On Saturday, just four months before the 2020 election, musician, provocateur and former ardent Donald Trump supporter Kanye West tweeted that he was launching his own bid to become president.

“We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future. I am running for president of the United States! #2020VISION,” West wrote on Independence Day.

His tweet was boosted by his wife, reality star and entrepreneur Kim Kardashian, and was endorsed by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Fellow artists like rapper 2Chainz griped that he’s upset he voted in Georgia’s primary elections, implying that he’d rather have waited to cast his ballot for West, but that won’t be possible in many states where deadlines have already passed for names to be added to preprinted voting forms.

So far, however, there’s little indication that West intends to follow through with his campaign announcement. No official FEC filing has been made under West’s name this year (back in 2015, however, a parody filing was made by Kanye “Deez Nuts” West).

In 2020, West would be forced to run as an independent, as Joe Biden has already become the presumptive Democratic nominee and Republicans are unlikely to substitute him for Trump. Deadlines to appear on several states ballots as an independent are also quickly approaching, and the chance to run in six major states, including delegate-rich Texas and New York, have already passed. West would have to assemble a campaign and file paperwork at breakneck speed to even be considered a viable candidate in the most traditional sense.

Of course, a West win could be possible (though, again, highly improbable) through a series of grassroots, write-in-ballots, which is more pie-in-the-sky thought exercise than anything else.

Making his prospects even dimmer, write-in ballots aren’t even possible in eight states, and even if he were able to win the popular vote in other states, he would have had to file before Election Day with many other states for it to matter.

So what’s West’s ploy, then? Is his last-minute campaign a bid to peel votes away from Biden? Or is the whole endeavor simply a PR stunt?

West has always found his way into presidential politics. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, West declared live on television controversially that “George W. Bush doesn’t care about Black people.” West spoke openly about what he believed to be the president’s failure to reach ailing Black families in Louisiana in the aftermath of the deadly storm.

After West interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, President Obama called him a “jackass.”

In 2012, West accused Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes.

In 2018, West made fresh waves by coming out in support of Trump, calling the Republican president “his brother” who he said possesses “dragon energy.” In 2019 his defense of Trump became much sharper, accusing Democrats of controlling the Black community and teasing his own future run with a simple “2024.”

West and wife Kardashian helped promote criminal justice reform legislation and have visited the White House on a handful of occasions.

The Biden campaign has yet to make any public comment about West’s announcement to run for president. When asked for comment by ABC News, the Trump campaign simply said: “God bless America.”

Defunding police means defunding police. It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.

It does not mean counting cuts in overtime as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways. The fight to defund policing continues.

If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.

Lemme translate: She mad.

AOC — of all people — accusing anyone of “funny math” is like Barack Obama criticizing Donald Trump for saying “I” too many times in a speech. In other words, Alex, you might want to sit this one out.

Thing is, AOC was already riled up at the Democrat Party over the “Defund the Police” movement, as we reported in early June, when she warned that they might try to “repackage” the Left’s anti-police efforts.

In a series of rambling condescending tweets, the erstwhile bartender went off on “lots of D.C. insiders.”

President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton alleges in a new book that Mr. Trump pushed Chinese President Xi Jinping in trade negotiations to agree to purchase American agricultural products in order to boost Mr. Trump’s political standing with U.S. farmers and help him win reelection.

In an excerpt of Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir” published by The Wall Street Journal, Bolton condemns what he calls the “incoherence” of the president’s trade policy and his focus on winning a second term. The excerpt was published minutes after stories about the memoir’s contents appeared in The New York Times and Washington Post, both of which said they had obtained copies of the book ahead of its scheduled June 23 release.

The longtime conservative foreign policy hawk describes a meeting with Xi and Mr. Trump on June 29, 2019, in Osaka, Japan. Bolton says Xi told Mr. Trump “that some (unnamed) American political figures were making erroneous judgments by calling for a new cold war with China.”Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox

“Whether Xi meant to finger the Democrats or some of us sitting on the U.S. side of the table, I don’t know, but Trump immediately assumed that Xi meant the Democrats. Trump said approvingly that there was great hostility to China among the Democrats,” Bolton writes.

“Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome,” Bolton continues.

