Hunter RECEIVED Information On China Investment Corporation From Biden's Niece?
President Joe Biden’s niece, Casey Owens, reportedly provided information to Hunter Biden on the China Investment Corporation..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maggie - Britain needs her:
Margaret Thatcher DISMANTLES Leftist Ideology in Less Than 30 Seconds - YouTube
+++
The White House presses the mass media and press.
+++
White House Urges Press To Suppress Coverage of GOP Charges Against Biden
The same White House that was slapped down last week by a federal appeals court for meddling in the content moderation policies of social media networks sent a letter Wednesday to the heads of most major American press outlets demanding that they subject Republican charges of corruption within the Biden family with the “appropriate scrutiny” during their coverage of the upcoming impeachment hearings in Congress.
In a memo directed at the editorial leadership of America’s news organizations, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, Ian Sams, says “It’s time for the media to do more to scrutinize House Republicans’ demonstrably false claims that they’re basing impeachment stunt on.” Describing impeachment as “grave, rare, and historic,” he urges the outlets to avoid reporting on the process of impeachment and instead focus on the substance of the allegations against President Biden.
“Covering impeachment as a process story — Republicans say X, but the White House says Y — is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable,” Mr. Sams says. “In the modern media environment, where every day liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing all their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people’s feeds, and obscure the truth.”
Mr. Sams’ memo is accompanied by a 14-page dossier aimed at debunking the claims against the president leveled by Republicans in Congress. “At every turn, their allegations about wrongdoing by Joe Biden have been debunked and refuted by their own witnesses’ testimony, the financial records they have obtained, independent public reporting, and more,” Mr. Sams says. “It’s clear that this ‘investigation’ is all politics and no evidence.”
The White House efforts to direct coverage of the upcoming impeachment comes just days after an appeals court at New Orleans chastised the Biden administration for attempting to suppress anti-vaccine and other content critical of the government’s response to the coronavirus during the Covid pandemic as well as news articles about election interference and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
In the 74-page unsigned opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans upheld a lower court ruling that said officials from the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the Surgeon General’s office, among others, coerced and threatened employees at social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, in an effort to tamp down content that ran afoul of government policy at the time.
“Officials, via both private and public channels, asked the platforms to remove content, pressed them to change their moderation policies, and threatened them — directly and indirectly — with legal consequences if they did not comply,” the opinion states. “And, it worked — that ‘unrelenting pressure’ forced the platforms to act and take down users’ content.”
Evidence in the case, Missouri v. Biden, suggests that “the government has engaged in a years-long pressure campaign designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints,” the opinion says. That campaign, it says, was a clear violation of the plaintiffs’ — the states of Missouri and Louisiana and a handful of scientists skeptical of America’s Covid policies who were silenced by the platforms — First Amendment rights, the court ruled.
“It is true that the officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies, including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,” the court held. “But the government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression.”
The Department of Justice has not yet said whether it intends to appeal the court’s ruling — which upheld portions of a lower court ruling that enjoins administration officials from contacting social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech” — to the Supreme Court.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the second time in a few hours: Syria reports Israeli air strike
Syrian media report that Israel conducted an air strike in the Hama and Homs regions of the country, hours after blaming Israel for air strike in Tartus.
Air strike in Syria
Syrian media on Wednesday evening reported that Israel had conducted an air strike in the Hama and Homs regions of the country.
The Lebanese Al-Mayadeen TV channel reported that Israeli warplanes flew over the coastal plain in Lebanon and launched several missiles towards Syria.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that explosions were heard in the area.
This is the second air strike attributed to Israel in Syria in the last few hours. Earlier, Syrian media reported that the country's air defense systems were activated following an alleged Israeli attack on a military site in the port city of Tartus.
According to the report, most of the missiles that were fired were intercepted.
Two Syrian soldiers were allegedly killed in the strike.
In August, Syria blamed Israel for an air strike which damaged Aleppo’s airport, putting the runway out of service. The airport resumed operations several days later.
Also in August, Syrian media reported that Israel launched an air strike in the area of the capital Damascus.
The Saudi Arabian TV channel AlHadath reported that the strike targeted a shipment of Iranian weapons that was making its way to Damascus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Impeaching Joe Biden
A proper inquiry is a road back from Nancy Pelosi’s cutting every corner to get Trump.
By William Mc Gurn
September in Washington, and the Hunter Biden scandal is in the air. The only question now is what happens first: an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s role in his son’s influence-peddling—or a Hunter Biden indictment from a grand jury impaneled by special counsel David Weiss.
Normally, Republicans might defer to law enforcement. But a politicized Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation have squandered the public’s trust. The elevation of Mr. Weiss to special counsel has persuaded many that the fix is in, given Justice guidelines that say a special counsel should come from the outside. Mr. Weiss’s appointment further gives President Biden the “ongoing investigation” excuse for not answering questions, which could bury the issue.
But the ultimate question surrounding Hunter’s overseas millions from places such as China and Ukraine—and whether his father was the quo for the quid his son received—is political. More important than seeing anyone packed off to prison is learning whether Joe Biden, as vice president, willfully enabled his son’s schemes and twisted U.S. policy in the process.
