Joe Biden: Poster Senior for Elder Abuse He was merely a prop for the Democrats to collect votes in 2020. Nothing more. by Jeff Davidson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/joe-biden-poster-senior-for-elder-abuse/

Nearly four years ago, I wrote that Joe Biden was a victim of elder abuse and his wife and son Hunter were likely compelling him to take on a job that he was not fit to do. Now everyone, with even a scintilla of objectivity, knows that this is true.

When an Older Adult is Harmed

According to the CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) “Elder abuse is an intentional act or failure to act that causes or creates a risk of harm to an older adult. An older adult is someone aged 60 or older. The abuse often occurs at the hands of a caregiver or a person the elder trusts.”

The CDC further states that “Victims often have to decide whether to tell someone they are being hurt or continue being abused by someone they depend upon or care for deeply.” What’s more, “Elder abuse is common. Abuse, including neglect and exploitation, are experienced by about 1 in 10 people aged 60 and older who live at home.”

The thoughtless, cruel, and immoral exploitation of Joe Biden largely stems from Democrats’ eternal quest for power and their residual shock from the 2016 election, aided and abetted by the aforementioned members of the Biden Crime Family. Jill, a modern day Lady Macbeth is power hungry. History will not be kind to her. Hunter, understandably so, wants to stay out of prison, and the “big guy” is his shield. In no way will they allow Joe to step down even if the degradation gets five times worse.

The Effects of Elder Abuse

Elders who have been abused have a 300% higher risk of death when compared to those who have not been mistreated, based on findings from the National Council on Aging.

Empire of Evil A powerful new documentary from Bill Whittle about the Russian Revolution. by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/empire-of-evil/

There’s a reason why the History Channel is often, with dark whimsy, referred to as the Hitler Channel. As I scrolled through the online TV Guide recently to check out the channel’s scheduled programming for the next few days, I discovered shows entitled The Nazis’ Secret Bases, Secrets of the Nazi War Machine, and Hitler’s Celebrations of Hate – not to mention several programs about D-Day and the ensuing “battles for Europe” between the Western Allies and the Nazis.

There was nothing remotely touching on the Soviet Union.

This is very much par for the course. Similarly, it’s no surprise that while a great many major feature films have been made about Nazi Germany, among them The Pianist, Downfall, Sophie’s Choice, Schindler’s List, Valkyrie, and Shoah. There’s only a scattering of lesser-known Hollywood pictures about the Soviet Union – notably, the obscure Gulag movie Escape from Sobibor and the TV biopic Stalin starring Robert Duvall.

Why this dramatic disparity? Because the people who write and produce feature films for the major studios, or documentaries for clients like the History Channel, have an entirely appropriate contempt for Hitler and everything he stood for. But the Russian Revolution? Lenin? Many of them – whose knowledge of history tends to have been shaped by left-wing university professors – have something of a soft spot for the people who overthrew the Romanovs. After all, the czars were pretty monstrous – most of them, anyway.

So it is that all too many people who want to make powerful films about history are happy to return yet again to the worst horrors of Nazism, but Soviet Communism? The most famous single movie about that topic is Reds, whose protagonist, the American journalist John Reed (Warren Beatty), was an eager fan of, and participant in, the Russian Revolution. Yes, the film ultimately acknowledges, sort of, that the revolution turned out not to be everything that Reed thought it was – but along the way to that conclusion we’re given a hell of a lot of stirring, heroic images of Lenin and company doing their thing.

Universities Should Promote Rigorous Discourse, Not Stifle It By Jay Bhattacharya & Wesley J. Smith

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/07/universities_should_promote_rigorous_discourse_not_stifle_it_151217.html

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an advocacy article that attacks academic freedom and urges stifling contentious campus debates. Specifically, Evan Mullen, Eric J. Topol, and Abraham Verghese urge universities to “speak out publicly” and issue official institutional opinions about public controversies involving its professors “when it concludes that a faculty member’s opinion could cause public harm.” 

The NEJM authors write in the context of Stanford University refusing to institutionally condemn the arguments made by one of its scholars, Dr. Scott Atlas, when he advised the Trump administration on COVID policies in the early days of the pandemic. The authors, one of whom is a physician trainee (Mullen) and another the former vice chair of education (Verghese) at Stanford, are university colleagues of Atlas, as is one of the authors of this essay (Bhattacharya). They claim that Atlas’ publicly expressed skepticism of masking as an effective prophylactic against infection and his belief that lockdowns and school closures would cause more harm than good were so potentially harmful that Stanford itself – as an institution – should have condemned Atlas’ opinions.

Why? It wasn’t as if some of his colleagues didn’t criticize Atlas. Indeed, more than a hundred Stanford professors and physicians wrote publicly opposing his advice. The letter’s signatories also pushed a vote through the Stanford Faculty Senate in November 2020 condemning Dr. Atlas, using quasi-religious language to declare his positions “anathema.” But that wasn’t enough, apparently, because “institutional silence may be interpreted as tacit approval.”

Controversy between professors is the norm at the frontiers of science. It is utterly unsurprising that there would be discord over the proper policy to follow in the wake of a pandemic featuring a new virus, with great uncertainty about its epidemiological and biological aspects. In the intervening years, Dr. Atlas’ positions in 2020 on school closures and mask mandates have been proven legitimate, demonstrating the wisdom of Stanford not taking a position as an institution.  

House Dems launch united effort against election bill requiring voters prove citizenship ‘Democrats are urged to VOTE NO on H.R. 8281,’ a whip question states By Emma Colton

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dems-launch-united-effort-against-election-bill-requiring-voters-prove-citizenship

House Democrats launched a united effort to vote against a Republican-backed election bill that would require voters provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in federal elections. 

Republicans are pushing the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, otherwise known as the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act, and require states to obtain proof of citizenship from voters for federal elections, as well as purge noncitizens from voter rolls. 

Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote, saying it would place “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans” in order to vote. 

“As we’ve seen a number of times this Congress, House Republicans continue to irresponsibly call into question the credibility of our elections. Despite numerous recounts, challenges in court, and deep-dives by conservative think-tanks, there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target. It is already illegal under current law for noncitizens to register to vote or to vote in federal elections,” the office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., wrote in a “whip question,” Axios first reported. The whip vote rounds up this coming weeks’ votes and outlines guidance regarding how Democratic House members should vote. 

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.”