This, this, this, this, this, and this.
That’s a lot to digest. And it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg. [Mixed metaphor alert.]
The fracking fracas during last night’s debate was a bizarro reversed version of 2012’s Candy Crowley incident
For a while in 2012 I became semi-obsessed with what Candy Crowley and Obama did to Romney during the second 2012 presidential debate. I analyzed it and posted about it several times. Here’s an excerpt:
Note also Obama’s affect when Romney questions him as to whether he really means to assert that he called it an act of terror the day after the attack. The camera zooms in on Obama as the president says to Romney “Please proceed, Governor,” and then cuts away just after the fleeting ghost of a faint smile crosses Obama’s face (mostly in his eyes; it occurs at about 1:22). It is at that point that Obama summarily orders Crowley to “check the transcript” (no “please” for Obama), and she immediately answers that Obama did say it that way. Not only do we know that assertion is false, but she didn’t even seem to have time to check any transcript between Obama’s request and her answer.
So, to recap: Obama made a false claim (that he had called Benghazi an act of terror the day after the attack), Romney challenged him, Obama told the moderator to “check the transcript,” and she asserted that Obama was correct (without her actually checking a transcript, but just by waving some papers around).
Last night, here’s how the fracking exchange went:
“We’re going to have the greatest economy in the world,” Trump said. “But if you want to kill the economy, get rid of your oil industry. And what about fracking? Now we have to ask him about fracking.”
“I have never said I oppose fracking,” Biden claimed.
“You said it on tape,” Trump fired back.
“I—show the tape, put it on your website,” Biden yelled. “The fact of the matter is he’s flat lying.”
Within a matter of moments, Trump’s team tweeted out a video of Biden making the remarks.
Last night, the moderator didn’t jump in to correct Biden, and of course we wouldn’t expect her to do so, since Biden is the Democrat. But Biden responded to Trump by saying the equivalent of “get the transcript,” and here’s Trump’s tweet with the video:
Here you go @JoeBiden! pic.twitter.com/UBqPJT85Pt
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2020
It’s also instructive to see the way this is now being spun by the left – that what Joe really had meant each time he said he would ban fracking was to ban it just on federal lands, or over a very long period of time, or whatever they think might soften what he said and how he lied about it.
In this case, the debate moderator Welker didn’t ask the question and didn’t participate in the exchange, unlike Crowley in 2012. In 2020, it was Trump who brought up the issue and Trump who provided the evidence in real time.
In the leftist Twitter crowd’s haste to show what a dummyhead Trump is, they demonstrate their own combination of abysmal ignorance and arrogance
In the debate last night when Trump referred to “coyotes” – the slang word for smugglers of would-be illegal immigrants from Latin America – a lot of people mocked him for thinking that the actual animal known as the coyote could do such a thing.
They did not seem to be joking. See this.
Here’s how such a phenomenon works. If a person has utter contempt for the intellect and knowledge base of another person, everything the supposedly inferior person says will be looked on and interpreted in the worst possible light. Confirmation bias. If everything Trump says is stupid, saying this must be especially stupid, particularly if it’s actually the listener who is too stupid to know what Trump is referring to: “These children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they used to use them to get into our country.”
It literally does not occur to those mocking Trump that he might actually know what he’s talking about, and that it’s they who are the ignorant ones about to make fools of themselves.
Nor will this make a dent in their sense of their own superiority, or their opinion of Trump’s brainpower.
A post-debate reaction…
…from someone who didn’t watch the debate.
That’s me. Debates make me too nervous, although sometimes I do watch, although not last night.
However, here’s my takeway, from reading about it and seeing a few clips:
–Trump’s a quick learner. He improved his performance significantly compared to the first debate.
–The moderator was better than the others, which isn’t saying all that much but at least it’s something.
–Biden did not deny the truth and authenticity of Hunter’s emails.
–It’s telling that the moderators scrapped the idea of talking about foreign policy. That because foreign policy has been Trump’s strong suit – contrary to my fears about Trump during the 2016 campaign. And in fact, today we have the news that Sudan has come onboard the Abraham Accords. It’s a large accomplishment of Trump’s that, in the highly unlikely event that Obama had engineered it, would have elicited near-worshipful praise from the MSM and Democrats.
