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
Evan Wright, a modern-day gonzo journalist who embedded with an elite U.S. Marine battalion in Iraq for prizewinning articles that were published in Rolling Stone and grew into the book and HBO miniseries “Generation Kill,” died July 12 at his home in Los Angeles. He was 59.
The cause was suicide, according to his family.
Mr. Wright wrote for magazines including Time and Vanity Fair but was perhaps best known for his contributions to Rolling Stone, the literary home beginning in the 1970s of Hunter S. Thompson, the renegade writer who embodied the personal, sometimes subversive brand of reportage known as gonzo journalism.
Mr. Wright rejected the frequent comparisons between him and Thompson.
“‘Gonzo’ speaks of writing that is more about the reporter than the subject,” he wrote in a book-length collection of his articles, “Hella Nation: Looking for Happy Meals in Kandahar, Rocking the Side Pipe, Wingnut’s War Against the Gap, and Other Adventures With the Totally Lost Tribes of America” (2009). “With few exceptions, my intent has always been to focus on my subjects in all of their imperfect glory.”
But for better or worse, the analogy stuck. To readers interested in the affairs of the world beyond those reported in the columns of more tradition-bound publications, Mr. Wright’s byline carried the promise of a riveting, insightful, visceral read. He infiltrated a gathering of neo-Nazis in Idaho, reported from the trenches of anarchist groups and chronicled the lives of sorority girls at Ohio State University, in addition to profiling show business celebrities including Shakira and Quentin Tarantino.
Mr. Wright was most celebrated, however, as a war correspondent, embedding first with the U.S. military during the Afghan war and then, in 2003, with the Marine First Reconnaissance Battalion in Iraq. His writings from Iraq, a three-part series published in Rolling Stone as “The Killer Elite,” received the 2004 National Magazine Award for reporting.
“Writer-photographer Evan Wright risked his life to get this story — a rollicking, profane, brutal look at the Marines of Bravo Company, who led the charge into Iraq last year,” read the citation. “In the course of myriad firefights, mortar shellings and ambushes, Wright won the trust of his subjects, but he remained clear-eyed, depicting the soldier’s cold-bloodedness as well as their humanity. Brilliant down to the last detail.”
Mr. Wright expanded his articles into the book “Generation Kill: Devil Dogs, Iceman, Captain America and the New Face of American War,” published in 2004 and adapted in 2008 into an HBO miniseries that Mr. Wright co-wrote with David Simon and Ed Burns, both of “The Wire.” In a post on X after Mr. Wright’s death, Simon recalled him as “charming, funny and not a little bit feral, as many reporters are.”
I first met Evan Wright in 1996 when he was an editor at Larry Flynt’s porn magazines. He started publishing in Rolling Stone in 1999 and I only saw him occasionally after that.
We were always on good terms. In December of 1998, he paid me $1000 to write an essay about the Pope for a Seth Warshavsky publication. I was supposed to get paid $3000 but after I turned in my work, I settled for what I could get.
“Porn attracts a wacky element,” Luke Ford says. “Case A: Luke Ford.” Since April 1998, Ford, a thirty-three-year-old convert to Orthodox Judaism, has been writing a daily Web column covering the triple-X industry (lukeford.com). Ford exposes drug use, mob connections and murder plots, and details the operatic dramas of porn stars’ daily lives. Sometimes the column is about little more than Ford’s fascination with his own life. He posts naked pictures of himself cavorting with porn actresses, and when his stepmom sent him a letter calling him “devil possessed,” he put it on his site. (Ford’s father, a Christian evangelist, brands Luke “mentally unstable” as a result of a head injury he suffered as a teen.)
…When the leaders of the top adult video and Internet companies gathered at a secretive conference in Cancun, Mexico, in the spring, Ford was a prime topic. The owner of a chain of adult stores [Edward Wedelstedt] was reportedly heard saying not only that Ford is a “menace to society” but “no one should worry about him anymore – Luke’s going to end up as a spot on the pavement.”
Death threats notwithstanding, everybody in the adult business reads the column. The secret to his success? “People in the porn business are extremely self-involved,” says Michael Louis Albo, executive editor of Hustler Erotic Video Guide. “Luke angers them, but they love reading about themselves in his column.”
Evan wasn’t careful with his facts. I had journalist friends who despised Evan because they believed he was untrustworthy, they alleged he would paint dishonest narratives if they served him. I saw that Evan was playing a game that served Evan.
Evan’s career peaked with his publication of the book Generation Kill in 2004. Nothing he published after that had the same impact.
He was intermittently a heavy drug user.
Evan was an introvert. That we each spent so much time in the porn industry reveals our self-destructive sides. We enjoyed slumming it. In some ways, we felt more comfortable with the refuse of society rather than its best.
Smiling Arab emails me:
Thoughts on Evan Wright bro? Just saw that he died of suicide, seemingly lost amidst the vacuum suck of the last 3 days.
