Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  

2020 Socialist/Marxist /Feminism/Abortion Democrat Party News & Opinion ....

Recommended Posts

Breitbart News

Pinkerton: Will Joe Biden Sign a Pledge to Protect American Monuments?

US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden answers questions after speaking about the coronavirus pandemic and the economy on June 30, 2020, in Wilmington, Delaware. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)


5 Jul 2020

t shouldn’t have to get to this point, but here it goes: We need a written pledge to protect our statues and monuments. That is, a written document for politicians to sign, if they wish, pledging to protect public order and the dignity of our society.

Yes, of course, desecration and destruction are already illegal, but as we know, many elected officials have chosen to turn a blind eye — or, in some cases, have actively supported — vandalism of statues and monuments.

For the most part, these officials have been local officials, such as sitting mayors. And yet lately, higher officials in the Democratic Party have started to express at least some sympathy for the devils — these destroyers of public peace.  

For instance, just on Sunday, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) failed to make any sort of defense of public order when she was asked about the possible removal or desecration of the presidential carvings on Mt. Rushmore. Duckworth answered to CNN, “We should start off by having a national dialogue … I think we should listen to everybody. I think we should listen to the argument there, but remember that the president at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans.”  

Let’s cut to the chase here: For Duckworth to say, “We should have a national dialogue,” and, “We should listen to everybody,” while echoing the protesters’ grievances, is code-language for dialoguing with Antifa and listening to Black Lives Matter — and we know what they want to do.  

Indeed, the last few months have shown us that when a politician won’t condemn vandalism, that means that he or she is signaling a green light to the vandals. After all, the hoodlums aren’t stupid: They know when the coast is clear and when they can have some cost-free fun.  

Lest anybody misunderstand where her sympathies lie, Duckworth added, “I’m more worried about the 130,000 who have lost their lives recently and the thousands and thousands of more Americans who are sick than I am our historical past.” We might note that Duckworth is reportedly on Joe Biden’s short-list for the vice presidential nomination.  

Indeed, speaking of Joe Biden, after months of taking only softball questions in his Delaware basement, Biden was asked, finally, what he thinks about statue destruction. He answered, “I think the idea of bringing down all those Confederate monuments to Confederate soldiers and generals who strongly supported secession and the maintenance of slavery, and going to war to do it, I think those statues belong in museums.”  

The former vice president did insist that the government should protect some structures, such as the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial, and yet it’s obvious that many statues and memorials fall into a neither category: They’re not Confederates, but they’re not PC, either. For instance, there’s Christopher Columbus, who is being demolished all over the country. So what’s Biden’s position on the demolition of Columbus, Junipero Serra, U.S. Grant — and all the others who are far from Confederates? Biden has yet to answer such detailed questions. 

For his part, Donald Trump has an answer. He wants to defend the statues, even if, of course, he has not always been able to (it’s a big country).  

Still, the president has argued, with great vehemence, that Biden would not adequately defend the nation’s heritage. As Trump said of Biden on June 20, “Does anybody honestly think he controls these radical maniacs? He will surrender your country to these mobsters.” He added, “If the Democrats gain power, then the rioters will be in charge and no one will be safe.” 

Is that a fair charge against a hypothetical President Biden? We don’t know, of course, because Biden is not in the White House — although polls indicate that he could be. And in the meantime, we certainly do know that other Democrats aren’t trying very hard to protect public order.

In such a situation, we need clarity. We need to find out: Who’s on the side of public order, and who’s on the side of disorder? 

So to help bring about that clarity, let’s make it a clear test: Let’s boil down the idea of public order into a binary choice, a simple “yes” or “no.” Indeed, let’s turn it into a pledge to put before politicians, incumbents and challengers alike.  

That pledge that could read like this: 

I will not support, and will actively condemn, any and all illegal defacement and destruction of public and private property, including statues and monuments. Such violence is never an appropriate form of protest. And I will support law enforcement in its honorable effort to protect such properties, as well as society as a whole. And I will further support the proper prosecution of those who seek to vandalize or destroy.

Some will insist that such a pledge is redundant because it’s already illegal to commit vandalism. And that’s true, it is — it’s just that the laws aren’t being enforced, and some pols, and their parties, seem to be okay with that.   

So that’s the value of a pledge: It will help remind office-holders of the laws that they are sworn to uphold, and it will help reveal to the voters whether or not those office-holders are doing their duty.  

To be sure, not every politician will sign the pledge; in fact, it’s likely that many won’t. Yet of course, during this current spree of vandalizing violence, to not sign a pledge to uphold order is, in fact, to be making a plain-as-day statement — that one is soft on, or perhaps even supportive of, vandalistic violence. 

