22 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-9-20

  1. Told ya. The courts are useless, and justice will be ignored.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/12/pennsylvania-supreme-court-denies-emergency-application-for-injunction/

    “Pennsylvania: Supreme Court Denies Emergency Application for Injunction

    “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.””

    —–

    “So much for all the drama over Alito setting the date for objections for tomorrow, then changing it to today. It’s noteworthy that there were no dissents. I had though there might be some individual opinions, even explanations for the rejection, but that’s not to be.

    We’ll never know wy, but this is the end of the road for a judicial challenge to the PA certification. It also signals that there likely is almost no chance that the case filed by Texas today will get a favorable ruling, if SCOTUS rules at all (it’s not obligated to hear that case).”

    Like

  2. More corrupt Democrats and their Chinese spy friends.

    “Alleged Chinese Spy Got So Close To Democrat Eric Swalwell That ‘Alarmed’ FBI Had To Intervene: Report”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/alleged-chinese-spy-got-close-to-democrat-eric-swalwell-fbi-had-to-intervene

    “A suspected Chinese spy operating in the Bay Area during the Obama administration reportedly got so close to Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) that the FBI had to intervene and provide him with a defensive briefing.

    The alleged spy, Chinese national Christine Fang, “targeted up-and-coming local politicians in the Bay Area and across the country who had the potential to make it big on the national stage” through “campaign fundraising, extensive networking, personal charisma, and romantic or sexual relationships,” Axios reported. “Even though U.S. officials do not believe Fang received or passed on classified information, the case ‘was a big deal, because there were some really, really sensitive people that were caught up’ in the intelligence network, a current senior U.S. intelligence official said.”

    The report said that the type of information that officials believe that Fang was collecting, while not necessarily classified, constituted valuable political intelligence that foreign intelligence agencies seek on U.S. officials.

    Fang’s ties to Swalwell began when he was a councilmember for Dublin City, California, which is part of China’s long-term strategy of getting in with people before they make it big on the national stage. Fang met Swalwell through a Chinese student organization and by 2014 had quickly “developed close ties to Swalwell’s office” and was a “bundler” for him — meaning that she helped him bring in big donors.

    “Amid a widening counterintelligence probe, federal investigators became so alarmed by Fang’s behavior and activities that around 2015 they alerted Swalwell to their concerns — giving him what is known as a defensive briefing,” Axios reported. “Swalwell immediately cut off all ties to Fang, according to a current U.S. intelligence official, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.””

    ———

    “Fang, who was put under FBI surveillance, appears to have only targeted Democrat politicians as no Republicans were identified in Axios’ report. As the FBI’s probe continued, Fang unexpectedly packed up and left the country, returning to China. Officials say that her Chinese handlers called off her spying and brought her back to China.

    The report said that Fang had “at least two sexual interactions with elected officials” that were recorded by FBI electronic surveillance.”

    Like

  3. Which all makes this very unsurprising.

    Everything they accused Trump of, they done themselves tenfold.

    “Chinese Professor: “We Have People at the Top of America’s Core Inner Circle of Power””

    “Suggests that Trump was a problem for China and that Biden is a return to “old friends” in the establishment.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/12/chinese-professor-we-have-people-at-the-top-of-americas-core-inner-circle-of-power/

    “A video featuring Professor Di Dongsheng of Renmin University in Beijing is causing a stir because of the prof’s explosive and frank claims that China has people in top positions of power in the United States.

    Tucker Carlson featured the video with English subtitles on his show Monday night.”

    Carlson compared the fake Russia collusion hoax with this very real threat and suggested this played a role in the 2020 election.

    From FOX News:

    Tucker Carlson: Our elites’ collusion with China is real and widespread

    Since the day Donald Trump was elected in 2016, we have been told that Russia is at the very top of the list of threats to America. Russia has penetrated our government. Russia threatens our democracy. Russia works tirelessly to subvert our economy and our way of life.

    Of course, such claims were a lie, and we’re all aware of that now. Russia never had the power or the money to control our government, and there’s no evidence they even tried. But that doesn’t mean that there was no collusion.

    In fact, top leaders in American government and business have been compromised by a foreign power that seeks to undermine our country and our democratic system. It turns out that many of the very people who ranted so hysterically about Russia were doing precisely what they claimed to decry. They were working on behalf our chief global rival, the government of China.

    In the video, Professor Di Dongsheng says:

    DI DONSHENG (translation): The Trump administration is in a trade war with us, so why can’t we fix the Trump administration? Why, between 1992 and 2016, did China and the U.S., use to be able to settle all kinds of issues? No mater what kind of crises we encountered … things were solved in no time … We fixed everything in two months. What is the reason? I’m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here. It’s just because we have people at the top, at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence, we have our old friends.

