AREN’T WE THE PROUD NATION
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
WHEN IN HS, WE BROUGHT OUR RIFLES TO MACHINE SHOP AND WORKED ON HOLSTERS IN LEATHER SHOP. WE THEN HAD SHOOTING CLUBS IN THE HALLS AFTER SCHOOL.
New Mexico Democrat’s bill could criminalize parents teaching kids how to shoot, according to gun group
Share this:
The Rest of the Media FINALLY Realize Andrew Cuomo is AWFUL
ESPECIALLY WATCH STARTING AT 6:50 !
Share this:
Election Integrity Matters
To some that will be obvious, to others apparently less so—or perhaps, only when it works for an outcome they want. Truth is, election integrity always matters, since the legitimacy of those elected, their right to govern and to exercise coercive power, and our trust in government rest on faith in the vote—one per citizen, independently cast, no more, no less—and how the votes are tallied.
Without election integrity, we have nothing. We would not live in a representative republic, with a Bill of Rights, due process, equal protection, and constitutional elections, but in an unaccountable, crooked oligarchy, maybe alive with socialist, communist, fascist, or autocratic zeal, but not honorable, not real.
Thankfully, Americans know election integrity is no joke, and that it must be assured. Thomas Jefferson said that citizens are “the safest depository of their own rights,” if elections be “honest.” Jimmy Stewart’s character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington echoed his sentiments, reminding us that “government derives its just powers from consent of the governed.” Obviously, “consent” must be honestly assessed.
“We the People” are America’s touchstone, not the government—which is why descriptions of the majority’s will, state by state and nationally, must be accurate. All else flows from that source. If the source is tainted by corruption—in canvassing, casting, or counting votes—power wielded is illegitimate.
Nowhere is that more consequential than in our presidential elections. That is why, in an election year with unthinkably tight margins of victory in eight states, the right thing to do is take a closer legal look.
Some will say lawsuits and possible recounts in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina—and appeals to the US Supreme Court—are distracting, unnecessary, partisan, somehow undemocratic, or unsporting. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Where material facts, supported by physical evidence and affidavits create credible claims of substantial election interference, possibly affecting outcomes of state or federal races, the need for transparency is not merely advisable—it is essential. Integrity of government depends on legal resolution.
To understand why, just think about the basis on which you trust anyone, especially a person into whose hands you would commend your property, your life, or the lives of those you love. From picking babysitters, teachers, coaches, or contractors to finding a real estate agent, stockbroker, lawyer, or doctor, you want to assure the risks you are taking are not fraught with fraud.
Elections are the same. With America’s future on the line—and in this cycle, a stark choice between prioritizing the Bill of Rights or mitigating it with socialist programs—election integrity is paramount.
Interestingly, if you think about it, this should be just as important to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Democrats as to President Trump, Vice President Pence, and the 70 million Americans who we know voted for them. Why? Because a cloud of illegitimacy over any president is debilitating.
Far better to know, up or down, whether the vote is valid and the process unmarred by corruption than to hobble through four years with half the country thinking an election was stolen, the other half unsure, consciences dulled by doubt, quietly convincing themselves they are not living a lie.
No, the appropriate answer is knowledge—as close as we can get. The right answer is personal integrity, which produces an insistence on election integrity, since without it, we get weak. We begin to rot from within the moment we compromise, arguing that it does not matter. We know it does.
No less than Ronald Reagan reminded us: “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around—and this makes us special among the nations of the earth.” Furthermore, “our government has no power except that granted it by the people,” which is why the majority will must be found and respected.
That, of course, brings us to this uneasy moment. Some argue credible claims of systemic, state-level election error, let alone evidence of electoral fraud (notably by one party) should be spared further review—in a word, overlooked.
Others argue, despite incomprehensibly narrow margins and material irregularities in procedures and counts, that correcting these outcomes is not important, as corrections may not change the national outcome and might upset a shallow consensus— supported by the media—that the presidential cycle is over.
When all is done, these arguments do not fly. We live by laws, or we consent to be lawless. Most would prefer fidelity to law. The request for electoral truth is not partisan, flip, inconsequential, or intolerably divisive—except in an imaginary conception of America that cares not for truth or transparent elections.
Not knowing, not wanting to know, not acknowledging the existence of potentially serious public corruption does not make it go away. On the contrary, it encourages future corruption. Not wanting to examine facts, apply laws, or believe the truth does not vanquish the power of facts, laws, and truth.
Only by knowing that this election was fairly conducted can Americans go forward with confidence in the outcome, their government and fraudulent elections. The evidence made public to date is weighty. The process is no longer political but methodical, mechanical and legal. Recounts must be encouraged. Cases must be resolved on real and testimonial evidence and appealed as necessary to the Supreme Court.
Fidelity to the US and state Constitutions; to prevailing statutes, practices, and procedures; and ultimately to each other, our Founders, and the future is what we should expect of ourselves and of the leaders in both parties.
To look away from this dilemma is to look away from moral duty. To compromise on electoral integrity, even in tough circumstances, is to compromise our individual integrity and endanger the country. Historically, that is not who we are—weak, indifferent, undaring, afraid of truth.
As Americans, we should want truth, especially at election time. In short, truth counts. Election integrity matters. PERIOD!
Share this:
The Exact Same Thing That Is Happening To GameStop Is Eventually Going To Happen To The Stock Market As A Whole
A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it at a particular moment in time. Sadly, this is a lesson that many GameStop traders are learning right now. Just a few days ago, GameStop had surged above $300 a share and a lot of investors that had gotten caught up in the frenzy thought that they were suddenly rich. But you only make money in the stock market when you get out. Those that sold at the peak of the bubble were extremely fortunate, but most GameStop investors are determined to hold on to the bitter end, and the end will definitely be quite bitter indeed.
I think that it is great that a horde of retail investors want to punish the short sellers, but GameStop is definitely not a long-term investment.
In fact, the fair value for a share of GameStop stock is probably less than a dollar.
So it was quite bizarre that “the Reddit army” was able to push the price of the stock to more than $300 a share. Ultimately, any really determined group of investors can temporarily pump up the price of any stock, but in order for it to stay elevated there must be buyers that are willing to purchase the stock at that level day after day.
Everyone knew that GameStop was going to come back down, and that has happened in dramatic fashion during the last two trading sessions…
Shares of GameStop sank further on Tuesday, with shares of the volatile retail-trader favorite sliding 60% to finish at $90 per share.
The tumble follows a more than 30% drop during the regular market session Monday after finishing at $325 per share on Friday. That brings the two-day loss to 72%.
For the sake of GameStop investors, I hope that the stock bounces back a bit on Wednesday, but it is just a matter of time before it returns to a level that is much closer to fair value.
Some investors such as Dave Portnoy got really excited about what Reddit traders were trying to do, and he got in at the very top of the bubble. Now that several of those stocks have cratered, Portnoy has lost approximately 700,000 dollars…
After the bell, Portnoy provided an update on his AMC, NOC, and NAKD positions. He said he bought them at the “absolute high” and sold them at the “exact bottom.” In total, he said losses amounted to $700k, something we noted earlier.
That has got to hurt.
Others have also seen the value of their stock holdings drop in precipitous fashion.
For example, Keith Gill saw the value of his holdings in GameStop drop by 13 million dollars on Tuesday alone…
Keith Gill — who goes by DeepF——Value on Reddit and Roaring Kitty on YouTube — says he suffered a loss north of $13 million on Tuesday alone from his GameStop bet, but he’s still not selling.
He’s the man who helped inspire the epic short squeeze in GameStop last week that sent shockwaves through Wall Street. Through YouTube videos and Reddit posts, Gill attracted an army of day traders who cheered each other on and piled into the brick-and-mortar video game stock and call options, creating a massive short squeeze as the shares jumped 400% last week alone.
I know that he says that he is doing this to make a point, but I have a feeling that someday he is going to look back and kick himself for not selling when he had the chance.
Golden opportunities come along very rarely in life for most people, and when they do it is important to take advantage of them.
Of course one of the big reasons why GameStop crashed was because Robinhood had restricted trading in that stock, and now that the stock has crashed Robinhood is rolling back the limitations…
Robinhood on Tuesday rolled back more of its trading limitations, now allowing clients to buy up to 100 shares of GameStop.
GameStop climbed off the lows as the Robinhood changes were announced.
Speaking of Robinhood, this whole episode has exposed the fact that they were never actually “looking out for the little guy” at all. The following comes from Senator Josh Hawley…
Enter Robinhood—as in, steal from the rich. Robinhood was the trading platform for the little guy. No fees, no hassle. It was Big Tech, once again, allegedly democratizing another sphere of American life captured by elite control. But like the tech platforms, Robinhood wasn’t really about its users. Its bread was buttered by selling the data on users’ trades to the big players—the elite guys, like Citadel—to give them inside tips on where retail investors were sending their money. And the Citadel guys, in turn, pay off their regulators—like treasury secretary Janet Yellen—in their years away from government for favors when they’re back in power.
What a crooked system we have, but our politicians will never have enough courage to actually try to change it.
And of course the so-called “guardians of democracy” in the mainstream media relentlessly defend our extremely corrupt system.
Sadly, it is just a matter of time before the entire house of cards comes crashing down for good.
The talking heads on television are preaching to us about the dangers of “the GameStop bubble”, but the truth is that our entire stock market has become one gigantic bubble.
If the market were to drop by 50 percent tomorrow, it would still be way overvalued.
Price to earnings ratios always return to their historical averages eventually, and it will be no different in our case.
Of course we should hope that the eventual crash can be put off for as long as possible, because the collapse of the stock bubble will severely hurt millions of people financially.
But as sure as you are reading this, it will happen.
So I really don’t want to hear any more babbling from the sanctimonious idiots in the financial community that are trying to tell us that GameStop investors “had it coming”.
Yes, everyone could see that the GameStop saga was not going to end well, but everyone should also be able to see that things are not going to end well for the market as a whole.
If you can make some money in the short-term by playing the stock market, that is great.
But as our friends at Zero Hedge like to say, “on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero”.
Share this:
New York Times ‘Experts’ Urge Biden To Establish Orwellian ‘Reality Czar’ To Dictate Truth
Experts are calling for President Joe Biden and his administration to appoint a task force led by a “reality czar” focused on dictating and mitigating the dissemination of certain types of information, and the New York Times is eating it up.
In an article published on Tuesday, one Times author made it his goal to seek out experts who could “help fix our truth-challenged information ecosystem” filled with “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions” created by people such as QAnon supporters, One America News watchers, and YouTube conspiracy theorists.
One of the solutions proposed by the professors and employees at anti-extremist activist organizations is for the Biden administration to take action following the deadly Jan. 6 mob riot at the U.S. Capitol to establish a “truth commission” to investigate the siege. Other experts, the author wrote, took it further, proposing that Biden and his team appoint a “reality czar,” a term that some pointed out is very similar to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, to oversee a committee on the quest for general truth instead of just focusing on the riot.
“Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar,’” the New York Times author wrote.
This ultimate-truth official who would work for the government, the author suggested, would be responsible for dictating and mitigating the spread of information in the United States and could engage with the ever-truth-wielding Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google to implement new policies and evaluate which information should be disseminated.
“This task force could also meet regularly with tech platforms, and push for structural changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation problems,” the author suggested, completely ignoring the fact that these same Big Tech overlords already coordinated to censor and deplatform certain people, groups, and companies that they deemed “dangerous,” such as former President Donald Trump.
Involving these internet oligarchs in a government-led crackdown on “disinformation,” the author excitedly suggests, “could become the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis.”
Collusion with Big Tech or the establishment of a government-controlled veritas, however, “could not bring back the millions of already radicalized Americans” by themselves, the Times writer warned. A federal intervention that spurs people to “community-based activities that could keep them engaged and occupied” and the creation of ads “targeting high-risk potential violent extremists with empathetic messages about mental health and mindfulness” might do the trick, though.
“Enact a ‘social stimulus,’ and fix people’s problems,” the Times subhead reads.