Moreover, in many cities, mayors and other local pols will be able to safely ignore any such pledge — and even loudly reject it. That is, their Woken voters wouldn’t want them to sign it, and they might well vote them out if they did (although perhaps there’s a silent majority, even in the cities, that disapproves of such defilement). 

In any case, not every American lives in Woketown. Indeed, national polls show strong support for keeping most statues intact. And even if voters are sympathetic to removing, say, Confederate statues, it’s likely that they would prefer to see the removal done peacefully and legally, such that the statues can be safely moved in a museum or other repository. 

So presumably many politicians, especially at the state and federal level, would be happy to sign such a pledge — and if they don’t, well, the voters might be happy to learn the name of his or her opponent in the next election.  

We might add, too, that there’s ample precedent for pledge-taking. For instance, since 1985, Grover Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, has issued its Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which the signatory commits to not increasing net taxes. The “ATR Pledge” is completely voluntary, of course, and yet it has been an important tool in keeping Republicans — and even some Democrats — away from the tax-increase temptation. 

So now today: We need a pledge for law and order. Yes, it’s sad that we need such a pledge, but still, it’s better to fix a problem than to leave it to fester.   

Therefore, before election day, every American should have the chance to know which side each politician is on: The side of order? Or the side of disorder?  

And that includes you, Joe Biden.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


The conventional wisdom right now is that Joe Biden is semi-senile, and that his choice of a vice president is all-important as it is likely this person (almost certainly a black female) will become president at some early point in the next few years if Biden wins in November. This conventional wisdom may be narrowly accurate, but ultimately wrong. Why?

First, there is an imperceptible difference between a senile Biden and a feeble-minded Joe Biden. Let’s face it, Biden has been feeble-minded since he entered national politics almost 50 years ago. What is decisive is that even if he isn’t trending toward senility, he has already sold out to the far left of the Democratic Party, and has signaled his intent to implement a far-left agenda if he wins.

Don’t take my acerbic word for it. Read Michael Tomasky’s article “Biden’s Journey Left” in a recent New York Review of Books. Tomasky is one of the smarter lefty writers who I make a point of following. And his article makes clear that a Biden administration would be the most left-wing administration in history—far to the left of Obama.

Among other things, Tomasky reports that Biden’s campaign was having close and cordial contact with Bernie Sanders’s campaign well before Bernie dropped out, and that Biden quickly incorporated a lot of key Sanders people in his campaign when Bernie finally departed the race:

Biden and Sanders get along fairly well personally, and Biden understands that he needs to take the left seriously. . .  After Sanders withdrew, the discussions between the two turned more toward substance—and the extent to which Biden would be willing to adopt pieces of the Sanders agenda. Thus were formed the six task forces that the Biden campaign unveiled on May 13. These eight-member groups cover the economy, health care, immigration, criminal justice, climate, and education, and each is co-chaired by one Biden supporter and one Sanders supporter.

The left-wing presence on many of them is remarkable. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez co-chairs the climate panel with John Kerry. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Seattle, a major Sanders backer, co-chairs the health care task force with Obama surgeon general Vivek Murthy. The economist Stephanie Kelton, a top Sanders adviser and proponent of Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that the government should pay for major new investments like the Green New Deal by printing more money, is on the economic task force. The task forces, I’m told, have a threefold mission: to publicly recommend the policy positions that Biden should run on, to guide the writing of the party platform, and to inform the transition, should Biden win the election (assuming there is an election, or an uncorrupted one). It stands to reason that some of the members of these task forces might also fill important slots in a Biden administration.

If you don’t have an NYRB subscription, here are some more key samples of Tomasky’s analysis:

One of the oldest truisms of presidential politics is that candidates run to the left or right (respectively) during the primary and to the center in the general election. But since he became the presumptive nominee, Joe Biden has moved left. . .

Biden might now be willing to depart from the economic principles that have governed policy-making in this country over the last forty years: the so-called neoliberal principles of free markets, little government intervention or investment, wariness about deficits, and more. He might be willing, that is, to cast off the values and policies that have given us our era’s raging inequality, this uber-class of billionaires, this ethos of the deserving versus the undeserving. Republican administrations have embraced those principles fully—except when it comes to deficits, on which the GOP is completely unprincipled and hypocritical—but our two recent Democratic administrations have also at times done so, as when Obama began talking about deficit reduction in early 2010. The Obama experience was a bitter one for a lot of people who hoped for more public investment in infrastructure, health care, and climate initiatives. “Obama and his team’s acquiescence in—indeed, public endorsement of—the turn to austerity in 2010 was absolutely **** disastrous,” the UC Berkeley economist J. Bradford DeLong, who served in the Clinton administration, told me.

