Tag Archives: Presidential nominee

Machines For Harris/Walz!

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about Amazon Alexa’s political leanings. Who knew Alexa was political?

The article reports:

Amazon addressed what it called an “error” Tuesday after some of its Alexa devices promoted 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris over 2024 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Video of a woman asking Alexa why she should vote for each candidate went viral Tuesday due to the device’s glowing review of Harris versus its neutrality on Trump. Amazon told Variety that its apparent pro-Harris bias was a mistake that the company quickly corrected.

This is the video:

The Daily Caller concludes:

Amazon is not the first major company to face backlash for alleged bias against Trump.

Google came under fire in late July for the alleged censorship of the assassination attempt against Trump from its “autocomplete” search results feature. “There was no manual action taken on these predictions. Our systems have protections against Autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which were working as intended prior to this horrific event occurring,” a Google spokesperson told the Caller at the time.

The Biden-Harris administration influenced Amazon i n March 2021 to restrict books that expressed skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine, emails the House Judiciary Committee obtained show.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in late August that senior officials under Biden-Harris “repeatedly pressured” Facebook to suppress COVID-19 content that the platform otherwise would not have restricted. Zuckerberg said Biden-Harris officials expressed frustration when Facebook initially hesitated before complying.

Vote carefully. Recently Vice-President Harris described free speech as a ‘privilege.’ It is a privilege I would like to hold on to.

 

Some Things To Be Aware Of

Posted on by

Kamala Harris’ choice of Tim Walz for her Vice-Presidential nominee is an interesting choice. The mainstream media is touting Walz as a long-serving veteran of the National Guard, but there is other information indicating that his service did not necessarily end as indicated in his publicity information.

On August 8, Red State posted an article detailing some of the problems with Tim Walz using his military service as a positive talking point.

The article notes:

The media has been torn over the subject. CNN debunked Walz’s claims that he served in combat (see Even CNN Torches Tim Walz in Blistering Fact Check About Carrying Weapon ‘In War’ – RedState). But the preponderance of evidence is beginning to indicate that Walz himself portrayed his service as duty in combat. A Bloomberg profile posted the day of Walz’s announcement specifically says that Walz served in Iraq. It has since been edited with no explanation of how the error came to be (see NEW: The Tim Walz Stolen Valor Scandal Just Got Much Worse Following Bombshell Report – RedState).

The Harris campaign has sought to minimize Walz’s lack of manliness by denigrating JD Vance’s service in the US Marine Corps in Anbar Province, Iraq. A top Harris surrogate claimed that Vance had not served in the military; see Top Harris Surrogate’s Claim About Vance’s Military Service Is So Disgusting Jim Acosta Has to Jump In – RedState and Harris and Walz Using the ‘Big Lie’ With No Media Pushback Portends a Very Ugly Campaign – RedState.

It is pretty obvious that Walz left the National Guard to avoid being deployed. A lot of people did that. It is not unusual. The problem in Walz’s case has to do with his role in his unit. One of the lessons learned in Vietnam was that units that were deployed intact had a better success rate than units where individuals were swapped out as individuals. Unit continuity is an important part of success, and units that trained together and deployed together generally had better survival rates. Walz was the top non-commissioned officer in his unit, and the unit depended on his leadership. When he left abruptly after saying he would stay, he left a large vacuum. That is a problem the most veterans will acknowledge. Whether or not they will vote for him I don’t know, but it is a problem.

Please follow the link to the article for further illustrations of the media attempting to put a lot of lipstick on a pig.

Encouraging Future Bad Behavior?

Posted on by

We should all celebrate the return home of the hostages taken by Russia. However, we should also examine the price that was payed for their return and what it will mean in the future.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the prisoner swap.

The article notes:

President Joe Biden deserves credit for the prisoner swap agreement that led to Russia releasing Americans Evan Gershkovich, Alsu Kurmasheva, Paul Whelan, and other Germans and Russians on Thursday. While this deal carries a heavy risk of boosting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appetite for aggressive intelligence operations, it deserves support.

Biden and his key negotiator, CIA Director Bill Burns — I’ll write more on Burns in my next piece — deserve particular credit in terms of the parameters of the agreement. After all, Biden likely could have reached a deal earlier if it only involved Americans and some Germans detained by Russia. Instead, the deal included a significant number of German citizens, possibly including some German BND foreign intelligence service agents and officers, and prominent Russian dissidents. It would have been challenging to persuade the Kremlin to release political opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza, for example. That bears noting amid prior claims by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that he could have made a prisoner swap deal without significant U.S. concessions.