    The professor even makes a direct reference to Hunter Biden and seems to confirm claims about Hunter’s financial involvement with China:”

    ———–\

    Liked by 1 person

  4. A helpful straight-news roundup on where things stand from World Magazine’s Sift this morning:

    __________________________

    Biden clears another election hurdle

    All but one state submitted their Electoral College slates to Congress in time for Tuesday’s “safe harbor” deadline. The law precludes any congressional challenges to states’ certified election results before the official Electoral College vote on Monday. The deadline’s passing strengthens Joe Biden’s hold on at least 296 electors. A pending lawsuit held up Wisconsin’s vote submission, but Biden is expected to win that state’s 10 electors, as well.

    What about election fraud? President Donald Trump’s campaign continues to argue that large numbers of voters cast absentee ballots illegally in several swing states. Federal and state judges have mostly rejected those arguments for lack of evidence or for technical reasons such as not filing lawsuits in time. One case filed on Monday in Georgia makes specific allegations of 143,986 ballots cast by ineligible voters, including felons, minors, and people who did not properly notify the state of their address change. The case could lead to changes in election procedures in Georgia but likely will not get resolved in time to alter the state’s certified and submitted results. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., to overturn Pennsylvania’s certification of its election outcome on the basis that its mail-in voting law is unconstitutional.

    Any other lawsuits that could change things? On Tuesday, the state of Texas filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, saying those states had so many election irregularities that they should not be allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote. It’s unclear whether the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction in lawsuits between states, will agree to hear the case.

    Dig deeper: Read Emily Belz’s report on the use of Dominion Voting Systems’ ballot-counting technology. —Lynde Langdon
    ______________________

    Like

  5. Do I remember correctly that back in 2016 or 2015 that World Magazine basically said that Donald Trump should withdraw from the election because of character flaws? My memory is not the best, but for some reason I have that stuck in my brain from way back that has influenced my take on that news source ever since. I hate to be so prejudiced toward a group I really like and care about, but that is what happened to me at that point.

    Like

  6. It’s past time for these companies to lose (or at least have modified) their Section 230 protection…

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/youtube-to-delete-content-alleging-presidential-election-fraud_3611197.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-09-2

    “YouTube announced that from Dec. 9 it will block and remove content that contains statements “alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election.”

    The Google-owned firm said that it was because the “safe harbor” deadline on Dec. 8 in the presidential election had passed, claiming that “enough states have certified their election results.”

    However, there are still outstanding legal challenges, including one in the Supreme Court, that could change the outcome of the election. YouTube’s statement made no mention of these, and it made no mention of the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote date.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Janice, I don’t remember that, but I’d say it would have been an opinion or editorial piece, not a news story. I find World to be a very fair straight-news source when it comes to politics.

    Opinion and news, sadly, have been come intertwined in our era. But there always was, and still should be, a distinct and hard line between them for all publications that are honest and serious and strive to practice good journalism.

    Sometimes I read our publication’s editorials (they’re an interesting mix with both conservative and liberal points made). But normally we reporters ignore them. Like the line between advertising and editorial departments, there is and should always be a very hard line of demarcation between news writing and editorial writing.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. I’ve interviewed candidates before who will say, “Well, your paper endorsed my opponent.” I’ll explain that (a) I had no idea of that (which is often true); and (b) it has absolutely no bearing on the job that I do as a reporter seeking to write an objective news story about a particular race and the candidates seeking election.

    (Ideally we try to write those stories before any editorial endorsements come out, but it doesn’t always work that way in the real world with depleted staffs.)

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Janice, it seemed a fair editorial — but certainly intended as opinion, not as news coverage, per journalistic standards.

    _____________________

    … Our regular surveys of evangelical leaders during the primary season showed almost no support for Donald Trump. Only when Clinton became the alternative did Trump gain majority evangelical support in public opinion polls. Joel Belz early on had called Trump “an arrogant blowhard” (Sept. 19, 2015), and we did not hop on the pro-Trump bandwagon, but continued to report the good and the bad.

    Besides, WORLD is a product of God’s World Publications, which as a nonprofit organization cannot endorse candidates. That’s not our job, anyway. Journalistically, our goal is to inform our readers, whom we trust to make wise decisions. Theologically, a deacon told me when I professed faith in Christ 40 years ago, “People often will disappoint you, but Jesus never will.” That’s been true over the decades, and our editorial staff members have learned to put no trust in princes even when they show good character, let alone when they do not.

