Joe Biden Is A Good Man? Please Don’t Insult Our Intelligence

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/07/08/joe-biden-is-a-good-man-please-dont-insult-our-intelligence/

The talking points must have gone out within minutes of the end of President Joe Biden’s lame debate performance. Among the first to tell us just how fine a man Biden was Barack Obama, who called his former vice president “someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life.” It is, of course, a lie. Biden is not a good man, and the idea he’s “fought for ordinary folks” for even a single day of his “public service” is risible.

Obama’s tweet also claimed that Biden is the candidate “who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight.”  From there, the gaslighting grew exponentially worse.

At a July 2 fundraiser in Virginia, Democratic Rep. Don Boyer, whom Biden once called “Doug,” compared our disabled president to Jesus.

“​​He has been a good, good man. He’s resilient, optimistic, indefatigable, and above all courageous,” said Boyer.

On the day after the debate, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who admitted that watching the debate made him “weep,” assured us that Biden is “a good man and a good president.”

There are too many post-debate examples to list all the “good man” encomia, but here are few more:

CHAPTER 26: Pronouns and Publishing Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is (forthcoming release August 2024) by Linda Goudsmit

 https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27886/chapter-26-pronouns-and-publishing

goudsmit.pundicity.com   lindagoudsmit.com 

The acceptance of philanthrocapitalism as the munificent foundation for globalism’s New World Order provides the philosophical rationalization for social engineering throughout the publishing industry. Over the last twenty-five years, the U.S. trade publishing business has been centralized and reduced to five main players. The Big Five are Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette Book Group, and MacMillan.

British-owned Pearson Education is the largest publisher of educational books, professional training manuals, and educational assessment services in America. Pearson Education was created when its parent company, Pearson PLC, purchased Simon & Schuster’s education division from Viacom and merged it with its own education division in 2011.

In February 2019, Pearson sold its U.S. K–12 business to the private equity firm Nexus Capital Management LP for $250 million. In July 2019 Pearson announced its decision to move to a digital-first strategy, and began phasing out the publishing of printed textbooks.

BlackRock and Vanguard are among Pearson PLC’s top ten institutional shareholders, and BlackRock is among the top three institutional shareholders of Cevian Capital, Pearson PLC’s largest institutional investor.

The Big Five publishing companies and Pearson publish digital and printed books that follow an ESG/DEI editorial formula. Let’s take a look.

Kiri Jorgensen, Publisher and Senior Editor at Chicken Scratch Books, posted an excellent article in The Federalist on July 13, 2023, “A Woke Children’s Literature Cabal Is Conditioning Your Kid to Be an Obedient Leftist.”[i] Jorgensen begins with a warning:

Children’s books are one of the most powerful tools parents have to help teach their kids how to be good human beings. From picture books being read at bedtime to novels being read by flashlight under the blankets, kids flourish in the safety of stories as they develop their belief systems. Resilience, respect, and many other noble traits are portrayed and experienced vicariously through books. What a powerful tool!

The Diminishing Likelihood of a Fair Election Brian T. Kennedy

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-diminishing-likelihood-of-a-fair-election/

It is not the purpose of this essay to discourage anyone from participating in the 2024 election. Quite the opposite. Its purpose is to encourage unprecedented numbers of citizens and their elected representatives to work together to ensure that the election will be fair and free from, among other things, interference by foreign governments and their intelligence agencies.

At no time during the Cold War with the Soviet Union was it imagined that the Russians could manipulate a United States presidential election in favor of their preferred candidate. Hollywood’s portrayal of a “Manchurian Candidate” aside, American elections were held in person, using paper ballots, counted by human beings, with other human beings watching them. And, however vicious and corrupt the normal partisan interplay of American politics may have been, this practice insured that a fair enough election could be held. Today that is no longer the case.