Share this:
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Biden: Tensions between bipartisan Biden and ‘most progressive president’ come early
Just a day after President Biden huddled with 10 Republican senators to discuss a compromise COVID-19 relief package, Senate Democrats advanced a budget resolution designed to pass the legislation without them as the White House signaled it would not back down from its desired $1.9 trillion price tag.
“It was civil. It was constructive,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said of the bipartisan meeting at Tuesday’s press briefing. “This is how democracy is supposed to work.” She then expressed support for using the reconciliation process, which would allow Senate Democrats to move the package without Republican defections — with the help of Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote.
It was also a stark illustration of the tensions between Biden’s talk of unity and his commitment to delivering a Democratic legislative agenda with his party in narrow control of both houses of Congress, befitting both the strategy that won him the White House and his decades trying to balance Capitol Hill deal-making with being a party loyalist before that.
To win the presidency, Biden assembled an electoral coalition that stretched from centrist suburbanites who frequently voted Republican before former President Donald Trump won in 2016 all the way to the hard Left typified by Bernie Sanders, the socialist who now chairs the Senate Budget Committee, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young Democratic congresswoman from New York who leads the “Squad.”Recommended For You The COVID-19 restrictions in every state
It worked.
Biden was elected because he did better than Hillary Clinton in turning out Sanders voters and other elements of the liberal base. He returned Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to the Democratic column and flipped Arizona and Georgia by making inroads among white, college-educated voters in the suburbs.
But it set up the possibility he would disappoint one group of supporters or the other — and that choice may have come earlier in the Biden administration than expected.
Sanders vowed to “make sure that Biden becomes the most progressive president since FDR.” But former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican who got more speaking time at last year’s Democratic convention than Ocasio-Cortez, told jittery voters who worried that Biden “may turn sharp left and leave them behind” that their concerns were unfounded. “I don’t believe that,” Kasich said. “I know the measure of the man. Reasonable. Faithful. Respectful. And no one pushes Joe around.”
How that dilemma applies to the coronavirus spending package was made clear by Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. “I think the Republican offer is sincere, but Biden and Republicans have VERY different ideas for how we address this crisis and voters very deliberately chose Biden’s agenda,” Murphy tweeted on Monday. “Some compromise is always warranted, but we have an obligation to see the voters’ intent through.”
That doesn’t mean Biden might not prefer legislation be passed on a bipartisan basis. “President Biden’s years in the Senate have conditioned him more than other presidents towards engagement with Congress,” said Kevin Madden, a political strategist who has advised GOP candidates. “The first meeting was a positive sign, and it was long enough and substantive enough that it went beyond just the pageantry or optics of bipartisanship. So many tests still remain, though. For bipartisanship to really work, meetings like these have to be standard operating procedure. We should have so many of them that they’re actually not news.”
Democrats know Biden’s success hinges on how well he is seen as dealing with the virus and its accompanying economic devastation. “In the last resort, voters will judge the new president more on results than rhetoric,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “To quash the pandemic and fix the economy, he must go big. If that means alienating Republicans to get the nation back on its feet, he is willing to accept the situation.”
Even without Republicans, Democratic coalition management hasn’t always been easy. Sen. Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat from West Virginia, took issue with Harris giving an interview with a local television station in his state to tout the COVID-19 package, about which Manchin has some misgivings, without giving him a heads-up. “We’re going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward, but we need to work together,” he told a Huntington, West Virginia, news channel. “That’s not working together.”
“Not only is he a key partner to the president and to the White House on this package, but on his agenda,” Psaki said of Manchin by way of cleanup in Monday’s press briefing. “We will remain in close touch with him.”
In eight years as vice president, Biden was often former President Barack Obama’s point man for working with congressional Republicans due to relationships formed during 36 years in the Senate. But the Obama years were short on successful bipartisan compromises, as Obamacare and the 2009 stimulus package were passed on largely party-line votes.
Democrats nevertheless sense some momentum. “Early polling shows that almost all Democrats and most independents support his aggressive executive orders even though Republicans disapprove,” Bannon said. “As long as Biden can keep the support of independents, he will enjoy more unity than Donald Trump did.”
fox files 
Written
on 3.February.2021.