The ineptitude of the Secret Service on Saturday was so grotesque that right now it only makes sense as deliberate assistance to the assassination of the presumptive Republican nominee.
That’s the way my mind is working right now. I suspect millions of Americans feel the same way.
I recognize there is no evidence that Biden’s people worked with the shooter Thomas Crooks. I don’t expect there ever will be any such evidence because I don’t believe it happened.
A friend in academia says to me: “Only by Jill installing incompetents who don’t care about anything but hiring women. I don’t think they are smart enough to conspire.”
Who runs the Secret Service? Joe Biden’s choice. Who runs the Department of Homeland Security? Joe Biden’s man. So the Biden administration has to accept responsibility for the security failures that occurred during the Trump shooting.
When the facts change, my analysis will change.
I don’t think people on the left are inferior to those on the right. My bias is right-wing due to my genes and my social imprinting.
Why are so many acting like it's so crazy and unthinkable or unspeakable to consider the possibility that Trump was intentionally put at risk? That may not be the case, but the fact is: publicly available evidence so far causes a rational, logical thinking person to consider the… https://t.co/ZA5j3FgbGZ
— Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️♂️💼🥋 (@SharylAttkisson) July 17, 2024
Posted inAmerica, Joe Biden|Comments Off on Did The Biden Administration Try To Murder Donald Trump Saturday Night?
Podnotes summary: A firefighter (Corey Comperatore) died shielding his family from gunfire at a Trump rally.
Would a man be just as likely to take a bullet for his wife if she was a feminist? Regularly denied him in bed? Showed him contempt? Dressed him down in front of others? If we want chivalry from men, men want some things in return.
Are liberals as likely to jump in front of bullets to save their family as conservatives? If so, what is the basis in liberalism for this? Conservatives believe in honor. Do liberals believe in honor? In which liberal texts is this extolled?
We all influence how others behave; men have bravery but won’t die for nothing. Society needs to recognize different strengths in men and women. At a true crime convention dominated by female attendees, the feminist perspective seemed unlikely to inspire male protection.
Stacy’s experience with her father’s workers shows that men are naturally drawn to women, especially during peak sexual attractiveness around age 15 – an uncomfortable truth reflecting historical male guardianship over women.
Women often don’t take as much responsibility as men do because they’ve historically had male protectors. Paying attention is crucial; Stacy remembered being ogled as a child yet protected later on by those same men when others did the same.
Men can be protective and possessive over their partners while also capable of other emotions beyond lust. Women significantly impact how they’re treated by men, just as men shape their wives’ reactions.
After age 25, most women become less sexually visible to men—a harsh reality suggesting early marriage might be advantageous for for women seeking to secure commitment during peak desirability years.
The story shifts focus onto security concerns at political rallies following an assassination attempt on President Trump. Observations reveal changes in safety measures compared to previous events—with implications about law enforcement readiness and responsibilities during such gatherings.
A controversial topic arises: would a man still shield his wife if she were undermining him? This question hints at deeper issues regarding mutual respect and understanding within relationships.
Ultimately, both sexes must navigate complex realities while striving for balance between personal empowerment and communal harmony—recognizing each other’s unique attributes without succumbing solely to primal instincts or societal pressures.
The security for former President Trump is under scrutiny due to a credible threat from Iran. Concerns were raised about the small perimeter at Saturday’s event, which didn’t include the roof of a nearby building just 150 yards from the stage.
There was confusion during an incident where a sniper team didn’t reach their designated roof post but instead positioned through a second-floor window. This misstep led to questions about overall preparedness and communication between teams.
Further complicating matters are claims of bias within the Secret Service leadership, potentially influencing security levels for political figures like Trump compared to others deemed lower risk.
Investigators remain puzzled over the motives behind an attempted attack on Trump; understanding personal motives can be inherently challenging. It’s suggested that sometimes individuals act out dramatically simply to feel significant.
Amidst these concerns, there’s also criticism of diversity equity inclusion (DEI) initiatives within government agencies like the Secret Service. Some argue DEI negatively impacts morale and standards by prioritizing factors other than merit and excellence.
In response to setbacks or adversity such as affirmative action policies affecting straight white men in corporate America, some suggest this should serve as motivation rather than an excuse for not achieving success. Opportunities exist outside traditional paths like starting one’s own business or choosing less conventional careers that don’t require adherence to DEI pledges.
Overall, while challenges exist due to systemic biases or flawed security protocols, resilience and adaptation are key traits needed for overcoming obstacles in both professional endeavors and broader societal issues.