Translation: Biden will spend like there’s no tomorrow. And there might not be, if the radical Democrats get their way. The point is: Biden’s mental acuity may not matter much, given that the decision has been made to move the country hard left if he wins.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


The Morning Briefing: Beware America—Crazy Joe Biden Wants to 'Transform' You


AP Photo/Matt Slocum

Joe Biden Doesn’t Like America, Apparently 

For reasons that those of us on the right side of the political aisle will never understand, Democrats are always of the opinion that the United States of America is in need of overhauling. Barack Obama famously (infamously?) said that he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America. Thankfully, he was unable to completely do that. Now Obama’s senile Mini Me Joe Biden is parroting his former boss and going on about “rebuilding” and “transforming” our beloved country. Bryan wrote about Crazy Joe the Wonder Veep’s basement campaign here yesterday, and it’s a magnificent post.

We’ve just spent several days being told that President Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech was dark and divisive. Patriotism is very much out of fashion on the Left these days. It the eyes of the Democratic half of this country America is racist, broken, and almost irreparably damaged. When I hear a leftist describe the United States, I can’t believe we’re living in the same place.

Sure, we have our flaws as a nation, but we’re not in need of a complete rebuilding. As Bryan pointed out, the places most in need of fixing have one thing in common:

If we must read more kinetic tea leaves, since no reporter will ask Joe those two words, let’s look at what’s happening in Democrat-run cities around the country. About 26 years of patient law enforcement work to bring violent crime down from its historic high in the early 1990s has been undone in a month. As Kevin McCollough put it over the weekend, Six Weeks, Six Cities, 600 Murders. Kevin’s piece is a must-read.

That old public service announcement about “This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs,” comes to mind here. The Democratic hell hole cities are the country on leftism. Most of the Democrat-run cities have been dominated by one party for decades, so it’s all on them. Imagine that writ large with the Democrats in control of the White House, the Senate, and the House.

Let’s get back to the whole notion of transformation. The Democrats’ constant refrain about America needing to be changed is wearisome. It’s also being taught in public schools. The woke youth of today go into adulthood truly believing that the United States is terribly broken and in desperate need of a socialist fix. That’s really the end game for modern Democrats. It wasn’t just a few years ago but the whole party has rushed off of the far-left fringe. They aren’t so much interested in “transformation” as they are “undoing.”

America is just fine, thank you. Warts and all, this 244-year-old experiment in freedom is — put mildly — freakin’ glorious. Every leftist who says America needs to be rebuilt or transformed is lying.

What’s really disturbing is that Joe Biden is the most moderate of the Dems to emerge from that large primary field. If he’s going on about transformation then the center of American politics has moved too far to ever get it back to anything resembling “normal.”

We’re fine here, Joe. We won’t be needing your help.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beware Jakeaholeman you are already TRANSFORMED



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden Says Police Have 'Become the Enemy,' 'Absolutely' Should Defund Them


Katie Pavlich
Posted: Jul 08, 2020 2:35 PM
Joe Biden Says Police Have 'Become the Enemy,' 'Absolutely' Should Defund Them

It's clear Joe Biden's far left advisers are starting to change his stance on policing in America. 

During an interview Wednesday with leftist publication This Now, Biden said the police are over militarized, have "become the enemy" and said funding should "absolutely" be reallocated elsewhere. In other words, he's advocating for the defunding of law enforcement as crime across the country continues to skyrocket. 

It was just three weeks ago when Biden claimed he did not support defunding the police. In fact, he proposed an increase in funding for policing programs. 

"Don't defund police, support reforms," Biden wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. "I’ve long been a firm believer in the power of community policing — getting cops out of their cruisers and building relationships with the people and the communities they are there to serve and protect. That’s why I’m proposing an additional $300 million to reinvigorate community policing in our country. Every single police department should have the money it needs to institute real reforms like adopting a national use of force standard, buying body cameras and recruiting more diverse police officers."

Top Biden advisor and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes has called for complete defunding of police departments across the country. Significant cuts aren't enough. 

So who's really in charge?




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

he calls himself a catholic ... any catholic who votes for this fraud ...well ....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Financial advisory firm tells clients Biden won’t be moving too far left if he becomes president

Brian Schwartz

  • The firm told its corporate clients that policy recommendations supported by Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders show that the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn’t plan to side too often with those on the left side of the political spectrum. 
  • Signum said some of the most notable progressive ideas that are not included in Biden’s policy recommendations are the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All” and the legalization of marijuana.
  • The positive take on Biden by the Wall Street firm comes as finance executives brace for a change to their business models under a potential new administration.   

