Now a Mr. Bobulinsk has come forward with facts, emails, and dates that may implicate Biden, the Democratic candidate for President, as being corrupt. One would think that a news organization would be interested in investigating these allegations. After all do you really want a corrupt person as President?
Ms. Ford in her unsubstantiated allegations was vague concerning details, such as time and place. Furthermore, the alleged incident, if it did occur, was around 35 years ago. Conversely, today, through Mr. Bubulinsk as one source, concrete current detailed information implying that Biden is corrupt is being released. Given the implications, every media outlet should be digging deep into the story. Incomprehensibly, according to NPR, we are to somehow believe that this story is not "worth investigating"?!?!?!
I watched the Presidential debate last night between Trump and Biden. The debates are supposed to inform the viewer of what the candidates stand for so that the viewer can make an informed decision on who they will vote for.
So even though, I watched the debate, it turns out that I missed a lot. Sometimes it takes a bit of time before partisan points surface that
demonstrate that last night's debate once again proved to be another blatant anti-Trump forum.
On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Tucker played a video clip where the moderator (Kristen
Welker) pointed out that Trump had made a derogatory comment concerning
Dr. Fauci and asked Trump to explain. Fair enough.
It turns out that both Biden and Harris had also made derogatory remarks
concerning Dr. Fauci in the past that I was unaware of. Tucker showed these illustrative video clips. How come the moderator never pointed out to Biden his derogatory
remarks concerning Dr. Fauci and asked him to explain?
The video clips Tucker showed, since they spanned several months, had
Dr. Fauci making inconsistent statements: like wear a mask, don't wear a
mask. I don't have a problem with those types of inconsistent
statements since how we approach the virus changes over time as we learn
more. What I do have a problem with, is that Biden has insincerely claimed
to strictly follow "the science" and used that "hammer" to vilify Trump, by saying that Trump has not been following "the science" and is therefore unfit to be re-elected. Seems that it is Biden, by misusing facts who is unfit to be elected.
Quite amazing how quickly social media outlets immediately suppressed this story so that the public would not be aware of this alleged corruption.
Just
five days ago, I speculated that there may be some unknown reason for
why the Presidential debate was cancelled for tonight. It is possible
that the Biden campaign, to a degree, was aware of this story brewing.
Of course, direct concrete facts of why the debate was cancelled will
not be publicly available.
As
has already been noted by Fox News, it will be interesting to observe
if Biden, at tonight's town hall meeting, will actually be asked to
comment on this breaking story.
On the morning following the
vice-Presidential debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates
(unilaterally without any apparent participant consultation), changed
the debate rules. Trump immediately rejected those revised rules.
In response, the The Commission on Presidential Debates abruptly
cancelled the debate. Commission cancels Oct. 15 presidential debate.
Extremely perplexing. After all, the purpose of these debates is to
give the candidates the opportunity for them to disclose to the
electorate what polices they plan to implement if elected. Cancelling the
debate is counter to the Commission's mandate.
I have no insider knowledge concerning this, but it is easy to speculate that this was done to secretly "protect" the Biden/Harris campaign.
The so-called debate "moderators",
in this election cycle as in past election cycles, have proven to be
anti-Republican, in this case anti-Trump. This year, it has been exposed
the Commission itself is made-up of Never Trumpers even if they are
supposedly Republicans. So the Commission itself is now partisan
(pro-Biden)
Biden
has evaded answering policy questions. One notable example, his
repeated refusals to answer questions concerning the US Supreme Court.
At some point even the anti-Trump media may begin to ask this question
and other potentially embarrassing questions. Squelching the debate may keep Biden's agenda "under wraps".
Trump
was an embarrassment at the first debate. An obvious conjecture
supporting having a second debate by the Biden camp is that Trump would
fail again. But given the abrupt cancellation of this debate, can one
actually speculate that Trump did not fail? I have not looked into this
issue, but I've seen a smattering of headlines made by biased Trump
surrogates that Trump won, however implausible. Did Democratic internal polling actually
disclose that that Biden did worse than perceived?
The Pence/Harris vice-Presidential debate went very badly for the Democrats. Considering the virtually immediate "knee jerk"
reaction by the Commission to changing the rules and then with equal
rapidity cancelling the debate, one can hypothesize that an unknown
someone saw something negative in a crystal ball and screamed: STOP!!.
Trump,
in response to the Commission's rule change, to a virtual format,
offered to hold the debate outdoors. Whether this option, or other
options that considered health issues were evaluated by the Commission
is unknown. The point appears to remain that this debate was quickly
cancelled, apparently to protect Biden.
Last night, the vice-Presidential debate occurred. It quickly became obvious (as it did with Chris Wallace being the moderator of the Presidential debate) that the moderator, Susan Page, was a Democratic sympathizer. She asked, if you can even call it "asking", adversarial questions of Mike Pence, the Republican vice-Presidential candidate. In asking these (fake) questions, Ms. Page was asking Pence questions which he and Trump had previously answered. It is as if Ms. Page appeared to be reading from an assumed Democratic playbook were each moderator and media must continuously ask these questions over and over again, despite the fact that they were previously answered numerous times. Seem to be a case of repeating the same lie over and over again so that the electorate will eventually accept the premise that Republicans are bad.
That Trump won't accept a Biden win and will attempt to remain in office.
That Trump won't condemn the false claims by Democrats that he supports White supremacy.
Charlottesville.
On point #1, Pence did a very effective response to Ms. Page where he highlighted how the Democrats abused the power of the state to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, the Russia collusion hoax, the Mueller report, and the attempted coup of Trump through the impeachment process. It has been the Democrats who have refused to accept the results of the 2016 election. The Democrats are now trying to disrupt the 2020 election process. Hillary Clinton even said that if Trump wins, that Biden should never concede.