Regardless of who the nominees are in 2024, just as in 2020, much of America will hold their elections in the least transparent, most vulnerable method possible: absentee ballots. Because of this, a free and fair election cannot be assured. It matters not that President Trump is ahead in all the polls and in ways that some pollsters believe cannot be overcome. Citizens should expect that, since America is in a war with Communist China, November’s election will be the target of a massive intelligence operation to decide the next president.

It should be noted that America’s election system was not built to stop the Communist Chinese or any nation state, or for that matter any dark money group, with the capacity and the interest in deciding an American presidential election.

The United States is made vulnerable by being the only developed country in the world to allow for this wide-spread use of absentee ballots. Every other advanced democracy conducts their elections in person, with identification shown, on paper ballots counted by large groups of people transparently tallying vote totals with the results available the same day of the election. In states around America, Secretaries of State have allowed or been part of the development of elections systems that would appear to be designed to allow for fraud. So whether not an election is stolen, a free and fair election system has been stolen from the American people. Today we have systems that lacks transparency whether it is the absentee ballot process or the electronic voting systems. That it can be exploited by the Chinese Communist Party should seem obvious.

It was widely underreported that Communist China declared a People’s War against the United States in May of 2019 after the Trump Administration’s efforts to curb their theft of American intellectual property. This so-called People’s War was declared in the pages of the People’s Daily when Communist Party apparatchiks told the Chinese people they would have to make sacrifices to stop the “greed and arrogance” of the Trump Administration. This war between the U.S. and the CCP involves political warfare, information warfare, and psychological warfare. It is war, after all, and as such, there are few rules. Any reasonable assessment of the state of U.S. defenses should include whether such political warfare could include the CCP intervening in the 2024 election. This assessment appears not to have been done. This is critical since this is not merely about the manipulation of search engines or social media platforms. This is about a comprehensive strategy to steal the 2024 election using whatever means necessary.

And, though the level of hostilities between the U.S. and the CCP has not risen to traditional military conflict, we should be clear that the Chinese Communist Party is deadly serious in their intent to destroy the United States. The death of over 70,000 Americans last year because of Chinese-manufactured fentanyl—imported via Biden’s open border with Mexico—means that China’s unrestricted warfare is in full operation and that nothing is beyond the pale of the CCP.

Egypt—Israel’s Strange, Warlike “Peace” Partner A government press that calls for Israel’s demise. P.David Hornik

https://pdavidhornik.substack.com/

“The Al-Aqsa Flood [the October 7 massacre] caused an earthquake whose repercussions are still rocking the very foundations of the loathsome occupation state. Despite the piercing pain we feel over the victims of the Gaza war, [which is a war of] collective extermination, I am convinced that the Al-Aqsa Flood will be the most important and influential juncture in the history of the Palestinian struggle…. The Palestinian resistance has proved that the spirit of the struggle has not died, that the dream of national liberation has not dissipated and that the dream of an independent Palestinian state is close [to being realized]. As for the Zionist occupation state, its fate is to disintegrate and cease to exist.”

This is not the latest piece of Iranian or Hamas propaganda; it’s from a column by Atef Zaidan that appeared on June 22 in Akhbar al-Yawm, an Egyptian weekly government paper. As MEMRI, the Jerusalem-based Middle East Media Research Institute, notes:

Articles published in the Egyptian government press in the last few weeks praise Hamas’ conduct in the Gaza war and predict the demise of Israel and of the U.S. as a world power. Titled “The End of Israel,” “Israel Has No Future,” “Israel Self-Destructs,” “A World Without America,” and more, the articles describe Hamas’ fighters as “brave” and as “heroes….” Meanwhile, IDF soldiers are described as helpless cowards who are “weaker than a spider’s web.” They describe Israel as a constant threat to the Arabs that must perish if the Arabs are to survive, and predict that its end is indeed near…. [T]he position expressed in these articles—praise for Hamas and justification of its October 7, 2023 attack, alongside gloating over Israel’s woes—has been taken by the  Egyptian government press since the attack itself and the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Imagine Hitler with Nuclear Bombs; Now Imagine Iran’s Mullahs with Nuclear Bombs by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20745/iran-hitler-nuclear-bombs

The Iranian regime is rapidly pursuing acquiring nuclear weapons. This breakout must be prevented.