The Israelis are said to have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. They have, at times, been forced by circumstances to alter that policy, but have generally remained steadfast. The problem with negotiating with terrorists is simple–it encourages them to take more hostages in the future.

The article concludes:

As Putin now escalates his sabotage and assassination plots in the West, and as he threatens ever more dastardly consequences for Western support for Ukraine, the U.S. should recognize Putin for what he is: a leader who is bold and opportunistic, but also one who makes decisions based on how his opponents have previously responded to his pressure tactics.

The next time an American is taken hostage or U.S. interests are otherwise attacked by Russia, the first U.S. response should not be to enter a long process of negotiations. Instead, the U.S. should escalate in riposte.

Putin and other dictators and terrorists are not stupid. They can easily look at the price they paid (or didn’t pay) for taking hostages to trade for warriors. Let’s make taking hostages uncomfortable and unprofitable.

A Really Bad Idea That Sounds Wonderful

Posted on by

Andrew Yang is running for President in 2020.  One issue in his platform is what he calls the Freedom Dividend.

Andrew Yang’s website describes the Freedom Dividend as follows:

Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘the Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future.

Any change to the Freedom Dividend would require a constitutional amendment.

It will be illegal to lend or borrow against one’s Dividend.

A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.  Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy.

This proposal reminds me of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern’s proposal to write a $1,000 check to every American. That sounded good to me, so I voted for George McGovern. I have learned a little since that time.

The obvious question is, “Where would the money come from?” Mr. Yang’s answer is that it would come from a value added tax that would add equity to the American tax system. Last year Amazon paid no federal tax on its $11 billion profit. A Value Added Tax (VAT) would change that. Other companies that paid no tax last year were Delta, Chevron, IBM, Netflix, General Motors, and John Deere. I am not criticizing those companies–they simply took advantage of the tax laws the way they are written. That is good business practice, and there is nothing illegal about it. However, there is a concept being omitted in this discussion–corporations don’t pay taxes–their customers do.

A value added tax levied on these companies would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the goods or services involved. Every taxpayer might get his $1,000 Freedom Dividend, but it would be spent to cover the increases of the cost of the goods the VAT was levied on. Most countries do have VATs, but I am not sure adding any additional tax to American companies is a good idea. In the end, the consumer suffers and the cost of paperwork soars.

This Should Make For A Very Entertaining Democratic Primary Season

Posted on by

As we have all come to know (and not appreciate), the campaign for the next presidential election starts the day after the last presidential election. Members of the party that did not win begin jockeying for position, assuring voters that they can beat the incumbent in the next election. It is a good time to watch the candidates and attempt to gauge the direction of the party. All indications within the Democrat party are that the party is moving significantly left, but trying not to be obvious about it. Local Congressional candidates are calling for abolishing ICE, instituting socialism, impeaching President Trump, free college tuition for everyone, etc. Nationally, party leaders are saying those are not priorities. (Well, I can guarantee that if the Democrats take the House of Representatives, one of their first issues will be impeachment, regardless of what they are saying.) Well, the Democrat presidential primary just got more interesting.

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported the following:

The Democratic National Committee voted on Saturday to change the party’s supderdelegate rules for its presidential nominations.

The DNC voted to weaken the role top party officials play in nominating their presidential nominee. A superdelegate is an unelected delegate that has the ability to support any candidate and aren’t beholden to results of a primary or caucus. Most superdelegates are current or former Democratic politicians.

The fight over superdelegates was sparked over the 2016 Democratic primary where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was favored heavily by superdelegates over self-proclaimed democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). Clinton was able to secure the nomination sooner with the help of superdelegates and thus end Sander’s campaign. Sanders and many of his supporters have criticized the use of superdelegates and characterized them as a mechanism that subverted the will of the people.

CNN reports the vote was almost unanimous.

The superdelegates were instituted after the 1972 and 1980 elections, where more Democrats participated in the primary elections, but the candidates were defeated by landslides at the polls. Evidently Democrat primary voters did not represent a majority of the country, so the Democrats rigged the system so that candidates could again be chosen in the traditional smoke-filled rooms. That has seemed to work better for them. Even when they haven’t won, they have at least been in the running.

The article concludes:

Superdelegates will no longer be able to vote on the first ballot at the convention unless the candidate has received the necessary pledged delegates, which are based off primary and caucus results, to secure the nomination.