Katie Pavlich, of Fox News, concerning the debate moderators, noted that
one needs to also examine the controversial questions that the
moderators are avoiding to ask. She noted that the moderators are not asking questions related to public controversies that would make Democrats "uncomfortable". Examples, gun control, illegal immigration, health care for illegal immigrants, eliminate Electoral College, abortion, defunding the police, and Hunter Biden. The electorate deserves answers from the Democrats to these questions so that they can make informed decisions.
As an interesting aside on Democratic illogic, the Democrats contend that the approval of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court be delayed to after the Presidential election to give Americans a voice in selecting the President who will make the nomination. Absurdly, the Democrats refuse to release the names of potential Supreme Court nominees or to address the issue of court packing thereby depriving Americans of the ability to know what they are voting for.
Should there be a third debate, it will be interesting to observe whether the three topics posted above don't somehow magically re-appear as fake adversarial "questions". Will the moderators ask Biden any of the "uncomfortable" questions? The electorate deserves to know. It is the Democrats who are the threat to democracy.
A side notation concerning the unthinking unrelenting avalanche towards "social justice": Newsom signs law mandating more diversity in California corporate boardrooms.
Where is the concern that we have diversity over all aspects, such as
having 50% of the players of professional teams (football as one example) be
women or that a certain percentage of players on a basketball team be
short? Seems that most persons grandiosely advocating "social justice"
are really full of empty hot-air. First, they don't seem to comprehend that they are disingenuously fostering discrimination under the ludicrous proposition that they need it to end discrimination. Very Orwellian. Second, they don't really mean what they say
and they simply make gratuitous meaningless gestures to mislead the
public. Unfortunately, the public has yet to loudly call-out the likes of Newsom for this travesty.
Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream Speech" proclaimed: "I
have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the
content of their character." Indeed, that was what the Civil Rights
movement of the 1960s was about; bringing equality. Consequently, a whole series of laws were passed to create a "level playing field". Today, that "level playing field" is being dismantled. The Civil
Rights has been corrupted, it is now about obtaining
preferential treatments that are now to be "entitled" based on alleged past "identity" grievances ("social justice"). King's dream of equality is being ruined.
"Proposition
16 seeks to repeal the provision of the California Constitution that
prohibits discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race
and sex in public education, employment and contracting. That provision
was put there by Prop 209 in 1996.
Little has been
said about how this repeal effort could have the unintended consequence
of furthering discrimination against women in college admissions."
The significance of this article is that there is a finally a degree of recognition (however small) of "unintended consequence"
in the media resulting from allowing the selective application of the law.
Usually, the media simple pushes the one-sided politically correct dogma
of the unrelenting need for "social justice" to end so-called "white male privilege". Now, through this article, we can begin to see the emergence of what could happen if we allow decisions based on "color of their skin" or other ambiguous criteria. Each "identity group" will begin to demand its so called "just share" and "protection" from the perceived adverse effects of any law. "We need a law to protect our XYZ community from the evils of ABC". Recall Orwell's: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Should this downhill trend of allowing decisions to be based on arbitrary capricious vague
undefined rationale to achieved a vague undefined societal objective
continue, in the end, the rule-of-law will cease to exist.
Trump's performance at the Presidential debate held on September 29, 2020 was awful. He kept interrupting and would not let Biden speak. One of the quick immediate takeaways that others made was that Trumps constant interruptions actually helped Biden, as Biden was not provided the opportunity to make his infamous gaffes. Unfortunately, that is now water-under-the-bridge to Trump's detriment.
Time makes a difference. In reading the reviews following the debate, it emerged that the this "debate" was a continuation of the incessant barrage of pejorative "questions" by the anti-Trump media. Lou Dobbs, of Fox News, recently put together a montage of times where Wallace (the supposedly neutral moderator) started asking (four years ago) Trump about so-called White supremacy only to once again repeat that question at the debate. Trump had answered Wallace then, nevertheless Wallace went down the road of adversarial interaction demanding "clarification" from Trump. So it is quite unbelievable at the number of times Wallace had previously asked this question, yet he could not seem to "comprehend" Trump's response. Seems to be an example of Wallace playing stupid. Of course, at the time of the debate, I missed this as Trump was too busy interrupting.
Wallace also had the opportunity to insist that Biden answer the question of who he (Biden) would nominate to the Supreme Court. Biden told Wallace, in his face, that he would not answer that question. Essentially "kicking sand" into Wallace's face. Wallace never followed-up on that. Clearly, Wallace should have asked aggressively for "clarification". This same issue appeared with fracking. Biden one day says the is against it the next that he is for it. Yet Wallace fails to ask for "clarification". The purpose of these debates is to provide the voter with an opportunity to understand what the candidates for President plan to do. Biden, essentially stiffed the voters and Wallace failed to do his job, as moderator, of getting an answer from Biden.
Concerning Biden. Before the Presidential debate, Biden held several small scale interviews with reporters, where Biden only took a very very limited number of question. One such interview was absolutely appalling. It appeared as if the persons asking the questions were not real reporters but Democratic Party "operatives". None of the "questions" asked of Biden concerned issues such as fracking and/or the Supreme Court. The (fake) questions were soft-ball opportunities for Biden to condemn Trump. Biden disclosed nothing of substance. Wallace should be censured by Fox News for this lack of
journalistic integrity and outright bias against Trump.
---------------
The Wallace attack on Trump video has once again been deleted. That makes two times that the video has been subsequently "disappeared".
Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
