explaining his decision to implement new measures pinpointing specific ZIP codes in the borough, he noted that he is motivated by the principle that, “In Jewish teaching, one of the most precious principles is to save a life.”
Cuomo was right about the concept of pikuach nefesh, which obligates Jews to violate laws with but a few exceptions in order to preserve life. That’s a message some have not gotten during the course of the last several months as—whether out of frustration, ignorance or perverse stubbornness—they resisted rules about face masks or bans on gatherings of large numbers of people. The spectacle of Orthodox Jews taking to the streets this week in closely packed crowds, eschewing masks (and in one case, even burning the coverings) to protest Cuomo’s new edicts cannot be defended.
Yet it’s equally fair to ask questions that were raised by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in singling out Jews by name as the sole source of COVID scofflaws. It’s also reasonable to ask by what logic, let alone scientific principle, are they making decisions that mandate the closing of religious institutions while allowing other secular activities to go on unhindered?
Just as important, why have Cuomo and de Blasio, as well as so many other local and state leaders around the nation, treated religious activities and protests against these restrictions as inherently illegitimate and illegal while turning a blind eye towards the mass protests and violence in the streets that have taken place under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement?
Seen from that perspective, the anger of the haredim who have been resisting COVID restrictions can be understood, if not excused, as a natural reaction to hypocritical policies and a troubling willingness to make the easily identifiable Orthodox Jewish community the scapegoats for the pandemic.
It’s entirely fair to note that haredi communities—both in the United States and Israel—have been particularly resistant to COVID rules, especially those that banned synagogue services, in addition to gatherings for weddings and funerals. The explanation for this is variously given as a function of the insular nature of ultra-Orthodox culture, as well as their being disconnected from the flow of information about the disease on the Internet and their inherent distrust of secular authorities.
But it’s equally fair to point out that in neither country have the haredim been the sole sources of COVID infractions.
It’s also true that neither Cuomo nor de Blasio has much credibility on this issue. The governor has never owned up to his guilt in forcing nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients at the start of the pandemic—a colossal error that led to a massive number of fatalities that still account for the largest single factor in the number of deaths from the coronavirus. The mayor is a hopeless incompetent who is hard to take seriously when he attempts to impose his will on Jewish critics.
Part of the problem is that, like so many of their colleagues in positions of authority, Cuomo and de Blasio have been empowered by the pandemic to act in ways that would have been unthinkable in any other circumstance. The spread of the virus is a genuine emergency not unlike a natural disaster or an armed conflict that gives authorities the power to act in the public interest outside of the normal restraints of constitutional government. However, their use of these powers to protect citizens against a common menace—in this case, the spread of the disease—must still be restrained by the same principles that ought to inform all government actions. In order to have legitimacy, they must be rooted in law, and be applied consistently and without prejudice. And the exercise of these powers cannot go on indefinitely.
Unfortunately, those elements have often been conspicuous by their absence when it comes to enforcing pandemic restrictions—something that has become much more evident since the first few weeks of the crisis when the country was panicked, and both citizens and the courts were inclined to give authorities the benefit of the doubt.
They have, as is usually the case with politicians who become drunk with power, become extremely intolerant of those who push back against them, which have put the Orthodox community in their cross-hairs.
Just as important, once state and municipal governments, like those in New York, not only failed to stop the mass demonstrations that arose following George Floyd’s death, but in many cases actually endorsed them, the equation changed. The fact that they would have cracked down hard if they had been linked to their political opponents rather than a key constituency made their hypocrisy undeniable.
As those “mostly peaceful” protests continued and violence spread, governments that sent cops to shut down synagogues and churches, close playgrounds or arrest people without masks while doing little or nothing to stop rioters lost whatever credibility they once had. If preventing looting by non-socially distanced criminals is not a government priority but stopping people from praying in a house of worship is, something is profoundly wrong, and it’s no good blaming people—whether they are Orthodox Jews or anyone else—for noticing.
Moreover, the willingness of mainstream media outlets to excuse this hypocrisy also contributes to the way support for restrictions is declining. When The New York Times labels haredi protesters in Brooklyn a violent “mob”—a term considered both racist and unacceptable when applied to the riots carried out in the name of the Black Lives Matter movement—we know that the paper’s bias and its long history of questionable coverage of Jewish subjects is behind their decisions.
Given the pattern of continued COVID outbreaks around the world, there are legitimate questions to be answered about whether lockdowns are doing what advocates claim. That’s especially true when so many seem oblivious to the enormous damage they have done.
The answer to this problem is not continued resistance to common-sense measures like masks and social distancing. But before anyone criticizes those who are protesting the untrammeled use of government power to impose lockdowns, it is past time for politicians to drop the hypocrisy and their scapegoating of Jews or anyone else that thinks the First Amendment hasn’t been repealed.
Sunday Morning Futures provided viewers with a very explosive interview this weekend, as Maria Bartiromo welcomed Republican Representative Devin Nunes to the show.
Nunes had a lot to say and he was not willing to mince words.
Watch as He Rats Them ALL Out Over New Information!
Fighting for Freedom,
Chuck Little
No comments:
Post a Comment