“Today is a historic day for our party,” said DNC Chair Tom Perez. “We passed major reforms that will not only put our next presidential nominee in the strongest position possible, but will help us elect Democrats up and down the ballot, across the country. These reforms will help grow our party, unite Democrats, and restore voters’ trust by making our 2020 nominating process the most inclusive and transparent in our history.”

The fight over superdelegates has divided Democrats but it appears Saturday’s rule change was a compromise most were willing to accept.

This primary season will definitely be a get-out-the-popcorn moment as the establishment Democrats fight to keep control of their party.

Exactly Who Is Inciting Violence?

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the bombing of the Republican Party headquarters in Orange County, North Carolina.

These are some pictures from the article

bombingrncncbombingrncnc1The article concludes:

The firebombing probably was not committed by marginal, uneducated people. Orange County is the wealthiest county in North Carolina. It is heavily Democratic, with Democrats and independents outnumbering Republicans 5-1. The county is home to the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and Duke University is just outside the county’s boundary. So left-wing students or professors could have been involved.

Democrats perpetrate this sort of violence in every election cycle. They should be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This sort of activity by either political party is disgraceful. I don’t know why the people who did this felt it was necessary, but hopefully they will have plenty of time in jail to think about what they did.

I just want to add a few comments to this. As a blogger, I am personally invested in the concept of free speech. I was more than a little disappointed when President Obama turned over the administration of the Internet to a group of people who do not respect free speech. I am one of the people who was audited by the Lois Lerner IRS, so I understand how the government can discourage free speech. As you prepare to vote in the upcoming Presidential election, I can assure you of one thing. A vote for Hillary Clinton for President is a vote to curtail free speech (and Second Amendment rights) in America. The leaked emails show her plans for the future of this country. You may believe that the limiting of free speech will not impact you because you are in agreement with the Clinton/Obama policies, but I can assure you that eventually your freedom of speech and other freedoms will be limited under a Hillary Clinton presidency. This election is about the Constitution–it is not about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Please vote accordingly.

We Need To Listen To The People On The Front Lines

Posted on by

Lifezette is reporting today that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council has endorsed Donald Trump for President.

The article reports:

The National ICE Council, the union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, decided to endorse the GOP nominee after carefully considering the impact a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on their officers. Saying that Clinton has embraced the “unconstitutional executive orders” of President Barack Obama, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, said in a statement that these orders “have forced our officers to violate their oaths to uphold the law and placed every person living in America at risk — including increased risk of terrorism.”

According to the article, this is the first time the National ICE Council has endorsed a candidate in a national election. This is important. We need to listen to these people as they are on the front lines of our fight against domestic terrorism.

The article reports the following statement by Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council:

“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history,” Crane added. “Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders.”

…After noting that only 5 percent of the council’s membership supported Clinton’s presidential bid, Crane lambasted the Democratic presidential nominee for catering to the special interest groups and “open-borders radicals” all in the name of “cheap labor, greed and votes.”

To be fair, the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats on open borders. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a major contributor to Republican candidates. Those candidates do not want to close our borders because many of the Chamber of Commerce members want cheap labor. If the Republican Party truly opposed open borders, those borders would be closed by now, regardless of who was President. There are some Republicans who have fought for real borders, but they are not in the majority.

The article at Lifezette concludes:

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane concluded. “We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal.”

The Numbers Keep Going Down

Posted on by

This is an election season so all news reporting has to take that into consideration. Anything you read has to be checked against another source and then sorted through to figure out what you weren’t told. Sometimes it gets very frustrating. One of the items that has come up in this campaign is the U.S. economy. President Obama and Hillary Clinton say that it is great, and Donald Trump says it is not doing well. What do the numbers say?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday that has some answers.

The article reports:

The U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter of 2016 with real GDP growing 1.1 percent, a lower rate than previously estimated, according to the second estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected downward revisions to state and local government spending and to private inventory investment and an upward revision to imports,” the bureau said.

Real GDP represents the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced in the economy. The second quarter growth of 1.1 percent, which includes performance from April, May, and June, was an increase from the 0.8 percent growth recorded in the first quarter of 2016.

Second quarter growth this year was lower than second quarter growth in 2015, when GDP expanded at 3.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“Today’s disappointing news that the economy expanded even slower than reported is another reminder that we cannot continue President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed economic policies for another four years,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Economists say Hillary Clinton’s tax plan alone will slow economic growth, reduce wages, and kill jobs.”

