"You've been duped into believing the Democrat Party is for the people."

CNN has absolutely no conscience with this stuff...

New polls have shown that when it comes to trust in the science community, we’re seeing a double-digit fall among the American people. According to The Hill, two separate studies have confirmed that the reputation of institutions and scientists have taken a hit in the last few months: Two new surveys show most Americans still trust leading scientists and institutions like the Centers for Disease ...

We’ve been training people to believe that when a scientist says something, it’s akin to God handing down a declaration from on high but in reality that’s just not the case. Scientists are figuring out a universe we don’t understand little by little as an infant figures out the world it’s born into. The amount of things we don’t know is overwhelming and will likely stay that way for thousands of years. A “discovery” by a scientist is nothing but one small spec of dirt on a mountain of dirt, and even then, he might not fully understand the spec he found.

I think more skepticism of the scientific community is needed, and especially when it comes to scientists who claim to know the thing they’re talking about inside and out. Especially when it’s reported on by biased reporters who treat science like a booty call.

What Congress is doing, as it always does, is attempting to throw money at the problems that we and state and local legislatures have created. We’ve locked down our economy, isolated Americans from their loved ones and friends, forced stringent protocols on businesses, allowed mob rule to take over our cities, and now believe that more money, not a complete reversal of these failed policies, is the path forward. It is patently absurd.

The best thing we, the elected leadership of America, can do is move towards a full reopening. We must release the restrictions of businesses and the American people to let them choose how to best return to normalcy.

As election day draws nearer, we are closer to learning who will occupy the White House next year. Will an October surprise upset the the race? //

Jeff Charles, The Black DaVinci
·
Sep 12, 2020
So what do y'all think the October surprise is going to be?

JamesCheef
@JamesCheef
No different than the June, July, August, and September surprises.
2:39 PM · Sep 12, 2020

From gaffes to one-line zingers, TIME presents history's best-remembered quotes from our presidential candidates
— M.J. Stephey...

When a moderator tried to silence Ronald Reagan's microphone during a 1980 Republican primary debate that he had personally financed, Reagan shouted: "I am paying for this microphone!" The line, as NBC's Brian Williams noted, became a "political home run" for Reagan, even though it wasn't actually his. He borrowed it from the 1948 film State of the Union.

I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Ronald Reagan quipped during the 1984 presidential debates when asked if, at 73, he is too old to be President. The line — a classic example of Reagan's sense of humor — even solicited a laugh from Democratic opponent Walter Mondale.

The 1876 electoral showdown was different from those of 1800 and 1824, when no candidate had a majority of votes in the Electoral College.

[Note: This article is based on an actual letter. The recipient’s name and some minor details have been changed.]Aug. 5, 2020

Dear Zachary,

Thank you for your thoughtful, honest email explaining why you felt frustration and anger about my public support of Donald Trump. I'm glad that you wrote as you did rather than leaving the matter unspoken.

Thank you also for writing, as a long-time friend, to express your concerns that my support of Trump might jeopardize the reputation that I have built as a trusted professor of theology and ethics for the last 43 years, and that my pro-Trump stance undermines the credibility of the label “evangelical,” and even of the Christian gospel itself.

I take these objections seriously. I have pondered them for several days. Please consider the following twelve points of response:

1. No consideration of policies

At the beginning of your email, you write, “This email does not concern policy.” The rest of the email concerns what you see as President Trump’s character flaws.

But that means that your email fails to address the entire reason for my support of Trump. In every column that I’ve published in support of Trump, I have explicitly registered my disapproval of his character flaws and previous immoral behavior. I support him because of the policies he has enacted and will enact, and in spite of his character flaws (which I don’t think rise to a level that would disqualify him from being president; more on this below).

Should Christians try to influence laws and politics? Historically, Christians have disagreed. Dr. Wayne Grudem's booklet offers a historical and theological overview of the disagreement and offers an answer that lends itself to thoughtful action. The booklet is adapted from a chapter of his book, Politics- According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture. Here, he addresses five views of Christian involvement that he finds unbiblical, incomplete, or spurious. He closes with a more balanced and biblical solution.

The idea that Mattis took the job as Secretary of Defense, requiring President Trump to ask for a Congressional waiver for him to do so, and then treated the man so shabbily behind his back makes me think one hell of a lot less about Mattis.

Secondly, Jim Mattis is Roman Catholic. The National Cathedral is also a) /pagan/ Episcopalian and b) nowhere near either the Pentagon, the White House, or Mattis’s quarters. The Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle is much closer to the White House than the National Cathedral if, indeed, he needed to unburden his soul for falling for the temptation of power.