Bolton writes that he was prevented from reprinting Mr. Trump’s exact language due to the administration’s review of the book, meant to ensure that no classified information was included.

“I would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise,” Bolton writes. The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against Bolton, who resigned as national security adviser in December 2019, arguing the book contained classified material and should not be published.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the publication of the book. “Disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States,” the DOJ said in the application.

The memoir’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, a division of ViacomCBS, said in a statement that the filing “is a frivolous, politically motivated exercise in futility. Hundreds of thousands of copies of (the book) have already been distributed around the country and the world. The injunction as requested by the government would accomplish nothing.”

The book includes assertions that Mr. Trump thought Finland was part of Russia and didn’t know the United Kingdom is a nuclear power. Bolton also claims the president called journalists “scumbags” who should be “executed.”

The president took to Twitter early Thursday, calling Bolton “incompetent.” He said, “Wacko John Bolton’s “exceedingly tedious”(New York Times) book is made up of lies & fake stories. Said all good about me, in print, until the day I fired him. A disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war. Never had a clue, was ostracized & happily dumped. What a dope!”

Wednesday night, Mr. Trump said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” that releasing the book means Bolton broke the law. “Very simple. I mean, as much as it’s going to be broken. It’s highly classified information, and he did not have approval,” Mr. Trump said.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Wednesday evening, the president called Bolton “a liar” and said “everybody in the White House hated” Bolton. He also denied Bolton’s claim that, as the Journal puts it, he “gave his blessing” to Xi to build detention camps for China’s Uighur Muslims. The Journal says a Bolton spokeswoman declined to comment.

According to the excerpt in the Journal, Bolton says in the book that “Trump’s conversations with Xi reflected not only the incoherence in his trade policy but also the confluence in Trump’s mind of his own political interests and U.S. national interests.”

“I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations,” Bolton writes.

However, he also condemns House Democrats for their handling of the impeachment inquiry late last year, accusing them of being too narrowly focused on Mr. Trump’s dealings with the Ukrainian president. Mr. Trump was impeached on counts of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December, although he was acquitted of both in February.

“Had Democratic impeachment advocates not been so obsessed with their Ukraine blitzkrieg in 2019, had they taken the time to inquire more systematically about Trump’s behavior across his entire foreign policy, the impeachment outcome might well have been different,” Bolton writes. Democrats argued that Mr. Trump abused his power by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden, a political rival, and his son.

Bolton refused to testify as part of the House inquiry, and was not called to testify at the subsequent impeachment trial. Democrats have accused him of cynically withholding pertinent knowledge of the president’s actions to boost his book sales.

“I have seen the reports that John Bolton is claiming the House should have impeached Trump for other matters. Well, thank you John Bolton for being the firefighter that shows up to the building that’s already burned with the fire hose and saying, ‘I’m here to help,'” Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

The White House disseminated talking points to allies Wednesday that emphasized they believe Bolton is breaking the law and just trying to make money, but did not refute any specific claims of presidential behavior as have been reported.

Prosecutors in Sweden announced Wednesday the name of the man they believe gunned down Prime Minister Olof Palme more than three decades ago on a Stockholm street.

At a news conference in the capital, chief prosecutor Krister Petersson identified the likely assassin as Stig Engström, a graphic designer who was interviewed along with more than a dozen others who said they saw someone fleeing the scene immediately after the attack in 1986. At the time, Engström was briefly considered a suspect.

It’s too late, however, to pursue a case against him. Engström died, by apparent suicide, in 2000.

“Because the person is dead, I cannot bring charges against him and have decided to close the investigation,” Petersson said.

“How he acted was how we believe the murderer would have acted,” he added.

Much like the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the killing of Palme — a long-time leftist prime minister credited with shaping modern Sweden — has been a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists, who have variously posited the involvement of the CIA, Kurdish separatists, the South African security services and Chilean fascists, among others.

Engström, who was dubbed by the Swedish media as “The Skandia man” because he worked at the headquarters of the Skandia insurance company near the site of Palme’s slaying, has figured prominently in much of the speculation over the years. Most notably, freelance journalist Thomas Petterson has been among those who have pointed to Engström as the likely assassin.