Recently, I learned that Microsoft might be scaling back on some projects due to pushback. This could relate to people reconsidering their priorities after witnessing security measures post an assassination attempt. It’s like when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post – he likely aimed for positive press to stay in good favor with certain groups.
I have a question, slightly off-topic: Would a man take a bullet for his feminist wife? My guess is less likely compared to if she were traditional and respectful towards him. Men are more inclined to protect women who don’t belittle them publicly or deny intimacy. Society should encourage men’s bravery and women’s femininity rather than just focus on diversity and inclusion.
I’ve observed as Victorian values faded, society quickly shifted away from their principles. And now we’re discussing whether men would risk themselves for wives withholding affection; it seems respect is key in eliciting protective instincts.
Regarding personal experiences, my marriage changed once kids arrived; I felt relegated to just being a paycheck provider. Now divorced, I reflect on how different appreciation from my partner might have led me down another path.
In public situations where spouses act recklessly with strangers, I believe one shouldn’t put oneself at risk defending them against consequences of their actions – especially if they ignore your advice for safety.
People vary greatly; while some find joy in intellectual pursuits or solitary activities others need social interaction or physical endeavors for happiness. What matters are the fundamental truths across disciplines despite differing perspectives based on individual backgrounds or ideologies.
Finally, there’s concern about academia losing its rigor due to cultural shifts emphasizing comfort over challenge – potentially diluting the pursuit of knowledge and truth which has long been its cornerstone.
I admire Amy Wax and Charles Murray, though I don’t agree with all of their statements.
J.D. Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” describes how the Marines teach life skills many lack—like fitness, hygiene, and finances. They helped him manage money and make smart choices like getting a fair car loan instead of an overpriced one from a dealership.
Communities support members much like the Marines do; they guide you but also require humility to learn and follow group norms. Diversity statements may seem pointless but serve to filter out those unwilling to cooperate for community harmony.
The Secret Service’s recent failure raises questions about whether there was intentional neglect in protecting Donald Trump. The glaring security lapses during an assassination attempt suggest more than incompetence; it looks suspiciously orchestrated by those who could benefit from his demise.
Despite discomforting truths about society or personal biases that protect our status or relationships, some value truth over comfort—even if it means losing social standing or facing harsh realities head-on.
Lastly, we should prioritize national interests before global ones—our survival depends on it. Despite Trump surviving an attack and his contributions, he still faces challenges gaining widespread support—a reflection of divided sentiments among Americans.
Since his debate performance in Atlanta, President Biden has faced a tumultuous reelection campaign. Instead of consulting with his chief of staff or campaign leader, Biden is leaning on family and a small circle of loyalists to navigate this crisis and quell internal party dissent. Notably, he’s been advised by his son Hunter and First Lady Jill Biden.
Biden hasn’t engaged with the 500-strong team about the state of the race against Donald Trump but relies on memos and calls from Mike Donilon, a close friend and former campaign adviser. This approach raises concerns among Democrats as it diverges from relying on political professionals during a critical moment.
He also hasn’t reviewed polling data himself nor watched the full June 27th debate that damaged his standing—actions that are crucial for understanding and improving one’s strategy. With key swing states at risk and reports suggesting more “bad days,” Biden’s insular tactics could spell trouble for Democrats hoping for change ahead of potential electoral challenges in Virginia and Minnesota. These issues combined with not addressing evident problems indicate troubling signs for his candidacy.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Joe Biden Gets Covid, On Edge Of Dropping Out (7-17-24)
Podnotes Summary: The Secret Service saw the shooter well before he fired eight shots but chose not to act immediately. This raises questions about whether Trump should instead rely on private security.
Videos from social media suggest that Secret Service snipers had their sights on the gunman minutes before he opened fire, yet they waited until after Trump was attacked to respond. Their inaction seems deliberate, a conscious choice not to intervene sooner.
There are also concerns regarding how law enforcement handled information post-incident, with delays in revealing the shooter’s identity despite knowing it quickly.
Considering all this, one might wonder if there was a level of intentional incompetence involved in protecting Trump – raising suspicions about whether some wanted him out of the picture without directly implicating themselves.
Shots were fired at the former president, and the Secret Service had authority to act without approval. Eight shots were fired before they responded, suggesting they could’ve acted sooner.
The Secret Service allowed the shooter to fire at Trump, raising questions about their decision-making. The Secret Service knew a threat existed for 26 minutes before the attack and yet they essentially did nothing. They abetted the assassination.