It may turn out that Joe Biden committed no crime. But even if he never received a nickel from his son’s businesses, his cooperation in Hunter’s selling of the Biden brand was corrupt. Ditto for President Biden’s Justice Department, which repeatedly sabotaged the federal investigation into Hunter.
The party line is that there’s no evidence that Joe Biden profited from his son’s dealings. But the administration has stonewalled any effort to get at the truth, and the White House is now building a war room of lawyers and communications staffers to fight the investigations. It’s disingenuous to argue there’s no evidence while you are working overtime to thwart any attempt to find evidence.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says impeachments should be rare, because normalizing impeachment isn’t good for the country. He’s right. But House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is calling for an impeachment inquiry, which he says is a “natural step forward” based on evidence that has been uncovered by the House committees investigating—Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means.
This includes learning that Joe Biden lied during the 2020 debates when he categorically denied Hunter was paid millions from China and said the laptop was Russian disinformation. And that the then-vice president had dinners with his son’s business partners, and spoke to them on speakerphone when Hunter called. And that, as two Internal Revenue Service agents have testified, the Justice Department sandbagged an IRS investigation. And that a Biden staffer emailed Hunter business associate Eric Schwerin confirming that the vice president had signed off on talking points Mr. Schwerin had supplied about Burisma.
All this from a man who claims he knew nothing about his son’s business?
With three House committees already investigating, an impeachment inquiry might appear superfluous. But there are practical advantages. To name one, it would enhance the power of House subpoenas. Congressional oversight must be tethered to a legislative purpose, and that includes the subpoenas for information such as the tax and bank records House investigators are asking for.
By contrast, when a subpoena is part of an impeachment inquiry, Congress is acting at the apex of its power in its ability to compel witness testimony and demand documents. An impeachment inquiry doesn’t require a legislative purpose, which gives its subpoenas more force in the courts. It also gives the House more negotiating leverage with, say, Justice and the IRS.
If done judiciously, an impeachment inquiry would be a road back from the way Nancy Pelosi stacked every procedural deck and cut every congressional corner to get Mr. Trump. Mrs. Pelosi announced the first Trump impeachment inquiry all by herself, holding a vote after it was already under way, and then proceeded with closed-door testimony and limits on defense witnesses. In the second impeachment, she rushed a vote on impeachment without hearings or an opportunity for the president to present a defense.
Speaker McCarthy has signaled that things will be different this time around. For one thing, the House will begin with a formal inquiry. An actual impeachment will then depend on persuading the full House that the evidence supports it. Given Mr. McCarthy’s slim majority, that might be a hard sell to nervous GOP moderates—especially those in districts Mr. Biden carried in 2020.
For another, Mr. McCarthy has declared the inquiry won’t be launched without a vote of the full House. The risk is that he won’t get the votes—which would carry its own political costs for him. Probably many members on each side secretly prefer that Mr. McCarthy just declare an impeachment inquiry as Mrs. Pelosi did and spare them the choice. But forcing members to weigh the evidence and the risks, and then go on the record, is vital for accountability.
Fifty years ago at press conference in Orlando, Fla., Richard Nixon told a television audience the American people have to know whether or not their president is a crook. In Mr. Biden’s case, they also deserve to know whether the Justice Department has been compromised. By month’s end, Republicans will decide whether an impeachment inquiry is the only way they’ll get these answers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am of the opinion the mass media live in a cocoon where the air is stale. Consequently they are out of touch and do not comprehend what 90% of the rest of America think, live with and are subjected. The average elitist reporter does not feel the effect of inflation as the "Average Joe," white, black or Hispanic.
The book I just finished reading about the desegregation of Birmingham revealed the city's white population were able to remain in their own cocoon until Bull Connor was stripped of his authority. Then, and only then, were the white population and their conscience finally exposed to the reality of what black citizens dealt with every day. Standing in the other person's shoes can make one grow and change.
The Democrats have done everything and more to block Trump and it has resulted in a two fold reaction. First, his positive polling numbers have risen and second, I submit, the average American, whose eyes are open and are fair minded, have been turned off by what Democrats, Soros AG's , our various intelligence agencies and Biden's Justice Department have done by stonewalling all efforts of those who sought to return to the rule of law.
It still is a long way off to the 2024 election and there are a lot of instabilities and uncertainties that can cause significant eruption . That said, I see a Dewey occurrence forming/shaping.
The lunacy of defunding police, the establishment of sanctuary cities, porous borders and other insanities have finally begun to land. Yes, Biden's age is a factor and is the mass media's hook they are hanging their editorial hat on but it is Biden's consistent incompetence, his mean spiritedness, his detachment from reality and his potential corruption that are the burrs under the saddle that are far more disturbing.
Voters are not totally stupid or unaware..
+++
.Trump vs. Biden: The Nightmare Can Only Get Worse
The president will be almost 82 by the time of the presidential election, and his predecessor may stand convicted of crimes.
By Gerard Baker
It still seems faintly incredible that the next presidential election could be a rematch of the last one.