We have had eight years of Democratic policies running the economy. The excuse given by most Democrats is that President Obama started with a mess because the housing bubble had burst. However, when you look at the roots of the housing bubble, you are a little less likely to blame President Bush for the collapse (see Burning Down The House. If in the future YouTube takes down the video, I have embedded it in various articles in this blog–use the blog search engine to find it and watch it.) It is time to let an experienced businessman try his hand at running the American economy. That is the only hope the American workers have.

I Have No Idea What To Believe

Posted on by

I am not thrilled about my election choices in November. Donald Trump has foot in mouth disease and Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come. Great choice. However, there are some things to consider. The fact that the Democrats, the Republican establishment and the media oppose Trump probably indicates that he is the right man for the job. Donald Trump has also shown an ability to surround himself with very capable people.  Hillary Clinton is frightening because of the Supreme Court judges she would appoint, her stand on abortion, her stand on religious freedom, her healthcare policies, and her views on the Second Amendment. If Hillary is elected, tax dollars will routinely be used to fund abortion mills–something currently banned by the Hyde Amendment.

The reports by the major media show that the polls show that Hillary Clinton will win in November by a landslide. That seems rather odd because of the difference in attendance at Hillary Clinton events and Donald Trump events. Hillary can’t fill a small venue and Donald is overflowing in huge stadiums. So why isn’t that reflected in the polls? I don’t know.

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner posted a story yesterday showing a poll with a different result.

The story reports:

Republican Donald Trump should win the presidency by a slim margin according to a model that has accurately predicted the popular vote since 1988.

Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Abramowitz‘s “Time for Change” model done for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics “Crystal Ball” shows Trump winning 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent for Hillary Clinton.

He added that the model shows a 66 percent chance of a Trump victory.

“Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6 percent for the incumbent party, these results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton: There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory,” Abramowitz added.

Later in the article, Abramowitz states that Hillary Clinton will win in November because Donald Trump’s unfavorable ratings are so high. It must be nice to be able to write a story that takes both sides of an issue.

The bottom line is simple. Our republic is on the line. Everyone needs to get out and vote. I really don’t want to explain to my grandchildren how we got a Supreme Court that doesn’t support individual freedom.

Bad News For Election Integrity

Posted on by

WNCN (CBS) is reporting that a federal court has overturned North Carolina’s voter identification law.

The article reports:

A federal appeals court has found that a North Carolina voter ID law was enacted “with discriminatory intent” and must be blocked.

How in the world does the appeals court know the intent of the people who passed the law? The law required photo identification to vote. The law also provided a way for people who did not currently have photo identification to obtain it free of charge. I few political groups in the state offered to provide transportation to those seeking photo identification. The supposedly ‘disenfranchised voters’ are the same people who use photo identification to cash checks, buy alcohol, enroll in government programs, etc. No one is being disenfranchised.

The article includes a quote from Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute:

North Carolina’s common-sense voter ID law was passed to preserve the security and integrity of our elections process. North Carolina’s voters deserve the confidence that their votes will not be diluted by fraud. Just before a crucial presidential election, the liberal judges of the Fourth Circuit are once again legislating from the bench and seem to be looking for opportunities to overturn North Carolina law at every turn. The continual overreach of the courts like the Fourth Circuit undermines the belief in self-government through elected representatives and our democratic republic.

It is simply outrageous that the court cites race as a reason for overturning North Carolina’s voter ID law. No one has been able to point to a single example of a voter being disenfranchised as a result of this law. In fact, voter turnout has increased since the law was enacted.”

If voter fraud is prevented in North Carolina, Donald Trump wins. If voter fraud is allowed, Hillary Clinton wins. It seems as if the court has already voted.

The following quote from the article echoes that sentiment:

Rep. Tim Moore, N.C. Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore Sen. Phil Berger also disagreed with the ruling and issued a joint statement saying that the ruling will allow “Democrat politicians” to steal the upcoming election.

Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election. We will obviously be appealing this politically-motivated decision to the Supreme Court.”

Stay tuned.

 

 

I Might Actually Watch This

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that Bernie Sanders has agreed to debate Donald Trump as a charity event.

The article reports what Donald Trump said on Jimmy Kimmel live:

“Yes, I am,” he said on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “How much is he going to pay me? If he paid a nice sum toward a charity, I’d love to do that.

“If I debated him, we would have such high ratings and I think I should take that money and give it to some worthy charity,” the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee added.

Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, later accepted Trump’s offer, even offering a potential battleground site.

I think I would be willing to watch that debate.