    As individuals, though, our editorial staff members have taken positions. We’ve tended to be #NeverHillary. A few of us were #NeverTrump. Several of us wanted to give Trump every opportunity to represent well an uprising much needed in American politics.We know that few Democrats and only some Republicans abide by the Constitution. They make up rules as they go along, put into practice cranky ideas marinated at leading universities, and demonize opponents. …

    ____________________________

    Liked by 1 person

  10. The final graph:

    ~ We don’t know if God will rescue our nation from the pit into which our politics have fallen. We don’t know if He will rescue WORLD from the ire some Trump supporters will feel. We hope and pray that He will—but if He doesn’t, He is still God, holding the future of individuals and nations in His hands. May His name be praised forever and ever. ~

    Our pastor spoke eloquently on a youtube video earlier this year during this pandemic, citing the many different opinions Christians were reaching regarding how to respond to the virus and the various restrictions that began coming our way. Our own session has experienced division, with one elder’s wife telling me a few weeks ago that there were probably 4 different positions sincerely and strongly held among our 10 session members.

    Christians with Bibles in their hands can and do come to different opinions about these matters, as they do about politics. We should understand and respect that this will happen — and perhaps come to appreciate one another’s views, borne of a sincere Christian conscience.

    This is a difficult time for the church and I fear we’ve sometimes become too divided, too angry, too fearful, and too haughty in our own opinions. I’ve been guilty of that.

    Today’s secular political landscape is a minefield that too often leads to personal attacks among believers. I don’t remember the political atmosphere being this volatile, even during the late 1960s. The danger is that we can wade into those waters a little too deeply and easily get caught up in the riptides of malice and a spirit that prompts in-fighting and division.

    It’s a hard balance to strike, being active citizens who vote and participate in the public square — but more importantly being followers of Christ and knowing who is sovereign in all of these matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Thanks, DJ.
    Many years ago I bristled when my brother who attended an evangelical church gave me information about who I should vote for based on what he was told at church. When I read that in World it struck me the same way. It somehow felt like a slap in the face that was unexpected. I still feel the same. I don’t try to change people’s minds. What I post is meant for those who believe as I believe to be informed. I expect others to pass it over. There is no hope in my changing my mind about election fraud I do not mean for you to feel discounted in any way by my postings here, but they really are not directed to you or Kizzie, or others who tow the other line.

    Like

  12. Your overlord’s have spoken.

    ” YouTube Says It Will Start Deleting Videos Questioning Election Results, After Inauguration They Will Ban People For Making Them…”

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Janice – The writers in World have been fair to Trump, I think. They have agreed with him in several matters, but also disagreed in others.

    I have to laugh at some of the letters to the editor. Recently World printed two of them back-to-back. One letter writer complained that they were too much pro-Trump, while another complained that they were too much anti-Trump. 😀

    Like

  14. Janice, I think it’s a “given” that World is going to be strongly opposed to Biden. But does that opposition mean they have to be pro-Trump? It seems to me that a Christian can say, “This is the lesser of two evils, but they’re both evil” or “Both of these are evil and we’re not going to decide between them which is worse.”

    Like

  15. Cheryl, I just wanted to know if a similar piece had been written to give the facts for readers about Biden, labeling him as unfit? It was an honest question. I still subscribe but don’t usually read the magazine. I still appreciate what they do in many ways.

    Like

  16. Janice, I subscribed for many years to World, though I haven’t done so lately. I still read periodic pieces they have written and I respect what they do. My hunch is that they said far, far more about Biden’s agenda, his unsuitability for office, serious questions about his running mate, and so forth than about Trump.

    The truth is, it’s a tiny minority of World readers who need to be “convinced” not to vote for Biden. I don’t know if this is a good analogy, but let’s say I start telling you about how wonderful a friend of mine is. You could ask, “Wait, are you saying all these nice things about that friend because you like her more than you like your husband?” No, of course not. But my relationship with my husband is secure, and you have already heard about that. I can now talk about people other than my husband as secondary relationships. Again, maybe a bad comparison, but World is very vocal about lots of issues, including abortion, and they’d be very open in telling about politicians’ positions on such issues. I suspect that World said a lot of things about issues that other media were largely avoiding (e.g., reminders of Biden’s reasons for having to pull out of past elections). That Biden is morally unqualified, both by character issues and by his positions, would be very clear to World readers, and they wouldn’t shy away from such discussions. But it’s also possible that sometimes they “take for granted” that readers agree with them on certain issues and thus don’t go into as much detail–I don’t know.

    Here’s a random example. Let’s say that World were doing an article wondering if Trump was really as pro-life as he claims to be. They wouldn’t be spinning it as “you probably should vote for Biden instead.” They would be including the information that Biden’s voting record is very solidly pro-abortion and they would be including some quotes that say Biden is if anything even more strongly pro-abortion. But it’s possible that such information would be only a small amount of space in the article, more a “reminder” than new information. They know that 95% of their readers are well enough informed on the issues to be aware of information that is that basic; they don’t need to prove their case each time but just to state it.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.