Iran is already supplying terror groups — Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis — with ballistic missiles. Presumably to hide behind “plausible deniability,” Iran’s regime does not seem particularly shy about arming these militias abroad with advanced weaponry. Why wouldn’t it equip these groups with nuclear weapons as well?

Iran’s regime has made no secret of its desire to annihilate Israel (“Death to Israel!”) on the way to annihilating the United States (“Death to America!”). The mullahs doubtless just see Israel as standing in the way.

From Iran’s perspective, Israel, smaller than New Jersey, is, as former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani indicated, a “one-bomb” country: “[T]he employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but [such a bomb] would only do damage to the Islamic World.”

Consider the scenario where not just Iran’s proxies, but other allies of Iran — such as Venezuela or Cuba — are equipped with nuclear weapons.

Does anyone imagine if Hamas had possessed nuclear weapons when they sent a “huge barrage of rockets” and bulldozed their way into Israel on October 7, 2023, that they would have hesitated to use them?

The proliferation of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat not only to Israel but, of course, creates a broader, more unpredictable global security crisis.

Immediate action is needed to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons… It is an intervention that should have been undertaken many years ago, but was unfortunately thwarted by the Obama administration. Any further delay can only lead to catastrophic consequences for international stability.

The Iranian regime is rapidly pursuing acquiring nuclear weapons. This breakout must be prevented. Iran’s regime poses a danger at least as dangerous as Hitler’s if he had possessed them. Given the Iranian leadership’s ideological extremism, combined with its strategic ambitions and regional influence, the potential for regional and global instability that could result cannot be overstated. Allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons will simply increase the risk of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race and devastating global conflicts.

It’s not fair, Mr. President, but it’s reality His interview with George Stephanopoulos did nothing to reassure people worried about a Biden defeat.By Dana Milbank

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/05/biden-stephanopolous-abc-interview-condition/

“It was a bad episode,” President Biden told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos Friday of his debate debacle. “No indication of any serious condition.”

Glad to hear it! But what about us?

We — and by “we,” I mean those desperate to avoid the horrors of a second Trump presidency — are in a very serious condition. Biden now trails Donald Trump by six points in both the New York Times/Siena College and Wall Street Journal polls. The latest CBS News/YouGov poll finds that, post-debate, 72 percent of registered voters don’t think Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president. That’s up from 65 percent before the debate. Eighty percent of voters in the Wall Street Journal poll believed Biden too old to run. A USA Today poll found that 41 percent of Democrats want Biden replaced as the nominee.

Biden’s prime-time interview with Stephanopoulos will do nothing to reassure people worried about a Biden defeat. Stephanopoulos hectored him with nonstop and repetitive questions about his mental acuity for the full 22-minute session, which undoubtedly made Biden defensive. But the president seemed to be in denial about the magnitude of the problem facing him, unwilling even to acknowledge the obvious truth that he has lost a step over the last 3½ years.

Stephanopoulos pointed out that Biden is behind in the polls.

“I don’t buy that.”

Stephanopoulos, a veteran of the Clinton White House, told Biden he’d never seen a president with a 36 percent approval rating get reelected.

“I don’t believe that’s my approval.”

Is he more frail now?

“No.”

The Lawfare Campaign Against Donald Trump Takes Three Big Blows Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-7-2-the-lawfare-campaign-against-donald-trump-takes-three-big-blows

In the 235 or so years since our Republic was founded, until now, no ex-President has ever been prosecuted for allegedly criminal acts committed while in office. This has been a political norm of great consequence. Any such prosecution of an ex-President cannot avoid being inherently problematical, inevitably bringing to a head the conflict between, on the one hand, constraining the President in the exercise of his constitutional duties and, on the other hand, declaring him “above the law.” By far preferable would be for this conflict never to arise, and for the applicable legal rules never to get defined and to remain ambiguous.