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks at McGregor Industries on July 09, 2020 in Dunmore, Pennsylvania.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks at McGregor Industries on July 09, 2020 in Dunmore, Pennsylvania.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Financial advisory firm Signum Global Advisors told clients Thursday that it isn’t convinced Joe Biden is going to be as progressive as some may hope if he beats President Donald Trump in November. 

The firm told its corporate clients in a note that it believes the policy recommendations put together by task forces filled with allies of Biden’s and the more progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders show that the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn’t plan to side too often with those on the left side of the political spectrum if he becomes president. 

“The report is very aspirational; it pays lip service to some of the party’s more progressive ideas, though has few specifics about how ideas will be achieved, and generally repeats most of the moderate ideas from the Biden campaign’s website,” the note said. 

Signum has previously told clients that it expects Biden to defeat Trump and for Democrats to flip the Senate

The note — co-authored by Charles Myers, the founder of Signum and previously the vice chairman of Evercore, and the group’s senior partner, Lew Lukens — said the reason the firm believes Biden won’t be following a progressive policy platform is due to what’s missing in the proposed outline, along with a lack of specifics for ideas that could impact the economy. Myers is an active fundraiser for Biden’s campaign for president, and his company has offices in New York, Washington and London.  

The positive take on Biden by the Wall Street firm comes as finance executives brace for a change to their business models under a potential new administration. Myers told CNBC that his clients, even after he sent out the note, expressed concern about the possibility of seeing their taxes go up. Biden, in a speech just outside his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Thursday warned business leaders that their corporate taxes are going up from 21% to 28% if he becomes president. Biden also said he plans to put an end to the “era of shareholder capitalism” if he gets into the White House. 

Biden is ahead of Trump in most national polls, with a Real Clear Politics polling average showing the former vice president up nine points over the current commander in chief. 

Signum said some of the most notable progressive ideas that are not included in Biden’s policy recommendations are the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All” and the legalization of marijuana.  

“The result represents a very successful effort by Biden and his team to control the narrative and policy direction, while making just enough concessions to the progressive wing to avoid an open rift in the party,” the note said. Sanders would clearly disagree with that stance, as he recently said that if those policies are implemented it would make Biden “the most progressive president since [Franklin Delano Roosevelt].” 

The firm also said that the minimal details in the recommended economic policies show that Biden is on track to stay away from any major progressive overhauls. The firm takes aim at the suggested tax policy, saying it’s “light on details” and adds that the idea of reviewing mergers that took place under the Trump administration is missing a key mention of focusing on tech conglomerates. The big tech companies Facebook, Amazon and Google have been under scrutiny by Trump and Republican lawmakers for what they see as having too much power and having a bias against their party. Many Democrats in Congress have also been critical of the tech giants. 

Biden earlier in the day rolled out an over $700 billion “Buy American” campaign that would give a boost to U.S. manufacturing and technology firms. He said in his speech that Amazon needs to start paying federal income tax. 

“The days of Amazon paying nothing in federal income tax will be over,” Biden said.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracking Biden’s Mental Decline

By Ellie Gardey
It’s only getting worse.
July 11, 2020, 12:13 AM

It’s clear that Joe Biden is showing signs of mental aging: his speech is garbled, his sentences diverge into asides without coherence, and his numbers and names are scrambled in laughable ways (“We have 120 million dead from COVID!” he informed Americans last month).

Biden, who was first elected to the Senate 48 years ago, has been known for decades for his verbal gaffes. Democrats usually exploit this flaw to explain away their presidential candidate’s confused speech, claiming his lackluster abilities are evidence of a life-long quirk rather than a sign of cognitive decline.

“It’s not a product of age; it’s just who he is,” wrote Paul Waldman in the Washington Post last April.

But the real story is that Biden has not always spoken with such jumbled sentences. He was once a talented orator who spoke smoothly and emanated confidence. Yes, he made gaffes and shot himself in the foot with concerning statements, but that was far outweighed by his expressiveness and ability to connect with audiences. 

In fact, Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory said in 1986 that Biden “is much in demand as a star speaker, one guaranteed to rouse Democrats.” 

Biden, she wrote, has a “capacity for stirring sparks in the burned-out and broken-hearted.”