–Biden is a shameless liar, in part because he doesn’t think that the MSM will ever call him on it. Another reason at this point might be that he actually doesn’t remember what he said previously about a given issue. But he’s always been a liar, even back when he was young.
–Biden does most poorly when he talks for anything more than a few seconds. He seems tired, old, and foggy, and the weird smile/grimace that’s often on his face doesn’t help. How anyone can even think of voting for a corrupt, mendacious, cognitively challenged, low energy old man who was mediocre even in his prime is something I can only explain by saying that Biden voters are motivated by two things: hatred of Trump, and loyalty to the Democrats/left.
Tonight’s debate
Here’s an open thread for the debate, for all you hardy ones out there.
Trump turns the tables on “60 Minutes”
You may have heard that Trump somewhat prematurely walked out of a “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl, and also said he would be posting a video of the entire unedited interview to demonstrate the tactics of press exhibited there. You can watch it and read some excerpts here.
One segment:
…Stahl continually dismissed [the Hunter Biden emails] as “unverifiable” and unimportant.
Trump: “It’s incredibly important. Whether or not a man running for office is corrupt. If he’s taken money from China and Ukraine and Russia. It’s incredibly important. It’s the biggest scandal out there, Leslie. I think it’s one of the biggest scandals we’ve ever seen and you won’t cover….He’s gone into hiding. For 5 days he’s been in hiding.”
LS: “He’s preparing for your debate… Why are you *coming after me* about not going after Biden? You’ve asked me 5, 7 times?”
She went on to ask him the same questions over and over again without a hint of irony.
Sure thing, Leslie. Biden’s not been in hiding during these final days of the campaign, he’s just taking five full days to prepare for a debate that will be rigged in his favor.
Glenn Greenwald on the coverup of the Hunter Biden laptop story
Greenwald is no Trump fan. But he’s certainly got the number of the press and the intelligence community on this.
Biden says let’s “reform” the courts
Just like good old Hugo Chavez did.
See this:
The Democratic presidential nominee released a video clip on Thursday morning revealing he will create a national commission of “constitutional scholars” to help reform the current court system…
CBS News asked the former vice president if this proposed national commission would “study this issue about whether to pack the court.” Biden responded by saying, “No, whether — there’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing.”…
Here’s the truth the forme SCHMOTUS won’t admit. His proposed “commission” will disappear the day after he is (God-forbid) elected President. This suggestion is just another way to do what he has been doing since the issue came up—avoid answering.
His far-left Democratic Party handlers will force him to pack the court, but he can’t admit it yet because Americans don’t want court-packing.
More on court-packing here.
As for the Chavez/Venezuela reference I made, there’s this from 2004:
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
“Five years ago, President Chávez’s supporters helped to enshrine the principle of judicial independence in a new democratic constitution,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Now, by packing the country’s highest court, they are betraying that principle and degrading Venezuelan democracy.”
That was a big part of Chavez’s solidification of power in Venezuela. Here’s some of the rest [emphasis added]:
…Chavez decided to pursue the presidency (and dictatorship) through electoral politics.