So for all those 235 years, our predecessors in the government, whatever their political differences and contentious disputes, have largely refrained from the temptation to use the criminal justice system to bring down political adversaries, and entirely so in the case of ex-Presidents. That political norm came to an abrupt end with the massive “lawfare” campaign initiated during the past two years by Democratic Party prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions against ex-President (and current candidate) Trump.

You might think that people abrogating a political norm like this, so central to the proper functioning of the Republic, would only do so in the face of the most clear-cut circumstances of obvious and significant statutory violations, crying out for criminal redress. But of course that is not the MO of our current garbage political powers-that-be. Instead, we see broadly-worded criminal statutes that would never be so used against anyone else, twisted out of context in the effort to take down a hated political foe. Now, the Supreme Court has been forced to rule on several issues in these cases, and has come out in unsurprising ways.

During the past week, the lawfare campaign against Trump suffered three major blows from Supreme Court decisions. The first of those came in a decision called Fischer v. United States, issued on June 28, and the other two in Trump v. United States, issued yesterday (July 1).

David Samuels:The true President of America’s Fifth Republic Obama, not Biden, is the nation’s new Lincoln

https://unherd.com/2024/07/the-true-president-of-americas-fifth-republic/

The fireworks in America this Fourth of July will be fueled by the country’s imminent election, in which a convicted felon faces off against a doddering old man who is too senile to know that he isn’t really the President. The country’s elite would be glad if this were hyperbole; unfortunately for them, it is not. But Joe Biden’s fitness for office is no longer the big question that the American press is afraid to ask. After three years of near-total silence, they suddenly can’t stop asking it.

There may have indeed been members of America’s political and media elites who were shocked by Biden’s debate performance. Crediting the sincerity of their reactions doesn’t say much for their powers of observation, though. Biden’s shuffling gait, frozen facial expressions, babbling fabulist arabesques and inability to perform simple physical tasks without falling down have all been on public display since the first year of his Presidency — an office he won mostly in absentia while hiding out in the basement of his home in Delaware.

It is certainly possible that the American elite stuck its fingers in its ears and covered its eyes in order to block out Biden’s resemblance to late-period Leonid Brezhnev. Perhaps by repeating the ideas that Biden was not only sharp as a tack but also a geopolitical genius and probably even the greatest American President of any of our lifetimes, they came to believe that some version of these things were true, and had to be true — because everyone said so.

Those who favour psychodynamic in-group explanations can certainly find support in the rapid about-faces staged by America’s leading pundits. Earlier this year, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was boasting of the personal time he spent with Biden, who he proclaimed to be “completely lucid and with excellent grasp of detail”. After the debate, Krugman called on Biden to step down. Senile dementia is a clever disease. Or maybe Krugman didn’t like the face he saw in the mirror the morning after Biden’s debate performance.

What astounded Krugman and his fellow bold-faced journalist types about Biden’s rotten debate performance wasn’t the obviousness of Biden’s mental decline, but the fear that they were now publicly shown to have been lying. Krugman’s fellow in-house NYT author of Soviet state propaganda, Thomas Friedman, who fancies himself an “old friend” of Biden’s, was writing fibs about Biden as late as last month while boasting of his long off-the-record conversations with the President about the future of the Middle East. It took Friedman less than 24 hours to proclaim that Biden’s debate performance had made him “weep”. Poor man — no doubt it did. David Remnick of The New Yorker, who authored a door-stopper-sized hagiography of Barack Obama during the President’s first year in office, was equally quick to go public with his discovery that Joe Biden was maybe not exactly up to sorting marbles by size or colour, just in time to become a virgin for the next election.