A state congressman even proclaimed that Biden’s campaign speech for the 1988 presidential primary was “the finest political speech I ever heard.” Of course, Biden was accused of plagiarizing a speech in 1987, so some of that smooth talk may have come from other sources. 

If you watch videos of Biden giving speeches and interviews from the beginning of his career until today, you can see that Biden has arrived at a point where the quality of his speeches in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s totally transcends that of his speeches today. Biden’s once-polished speeches have morphed into painful-to-get-through, verbally confusing, and slurred diatribes. 

The total reversal strongly suggests that Biden’s poor speaking abilities today are a product of aging rather than a lifetime of ineptitude.

In 1987, Biden presided over the confirmation hearings of Judge Robert H. Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Videos of the hearing show a very different Biden — a Biden who commands the room with quick and lucid speech. 

“I believe,” said Biden at the hearing, “the American people have a genuine and justifiable fear of government intrusion in what they instinctively know is going to be an ever more intrusive world.”

If you listen to the tape, it’s hard to place that Biden, the one who speaks with confidence, as the same Biden who is running for president by posting uninspiring teleprompted speeches to his YouTube channel. 

Wednesday, for instance, Biden spoke to voters this incoherent sentence: “Lonnie knows I believe this every fiber of my being: we’re posed — what, what I propose is, is it can be done. I think we’re in a position to really make it happen … look — I guess I’m, I’m getting, I’m, I’m taking too much time, but you know … ”

Another example of the younger Biden’s speaking skills can be seen in a speech he delivered in 1992 in opposition to the naming of a Supreme Court justice during an election year. Biden’s speech is effortless. He’s forceful, and he speaks without hesitation.

“It would be our pragmatic conclusion,” he said, “that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

But by the mid-2000s, Biden’s speaking abilities had already started to decline, largely driven by worse gaffes, but also characterized by clumsy speech. 

In 2008, the New York Times wrote, “Senator Joseph Biden Jr., the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, is an experienced, serious and smart man. But he does say some curious things.” 

Biden, at age 66, had recently said he was running for president, mixed up army brigades with battalions, and referred to Sarah Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska, according to the New York Times

Worse, in 2007, Biden said of Barack Obama: “I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Biden’s speaking abilities continued to decline over his tenure as vice president, leading former Speaker Paul Ryan to note at the 2012 vice presidential debate, “I think the Vice President very much knows that sometimes, the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

Biden spoke with vigor at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but by the 2016 Democratic National Convention, much of his speech seemed to be slurred. Slurred speech is not necessarily attributable to cognitive decline, as it could simply be a consequence of dental work. 

At the 2016 convention, however, Biden was also noticeably less impressive in his sentences and phrasing than at the 2008 convention. At times during the convention in 2016, the 74-year-old’s voice seemed to be giving out, and his command of the speech less sure. 

Biden’s eloquence has deteriorated in particular over the past year. When he began his campaign with a speech in Philadelphia in May 2019, he spoke assuredly for over half an hour, albeit strangely at times and with simpler sentences. Now, Biden gives short and teleprompted speeches from his basement where he often has jumbled speech, is confused on basic questions, and gives inappropriate remarks.

The jumbled speech often leaves voters wondering what Biden means to convey. 

Speaking on the coronavirus for an interview with the View in March, Biden said, “We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what — no matter what.”

In an April ABC interview, Biden said, “We have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle a way that we can both have a democracy and elections and at the same time, correct the public health.”

At a CNBC interview in May from his basement, Biden said, “I mean we should be invested, we, we should become the net exporter of the new technology by investing the 40 billion dollars in the, the, the 400 billion dollars I’m proposing in research and development for new ways to absorb carbon.”

He has also voiced bizarre and inappropriate remarks, like telling an African American radio host in May, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” However, some considered this statement to be just a continuation of Biden’s condescending attitude towards black voters rather than evidence of impairment. 

And of course, there was his reading of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by, go, you know, you know, the thing.”

Even before being forced to Biden’s basement, the campaign had transitioned to fewer appearances and shorter speeches in what many saw as an attempt to cut down on the gaffes. This strongly suggests that Biden’s abilities are not what they used to be. 

In his final weekend of campaigning on the trail before the shutdowns hit the United States in March, Biden delivered three speeches. One clocked in at seven minutes, another at 12 minutes, and a third at 14 minutes. Biden was reading from a teleprompter, yet he still managed to err by attacking the former governor of Mississippi for not implementing Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all program, which Biden is officially opposed to. 

Worse than these verbal mistakes, towards the end of Biden’s in-person campaign he began lashing out at voters aggressively. 

“You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier,” Biden told a college student in February who said she had attended an Iowa caucus. 

More bizarrely, Biden had an aggressive verbal altercation with a Michigan factory worker who challenged him on his decision to have former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke lead his gun control efforts.

“You’re full of sh**!” Biden told the factory worker in early March. 

A campaign worker attempted to stop the altercation, but Biden put his hand in front of the campaign worker’s face, said “shush” to her, and continued to give an impassioned response.

“I support the Second Amendment, and it’s like right now if you yell fire, that’s not free speech, and from the very beginning I have a shotgun, I have a 20 gauge, a 12 gauge, my sons hunt. Guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapons? I’m not taking your gun away, at all.”

Biden continued, wagging his finger in the worker’s face. “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,” he said, “we’ll take your AR-14s away.”

The worker said, “This is not okay, alright?” while gesturing towards Biden’s hand in his face.

“Don’t try me pal,” Biden responded. 

Despite all the headaches, Biden has had some impressive moments during the campaign. For instance, his performance at the final Democratic debate and his victory speech in South Carolina were strong showings. At the final debate, Biden referred to the coronavirus as “SARS,” yet he still was insistent and took control. In the South Carolina victory speech, Biden was fired up. He spoke emotionally about what it means to be an American and got the crowd cheering.

But on the whole, Biden’s campaign appearances have shown a man who is past his prime. He doesn’t just look like he’s getting older; he seems like he’s cognitively aging. 

A June 29 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 38 percent of likely voters believe Biden is suffering from some form of dementia, including 20 percent of Democratic voters. Additionally, the poll found that 60 percent of young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 believe it is likely that Biden is suffering from dementia. Many voters, it seems, are observing that Biden is in cognitive decline. 

The question of whether or not Biden’s cognitive abilities have sunk to the point that they would greatly hinder him in carrying out the duties of the office of the president of the United States is of great consequence. The holder of the office will have the role of leading the fight against the coronavirus, protecting our country from foreign adversaries, bringing us out of our economic depression, and representing the United States on the world stage. 

Voters can observe that Biden has mentally aged, but it is difficult to discern the extent of his cognitive decline. Is it especially difficult because Biden’s campaign appearances are beamed out of his basement, where he uses a teleprompter and can often try multiple attempts at a video before publishing it. 

The need for addressing Biden’s cognitive decline is not lost on the American public. Sixty-one percent of voters believe it is important for Biden to address the issue of dementia, according to the Rasmussen Reports poll. 

Biden claimed in a press conference last week that he is “constantly tested” for cognitive decline, adding that he could “hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I’m running against.” Biden has committed to three presidential debates.

Yet the campaign has refused to publish those results. Biden promised to do as much last September when he said he would publish his full medical history, according to The Hill. To date, Biden has only released some details of a physical conducted in December. No materials have been released on his cognitive condition.

The American public should not be left guessing how low Biden’s mental capabilities have fallen. Americans should hear a medical opinion on the status of Biden’s cognitive condition. Regarding a man who will be 78 years old when he takes office, it’s just common sense.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

New York Post

Why New York Times praises ‘cancel culture’ but skips over its own racist history: Goodwin


July 11, 2020 | 10:06pm | Updated

Adolph S. Ochs

Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs contributed money to Confederate memorials the paper now finds so objectionable.

Getty Images

 In a recent article about Mount Rushmore, The New York Times said of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt that “each of these titans of American history has a complicated legacy.”

Reporters Bryan Pietsch and Jacey Fortin casually summarized the woke herd’s litany of grievances: Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, Lincoln was “reluctant and late” to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and Roosevelt “actively sought to Christianize and uproot Native Americans.”

Rushmore’s sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, didn’t escape unscathed. “Borglum had been involved with another project: an enormous bas-relief at Stone Mountain in Georgia that memorialized Confederate leaders,” the reporters wrote.

There was little in the story that was remarkable, and that was the point. The Times, as the chief media cheerleader for the chaos unfolding across the nation, routinely eviscerates America’s heroes, its culture and, through the paper’s 1619 Project, its founding.

Four years after it abandoned its traditional standards of fairness to try to defeat Donald Trump, the paper is now fixated on rewriting the story of America. The drive-by attack on the Rushmore presidents was part of its cancel-culture agenda.

Yet the Times has never applied to its own history the standards it uses to demonize others. If it did, reporters there would learn that the Ochs-Sulzberger family that has owned and run the paper for 125 years has a “complicated legacy” of its own.

That legacy includes Confederates in the closet — men and at least one woman who supported the South and slavery during the Civil War. In fact, Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs contributed money to the very Stone Mountain project and other Confederate memorials the Times now finds so objectionable.