For one thing, it happens so rarely in modern American politics. Only once since women gained the right to vote have the same two candidates contested consecutive elections—Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956.
But of all the pairs of candidates in the past century you would have bet against repeating their rivalry four years later, our current twosome would probably have topped your list. Incumbent presidents usually seek re-election, but Joe Biden took office at 78, already looking like a one-term president. On the other side, losing a general election has usually been enough to consign a candidate to history. Among the exceptions, Richard Nixon eked out a victory in 1968, but Thomas Dewey lost again in 1948. In 1956 Stevenson carried seven states, two fewer than in 1952, and trailed Eisenhower in the popular vote by 15 points.
But here we are, the primaries a few months away, the general election in just over a year, and the indications are that Mr. Biden is set to break his own record as the oldest candidate ever to lead a major party’s ticket, and Donald Trump, now under four indictments for 91 criminal counts, is likely to be the first American since Nixon to win a major party’s presidential nomination for a third time.
So much for history.
What makes the rematch especially improbable is how widely unpopular the two men are. In late 1955 Eisenhower had an approval rating of 78%, according to Gallup. I can’t find a similar number for Mr. Stevenson—who is supposed to have quipped, when told by a supporter that every thinking man in America was voting for him, “That won’t be enough. I need a majority.” But even if his approval was low, it is unlikely to have been this low.
Last week’s Wall Street Journal poll found the same proportion of voters—39%—with a favorable opinion of Mr. Biden and of Mr. Trump. Whatever else this may be, it isn’t a rematch by popular acclamation. As sequels go, this is more “Jaws: The Revenge” than “The Godfather Part II.”
Yet things are likely to get even worse. We can reasonably guess what will happen to Mr. Trump’s standing with all but his most ardent supporters in the next year. The endless court appearances, the breathless daily coverage of every piece of evidence, of every hostile witness, maybe even a conviction or two, is unlikely to elevate him in the eyes of independent voters.
But there are several good reasons to think that things could get noticeably harder for Mr. Biden’s standing too.
First, his Hunter problems are metastasizing, despite the best efforts of some in federal law enforcement to minimize them. The more we learn about the son’s lucrative business dealings, the harder it gets to believe that the father had no material connection with them. The worse the stench around the family gets, the more difficult it becomes for the president to claim any high moral ground over his similarly malodorous Republican opponent.
Second, like the rest of us, Mr. Biden isn’t getting any younger. Unlike most of the rest of us, he doesn’t think his advancing age is an impediment to doing his job. Voters disagree. That Journal poll found that 73% of voters think him too old to run for president; 60% say he isn’t mentally capable.
Third, immigration. When Democratic mayors are ululating about how their cities will be “destroyed” by overwhelming pressure from illegal migrants, a Democratic president can no longer ignore the problem. We may be one ugly incident away from immigration becoming more toxic than any other issue to Mr. Biden’s chances.
Fourth, Ukraine. While I continue to believe Kyiv’s cause is just, the chances of this ending in an acceptable victory are falling by the week. With Republicans increasingly skeptical about more assistance, the pressure for results on the ground will grow. Some time in the next year Mr. Biden may face a choice between doubling down and urging a settlement. Either would be politically perilous: The former would embolden critics who say America is immersing itself in a long and messy war; the latter would be a catastrophic setback to American prestige.
Finally, the economy. There is an excess of happy talk to the effect that we’ve had a “soft landing,” with inflation falling and unemployment remaining low. But the effects of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate tightening over the past 18 months haven’t fully passed through yet; the rest of the world is weakening. A premature victory lap could be a disaster for Mr. Biden’s reputation next year if growth dries up.
The prospect of another Biden-Trump match-up has always represented a clash between the highly implausible and the deeply improbable. One of them still has to give
++++++
Israel's vibrant population grows.
+++
Israeli population nearing 10 million people ahead of Jewish New Year
By the end of 2048, Israel's population is expected to reach 15 million people.
FLAG-ADORNED spectators watch the air show in the skies of Jerusalem on Independence Day.
About 9.8 million people were living in Israel ahead of Rosh Hashanah, with the country's population expected to reach 10 million people by the end of next year, according to data published by the Central Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday.
By the end of 2048, Israel's population is expected to reach 15 million people.
Of the 9.8 million people living in Israel, 7.2 million (73%) are Jews and about 2.1 million (21%) are Arabs. Another 549,000 were from other sectors.
Olim on the 64th Nefesh B’Nefesh charter flight pose with organization’s Co-founders Rabbi Yehoshua Fass and Tony Gelbart; Minister of Aliyah and Integration, Ofir Sofer; and Director-General of the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, Avichai Kahana. (credit: SHACHAR AZRAN, YONIT SCHILLER)
Where did all the new people come from?
Israel's population grew by about 194,000 people this past year, marking a 2% growth. 172,000 new babies were born and about 70,000 people moved to the country, including about 66,000 new immigrants.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Progressives, liberals , Democrats, radicals, are all the same, cut from similar molds and never learn. They are so sure of their nonsense you cannot talk to them nor do they care to hear. One of my dear friends is unwilling to even consider Biden is corrupt. Facts mean nothing to him.
+++
++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment