+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has the free mass media chosen to shackle itself from reporting the truth? If so, why? Are the owners of the mass media in cahoots with the Democrat Party? If they are, do they too wish to help government get larger and more capable of destroying our freedoms and rights? Does anyone give much of a damn any more or must we wait two and four years before Americans wake up?And:
Biden has proven not only to be an unmitigated liar but also like his coach O'bummer, he too has no regard for the effect his words and jumping the gun make. Biden bought the crap about the police on horse back whipping illegals which was proven patently false. Progressives and radical love to color the picture first. They do a disservice to those they charge falsely and the nation as a whole.
Biden has proven not only to be an unmitigated liar but also like his coach O'bummer, he too has no regard for the effect his words and jumping the gun make. Biden bought the crap about the police on horse back whipping illegals which was proven patently false. Progressives and radical love to color the picture first. They do a disservice to those they charge falsely and the nation as a whole.
Remember when O'Bummer attacked a white Harvard Cop for suspecting a black professor who was trying to get into his own house and then O'bummer jumped the gun when a St Louis police officer warned a black man to stop advancing.
It plays well in creating bias against those accused of wrong doing so radicals continue to use it aka Waters, Jackson, Reverend Al . Now Biden is doing the same thing.
+++
Vindication Over Hunter’s Emails
Politico confirms the New York Post story the Biden's never denied.
By The Editorial Board
The New York Post is claiming vindication over its scoop in October 2020 about Hunter Biden’s emails, and deservedly so. But that shouldn’t be the end of the story for everyone who attacked the Post or ignored the story to cover for Joe Biden.
A writer for Politico has published a book about President Biden that confirms that some of the emails on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden are authentic. This is barely a scoop, since neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden’s campaign denied last year that the laptop provided to the Post by Rudy Giuliani was Hunter’s. Both men counted instead on the rest of the media to serve as a cordon sanitaire, and did they ever. Twitter barred the Post’s feed for a time lest Americans be able to read about the emails and their content.
A press that was interested in telling the truth about both candidates would have pressed to confirm the Post’s story and examined the emails for themselves. Instead they rose nearly as one to denounce the Post and claim without evidence that the emails might have been Russian disinformation. That was a sorry repeat of the Russia collusion narrative from 2016, which the press flogged for more than two years but we now know was concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
We also now know that the Russian email disinformation story was false. But that didn’t stop 50 former intelligence officials from signing a statement on Oct. 19, 2020, that floated the Russia canard.
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement—just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case,” said the statement.
In other words, the former spooks didn’t know anything about the emails or the laptop, but they nonetheless asserted baseless speculation to serve their partisan interests. The signers included such Russia collusion myth-makers as former Obama officials James Clapper and John Brennan, but former Bush CIA director Mike Hayden and former Obama CIA director Leon Panetta should have known better.
Their letter will now join the FBI’s collusion with the Clinton campaign in 2016 as cause for even more Americans to assume that the U.S. intelligence community is a partisan interest group that can’t be trusted. This is damaging to those institutions and the country.
By the way, our Kimberley Strassel at the time examined hundreds of emails and texts provided to us by Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who confirmed their authenticity. Those emails corroborated and expanded upon the Post’s laptop emails. They showed that Hunter was seeking to cash in on his name via a business deal with a Shanghai-based company with ties to the Chinese government and military. One email noted that the deal envisioned “10 held by H for the big guy,” whom Mr. Bobulinski identified as Joe Biden. That struck us as news.
The conformist non-coverage of the Hunter emails is one more embarrassment that undermines public trust in the press. But don’t worry, readers. You can keep reading these pages for news you won’t see elsewhere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting article:
We May Have Left Afghanistan, Mr. President, But We Are Still at War IPT News
by Pete Hoekstra
This article originally was published by the Gatestone Institute.
I never liked that term, "war on terror." Terrorism is a tactic; it is not the enemy we fought every day. The term has done more to confuse us than enlighten us.
[O]ne can see why the phrase "war on terror" became the widely accepted nomenclature. It was neutral. Gone would be the difficult references connecting the terrorist movement to Islam and Muslims. The need to define good Muslims versus bad/extremist Muslims would be eliminated. We would just paper over the difficult discussions that needed to take place but did not.
The terrorists, and their Islamist apologists in the West, actually used our response to their benefit. They widely labeled those who tried to connect al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to Islamic dogma as Islamophobes and anti-Muslim.