The dark whisper about needing to “take collective action,” is concerning. It is one thing if a civilian cabinet secretary goes there. But if a recently retired Marine general starts talking about removing the president via “collective action,” it carries with it a whiff of Bonapartism and imagery more appropriate to Buenos Aires or Tegucigalpa than Washington, DC. It smacks of the classic thriller, Seven Days in May. (See Mike Ford’s excellent story on this that Woodward’s book has made relevant again, 7 or 8 Days in May. //

https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2019/02/16/7-8-days-may/

Assuming this story is true, it paints a shameful picture of Jim Mattis. He’s not the legendary “warrior monk,” he’s a disloyal and duplicitous man who took a job from a man he had no intention of serving to the best of his ability and then proceeded to sabotage him behind the scenes. Not a good look at all.

First published in January 1981, Mandate for Leadership served as a conservative plan of action for the Reagan Administration. By the end of Reagan’s first year, he had implemented nearly half of its ideas. This first edition of Mandate for Leadership appeared on the Washington Post’s paperback bestseller list, and the Post called it “an action plan for turning the government toward the right as fast as possible.”

Since 1981, Heritage has published five editions. The 2016 edition of Mandate for Leadership earned significant attention from the Trump Administration, which embraced 64 percent of its policy solutions.

For decades, Heritage has been on the forefront of policy innovation and impact. This year’s volume of the famed Mandate series is no exception. The conservative agenda presented within this book is thoughtful and dynamic, and any Administration can use this analysis to make the country better.

-- Mark Meadows
United States Congressman

Biden knows Jimmy Carter -- he should give him a call to prepare himself. //

Stony Brook Political Scientist Helmut Norpoth has created a Presidential Election prediction model which has correctly predicted the winning candidate in 25 of the last 27 Presidential elections, going back to 1912, the first year presidential primaries in the states were used in each party’s nominating process. The only two years the model was wrong were 1960, with Kennedy beating Nixon — although there are strong historical accounts that election fraud in Texas and Illinois delivered both state to Kennedy when, in fact, the voters of Texas and Illinois selected Nixon. If those two states had been declared for Nixon, they would have given him exactly 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win the election.

The other year the model was incorrect was 2000, when Bush prevailed over Gore after a court challenge which declared Bush to be the winnner in Florida by just a handful of votes, with Florida’s electoral votes needed by each candidate to declare victory.

Prof. Norpoth’s model predicts a 91% chance that Pres. Trump wins re-election, and gives him 362 electoral votes in the process. //

In playing around with an interactive electoral map, the way I get Pres. Trump to 362 electoral votes would put only the following states in Biden’s column:

Washington, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Delewere, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and one vote from Maine.

I recognize the tune, but the lyrics have been changed. //

Goldberg’s article — based on anonymous sources — claims that the trip was possible, and the only reason Pres. Trump did not go was because he did not want to go and that he didn’t see any reason why it was necessary for him to visit cemeteries like these. Goldberg claimed he has four sources with first hand knowledge as to the reasons why the trip was scrubbed. But no fewer than four people who were in the room have gone on record stating that the Atlantic Story is false, the only reasons discussed for canceling the visit was the adverse travel conditions. //

The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows that immediately after the GOP Convention, starting on September 2, the race moved from dead heat to a 7% lead for Pres. Bush — 50-43 — as of September 8, the day Rather ran the Texas National Guard story based on phony documents.

The story came under immediate and sustained attack based on its irregularities, and the falsehoods that were quickly exposed. The purpose of the story was to paint Pres. Bush as someone who used political favors to avoid being sent to Vietnam as a fighter pilot. The goal was to juxtapose Bush’s avoidance of combat with Kerry’s service time in which he was “combat wounded” — although that story took a beating as well. //

The Atlantic story has the same purpose and was launched at the same point in time. //

Goldberg played a similar role here — except he’s just one small squeal of a cacophony of press organs lined up to oppose a second Trump term.

But just like Rathergate, the Atlantic Article has fatal flaws that have been exposed and undermine its central thesis. But it also serves as a bit of an inoculation against stories yet to come.

We’ve seen this movie before, and I liked the way it ended the first time. At this point in time, nothing suggests the ending to the 2020 version will be different.

The Atlantic Story on Trump disparaging the military is worthless trash, except for the value in smoking out Jennifer Griffin as a hidden Anti-Trumper at Fox.

An Economist/YouGov poll from this week give Biden an 11 point lead over Trump, but is it right? //

Of the 1,207 respondents to the question, 494 self-identified as Democrats and only 314 self-identified as Republicans (the remaining 399 were independent/third party). Simply put, of the respondents polled, nearly 41% self-identify as Democrats, while only 26% self-identify as Republicans. A 15 point advantage for Dems built into the data. That number isn’t included in the methodology… I wonder why??

Julie Kelly's Disloyal Opposition is the essential book for understanding NeverTrump

DOJ Policy is to indict cases when they are ready -- politics should not be a consideration in indicting or waiting.

Massive number... //

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
The left is losing the middle
1:32 PM · Jul 27, 2020