Joe Biden receives better protection than Donald Trump. Why?
Questions of gender bias surfaced with claims of incompetence among female agents and accusations against the Secret Service for lowering standards for women while maintaining an appearance of equality.
Discussions ensued about how much “Me Too” movements might affect male motivation in high-stakes professions like security services and whether such movements inadvertently hinder workplace dynamics or excellence pursuit.
It was argued that men thrive in all-male environments, especially in roles involving protection or danger. The presence of women or female leadership was said to potentially disrupt team cohesion and effectiveness.
Finally, it was suggested that both men’s natural impulses toward bravery and sacrifice require societal appreciation to foster excellence within masculine cultures.
We’ve made choices like valuing diversity over excellence, allowing unchecked immigration, and undermining masculinity in society. This has led to decreased law enforcement effectiveness, particularly against groups with high crime rates. Harsh sentences for violent crimes could drastically reduce our crime rate.
In a shooting incident analysis, the caliber of bullets used is crucial. A 55-77 grain bullet traveling at 2900 feet per second can cause significant damage even if it misses its target closely due to its speed and energy.
The Secret Service’s role is proactive protection—anticipating threats and shielding their protectee. However, there were failures during an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. The Biden administration appointed the heads of Homeland Security and the Secret Service, who ultimately decide on security detail assignments for individuals like Trump.
Why did Biden’s team assign Trump incompetent women while Biden reserves for himself competent white men?
Criticism arises around physical capabilities regardless of gender in protective roles; agents must be strong enough to move their protectee or large enough to shield them effectively. There were instances where female agents did not meet expectations during an attack on Trump; they failed to adequately respond or protect him as required. They cowered while the male agents stood up.
Secret Service decisions allowed a shooter within range of Trump without intervening until after shots were fired—an apparent deliberate decision given their immediate response once they decided to act. This raises questions about accountability within the administration and whether incompetence was intentional to increase risks against political opponents like Trump.
A suspicious individual with a rangefinder wasn’t apprehended before he could fire from a rooftop near Trump—a major pre-planning failure by security forces that should have been more vigilant and prepared for such scenarios.
This event underscores serious operational flaws in presidential security protocols which need thorough examination through self-critical assessments (after-action reports) for improvement. It suggests possible deliberate negligence by those responsible for ensuring safety at high-profile events.
Desiring a hundred-yard perimeter doesn’t guarantee safety, especially with modern weaponry like rifles and drones. The Ukrainian conflict showcases frightening advancements in weapon technology that the executive protection industry isn’t prepared for. A 20-year-old utilized “dead space,” areas shielded by buildings, to approach and fire shots at former President Trump.
Despite gunfire, the Secret Service failed to react promptly. Their primary goal should have been to move Trump from the danger zone (“the X”), but some agents used him as cover instead of taking action. Confusion was evident; female agents were heard asking what to do while male agents seemed more decisive.
This incident is an embarrassment and reflects poorly on America’s overfunded bureaucracies. It wasn’t skill but luck that saved Trump – bad marksmanship and his own movements – not the Secret Service whose job is to protect him.
There are concerns about competency within the Secret Service, particularly regarding their response during this event compared to how they secure President Biden. Some suggest bias in agent assignments based on gender or connections rather than meritocracy which undermines trust in these institutions.
The RNC coordinator questioned whether diversity initiatives are appropriate when it comes to presidential security, implying a preference for male agents due to perceived competence issues with females assigned to protect Trump.
Overall, this failure highlights deep-seated problems within federal agencies where politics may overshadow qualifications and capability—an issue that demands urgent attention for the sake of national security.
During a rambling speech about chip factories in Asia and policy, Joe Biden criticized slogans like “end corporate greed” and “control guns not girls.” He mentioned the end of the Cold War order but offered no replacement ideas. This reflects a lack of vision among leaders fighting populists like Donald Trump and Viktor Orban. They fail to articulate new strategies for democratic legitimacy, risking institutional erosion.
Journalist Susan Glass from The New Yorker questioned whether Joe Biden is fit to govern for another term given his age. She suggested that elites overlook evidence due to party loyalty or concerns over Kamala Harris’s popularity. There are doubts about Biden at 85 being an effective president, yet he may remain the Democratic choice due to political unity.
The conversation shifted to Harris’s potential as a candidate if Biden steps aside. Her unpopularity might stem from her performance or biases against her identity—factors difficult to overcome politically. Meanwhile, Biden faces age-related challenges impacting his communication abilities, causing unease within the Democratic Party.
