It sounds to me as if, with Kamala Harris now in place in the campaign, Obama is attempting to remove Biden from the picture entirely. Obama was never really going to let a senile man head the Democrat party ticket, and he may now be getting his ducks in a row to ease Biden out.
Devastating Trump campaign video portrays the dramatic mental decline of Joe Biden over the last few years
The Democrats are hiding their radical platform and the party’s capitulation to the Sanders-AOC socialists, and instead touting the personality and purported character of Joe Biden as a guarantor of moderation.
It’s a phony appeal, of course, on two counts. One is that the lefty rads are totally in control and they know it. They just have to keep a low profile and count on the media to hide them and their views.
But the other count is harder to conceal: Joe Biden’s mental decline is severe. Maybe they think that they can limit his spontaneous interactions to interviews with Cardi B and People Magazine (which implies they will try to cancel the scheduled debates). Alzheimer’s is no joke, and a substantial portion of the public knows someone who has been afflicted, so they can recognize the symptoms when they see them in Biden. And that’s a big problem, because while Biden has his moments of lucidity, he also has offered plenty of evidence that he is not the same man he was 5 years ago.
The old gaffe-prone Biden was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the video below from the Trump campaign put the lie to the contention that his mental wandering off is just “Joe being Joe.” It is barely over a minute long:
“You can’t beat somebody with nobody” is a political dictum (attributed to Jack Abramoff) that carries a lot of truth. By nominating a candidate whose mental capacity is rapidly falling, the Democrats are trying to beat somebody with nobody.
This video argues against both counts of the Democrats’ fraud. Biden lacks the focus and energy to keep the radicals reined in, even if that were possible). And his character, even if voters accept the fiction that it is sterling (ignoring his corruption in China, Ukraine and elsewhere), now that nobody is home upstairs, it doesn’t matter.
Photo credit: YouTube screen grab
Maybe they just hope to defeat Trump by
any means necessary and plan to invoke the 25th Amendment elevating Kamala
Harris to the presidency -- someone who couldn’t convince more than 2% of the
primary voters to consider her for the nomination.
The Real Problem with Joe's Dementia
Many Americans seem to have understandably
concluded that Joe Biden has dementia based on his very public displays of
confusion, aphasia, and incoherence. But the question we should actually
be asking is What is going on with Joe out of public view?
Like many Americans who have cared for
parents with dementia, I witnessed my father’s decline firsthand and, sadly,
Joe Biden is presenting exactly as my father did in the early stages --
right down to the vacant look in his eyes. While I am neither doctor nor
expert, physicians and other medical professionals rely heavily on caregiver observations
because they monitor the disease’s progression 24/7 over the long haul, and can
add valuable input that is not always obvious at an appointment or measurable
with a cognitive test. I am relying on my experience as my father’s
caregiver, corroborated by medical professionals, health consultants,
literature, research, and the shared experiences of others. Of course,
not every dementia victim will experience every symptom, but the commonalities
are significant.
As the disease grabs hold of one’s
faculties, men like Biden and my father continue to view themselves as
experienced executives -- in control, commanding, and coherent; holding court
as the family patriarch; the old dude who’s seen it all. They don’t doubt
their ability to express complex ideas with the right words. And so, they
conduct business as usual and, for the most part, things go fine until they
stammer over a word, get frustrated, then confused, and either babble their way
out or shut down. It isn’t long before lost words, forgotten names, and
elusive ideas are replaced by whatchamacallit, whosimajig,
whatshername, and the thing.
These lapses can be easily hidden during
the early stages. It’s not uncommon for loved ones, spouses in
particular, to make excuses for the afflicted, cover up the messes, and run
interference with others. In those embarrassing moments when a dementia
patient fails to recognize someone he should know, the dutiful spouse (often in
denial) will swoop down, rush to his side, and handle the mishap. Of
course X remembers you. He’s just very tired from our trip. Can you
excuse us for a second? She will answer the phone and put the caller
on speaker to assist with answering questions her spouse might find
confounding. She will accompany him everywhere and serve as backup if he
starts to frazzle. But for those occasional “senior moments,” he seems
put together to the outside world.
That’s because sub rosa the
dutiful spouse makes sure medicine is taken, hygiene and grooming are attended
to, and meals are provided and eaten. She controls his schedule and
prepares him for the day’s events. She learns mornings are best, he tires
and gets confused as the day ensues, and that crowds and noise are
triggers. If she doesn’t manage his life, he won’t be able to manage it.
But the charade can only last so long -- she cannot anticipate everything
and the effects of the disease can be unpredictable.
As stress incidents accumulate over time,
anxiety increases. As anxiety builds, confusion mounts. Eventually,
it seems none of the brain’s electrical impulses can get where they need to go
and the individual devolves into delusions and hallucinations. It can
happen at the end of a “normal” day where the patient decompensates and becomes
disoriented, confused, anxious, belligerent, or agitated (“sundowning”) or
amass over months and give way to hallucinations. I call it the
anxiety-confusion-delusion loop but I honestly don’t recall if I coined that
caring for my father or if I read it somewhere.
What should give every voter pause is
the likelihood that Biden is already experiencing or, due to high stress
levels, has a very high risk of experiencing disorientation, crippling anxiety,
paranoia, serious behavioral changes, delusions, and intense cognitive
decline. Dementia
cannot be reversed and will only worsen. He might deliver a short speech
and take a few questions without incident, but he invariably falters as he
tires -- indicia of other symptoms that will intensify with the hourly rigors
of a campaign.
It isn’t far-fetched to anticipate a
president in the White House who forgets to dress, thinks night is day, wanders
aimlessly in the middle of the night looking out windows, opening drawers,
trying to get somewhere else. The laundry list of behavioral changes is
vast and not conducive to a functioning presidency. However, he will be
propped up by Jill and his handlers, groomed, medicated, and fed, and might
appear just fine at the next day’s events, even reading from notes and
teleprompters… until he forgets how to read, what the notes are for, or how the
teleprompter works. Forget about multitasking, handling complex
economic or geopolitical issues, and running the country 24/7.
With today’s technology, deep fake videos,
and a COVID-inspired virtual presidency, perhaps the DNC is confident they can
pull a fast one on the American people, run a shadow government with Joe as the
face of the presidency, and cover up his infirmity and ineptitude with the aid
of the press -- think Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Maybe they just hope to defeat
Trump by any means necessary and plan to invoke the 25th Amendment
elevating Kamala Harris to the presidency -- someone who couldn’t convince more
than 2% of the primary voters to consider her for the nomination. Or, they could be running
Biden-Harris knowing they’re unwinnable, but fully intending to contest
the election, accuse Trump of stealing it, calling (again) for his
impeachment/removal, and causing just enough bedlam to destroy his second term.
The Democrat-Media Complex has been
explicit about taking Trump down by any means necessary so
none of this is overblown or hyperbole. In fact, these tactics have
either been deployed during Trump’s first term (i.e., impeachment) or suggested
as potential tools against him in another context (i.e.,
25th Amendment).
Fortunately for Jill Biden and Joe’s
political handlers, COVID has played right into their hands, requiring limited
exposure to crowds, a controlled schedule, and scaled-back social interactions.
But lurking behind those senior moment-y, Joe Biden-y gaffes is his inability
to function independently for a full day at peak performance. Of course
they don’t want a normal campaign season. They just need to get Joe to the
finish line and, if they’re lucky, over it.
Image: Goodfreephotos
Barack Obama is meddling in the upcoming election
Barack Obama was never a traditional
American president. After all, he was the only president ever to come to the
White House manifestly disliking and being embarrassed by the country he was
elected to lead. With
that as a background, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that he’s publicly
meddling in the upcoming election in a way that even Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton didn’t try. (Former Republican presidents have more graciously stayed
out of the fray.)
Both of Obama’s lines of attack are
serious. First, he’s explicitly saying that Trump is trying to throw the
election by putting his managerial skills to work to address a postal system
that is in complete disarray. Second, he’s attacking his own former Vice
President, who is now waiting in the wings to be officially crowned as the
Democrat party’s presidential candidate.
The United States Post Office is a mess.
In 2018, the Post Office had a net loss of $3.91 billion. In 2019, the net loss had more than doubled, reaching a staggering $8.81
billion. Even considering the claim that some of that money was a result of
bookkeeping changes, the net loss was still almost $2 billion greater than in
2018.
Thanks to the Wuhan virus, 2020 is promising
to be the worst year ever. At the end of April, the Post Office said that its first-quarter losses were already
$4.5 billion. In the second quarter, the Post Office lost another $2.2
billion. It is a barely functional institution.
Nevertheless, Democrats are insisting
that, come November, all voting in America must be done via the U.S. Mail, with
states mailing ballots to every registered voter and the voters mailing them
back. Others have pointed out that this will be a disaster, so I won’t belabor
the point. It’s enough to say that the possibilities of fraud on a hitherto
unknown scale are enormous. Moreover, with the Postal union just having endorsed Joe Biden, if Trump voters are forced to vote by mail, they'll have
a reasonable fear that their ballots will never get counted.
Donald Trump, looking at this mess,
decided to do what he’s done for decades: Install new management to make a
business better. This isn’t just his avocation; it’s also his constitutional
job.
In June, Trump appointed Louis DeJoy,
an experienced businessman, as his Postmaster General. DeJoy
immediately set about trying to slow the financial bleeding. Democrats, of
course, complained. Things really went “postal,” though, on August 7, when
DeJoy reassigned or removed 23 senior postal officials.
Management shuffles are a logical step to take when an organization is
dysfunctional.
In our politicized age, this was going to
be a hot potato under any circumstances. Still, Obama, who should be staying
out of things, turned it into a nuclear potato by accusing Trump of deliberately sabotaging the election:
Barack Obama
slammed President Donald Trump for trying to ‘actively kneecap’ the postal
service to disenfranchise voters.
Obama did not
say Trump’s name but did refer to the ‘president’ in his interview on the
podcast of David Plouffe, his former campaign manager, in some of his
harshest, direct criticism of Trump to date.
‘What we’ve seen
in a way that is unique to modern political history is a President who is
explicit in trying to discourage people from voting,’ Obama said. ‘What we’ve
never seen before is a President say, ‘I’m going to try to actively kneecap the
postal service to encourage voting and I will be explicit about the reason I’m
doing it.’’
‘That’s sort
of unheard of,’ he added.
Ironically, Obama meddled on the same day
that Dr. Fauci finally admitted that, if people could shop, they could also do
in-person voting.
But that wasn’t the end of Obama’s
meddling. There was a leak on Friday (that Obama might have planted) that Obama is unhappy with Biden’s candidacy:
[A] number of
anonymously sourced quotes from Obama leaked out throughout the 2020 Biden
campaign where the former president allegedly expressed doubts about his former
running mates’ fitness for office.
“Don’t
underestimate Joe’s ability to f--k things up,” one Democrat who spoke to the
former president recalled him saying.
When
lamenting his own diminishing relationship with the current Democratic
electorate, particularly in Iowa, Obama reportedly told one 2020 candidate:
“And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”
It sounds to me as if, with Kamala
Harris now in place in the campaign, Obama is attempting to remove Biden from
the picture entirely. Obama was never really going to let a senile man head the
Democrat party ticket, and he may now be getting his ducks in a row to ease
Biden out.
Put simply, Russia couldn’t have done a
better job at interfering with a presidential election than Obama has done.
Four years ago, his interference was covert and illegal. This year, it’s overt
and disgusting.
Image: Obama and
Biden, by Obama White
House; U.S. Government work, public domain.
Kamala's Threat to American Democracy
Who, exactly, is a vice-president supposed to be?
Tue Aug 18, 2020
The
arrival of Joe Biden’s decision on a running mate is a true turning point in
the history of American politics.
There
has never before been a presidential candidate who, prior to entering
the White House, has shown such undeniable signs of age-related neurological
decay. All political disagreements disregarded, the sight of an elderly person
succumbing to the demons of those dreaded cognitive ailments -- which all too
often rob us of the older people we love -- is truly excruciating to behold.
The
political outcome of Biden's mental state is, if possible, even more
unsettling. The role of the president is meant to be powerful. All
constitutional checks and balances considered, the sheer power of the chief
executive, in that one single person invested with authority to counter-balance
the power of the legislative and judicial branches, is truly awesome.
In
our situation today, we see a man who is clearly not in full command of his
mental faculties, who is allowing himself to be considered for that office of
chief executive; an office which, unlike a prime minister in a parliamentary
system, is intended to be stable and not prone to regular changes in
leadership.
The
expectation of a normal four-year presidential tenure on Biden’s part if he is
elected must, at the very least, be subjected to serious doubt. If pronouncing basic
words -- let alone quoting the
most famous phrase of our Declaration of Independence -- is such a
confusing ordeal for him, then it is our urgent duty to question whether
this individual is fit to be the man who must accept the ultimate
responsibility for this country’s national security and well-being.
These facts squarely cast the Democrat side of the current
election as not a presidential election at all, but a vice-presidential election.
Should
Biden win, the chances are very probable that his vice president will become
the 47th president to finish out his first four-year term. As the vice
president automatically succeeds to the Oval Office if the president dies or is
rendered permanently incapacitated, the profoundly anti-democratic
repercussions of this situation is worsened by whom Biden has actually chosen.
The
traditional custom for presidential hopefuls is to either choose the
second-highest-polling candidate in a primary race, as Ronald Reagan did with
George H. W. Bush in 1980, or to choose a highly capable politician who is
well-respected by most of the party, as Donald Trump did with Governor Mike
Pence in 2016. In both of those cases, the aforementioned running mates reflected
the Republican Party and its voters quite respectably while promoting unity.
It
is highly questionable, meanwhile, whether Kamala Harris -- aside from all of
the establishment media’s expected giddy cheerleading -- really represents her
party all that well. She was polling at 2% nationally
by the time she ended her own presidential bid on December 3, 2019. Her
more radical positions, such as support for
the Obama administration’s Iran deal, prosecuting a
journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s collection and sale of aborted
babies’ body parts (while receiving campaign
donations from them), and defending Ilhan
Omar’s anti-Semitism, may indeed sit well with a great many leftists, but her
actions as Attorney General of California may not. While in that position,
Harris jailed hundreds
on marijuana charges and authorized anti-prostitution sting operations
which, according to SF Weekly,
disproportionately targeted Latino men (a crucial Democrat demographic). In
addition to this -- though she later admitted it was a mistake -- she prosecuted and
jailed the parents of truant teens. She even refused to
release the names of Catholic priests accused of sexually molesting children,
abnegating law enforcement’s most basic and humane duty -- regardless of
anyone’s opinion of the Catholic Church.
it
is highly debatable if these are positions that a high number of progressives
who voted for the Democrat primary runner-up, Bernie Sanders, would approve of.
Especially today, being tough on minority and drug crime -- to the exclusion of
“white patriarchal” clergy sex abuse -- is not en vogue among the Democratic Party’s
truly energized base, which is largely college-educated millennials taught to
have contempt for not only aggressive inner city policing, but inner city
policing overall.
It
also remains a question as to how many black American voters Kamala really
represents. Without doubt, she completely failed to gain these voters' support
during the primary. Many black Americans responded to Barack and Michelle Obama
due to their image as
people who empathized authentically with the black experience of living in
inner city America. Harris’s flip-flopping on criminal justice issues has
clearly deprived her
of the Obama touch.
What
should highly concern all Americans of whatever political persuasion is the
fact that, given Joe Biden’s medical condition, a Democrat victory in 2020
could very likely result in a person for whom only 2% of
Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents supported to
become president.
The
reasons for Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate are as yet not
entirely clear. What is very clear, however, is that a new president of the
United States in the near future could be a person whom a weak and faltering
man chose by
fiat, and not someone whom the majority of the country elected by the ballot.
That's a problem.
It's
a problem for America -- and it's a serious and profound problem for American democracy.
Barry Nussbaum is an
exceptional American businessman and real estate mogul, whose distinguished
career extends more than 38 years. He is an experienced news commentator on
international affairs, who has been featured on major television networks,
web-based and in print media. Visit his site: AmericanTruthProject.org.
Kamala
Harris: Mike Nifong in a Dress
While
the Black Lives Matter movement is a fraud whose principal agendas include
"revolution" and an anti-Trump
campaign on 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money, the
overwhelming majority of Americans support the ostensible causes behind which
it hides. These include opposition to police misconduct, which includes not
just excessive force, but also imprisonment of innocent people, many of whom
are black. This
makes Kamala Harris exactly what everybody is protesting.
Over-Aggressive Prosecutors Are More Dangerous than Most Criminals
An
over-aggressive prosecutor is far more dangerous to society than any but the
most violent criminals. If a thug invades your home to rob, rape, or
murder you, you can shoot him, and the law will be on your side when you do
it. A prosecutor can, on the other hand, force you to spend your
life savings to defend your freedom and good name and maybe even send you to
prison for something you didn't do. Consequences for the prosecutor
are rare, although disgraced Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong (D-N.C.) is an
exception. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has been involved in similarly
questionable prosecutions, although in a position of supervisory responsibility
rather than direct participation.
People
believe that a jury trial is similar to the one in Twelve Angry Men,
in which one juror convinced the others to examine the evidence thoroughly and
discover reasonable doubts. What aggressive prosecutors really want
are twelve people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty, will believe and
do whatever they are told, and will rubber-stamp the prosecutor's decision to
send somebody to prison or even the death chamber. George Stinney was, for example, a black teenager who was
executed at age 14 on the basis of evidence that would not convince any intelligent
person.
The Amiraults were
convicted, and far more recently, on the basis of evidence such as a magic
room, a secret room, and an evil robot, none of which was ever
found but for which the jury took the prosecution's word. There were
also allegations of sexual abuse with a butcher knife that somehow left no injuries
whatsoever. Superior Court judge Isaac Borenstein, who presided over
the trial, opined, "Every trick in the book had been used to get the
children to say what the investigators wanted" and, according to the National
Registry of Exonerations, added that "[t]he children's accounts were
tainted by suggestive interviewing techniques and were coerced by investigators
who refused to take a denial of abuse as an answer." Scott Harshbarger (D-Mass.) and Martha Coakley (D-Mass.) then ran
for higher offices, as Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is doing today.
Trying
to railroad an innocent person to prison is professional misconduct for which a
prosecutor can be censured, suspended, or even disbarred. "The
prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the
prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause." The
prosecutor is also obliged to disclose exculpatory
evidence. Enforcement of these rules is rare, noting the junk cases
now being brought against motorists who defend themselves against carjackers
while the carjackers go free and against police officers who shoot violent
assailants.
Mike
Nifong was among the rare exceptions because "Nifong kept
from the defense DNA test results that found genetic material from several men
in the accuser's underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse
player." The Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate —
and Joe Biden's age means she could easily become president — comes across as
just more of the same. "Comes across" is emphatically an
opinion based on the references shown below as opposed to any kind of proven
fact, but voters have the right to choose based on informed opinions.
Mike Nifong in a Dress
"Kamala Harris Was Not a
'Progressive Prosecutor'" by Lara Bazelon, former director of the Loyola
Law School Project for the Innocent, is highly instructive. It appeared
in the leftist New York Times, so the Democrats cannot denounce it as a
right-wing smear job. The article alleges, "Ms. Harris fought
tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through
official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the
suppression of crucial information by prosecutors." "Judge
rips Harris' office for hiding problems" provides additional detail. These
articles do not even hint that Harris did these things herself, but, as the
person in charge, the buck stops with her.
Harris also "refused to
allow newly available DNA testing for a black man [Kevin Cooper] convicted of
hacking to death a beautiful white family and young neighbor," although
she later changed her
mind. The Innocence Project stipulates that
Harris eventually went along with the DNA testing for Cooper but also
implicates Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) in refusing to allow a form of DNA testing
that might exculpate Cooper. The last thing any decent person in this
country will tolerate should be, "I'm frameable because I'm an
uneducated black man in America."
"Jim
Crow Joe [Biden] and Kamala the Cop" from Left Voice — a socialist
website, so the Democrats can't write this one off as a Republican smear,
either — cites the case of Daniel Larsen, who was sentenced to 27
years under California's three strikes law but exonerated after he served 13
years. Kamala Harris, however, challenged his release because "he hadn't
presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough." If I read
this correctly, Kamala Harris thinks it is OK to imprison an innocent
person over a technicality.
None
of us would want to entrust our lives to an engineer who let stand rather than
correct a mistake in a structural design, or our finances to a CPA who let
stand rather than correct a potential accounting error. Nobody would
tolerate a doctor who, upon discovering a medication error, allowed the patient
to get the overdose anyway and then buried his mistake. Why, then, does our
society tolerate prosecutors who continue to stand behind cases or convictions
after they discover serious problems with their evidence? Why do we
tolerate the "finality" (the word used by
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when it reinstated the Amiraults'
conviction) of leaving defendants in prison despite evidence of questionable
convictions?
There
is also the issue of Harris's failure to support universal use of police body cameras. (She did
require their use by officers who reported to her own agency.) Body
cameras usually, but admittedly not always, keep police and suspects alike on
their best behavior. The Republicans' JUSTICE Act says states that
receive federal grants for body cameras "shall have a policy in place to
apply discipline to any law enforcement officer who intentionally fails to
ensure that a body-worn camera purchased using those funds is engaged,
functional, and properly secured at all times during which the camera is
required to be worn[.]"
Harris
also dragged her heels in terms of following a recommendation to institute a
policy for disclosure of police
misconduct to defendants. The Bazelon article cites other equally
controversial cases in which Harris has been involved in a position of ultimate
responsibility. This raises serious doubts about her fitness to be
only one heartbeat away from the presidency itself.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers
the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to
learn those lessons again the hard way. The author is remaining
anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel
culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.
No comments:
Post a Comment