Standing in his way, however, were two barriers. First, Venezuela’s 1961 constitution was designed to be anti-authoritarian. Among other things, the constitution followed the American model of dividing power among a bicameral legislature, a supreme court and a president…[T]he Venezuelan Constitution also prohibited immediate presidential re-election (allowing only for the possibility of two nonconsecutive five-year terms with a 10-year interruption)…
To make these restrictions nearly insurmountable, the constitution specified in Articles 245-248 two onerous methods of change—amendment or general reform…
In the face of an anti-authoritarian constitution and an opposition-controlled Congress, Chavez ran on a platform of constitutional reform…Despite the lack of any constitutional support for this type of plebiscite, Chavez claimed that the people, through a referendum, could overthrow an existing constitution…
…A referendum that can override any constitution eliminates the boundary between constitutional law and politics…
Several groups challenged Chavez’s referendum in front of the Supreme Court. Facing significant political pressure, the Supreme Court allowed the referendum to take place regardless of the amendment restrictions…
…An abysmal turnout rate of about 38 percent of the electorate participated in the vote to create a Constituent Assembly…
…As soon as the Constituent Assembly was in place, Chavez called on it to suspend Congress and the Supreme Court. Arguing that the more recently elected assembly members better embodied the views of the people, the Assembly then declared a state of emergency, barred Congress from meeting or adopting new laws, formed a committee to remake the judiciary, and threatened to abolish all public organs of power…
Although the Supreme Court initially opposed the Assembly’s absurd claim to absolute power, Chavez and assembly members threatened any potential opposition with violence. In the face of these threats, the court allowed the emergency decree to stand. As a result of that decision, the chief justice resigned in protest, stating that “the court had committed suicide rather than wait to be killed by the Assembly.” Within two months, the court fully caved in, holding in one case that the new Constituent Assembly was a supra-constitutional body and thus “cannot be subject to the limits of the existing judicial order, including the current Constitution.” With this final blessing in place, the Assembly later sacked and replaced most members of the Supreme Court.
With all opposing institutions of power cowed, a new constitution, adopted after another simple-majority referendum—with a 44.3 percent turnout rate—gave Chavez sweeping decree powers and broader control over the military; abolished the Senate; extended presidential term limits to six years; empowered the president to call for constitutional amendments; and, critically, allowed for the possibility of immediate presidential re-election. As a whole, the new constitution heralded a “hyperpresidential” system that would lead to authoritarianism.
If you ever for a moment wondered why the Democrats oppose Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as SCOTUS justice so vigorously, wonder no more.
Joe Biden: The Manchurian Candidate
Back when I was a Democrat and the Lewinsky scandal broke, my recollection is that the media treated it as a plot to frame Bill Clinton. Then a rumor began about a certain incriminating blue dress.
I was never a big Clinton fan – although I voted for him, twice – but I initially didn’t believe the blue dress existed. It was such a cinematic detail. And yet it turned out that indeed, Monica Lewinsky had saved that dress, and it had Bill Clinton’s DNA on it.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
The story of Hunter and Joe Biden and the Ukrainians and the Chinese and various other business people in various other countries is all that, and more. It also includes a media coverup. And now it includes a statement by one Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, who clarifies a few things for us.
I’ve often noticed that the British papers cover our news better than our papers do – a low bar, to be sure. But the Daily Mail has Bobulinski’s complete statement, which I reproduce in its entirety here because although it’s long, it’s important to read it to get the full picture:
My name is Tony Bobulinski.
The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive.
I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.
This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.
After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.
What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other ‘JB’ referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.
I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.
I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.
God Bless America!!!!
[NOTE: For anyone who doesn’t get the reference in the title of my post, it’s this.]
Roundup
It’s one of those days when there’s too much news for me to do it justice without resorting to a roundup. So here it
(1) The content of some of the Bidens’ most disturbing email exchanges.
(2) I’ve been waiting for the release of Shelby Steele’s documentary “What Killed Michael Brown?” Amazon initially refused to stream it on its website, but it finally has relented, and it’s available here. The film was already available on Vimeo, here. The promo line is “When Truth Becomes a Lie & When a Lie Becomes Truth.” Oh yes, we know about that.
(3) The FBI gets coy about the Biden laptop:
Tuesday, the FBI Assistant Director Jill C. Tyson sent a letter to Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
In the letter, Tyson said the agency had “nothing to add” to Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe’s statement dispelling Russian involvement in the “discovery” of Hunter Biden‘s laptop.
Ratcliffe has already stated that it’s not Russian disinformation. So if the FBI has “nothing to add” to that, one can conclude it’s not Russian disinformation, but apparently the FBI doesn’t want to hurt Biden by saying that unequivocally and clearly. The FBI is of course the same institution that, in order to hurt Trump, relied for years on a document that it knew was Russian disinformation.