Supposedly he just appeared in an HBO Max doc about one of those schools that would take in “troubled” kids and beat the fuck out of them and sometimes fuck the fuck out of them too. Like I think it aired last week or something and he killed himself the next day. Shocking shit.
He was easily the one guy from your old interviews that seemed genuinely impressive. “Generation Kill” is about the only book from the Iraq War that is readable today. I have a bunch and they’re all trash. Even books about ISIS are total fucking garbage and it’s only been like 6 years since the Caliphate fell.
When I think about Evan Wright, it brings up this quote: “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” – Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886), Chapter IV. Apophthegms and Interludes, §146).
The one piece of advice I got from Evan was to pick my enemies carefully. He thought I was reckless with the way I went after everyone in power on my blog and he urged me to be more selective with my targets.
Evan appeared to be a gonzo journalist, but ultimately he was a careerist – he put his career before every other consideration. He played the game more carefully than I did by following the dictates of those with power such as Larry Flynt, Seth Warshavsky and Rolling Stone.
Posted inJournalism|Comments Off on WP: Evan Wright, unflinching author of ‘Generation Kill,’ dies at 59
Sometimes the media downplays stories like the Trump assassination attempt on Saturday night, making them sound dull. It makes you wonder why they’re underplaying it even days later.
A column by David Samuels states that mainstream media often acts as propaganda for the Democratic Party and tends to minimize news against their narrative. For example, when Donald Trump was shot at during a rally, there was initial confusion over whether it was a bullet or glass that hit him—media outlets reported with caution.
Reports indicate law enforcement had been warned about the shooter well before he fired at Trump but failed to act in time. This raises questions about security competence and intentions under the Biden administration since they oversee Secret Service appointments.
There are two main theories: either Trump received poor security due to incompetence or there’s an assassination plot involved. No one responsible for this failure has resigned or admitted fault yet.
It seems crucial now more than ever for an independent investigation into this matter, as relying solely on internal reviews might not yield transparent results given potential biases within current leadership structures.
The security at a recent event where former President Trump was speaking has raised serious questions. Was it incompetence or an inside assassination plot? The Secret Service’s failure to secure the perimeter and monitor threats is alarming. Surprisingly, those with knowledge of rifles quickly identified the shots fired as coming from a high-powered rifle at a distance—an obvious assassination attempt, something media guidelines won’t label without bureaucratic confirmation.
Where were the Secret Service when shots rang out? Video evidence shows their delayed response in covering Trump and apprehending the shooter. This level of incompetence suggests two possibilities: either gross negligence by security or complicity in an assassination attempt. Most experts on firearms tend to lean right politically, offering different insights than mainstream media.
Understanding the history of the Secret Service is crucial here. Once part of Treasury and focused on financial crimes, they’re now tasked with protecting dignitaries like the president—a duty they seemingly failed at during this incident.
This lapse has led some to speculate that there might be intentional sabotage within Biden’s administration—though I don’t subscribe to that theory myself. It’s hard for people to believe such staggering incompetence could occur without malice behind it.
As more details emerge about the shooter—who had explosives and purchased ammunition just hours before—the investigation raises further doubts about its thoroughness and objectivity. With past FBI failures fresh in memory, confidence wanes in their ability to uncover motives or prevent similar incidents.
Despite calls for accountability after what could have been a live execution caught on camera, no resignations are forthcoming from top officials like Secret Service Director Kim C., who insists she’ll stay on despite admitting responsibility for this fiasco.
In Washington D.C., words aren’t always matched by actions; even near disasters aren’t enough for leaders to step down or be dismissed. Now we wait anxiously for investigations that may never reveal if this was truly an act of ineptitude or something darker within our government’s ranks.
The committee investigating the assassination attempt on Donald Trump should take over from federal authorities and hold televised hearings under oath. They must question counter-snipers and others involved to ensure nothing is covered up.
Why didn’t the Secret Service neutralize the shooter, Crooks, who had a gun aimed at Trump for several seconds before firing? In standard law enforcement, an immediate threat like this would be met with lethal force. Yet it seems they allowed Crooks to fire eight shots before responding. This raises questions about their protocols compared to private security or other law enforcement agencies.
Alejandro Mayorkas of Homeland Security oversees the Secret Service, yet despite their failure during this incident, he expresses full confidence in them. This could imply either complicity in an assassination plot against Trump or a blatant lie given their incompetence.
Former FBI informants have been encouraged by the agency to cause chaos previously – what does that say about current events?
Experts knew immediately upon hearing gunfire that this was an attempt on Trump’s life; however, media waited for official confirmation before acknowledging it as such.
Once attacked, protection of President transitions from Secret Service to a DOJ investigation led by the FBI. Despite claims of effective protocols since 1981’s attack on Reagan, this event suggests otherwise.
Secret Service agents are trained extensively for various scenarios including perimeter defense and close-protection detail. Elon Musk’s support for Trump highlights these professionals’ bravery rather than any political bias they may hold.