It did not matter that the terrorists invoked Quranic passages as justification, or that groups such as ISIS and others explicitly state that their ultimate objective is a global Muslim state governed by religious law.
President Biden can say what he wants but that does not mean it is so. The other side has a say in this. And as we saw as we were leaving Kabul, the jihadists spoke clearly, they are still at war with us. If the crack team of foreign advisers that the president is relying on, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, advised him that the United States is no longer at war, the world is in serious trouble.
On Tuesday, Joe Biden presented his first United Nations General Assembly speech as president. I labored through almost 32 minutes of the speech when a most profound announcement was proclaimed: "I stand here today for the first time in 20 years with the United States not at war."
It was an odd boast, considering how the United States left Afghanistan and what it means for the future.
Our retreat from the Afghanistan battlefield left behind thousands of friends and allies and billions of dollars' worth of equipment.
We were never at war with Afghanistan. Our enemy was – and continues to be – individuals who take inspiration from a strict interpretation of Islam and employ terrorist tactics to press their cause.
Politically, we left the country as we found it – led by the same Islamist radicals who controlled the country 20 years ago. Despite what the Taliban might say, U.S. intelligence estimates that al-Qaeda could be fully reconstituted in Afghanistan in a year or two.
What happens after that? The president's UN speech did not look forward. If anything, his inaccurate statement that we are no longer at war anywhere in the world indicated his belief that the war on terrorism is over.
I never liked that term, "war on terror." Terrorism is a tactic; it is not the enemy we fought every day. The term has done more to confuse us than enlighten us. Nine days after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush told Congress that those who attacked us were:
"a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al-Qaeda." It "is to terror what the Mafia is to crime."
"terrorists (who) practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism."
"a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam."
"traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself."
Bush recognized that he had to put some context with the word terrorist so that the world would better understand the threat we were facing as well as the tactics that they would employ.
"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda," he said, "but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
We are still a long way from that goal, which means the threat to the homeland endures.
Reflecting on Bush's speech, one can see why the phrase "war on terror" became the widely accepted nomenclature. It was neutral. Gone would be the difficult references connecting the terrorist movement to Islam and Muslims. The need to define good Muslims versus bad/extremist Muslims would be eliminated. We would just paper over the difficult discussions that needed to take place but did not.
The terrorists, and their Islamist apologists in the West, actually used our response to their benefit. They widely labeled those who tried to connect al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to Islamic dogma as Islamophobes and anti-Muslim.
It did not matter that the terrorists invoked Quranic passages as justification, or that groups such as ISIS and others explicitly state that their ultimate objective is a global Muslim state governed by religious law.
For much of the last 20 years, the lack of clarity as to who the enemy was and why they attacked us has eluded us. It has made it difficult to focus on what needed to be done and what victory might look like.
So barely a month after the U.S.'s disgraceful disengagement in Afghanistan, the president of the United States can declare that we are not at war. Words have meaning. The president cannot just declare that the war on terror is over and walk away. The enemy still exists. Those individuals described by President Bush in 2001 are still out there. Today, they are reinvigorated by their perceived success in Afghanistan. They are better equipped than any terrorist organization in the world because of what was left behind in Afghanistan, and they continue to be inspired by their view of the religion they are attempting to hijack, Islam.
No, President Biden can say what he wants but that does not mean it is so. The other side has a say in this. And as we saw as we were leaving Kabul, the jihadists spoke clearly, they are still at war with us. If the crack team of foreign advisers that the president is relying on, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, advised him that the United States is no longer at war, the world is in serious trouble.
The jihadists have not surrendered; they have not gone away. As a matter of fact, the world is a much more dangerous place than what it was just a few short months ago. The jihadists will be back. When they strike us again, let us hope that our leaders provide the necessary clarity this time around to identify the enemy and defeat them once and for all.
Ambassador Pete Hoekstra (retired), served 18 years in Congress and was Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2004-07. He is a Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Naftali Bennett departs for US to address UN General Assembly |
| JNS |
| The Israeli prime minister praised the passage of the standalone House bill providing funding for the Iron Dome, and warned Iran and the Palestinians to “stop this obsession with the State of Israel.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Recently an angry/disturbed soul shot a lot of people at a grocery store and then killed himself. A reported asked the Police Chief did he know the motive. The Chief said the killer was upset because he could not locate the "meet" aisle. the chief then asked the reporter if he could find a moral in the episode? The reporter replied he could not. The chief said: ' lay down your weapon and don't "prey" on your fellow man.' ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment