According to the Brian Kilmeade show, President Biden expressed frustration with Merrick Garland because Trump isn't convicted already.
"But it should not be this way. Donald Trump could have been knocked out of the race a long time ago, if not for the political incompetence, venality, and ignorance of Merrick Garland, Alvin Bragg, and Aileen Cannon. If these three stooges of jurisprudence had acted competently and ethically, Trump would be out and Biden with him. "
A whistleblower claimed that the CIA "stonewalled" an IRS interview with Hunter Biden's business associate Kevin Morris, the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees said. | Fox News
And I genuinely hoped liberal media and politicians had learned their lesson from the Trump presidency and would deal with him differently this time around now that he's won the GOP presidential nomination again.
As comedian Chris Rock told me, the day after Trump's win in 2016, when I asked him why he thought the real estate tycoon had triumphed: "If someone's murdered eight people, don't go around saying they've murdered nine."
In other words, judge Trump accurately and fairly, or deploy absurdly disingenuous exaggeration and surrender the high moral ground.
Regretfully, they haven't.
Speaking in Ohio on Saturday, Trump said if he's re-elected president, he intends to slap a 100% tariff on Chinese cars being manufactured in Mexico and imported into the US.
And he warned: "Now if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it."
I watched the whole extended clip several times so I could assess what Trump meant, and there's absolutely no doubt that he was referring to a bloodbath in America's auto industry.
That was the context of his comment, not anyone being killed.
And the media, and his political opponents, knew it.
But that didn't stop them from instantly pretending he'd meant there would be an actual violent bloodbath of people if he wasn't re-elected.
The Biden-Harris campaign issued a statement, branding Trump a "loser who gets beat by over 7 million votes and then instead of appealing to a wider mainstream audience, doubles down on his threats of political violence. He wants another January 6
Commentators have noted that CHIPS and Science Act money has been sluggish. What they haven't noticed is that it's because the CHIPS Act is so loaded with DEI pork that it can't move.
The law contains 19 sections aimed at helping minority groups, including one creating a Chief Diversity Officer at the National Science Foundation, and several prioritizing scientific cooperation with what it calls "minority-serving institutions." A section called "Opportunity and Inclusion" instructs the Department of Commerce to work with minority-owned businesses and make sure chipmakers "increase the participation of economically disadvantaged individuals in the semiconductor workforce."
The department interprets that as license to diversify. Its factsheet asserts that diversity is "critical to strengthening the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem," adding, "Critically, this must include significant investments to create opportunities for Americans from historically underserved communities."
The department does not call speed critical, even though the impetus for the CHIPS Act is that 90 percent of the world's advanced microchips are made in Taiwan, which China is preparing to annex by 2027, maybe even 2025.
Handouts abound. There's plenty for the left—requirements that chipmakers submit detailed plans to educate, employ, and train lots of women and people of color, as well as "justice-involved individuals," more commonly known as ex-cons. There's plenty for the right—veterans and members of rural communities find their way into the typical DEI definition of minorities. There's even plenty for the planet: Arizona Democrats just bragged they've won $15 million in CHIPS funding for an ASU project fighting climate change.
That project is going better for Arizona than the actual chips part of the CHIPS Act. Because equity is so critical, the makers of humanity's most complex technology must rely on local labor and apprentices from all those underrepresented groups, as TSMC discovered to its dismay.
Tired of delays at its first fab, the company flew in 500 employees from Taiwan. This angered local workers, since the implication was that they weren't skilled enough. With CHIPS grants at risk, TSMC caved in December, agreeing to rely on those workers and invest more in training them. A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab.
If you could go back in time and listen to this speech, would you conclude that sacrificing American lives in a faraway land was in the best interest of the United States?
He is not wrong about the decline of the United States, but he doesn't make clear what kind of government he stands for. It seems likely that he is a big government politician.
He is not wrong about the decline of the United States, but he doesn't make clear what kind of government he stands for. It seems likely that he is a big government politician.
This is a lengthy video. It makes the point that the early Marxists believed that their theories were scientific and that they could predict the future.
However, when all the Marxist predictions failed to come true, and following the revelations about cruelty and death in the Soviet Union, the Marxists went back to the drawing board. They concluded that facts don't matter. They concluded that results don't matter. They decided that only political victory mattered.
This conclusion seems like Cognitive Dissonance. Why wouldn't results matter? They must think that a free market is so unfair and so unjust that it would be better to adopt a worse system in the name of fairness. Marxists don't want you to do better, because you won't under their policies. They want to punish the wealthy.
One Marxist told me that it is all about who is in charge; they want the people to be in charge. Funny, I thought that this is the political system that we live in. The reality is that Marxist governments only exist through force and without exception turn into tyrannical dictatorships. So much for the people being in charge.
Marxists want group ownership of the means of production. We sort of have that now. My retirement fund is invested in hundreds of companies, and so is yours.
If people were perfectly happy, they would not need politics. However, people are never happy. It is the nature of human beings to be unhappy about something. People want the government to fix their miserable lives, but the government can't really do that. We will never have enough money, and if we try to adopt exorbitant taxes then we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Politicians will promise people the moon, but they can't deliver and never do.
It appears that Alexander Tyler was right when he said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." So what can we do about this? I think that it would be good to have Constitutional restraints on federal spedning.
Years ago, Matt Jarbo was a controversial figure because he flagged some other YouTubers for copyright violation, which is a no-no among YouTubers. Back when everybody wanted him kicked off YouTube, I defended him. I said that I didn't care about all the drama because I enjoyed his videos.
He was once my favorite YouTuber because he used to make short 10-minute videos about entertainment. However, he has turned into this late-night foul-mouthed political streamer. His videos are too long, too late, and too far left for me to watch anymore. I assume that he has turned into this shock jock because it attracts an audience.
For whatever reason, many Nixon videos have appeared on YouTube lately. What I find interesting is that he conveys authority better than any of his successors. People looked at Nixon as a kind of father figure. He ran on a platform of law and order, which people wanted given the chaos of the country. He was the right politician for his time.
It is not just Canada. The Woke agenda snuck up on everybody before they knew what was happening.
I have seen videos about how Marxist writers in the 1960s were proposing a multidecade plan. They knew that the United States would not accept Marxism any time soon, so they laid out a plan where they would first infiltrate the colleges, and once they won the hearts and minds of the students, then they would infiltrate the corporations with the goal that they could use all these institutions to advance their agenda.
I have heard multiple stories about corporations, i.e. Disney, giving into the demands of their Woke employees. The people who scream the loudest get their way.
In 1960, one Marxist writer stated that the class struggle had failed, so they needed to shift the struggle to race, and he called it Critical Race Theory based on the Marxist notion of Critical Theory.
It makes me nervous to live in this country. I don't know where it is going. This isn't just a culture war. It is a battle about the type of government you will have. One of the employees of the IPCC stated that their goal is to do away with free-market capitalism. It is not just them. I see calls for Socialsm everywhere.
The way you get people to voluntarily surrender their freedoms is to tell them that they are victims and that some boogeyman is oppressing them. In recent years, the boogeymen are white males.
A few years back Lucasfilm announced that they weren't going to cast white males for the main roles in their movies. Racial discrimination is supposed to be illegal.
I knew a preacher who dismissed all of science because it always uses qualified statements like, "The evidence would suggest that ...". This is because science is rarely settled, Science is subject to change as new information becomes available. So the preacher thought that science doesn't really know anything.
I look at science in terms of probability. Trans fats are associated with a higher risk of heart disease. It doesn't mean that it is the same for everyone or that it is proven, although the evidence is strong enough that we could look at this as a fact.
People can't know everything, so as a rule people just take the best information available to them.