Finally, personal spiritual revelations can lead one away from societal norms towards truth-seeking isolation—a journey not always understood by loved ones but significant nonetheless.
Kip calls in: At 38, I realized everything I thought was wrong. Your work made me appreciate things differently and now, I see you hold a key to questions that need answering. We’ve both seen how the media turned on Trump overnight despite his cognitive decline over years – it’s that same force. The richest people in America are pulling strings behind the scenes.
I’m past caring about Hollywood politics; what matters is who’s really in control and if those we’ve converted might be involved without veering into conspiracy theories. People act primarily out of self-interest; this explains why one day they love you and the next they don’t.
Luke: Groups have unique gifts but also downsides – like Ashkenazi Jews’ high verbal IQ or African Americans’ improvisational skills contrasted with higher crime rates. These traits affect how different groups navigate society.
Jewish law seems inflexible from outside, but living it reveals its flexibility – knowing what’s acceptable within their community has been crucial for survival as minorities throughout history.
Intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews surged a thousand years ago due to selective pressures in Europe where only the smartest survived and thrived, leading to their success today across various fields.
In conversations around intelligence, openness plays a significant role alongside other personality traits like extroversion and agreeableness which correlate with success in life. This could explain why certain groups seem more successful than others in particular areas.
Expert looking at Secret Service counter-sniper: I’m baffled by his actions. If I were using that scope, I’d first spot my target with my own eyes then use the scope to zoom in. It seems like when he lifted his eye from the scope, shots rang out and Trump was hit. The men on the roof seemed to be tracking the shooter for some time before engaging him after eight shots at Trump.
This raises questions about whether it was a Secret Service decision to delay responding. Positioned on a flat roof, one sniper kneeled – not ideal – while incoming fire killed one and injured others; they only engaged after significant delay.
There’s speculation that law enforcement knew of a threat to Trump for 26 minutes but did nothing, suggesting either an assassination plot or gross incompetence within the Secret Service.
Witnesses saw someone suspicious climbing onto a roof with a gun; however, despite reports, no action was taken by local or state partners present at the scene. This oversight begs whether it was deliberate ignorance due to an interest in seeing harm come to Trump.
Further complicating matters is how this person managed undetected access onto the roof with equipment despite being spotted by civilians who alerted authorities – all ignored or unaddressed by law enforcement communications channels including those of Secret Service.
The rules of engagement call for deadly force only under immediate threat which may explain hesitation if there were uncertainties about identifying friend from foe among non-uniformed individuals aiming weapons at Trump. However, given clear protocols against such scenarios, failure suggests possible complicity in an assassination attempt or profound systemic failures raising concerns over who orchestrated such inadequacies within presidential protection services.
Ultimately these events lead us back to questions regarding responsibility and accountability within security operations tasked with protecting former President Donald Trump during this incident where so much went wrong yet seemingly unnoticed until too late.
The BBC interviewed a man who claimed multiple people on the ground saw a threat near an event. Surprisingly, this didn’t reach the Secret Service in time to delay the individual’s stage access. CBS News reported that one sniper observed Thomas Matthew Crooks looking up at the building and then disappearing. Later, with a range finder and backpack in hand, he reappeared.
Snipers inside were watching for threats at a Trump rally when they spotted Crooks outside. Partygoers nearby also noticed him climbing onto the roof armed with a rifle. Questions arose about why perimeter surveillance failed to detect him sooner.
During an FBI press conference, there was no clear answer as to how Crooks got onto the roof or where aerial surveillance was during this incident. The media has been criticized for its handling of the story, with some outlets seemingly downplaying or misrepresenting it.
It is crucial to ask why there was no perimeter or aerial surveillance and why it took so long for snipers to engage the shooter once identified as a threat. Proper protective intelligence should have prevented such an incident from occurring close enough to endanger lives.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Why Did The Biden Administration Give Trump Incompetent Security? (7-14-24)
Hey Luke, I have been pondering your question about Biden’s cognitive decline, even though that issue appears to have been at least temporarily superseded by the events of this weekend.
As to what’s going on with Biden, I think you need to look at Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression‘s discussion of the New Class and its contradictions, which are perhaps manifested in the shielding of Biden. I note Alvin Gouldner’s observation that:
The culture of the New Class exacts still other costs: since its discourse emphasizes the importance of carefully edited speech, this has the vices of its virtues: in its virtuous aspect, self-editing implies a commendable circumspection, carefulness, self-discipline and “seriousness.”
So, Biden clearly presents a problem on this front. But, of course, a lot of people have strong career interests in a second Biden term, as unlikely as that now appears, and will not sacrifice these for the greater good. This is because, as I write:
However, Gouldner also stressed that the New Class is no gathering of benign technocrats selflessly promoting the public good. For it is a morally ambiguous “flawed universal class” that is “elitist and self-seeking and uses its special knowledge to advance its own interests and power,” and so “embod[ies] the collective interest but partially and transiently.”
When you contrast Biden’s cognitive decline (and denial about it) with Trump’s triumphal, fist-raising defiance of death this weekend in Pennsylvania, you have the perfect symbolic embodiment of conservatives’ belief that a decadent liberalism is sapping the vitality of the country, with Trump carrying the flame of that endangered vitality.
Alvin Gouldner observes that higher education is the institution through which the “New Class is at first readied for contest against the old class.” Colleges and universities are “the finishing schools of the New Class’s resistance to the old class.” Taking this notion to its logical conclusion, conservative claimants of cultural oppression believe that the elite universities from which the liberal elites hail are more akin to social fraternities than to Platonic academies.
Admission to elite colleges is commonly seen as a marker of intellectual merit. But more important, writes [Angelo] Codevilla, is the candidate’s contribution to a “social profile that fits the school’s image of itself,” a commitment to “fit in,” to be “in with the right people,” and give “the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs.” Academic merit is a social construction of the ruling liberal elites, an institutional filter designed to weed out conservatives and set the stage for widespread liberal domination. First inculcated in the university, the elites’ “tastes and habits” are later enforced with the threat of social ostracism. It is, writes Anderson, simply assumed in Rawls’s Cambridge or Manhattan’s Upper West Side or the CBS newsroom that one has “the correct liberal opinions,” and those who do not will simply stop receiving dinner invitations. In withholding these invitations, liberals are just doing what they were trained to do in the college classroom, where the ostracism of conservatives was first introduced to them as “progressive” behavior.
The elite university believes it has replaced an old WASP-regime of social virtue revolving around gentility and “character” with a new regime of intellectual virtue revolving around raw mental firepower. But conservative claimants of cultural oppression charge that the new intellectual virtues are social virtues in disguise, just as automatic and unreflective as those of the WASP ancien régime. It is the elite universities, laments Gelernter, that produced Obama, the “symbol of the new American elite, the new establishment, where left-liberal politics is no longer a conviction, no longer a way of thinking: it is built-in mind-furniture you take for granted without needing to think.” Consequently, the nation is “filling inexorably with Airheads, nominally educated yet ignorant; trained and groomed like prize puppies to be good liberals.”222To defend liberalism as a mere conviction is to refuse the role of the liberal prize puppy, to refuse liberalism as a social identity. But perversely, it is liberalism qua social identity, qua automatic social reflex, that has been culturally credentialed as the embodiment of a privileged intellectual acuity. Just as the classic finishing schools strove to inculcate a certain physical posture, so the elite universities now inculcate a certain mental and spiritual posture through which to announce oneself curious, broad-minded, given to scientific detachment and dispassionate analysis, etc.— that is, as a member of the anointed in good standing. With this training having tethered students’ self-esteem to liberalism, they become prize puppy liberals who cannot see that their intellectualism is really an exercise in social signaling…
But just as the Left relativizes the value of economic liberty to the interests of capitalists, so conservatives relativize the value of expressive autonomy to the New Class culture of wordsmiths, artists, and entertainers. Bork observes that the student radicals of the 1960s were later attracted to careers through which they could influence opinions and attitudes,73their ultimate passion. But not everyone shares this passion. And the radical expressive individualism liberalism celebrates will only resonate for those who share this powerful need for symbolic manipulation—and the social privilege that permits it. It is only the molders of opinion and sensibility whose career paths require an unqualified right to continually transgress the boundaries of decency and good taste. Liberals will sugarcoat this aggression in anodyne abstractions like self-expression or autonomy. But conservatives believe these abstractions are ideological instruments of elite domination, initiated in the 1960s and continuing to this day. The 1960s were, as Kimball says, a revolution “of the privileged, by the privileged, and for the privileged.”74Itwas a revolution, not of individualists against collectivists, but of one collective against another, of the people of fashion against the common people, whose cause has now been taken up by conservatives…
Gouldner argued that the New Class of professional knowledge workers is a progressive force in some ways. It has no truck with traditional hierarchies, including all the privileges of the old class of bourgeois capitalists. The New Class furthermore promotes a linguistic culture, the “culture of careful and critical discourse”(CCD), that de-authorizes “all speech grounded in traditional societal authority.” However, Gouldner also stressed that the New Classis not a group of benign technocrats selflessly promoting the public good.166Rather,it is a morally ambiguous “flawed universal class”167that is “elitist and self-seeking and uses its special knowledge to advance its own interests and power,”168and so “embod[ies] the collective interest but partially and transiently.” While the New Class is hostile to traditional bourgeois interests and values, it is itself a cultural bourgeoisie whose commitment to freedom is qualified by its interest in maintaining its cultural capital. It may be egalitarian when attacking the privileges of the old class, bourgeois conservatives. But it also seeks to maintain its own guild advantages, to which end it attempts to “control the supply and limit the production of its culture, to oppose any group that restricts its control over its culture, and to remove legal or moral restrictions on the uses for which its culture may be purchased.” As the defender of free thought and expression, the New Class opposes formal censorship. But as a cultural bourgeoisie, it has its own interests to protect, and practices unofficial censorship by limiting discussion to members of its own elite, dismissing those who have not been properly credentialed as irrelevant. Even as it subverts old inequalities, the New Class “silently inaugurates a new hierarchy of the knowing, the knowledgeable, the reflexive and insightful.”
What liberals interpret as conservatives’ primordial anti-intellectualism is better understood as a specific reaction to the New Class culture, to the cognitive privileges which that culture affords its liberal membership. The New Class’s cultural capital is ostensibly founded on the culture of careful and critical discourse, which is laudable if taken at face value. But as a culture, CCD must take on a life of its own in order to fulfill its cultural function as a hero-system, to which end its libertarian features will be compromised as necessary. Its membership seeks to be recognized, not merely as having been insightful on some particular occasion, but as “the reflexive and insightful.” They wish to see themselves as the kinds of people who make insightful observations. And this requires that the concrete meaning and function of their intellectual ideals be circumscribed accordingly, so that what qualifies as “serious” speech is defined by their identitarian needs—the “mainstream” as the Duke deconstructionist put it. Professionalism, writes Gouldner, is “among the public ideologies of the New Class, and is the genteel subversion of the old class by the new.”
Translated into our framework, this is a hierarchy between those who stand above the “peculiarly human emotions” and those who do not, between those capable of naturalistic disengagement and those whose sensibilities remain anthropocentricor “pre-modern.” This is the distinctively liberal “bigoted clause,” the distinctively liberal “Moral Order” in relation to which conservatism represents a form of contagion. The New Class may not feel disgust toward homosexuality or go out of their way to shame unwed mothers. But they nevertheless feel themselves emancipated from a certain kind of “lowness,” as Gouldner puts it, which they now identify with conservatism. Hence their conservaphobia, which is simply the corollary of the ethos of disengaged self-control and self-reflexivity. Conservaphobia is always couched in a utilitarian façade, as a response to the perniciousness of conservative ideas. But conservatives correctly sense that it is a source of intrinsic identitarian satisfactions, and this is why they claim cultural oppression.
The elitism of the liberal elite is an elitism, not of wealth, status, or even education, but of moral luck, the fact that they have been undeservedly blessed with the capacity to sublimate, intellectualize, and etherealize their illiberalism, and thus be illiberal with comparative impunity. Their illiberalism may be less pernicious by some measures. But this is nothing for which they deserve any credit, because this is a difference of social background and personal constitution, not individual courage or intrinsic virtue. Just like everyone else, they have been, as Heidegger says, thrown into a particular field of social meanings. And their good luck on this front is, from the cosmic viewpoint to which they themselves aspire, just as arbitrary as the inherited fortunes of third-generation plutocrats. Hence conservatives’ perverse sense that liberal equality taken to its logical conclusion would somehow redound to their cause. Their claims of cultural oppression transpose the categories which liberal discourse applies to the world onto that very discourse, because it is here that the sublimated conservatism of liberals can be discovered. These claims’ profound, ceaselessly innovative perversity, their ineluctably convoluted character, is the direct outcome of this effort to transpose the ideals of liberalism onto this meta-level. This is the philosophical meaning of what liberals mistake for mere rancor.
…Gouldner observes that the New Class demands “instinctual renunciation” of its members and that, moreover,
“The culture of the New Class exacts still other costs: since its discourse emphasizes the importance of carefully edited speech, this has the vices of its virtues: in its virtuous aspect, self-editing implies a commendable circumspection, carefulness, self-discipline and “seriousness.” In its negative modality, however, self-editing also disposes toward an unhealthy self-consciousness, toward stilted convoluted speech, an inhibition of play, imagination and passion, and continual pressure for expressive discipline. The new rationality thus becomes the source of a new alienation. Calling for watchfulness and self-discipline, CCD [culture of critical discourse] is productive of intellectual reflexivity and the loss of warmth and spontaneity. Moreover, that very reflexivity stresses the importance of adjusting action to some pattern of propriety. There is, therefore, a structured inflexibility when facing changing situations; there is a certain disregard of the differences in situations, and an insistence on hewing to the required rule.”
Podnotes summary: I’m reflecting on the Secret Service’s response during an incident where a shooter targeted Donald Trump. The assailant fired eight shots before being stopped by security. This raises questions about why law enforcement didn’t act sooner despite having the shooter in sight and warnings from the crowd.
I’m speaking from Los Angeles at 6:10 AM on July 14th, analyzing video footage of the event. It seems that trained snipers had ample time to react but failed to do so until after numerous shots were fired. Additionally, it’s perplexing that no officers were stationed on a nearby roof with a clear view of Trump—a prime spot for an attempt on his life.
The Secret Service is currently under scrutiny; their history includes scandals and apparent incompetence which overshadow their recent emphasis on diversity within their ranks. Despite this focus, there was still a significant lapse in protecting President Trump effectively.
Furthermore, some Democratic legislators have previously sought to remove Trump’s Secret Service protection—actions that align with rhetoric painting him as a danger to democracy. Such language can dangerously imply justification for violence against him.
In light of these events, one must question whether protocol was followed or if priorities were misplaced leading up to this serious breach in presidential security—an investigation led by agencies like the FBI will hopefully provide answers soon.
Lastly, while media coverage initially downplayed the situation as “loud noises” disrupting a rally rather than acknowledging it as an assassination attempt against Donald Trump—a narrative shift only occurred hours later when officials addressed it directly. This highlights potential bias and reluctance among news outlets when reporting incidents involving controversial figures like Trump.
Imagine if Trump hadn’t ducked when he did; he saved his life, that’s a fact. The evacuation failed; Secret Service should cover and evacuate but didn’t act right. Dan Bongino, an ex-agent, says they failed massively and suggests the director resigns due to repeated ignored security requests for Trump.
The Secret Service focused on trivial things like agents’ tie colors instead of real threats—such a failure in their primary duty: protecting lives. Structural issues within the organization lead to incompetence despite having capable individuals.
Dan emphasizes structural excellence over personalities; without it, even good people fail in their roles. This recent incident is not isolated but part of a pattern of Secret Service failures needing congressional investigation.
There was also criticism about gender diversity priorities potentially compromising physical capability requirements for protective agents—a controversial stance questioning women’s roles based on strength stereotypes.
After an assassination attempt on Trump, there were delays in official communication and speculation about motives and political violence biases—raising questions about law enforcement transparency and media narratives surrounding such incidents.
Tim Mc, a former security detail member for presidential and vice-presidential events, shared insights on Twitter about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. He explained that the Secret Service uses a multi-tiered defense system. The inner tier provides close protection; these are agents who rush to shield Trump after an incident. The second tier involves mid-range threat identification and response, often staffed by local law enforcement attached to the detail temporarily—this is where Tim worked.
The extended tier covers long-distance threats like snipers. When shots were fired at Trump, counter-snipers couldn’t react immediately because they focus on distant threats beyond 150 meters—the range within which the shooter appeared. Consequently, when responding to this closer threat, a sniper had to significantly adjust his aim.
A serious question arises: how could someone get onto a rooftop with clear sight of Trump despite prior scouting of vulnerable spots? It suggests there was a failure in the middle tier responsible for securing nearby buildings—a role typically filled by local law enforcement rather than Secret Service.
Witnesses reportedly saw someone with a gun but police failed to act quickly enough due to limited communication between local officers and Secret Service liaisons. This inefficiency can be exacerbated when multiple agencies work together without familiarity or adequate information sharing.
In 2004 during President Bush’s tenure, miscommunication nearly led to disaster when Secret Service mistook positioned SWAT teams as threats. Delays in identifying real threats can stem from confusion over whether armed individuals belong to security teams or not.
Blame for this breakdown seems directed at whoever was supposed to secure areas around buildings where shooters could perch—an assignment likely given to local law enforcement officers present at such events.
As investigations continue into new security measures following this event and its impact on political discourse surrounding Donald Trump’s safety becomes more heated, many questions remain unanswered regarding how such an attack could happen amidst supposedly tight security protocols.
New York magazine: Many people who worry about subway safety are infrequent riders. There’s a stigma against fearing subway violence, but it’s a justified fear that should be met with compassion. Some argue that disturbed individuals on the subway aren’t bothersome, ignoring the link between mental illness and violence. To truly help those with severe mental illnesses, we must grasp their deep-rooted issues.
New York City isn’t facing a surge in violent crime; there was an increase in murders and gun crimes in 2021 due to various debated reasons, including police reluctance. However, crime rates have since fallen significantly.
Despite lower crime rates, many New Yorkers still fear crime, especially on subways. This disconnect may stem from policies around mental illness treatment which are too lenient and endanger public safety. For instance, in Toronto 2015, a mentally ill woman killed someone but was released within seven years.
The U.S has struggled with treating severe mental illness since state psychiatric hospitals began closing after the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Today’s inadequate facilities and overburdened doctors can’t meet demand – yet some advocate for even less government intervention.
Contrary to popular belief among educated circles, we’ve become less heavy-handed with involuntary treatments due to policy changes like Medicaid incentivizing private care over state-run facilities.
The current approach is failing by most standards; reforms are needed to make it easier for professionals to treat individuals without consent when necessary.
After decades of tearing down institutional care options for the severely mentally ill and homeless populations at risk of untreated psychosis or paranoia – conditions linked to higher criminality – society hasn’t found effective solutions despite knowing better approaches exist.
Some resist acknowledging any connection between serious mental illness and violence under misguided social justice views while others incorrectly assert that because many groups are more likely victims than perpetrators of violent crimes this means they’re not more likely offenders themselves – this logic fails as it doesn’t accurately assess risks associated with untreated severe mental illnesses which studies show do correlate with increased likelihoods of committing grave acts of violence.
In summary: Fear of subway violence is rational given links between untreated severe mental illnesses and heightened risks of violent behavior; however societal attitudes towards treatment remain conflicted amid persistent misconceptions about danger levels posed by those suffering from such conditions despite clear evidence suggesting otherwise.
Luke: Many conservatives distrust mainstream media, citing delayed recognition of Joe Biden’s apparent cognitive decline—a topic not covered in academic articles despite many on Donald Trump’s fitness for office. In 2020, a study by public health experts found no evidence of major cognitive challenges for either Biden or Trump.
The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks from Pennsylvania, donated $15 to ActBlue after Biden’s inauguration but later registered as a Republican. His online presence is minimal with only speculation about his political activities.
A former Secret Service agent highlighted security concerns at rallies like Trump’s where securing all areas is challenging. Local law enforcement typically assists but it’s unclear if they secured the building where the shooter was positioned.
Molly Hemingway suggests Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray should recuse themselves from investigating this assassination attempt due to potential conflicts of interest.
In response to this incident, discussions have emerged about whether such moments will be remembered vividly like other historical events and how people engage with news through alternative media seeking candid perspectives over polished mainstream narratives. There’s also debate over when it’s appropriate to comment on someone’s physical appearance in public discourse—highlighting tensions between candor and courtesy.
Women often excel in various aspects of life. For instance, during TV interviews with female journalists, I tend to perform better; their presence motivates me to do well. Similarly, a caring conversation with a woman once reenergized me when I was battling fatigue on a film set.
Women can also be more effective in certain professional roles. Many talent bookers for TV shows are women because they excel at the job. Jane Goodall’s success is another example—she was specifically hired because it was believed that her nurturing qualities would make her ideal for studying chimpanzees.
However, there are times when being around attractive women can be distracting. If I were injured and attended by an attractive female agent, it might distract me from the task at hand due to natural attraction.
Discussing public figures candidly could lead to more honest conversations about their capabilities or shortcomings without unnecessary politeness masking important truths. This shift towards openness may mean acknowledging uncomfortable facts like Joe Biden’s aging or Kamala Harris’ perceived lack of competence without sugarcoating them.
Physical appearance does have an impact on how we’re treated and how we navigate through life—it’s almost unavoidable. While beauty standards still dominate places like Las Vegas where attractiveness is marketed heavily, views on body image are changing—with both positive and negative reactions to weight loss becoming apparent in society.
Ultimately though, while physicality plays a significant role in our lives and interactions with others—in many ways acting as destiny—it doesn’t define everything about us or our potential outcomes entirely.
People with mental illness commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.
Mike reacts by recalling an experience where he noticed a stark contrast between attendees at two parties—one with blue-collar workers and another with college-educated professionals—leading to a discussion on whether wealth influences attractiveness.
Claire argues that judging people solely on looks is shallow, advocating for evaluating individuals based on their honesty and willingness to accept facts. She also touches upon gender biases in society.
The conversation shifts to politics, discussing the portrayal of Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and how such rhetoric may incite violence. Claire condemns the media’s role in creating hostile atmospheres while emphasizing the need for greater scrutiny of journalists’ actions.
Mike adds his thoughts on free speech and double standards in public discourse, questioning what constitutes good or bad speech. The dialogue concludes with speculation about Joe Biden’s presidential campaign viability amid concerns about his mental fitness and potential successors if he withdraws from the race.
Finally, there are reflections on security measures following an assassination attempt at a Trump rally, highlighting issues within government competence rather than conspiracy theories.
Larry and his wife attended a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, an election battleground state. During the event, discourse escalated as President Biden was criticized for incendiary comments targeting Trump. The rhetoric on both sides has been heated; some have irresponsibly likened Trump to Hitler or called him a Nazi, stirring dangerous emotions.
The left’s language is under scrutiny following past events where political figures were targeted with violence. Now, after Biden’s remarks about putting Trump “in a bull’s eye,” concerns rise over potential harm fueled by such statements.
Political violence isn’t new in U.S. history; it has sadly recurred throughout time. Recent events have reignited these fears, prompting calls for calm and responsible speech from leaders across the spectrum.
As election tensions mount, Democrats express frustration with Biden’s candidacy while Republicans capitalize on recent incidents to bolster support for Trump. Some speculate whether this could shift electoral outcomes or even lead to changes in candidates.
Amidst security concerns following an assassination attempt at the rally—where heroic actions saved lives—the Secret Service faces criticism for not preventing the shooter’s access to a vantage point near President Trump.
This incident raises questions about resource allocation within federal agencies and their focus amidst rising political strife as America heads into another charged election season.
The Secret Service’s protocol is under fire for allowing a gunman to shoot eight times before responding. Critics argue that private security would have acted faster, deeming the Secret Service unfit for protecting figures like Donald Trump. Despite praise for a counter-sniper’s quick 3-second response, many view their performance as inadequate.
There are calls for transparency and regular updates from law enforcement to prevent conspiracy theories and political tension. Oversight has been welcomed by some who trust field agents but question leadership in Washington due to past controversies.
After the recent incident, there is an urgent need to review and change security protocols, just as they were transformed following Reagan’s shooting in 1981. The focus should be on preventing such events at outdoor venues which pose significant challenges.
Leadership must take responsibility, ensuring agencies have the resources needed solely for protection missions—nothing else should distract from this goal.
Updates are anticipated from both President Biden and the FBI regarding this matter and how it will be investigated further. Speaker Mike Johnson also announced a full House investigation into what led up to this event.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Donald Trump Shot – Why Did The Secret Service Operate With Reckless Disregard? (7-14-24)
Biden was preparing his first run for president in January 1988, his closest aides made an emergency trip to Wilmington to talk the candidate out of what they considered a disastrous folly: buying another house. Biden was already struggling to pay off the debt on another equally grand house, a 10,000-square-foot Du Pont mansion whose upkeep had put his finances in disarray. As Richard Ben Cramer describes it in his book What It Takes: The Way to the White House, a masterpiece about the 1988 election and a remarkably prescient portrait of Biden, the 44-year-old senator drove his advisers all around Wilmington in his Bronco truck, trying to explain why he absolutely must have this other house on top of the one he couldn’t afford.
“The first thing you’ve got to know about Joe is the house. Probably the first thing he will show you,” Cramer begins, referring to Biden’s Du Pont mansion. “It’s the kind of a place 1,000 Italian guys died building. A library fit for a Carnegie, a living room about half an acre … whatever he gets, the house eats for breakfast. That house loves cash.… So that’s why Joe decided he had to have another house this time. It was 17 acres, a $1.1 million estate … an enormous main house with a sauna in the master bath, a swell apartment over the four-car garage … and the outdoor pool had a separate cabana that was itself like a nice suburban home.… And then there was the tennis house with the other sauna and the indoor pool … and, of course, the indoor tennis court … it was a compound … it was … Hyannisport! He could see the goddamn thing in Life magazine.”
One of Biden’s aides told him, “You can’t run as a Democrat, a guy who’s in touch with middle-class values when you’re on TV in your indoor tennis court.” But Biden wasn’t listening, Cramer reports: “No, he said, with a dazzling Biden smile, into the sudden silence … there was another house. (‘Believe it or not … this other thing happened.…’) And this time, he got all three of them into the Bronco for the trip to the city.”
Cramer’s book, published in 1992, describes a whole range of Biden behavior and reflexes that we are seeing all too clearly in the current stand-off between the president and those who are trying to persuade him to drop out of the presidential race: single-minded fixation on a goal; a stubborn refusal to listen to advice or contrary evidence; a willingness to act and never to doubt or second-guess himself; a seemingly infinite belief in his ability to beat the odds, to talk anyone into anything; and a conviction of being a man destined for greatness. “The house, the world, were malleable to his will,” Cramer writes.
These behaviors have often served him well—he did eventually become president—although it is worth recalling that in 1988 he was forced to withdraw from the race after it was discovered he plagiarized a speech by the British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden’s aides were also not wrong about his real estate obsession: He spent much of his life juggling multiple mortgages, underwater in debt, and when he retired from the Senate he was the chamber’s poorest member. “There was (to be perfectly blunt, as Joe would say) a breathtaking element of balls,” Cramer writes. “Joe Biden had balls. Lots of times, more balls than sense. This was from the jump—as a little kid. He was little, too, but you didn’t want to fight him—or dare him. There was nothing he wouldn’t do.”
What Cramer shows beautifully is that you have to be a little crazy to want to run for president, to believe you can and should be the most powerful person in the world. It requires an almost pathological belief in yourself and your destiny. In Biden’s case, Cramer describes the strange combination of inferiority and superiority complex, failure and success, that become fused into a powerful, stubborn, preternatural determination that he can overcome any obstacle.
But Biden appears to have failed to heed a lesson his mother imparted to him, according to Cramer: “The most important was: tell the truth, and do what you promised.”
Biden in 2020 promised to be a “bridge” or “transition” candidate, reportedly telling his advisers he wouldn’t seek a second term, and now is failing to face—and tell—the truth about his obvious cognitive decline, about his historically low approval rating, and the widespread view among voters that he should step aside. The world at 81 years old looks very different from when he was 44, and his deep-seated character traits now have hardened into something quite different. His gritty determination looks like blind obstinacy, his boundless belief in himself seems like arrogant self-regard, and his attempt to bend the world to his will appears like a delusion of grandeur.
Posted inJoe Biden|Comments Off on We Learned Everything We Needed to Know About Biden in 1988
"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)