As election narratives form, questions arise about why Biden runs against Trump when he can’t compellingly answer them—a problem evident since announcing his reelection campaign with unclear messaging.
Democrats rallied around Biden in 2020 despite reservations; now there’s frustration over perceived self-interest and insular decision-making involving Hunter Biden’s counsel on campaign matters.
Finally, internal disputes surfaced during calls between President Biden and House Democrats—tense exchanges questioning his leadership effectiveness were reported alongside awkward moments suggesting disorganization within his team.
In conclusion, while some see divine intervention in Trump surviving an assassination attempt—an outlook that can foster group cohesion—others focus on practical politics where leadership strength is crucial amidst crises.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Secret Service Had Trump Assassin In Their Sights For Minutes Before Attack (7-16-24)
Embattled Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle has revealed the fateful reason why her agency failed to position an agent on top of the building that a gunman used to carry out an assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
Cheatle, who is already facing calls to resign over what some lawmakers are calling a massive security failure, said Secret Service officials planning security for Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania considered the warehouse about 150 yards away from where Trump spoke to be a risky position for stationing an agent.
‘That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,’ she told ABC News in an interview Tuesday.
‘And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.’
What transpired instead was a security nightmare: Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to scale the building and secure his own position, while law enforcement struggled to locate him even amid pressing warnings from members of the Trump crowd. But there wasn’t sufficient time to act on the tips, she explalined.
‘The shooter was actually identified as a potential person of suspicion,’ Cheatle said. ‘Unfortunately, with the rapid succession of how things unfolded, by the time that individual was eventually located, they were on the rooftop and were able to fire off at the former president.’
They don’t put agents on the roof because it has a gentle slope? You’ve got to be kidding me!
There is a reason the press calls murderers “suspected” or “alleged” murderers before they’ve been tried and convicted. There is a reason that, when popping sounds are heard at a rally and blood streams down a former president’s face, the media reports just that – and doesn’t jump to the conclusion that those popping sounds were gunshots and the blood caused by a bullet. The reason is an absence of certainty.
Critics have also complained that some outlets refrained from immediately deeming the shooting an “assassination attempt.” But as NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell explained: “Our reporting guidelines require that we not use that term until law enforcement describes it as an assassination attempt if/when the investigation supports that designation. It is a measured approach for accuracy.”
Anyone familiar with high-powered rifles could have heard the pops on TV and seen the blood streaming on Trump’s face and realized within five seconds there was an assassination attempt. I don’t see the necessity of waiting for some law enforcement bureaucracy to make that pronouncement.
OJ Simpson murdered two people even though a criminal jury found him not guilty. Bureaucracies are not God. They are not the seal of truth. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.
This is part of the neutralization of life that has taken off since the 30 Years War in the 17th Century. More and more of life has been removed from the political (religion, race, immigration, nationalism) and turned over to experts (see Stephen Turner’s book Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts).
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on DM: Secret Service director gives bizarre reason why an agent wasn’t on the roof where gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on Trump as she rejects calls to resign
[T]he GOP is looking to make an appeal to anti-woke Silicon Valley or finance types to fill the void left by the Republican Party’s competency crisis.
Right now, there is tremendous asymmetry between the parties in policy positions. The Democrats have a massive bench of people whose traditional qualifications are through the roof. The Republicans simply don’t, and historically Trump has been pretty repugnant to what @powerfultakes calls elite human capital. But you need to fill political appointments from somewhere.
The Thiel-adjacent wing is one of the few exceptions here, and it’s expanding. You’re seeing endorsements from, and overtures to, Elon Musk, the All-In Podcast guys, and Bill Ackman. Republicans offer a sort of Faustian bargain to ambitious anti-woke secular sorts: make your peace with the evangelicals, pander to social conservatism, and gain sway in a coalition crying out for policy competence. More than a few will take that bargain. People are drawn to power voids.
Vance is of that class. He’s smart, ambitious, Thiel-aligned, and in tune with the online right. He’s cynical enough to flip 180 degrees on a dime, and the Trump-populists are desperate enough for competence that they’ll accept his flip. He knows more than almost anyone about the right’s human capital problem. If I had to guess, I suspect that whatever he talks about, from day 1 that will be the problem he focuses most on solving.
All in all, his appointment makes me take seriously the possibility that Trump’s second term will focus seriously on setting a policy foundation for the future versus just being cult-of-personality stuff.
Posted inPolitics|Comments Off on The JD Vance Pick
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