(4) shipwreckedcrew at Redstate discusses a “smoking gun” email about Burisma and influence peddling:
Newly revealed evidence taken from Hunter Biden’s laptop, in the form of an email dated November 2, 2015, from Vadym Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden at their Rosemont Seneca Partners email addresses shows, unequivocally, that Burisma’s purpose in placing them both on the Board of Directors, and hiring Blue Star Strategies, a Washington DC PR firm, in November 2015, was to influence United States and Ukrainian government policies for the benefit of Burisma and its exiled owner.
Please read the whole thing.
(5) You may notice I haven’t talked much about the polls lately. That’s because I find polls almost meaningless these days for forecasting the election. They also conflict and change so often that I just think it’s become a waste of time to pay all that much attention. Not to mention that the possibility of widespread voting fraud may render them moot.
COVID death rates continue to fall
If deaths rates from COVID have gone way down, why then are people still getting so upset about rising case rates in some places? “Second wave!” they scream.
I think the answer is that the MSM has become addicted to COVID alarm stories, both because that type of news drives traffic and because the MSM thinks it will hurt Trump. So it continues, and added on is the bizarre fiction that someone who has not had a single good idea about how to tackle COVID any differently than Trump did (Joe Biden) is supposed to be the person who will handle it all much much better.
But let’s take a look at some facts that might help explain what’s going on now with COVID. There have been more tests, and in particular tests of people who are less ill or even asymptomatic. Also, the tests being used are more sensitive and probably pick up a lot more cases that would have earlier been missed. The people who are testing positive now tend to also be younger than before, and of course that means they would be expected to have milder cases. There’s also the possibility that social distancing and/or masks reduce the viral load even in people who do come down with the disease.
Plus, treatment has changed:
From published analysis Oxford Researchers show that in June people with the virus were four times less likely to die in hospital than in April.
Several factors play a part here as non-invasive devices such as CPAP replaced ventilators, infection control measures improved as hospitals created COVID-19 wards, whilst hospitals and clinicians do better when not overwhelmed.
Corticosteroids such as dexamethasone and hydrocortisone also contribute to improved recovery by calming the body at times over-reaching immune response which in itself can be the result of genetic predisposition.
As for whether the virus itself is getting less virulent, we simply don’t know. I suspect it may be the case, but so far scientists haven’t been able to verify that theory.
[NOTE: Some people may say that we have seen an unusual number of very serious post-infection complications in people who have had COVID, even mild cases. I’ve been following that, and I remain unconvinced that it is a common problem compared to other serious flus, or a long-lasting one, although that opinion of mine is open to revision. Maybe I’ll write a future post on that topic.]
Compare and contrast: loyalty to the candidates
During the 2016 campaign Trump famously said, speaking of the loyalty of his voters, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
He was excoriated for saying it. But it was hyperbole, meant not literally but to illustrate how devoted his most devoted followers were. And they were. And they still are.
Fast forward to now. I find it grimly amusing (meaning, not amusing at all) that in 2020 Joe Biden actually could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and he wouldn’t lose any media support. He doesn’t have “followers,” he has fixers who are determined to cover up whatever he does that might cause voters to turn away from him and lead to the re-election of Trump.
And unlike Trump in 2016 I am not being hyperbolic. No, Biden hasn’t shot anyone. But what I wrote about him shooting someone and the media covering it up – or calling it Russian disinformation even if there was a video proving it was true – is not an exaggeration. I now believe that it is literally true that the media (and the Democratic Party, but I repeat myself) would cover up any act of Biden’s no matter how despicable, in the effort to secure his victory over Trump.
When the press takes sides so openly and nakedly, and is joined by social media giants, we have reached a level of partisan information control I thought I’d never see in this country. But that’s where we are. And it’s in service of a candidate who has always been of mediocre intelligence at best and is now cognitively faded, who is almost certainly corrupt, who has been wrong on almost every important issue that exists, is a long-term liar and plagiarist, and will be putty in the hands of the most extreme leftists in his party who hate America and capitalism and want both destroyed.