To be clear, I detest the Times’ determination to judge and revise history using criteria conceived 20 minutes ago. The paper’s Marxist-inspired activism and race-based fetish have taken it so far off course that it no longer functions as an actual newspaper.

Having spent my formative journalistic years at the Gray Lady, I came away with immense respect for the editors’ commitment to fair and impartial news coverage. That commitment started with Ochs, who, from the day he took control of the Times in 1896, insisted on a strict separation of news and opinion, a tradition that lasted more than a century. It was those traditions — fairness and safeguards against reporters’ bias — that gave the paper its credibility and made it the flagship of American journalism.

But those days are gone, with the standards eroded slowly at first and then abolished under current Executive Editor Dean Baquet. Every story these days is an editorial as the paper demands that every institution and individual conform to the Times’ views, or be denounced as racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic. Because of the Times’ exceptional influence, its demagoguery is playing a major role in shredding the fabric of our country.

At the very least, the paper ought to be honorable enough to apply its freshly minted standards to its own past. If it did, I believe the owners, editors, reporters and stockholders would be shocked by what they discover.

Perhaps then they would understand that their company was built and run by people who, while great in some respects, shared many of the views and flaws they now self-righteously condemn in others.

The legacy complications begin with Ochs, a Tennessee businessman who took control of the struggling New York Times when he was just 38 years old. He already owned the Chattanooga Times, which he called a conservative Democratic newspaper — at a time when nearly all black citizens in the South were Republicans. As Ochs put it when he took control in 1879, the Chattanooga paper would “move in line with the conservative democracy of the South.”

He and his descendants continued to own the paper until 1999, including during the enforced segregation of the Jim Crow era. An example of the Chattanooga Times’ tenor involves the infamous Scottsboro Nine case of 1931, which involved false allegations of rape against nine black teens by two white women.

An editorial was headlined “Death Penalty Properly Demanded in Fiendish Crime of Nine Burly Negroes,” and the paper’s trial reporter called the defendants “beasts unfit to be called human,” according to “Racial Spectacles,” a 2011 book on race, justice and the media.

When Ochs came to New York, he brought his Southern sympathies with him. Ten years after he took over The New York Times, it ran a glowing profile of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War. The 1906 article was billed as a “Celebration of the Davis Centenary” and was published on “the anniversary of the great Southern leader’s death.”

Ochs’ parents, Julius and Bertha Levy, were German Jewish immigrants who met in the American South, yet had very different views on slavery.

While living with an uncle in Natchez, Miss., Bertha developed a fondness for it, a fact noted in family histories.

In “The Trust,” a 1999 authorized biography of the Ochs-Sulzberger families, authors Susan Tifft and Alex Jones write that Julius had witnessed slave auctions and described them as a “villainous relic of barbarism,” but Bertha “embraced a contemptuous antebellum view of blacks, and for the rest of her life was dogmatically conservative, even reactionary.” She was, they said, determined to preserve “the South’s peculiar institution.”

One of her descendants referred to her as “that Confederate lady.”

I am aware of no evidence or claims that any members of Bertha’s family owned slaves or participated in the slave trade.

During the Civil War, Bertha had at least one brother who joined the rebel army, and she herself was suspected of being a spy. On one occasion, she was caught smuggling medical supplies from Ohio into rebel-held Kentucky.

At the time, the family was living in Cincinnati, where Adolph was born in 1858, and a river separated the border states. Gay Talese, in his 1969 book on the Times, “The Kingdom and the Power,” recounts that Bertha had been threatened with arrest after she was caught taking quinine and other supplies over a bridge into Kentucky.

According to Talese and others, Bertha hid the contraband in a baby carriage.

In later years, Adolph Ochs and his younger brother, George Washington Ochs, each claimed to be the baby in whose carriage their mother hid the contraband. In 1928, The Confederate Veteran magazine admired Bertha’s boldness, writing that “for a Mother of Israel to defy her husband and an entire army was no mean assertion of militant feminism in those days.”

Her husband, however, was rattled by the smuggling, and Julius, who had served in the Union army, moved the family to Tennessee in 1864, an unusual migration to a Confederate state while the war still raged.

After Adolph took over the Chattanooga Times, brother George became active in local and national Democratic politics. He was appointed police commissioner, was twice elected mayor, then ran the library and school system. During all those years, Chattanooga was strictly segregated and was the scene of several notorious lynchings of black men.