It’s hard to be revealed as a fibber — especially when your job is ostensibly to tell the truth. But the sight of journalistic worthies suddenly grabbing hand towels to cover their proximity to power was not by itself enough to explain the Night of the Journalistic Long Knives.

Joe Biden’s Alternative Facts Voters deserve a candidate who can compete with Donald Trump. Not one who looks increasingly out of touch with reality. Eli Lake

https://www.thefp.com/p/joe-bidens-alternative-facts

President Joe Biden, in his interview Friday night with ABC News, said many things. The polls had him in a dead heat with Donald Trump. Democratic Party leaders have urged him to stay in the race. America, under his leadership, has “checkmated” China. 

He delivered these assessments with a gravel-voiced clarity missing from his disastrous debate performance on June 27. He was engaged and followed his train of thought to a conclusion. The problem was the substance of his answers were lacking. In fact, many of the things he said strained credulity. 

Call it Biden’s alternative facts. 

Let’s start with the polling. Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “All the pollsters I talk to tell me it’s a toss-up” between him and Donald Trump. It’s possible Biden has indeed spoken to pollsters who tell him the presidential race, after the debate, is 50-50. But the highest quality polls after the debate show Trump in a firm lead. 

The New York Times/Siena College poll, for example, has Biden down six points among likely voters. A Wall Street Journal post-debate poll found 60 percent of likely voters either strongly or somewhat disapprove of Biden’s performance as president. CNN’s latest poll among American adults has Biden at 43 percent versus Trump at 49 percent. 

Former senior adviser to President Barack Obama David Axelrod posted on X a more realistic assessment of Biden’s chances in the race on Friday evening: “The president is rightfully proud of his record. But he is dangerously out-of-touch with the concerns people have about his capacities moving forward and his standing in this race. Four years ago at this time, he was 10 points ahead of Trump. Today, he is six points behind.”

The true story of this election? Populism is here to stay British voters are wriggling out of the straitjacket of elite consensus opinion. It is wonderful to witness. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/05/the-true-story-of-this-election-populism-is-here-to-stay/

There has been an earthquake in British politics, reporters say. Everyone from the Guardian to the Sun to CNN is reaching for the metaphor of shifting tectonic plates to describe Labour’s victory over the Tories in the General Election. And in a sense they’re right. The political ground has shaken. Rumblings have been felt. But it wasn’t drab, grey Labour that did it – it was the millions of voters who rejected both Labour and the Tories and in the process delivered one of the most devastating sucker punches to the political duopoly in decades.

To see the true quake, you need to look beyond Labour’s mirage-like landslide. As is now becoming clear, Labour has not been swept to power on anything like a wave of public enthusiasm. On the contrary, it won its 412 seats on the second lowest electoral turnout since 1885, and more as a result of people’s exhaustion with the Tories than their love for Sir Keir. No, it is those who refused to vote Labour who have brilliantly unsettled British politics. It is those who took a punt on Nigel Farage’s Reform party who have planted a bomb in the political landscape that will not be easily defused.

For me, the most fascinating stat of the election is the share of the vote received by Labour and the Tories. Labour won around 34 per cent of vote, the Tories around 24 per cent. Let’s leave to one side what a lame landslide it is if only 34 per cent of the people who could be bothered to vote put an X in your box. More striking is the fact that the combined vote share of Labour and the Tories, the parties that have dominated British politics for a century, was 58 per cent. That is staggeringly – and, if you will allow me, hilariously – low.

To put it in historical context: at the last General Election, in 2019, their combined vote share was 75.8 per cent. In 2017 it was even higher: 82.4 per cent. In the elections of the 2000s it hovered around 70 per cent. Why has it now dropped to less than 60 per cent, giving rise to the possibility that in the next few years the two parties that have run this country for decades might see their combined vote drop to less than half of all votes cast? Largely, because of Reform. And a few independents, too. Reform’s vote share is around 14 per cent, enough to shatter the Labour / Tory duopoly and to unravel the two big parties’ arrogant belief that they and they alone have a right to rule.