In the last several years before his 1931 death, George, who had changed his name to Ochs-Oakes, simultaneously served as an officer of both The New York Times Company and the New York Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Meanwhile, Julius Ochs had died in 1888, and Union army vets who attended the funeral draped an American flag over his coffin.

But as Robert Rosen noted in his 2000 book, “The Jewish Confederates,” Bertha’s 1908 funeral was different. “She was a charter member of the A.P. Stewart Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and members of her chapter attended the funeral,” Rosen wrote, adding: “Her coffin was, at her request, draped with the Confederate flag.”

Adolph, the family star and breadwinner, is said to have been especially close to his mother. In 1924, 16 years after her death, he donated $1,000 so her name would be engraved on the founders’ roll of the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial in Georgia, which features enormous carvings of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on horseback.

According to Civil War Times magazine, Ochs enclosed a letter with his donation in which he said of his mother: “Robert E. Lee was her idol.”

The magazine says Ochs helped to fund Confederate cemeteries in Tennessee, Confederate Veterans’ reunions and the Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park. It also says his newspapers published numerous editorials “and commemorative editions dedicated to Confederate veterans’ activities.”

Ochs was a generous philanthropist in Chattanooga and in 1928 donated land and a reported $100,000 to build a new temple there. The building still stands and the Julius and Bertha Ochs Memorial Temple serves about 200 Jewish families.

Seven years later, Ochs died suddenly on a visit to Chattanooga. For his funeral, the United Daughters of the Confederacy “sent a pillow embroidered with the Confederate flag to be placed in his coffin,” Civil War Times reported in 2012.

The same article, by Dr. David J. Jackowe, sparked an uproar when it claimed that certain ceramic tile patterns in the Times Square subway station were meant to echo the Confederate flag and were put there to honor Adolph Ochs and his Southern sympathies. The station was built in the basement of the Times’ first Midtown tower, which led the city, at Ochs’ request, to rename what had been Long Acre to Times Square. The station was reportedly remodeled in 1998, but numerous examples of the pattern — a blue “X” against a red and white background — remained.

After The Post reported on the controversy in 2015, the MTA denied any Confederate connection, with a spokesman saying, “It is a geometric pattern, not a flag design.”

Yet in 2017, after violence broke out in Charlottesville, Va., over the planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, the MTA switched signals. Now it promised to change the subway tile design so that it is “absolutely crystal clear” that it has nothing to do with the rebel flag.

New Yorkers can make up their own minds because the MTA, per usual, never finished the job, as a Post photographer proved last week.

In a long, flowery tribute after his death, the congressional record of the House said, “The story of Mr. Adolph S. Ochs . . . was the story of The New York Times. They are inseparably woven.”

Indeed they are, largely because Ochs was determined to keep the paper in his family well beyond his life. He and his wife, Effie Miriam Wise, the daughter of a prominent Cincinnati rabbi regarded as the founder of Reform Judaism, had one child, daughter Iphigenia. But Ochs rarely hired female reporters, and there was little chance Iphigenia would become the next publisher. The job went to her husband, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and then to their son-in-law, Orvil Dryfoos.

Upon his death, Iphigenia’s son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, became publisher. The men-only pattern continues to this day, with Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. following his father. His son, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, now holds the job. That makes five generations of white male heirs running the Times, all chosen under the protection of an unusual trust that allows family members to retain majority control of the board of directors.

It’s hard to think of any other important American company — a public one at that — with such a long line of family succession, but it’s easy to imagine how the Times’ social-justice warriors would treat any other firm that even tried.

Moreover, with the exception of the last two top editors, all others were white men. Before Baquet, who is black, there was Jill Abramson, who was fired after three years. The paper’s last public editor, Liz Spayd, said she was struck by the “blinding whiteness” of the staff when she first entered the newsroom. The Times, like many other corporations of all kinds, has been sued by black employees charging racial discrimination.

In any other company, and with so much wealth accumulated by one family, that record would be fair game for the paper’s journalists, especially given the Confederate connections. In that spirit, it’s time for the Times to clean out its closet and live by the standards of purity it demands of others. For a thorough, honest examination of its checkered past, the paper should assign a team of its top investigative reporters to the project.

They would get total access to corporate leaders and documents and be free to interview their colleagues. Their marching orders would be to examine the Times in the same way they would examine any other institution, which means they are free to use anonymous quotes. In effect, the paper would be taking a big dose of its own medicine.

Whatever the results, they should be published on the front page, under the motto that Adolph Ochs put there in 1897: “All the news that’s fit to print.”

Then, hopefully humbled and cured of its supremacy delusion, the Times could get back to being a real newspaper and report the news instead of fomenting chaos and division.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...