On the night of Feb. 28, 1986, Palme, who had dismissed his security detail earlier in the day, was fatally shot in the back at point-blank range on one of the busiest streets in downtown Stockholm as he and his wife, Lisbet, were leaving a movie theater.

Lisbet, who was slightly wounded in the attack on her husband, later identified Christer Pettersson, (unrelated to either the prosecutor or the journalist) as the killer. Palme’s son, Marten, who was also present at the assassination, identified Pettersson as well.

Pettersson, a petty criminal, was found guilty of the assassination in 1989, but his conviction was overturned the following year in a decision citing lack of evidence – most notably the absence of a weapon, which investigators believed to have been a .357 Smith & Wesson Magnum. Christer Pettersson died in 2004.

In a 2018 interview with The New York Times, Thomas Petterson, the journalist, said Engström, who had served in the military, had access to the same kind of weapon used in the assassination, had been active in a shooting club and had political and private motives.

The journalist, who said he had investigated the case for 12 years, also noted that Engström had lied to police, had “the right timing, the right clothing … unique information” and he had “a deep political interest and a deep anti-Palme sentiment.”

U.S. prosecutors and attorneys for Britain’s Prince Andrew sniped at one another across the Atlantic on Monday, each saying the other side was to blame for the duke’s failure to participate in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking probe.

Andrew’s lawyers said in a statement that he has offered three times this year to speak with U.S. investigators after being assured that he “is not and has never been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigations into Epstein.”

That offer, though, came with a request that “our co-operation and any interview arrangements would remain confidential,” said the firm Blackfords LLP in London.

Hours later, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey S. Berman, issued a statement saying the prince had tried to “falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate” even as he repeatedly declined to schedule an interview.

“If Prince Andrew is, in fact, serious about cooperating with the ongoing federal investigation, our doors remain open, and we await word of when we should expect him,” Berman said.

Berman’s statement addressed only Prince Andrew’s willingness to be interviewed. It made no mention of the claims by his lawyers that the Department of Justice had advised them that Andrew is not a target of the investigation, or that they made any promise that whatever he told investigators would be confidential.

Before Monday, Berman had said that Andrew has provided “zero cooperation” to American investigators.

Attorney General William Barr told Fox News on Monday that prosecutors are not seeking to extradite Andrew.

“I don’t think it’s a question of handing him over,” Barr said. “I think it’s just a question of having him provide some evidence, but beyond that I’m not going to comment.”

Epstein killed himself in a U.S. jail last summer as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges.

One of the women who was sexually abused by Epstein as a teenager, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has claimed that the financier flew her around the world on private planes to have sex with powerful men, and that she had sexual encounters with Andrew in London and New York, starting when she was 17.

Andrew denies the allegation.

The contrasting views of what is going on behind the scenes came after The Sun newspaper and other media organizations reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had submitted a mutual legal assistance request to Britain’s Home Office. Such requests are used in criminal cases under a treaty and are generally used when material can’t be obtained on a police cooperation basis.

U.S. investigators are still examining potential criminality by Epstein’s associates. Multiple women have said the financier had helpers who recruited underage girls into a network of sexual servants.

Andrew’s help is being sought as a witness, his lawyers said.

“Far from our client acting above the law, as has been implied by press briefings in the US, he is being treated by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen,” Blackfords said. “Further, those same breaches of confidentiality by the DOJ have given the global media – and, therefore, the worldwide audience – an entirely misleading account of our discussions with them.”

The Democrat party is at war with America. That is the clear message of the Democrats’ responses to the crises that have engulfed our nation over the last six months, made our streets war zones, and destroyed the small business communities that are the lifeblood of our system. When the country was attacked by a deadly virus from China in January, the Democrats attacked the president’s efforts to stop it at the border, then blamed him for the 100,000 deaths that followed. Yet Democrat governors controlled the health systems of every major center of the covid19 devastation and were 100% responsible for any policies that failed.

When the president attempted to re-open the economy in May, Democrat governors and mayors issued draconian orders to arrest individuals violating their “social distancing” injunctions by strolling in parks, lounging on beaches and – worst of all – attempting to revive their barbershops and salons. As a direct consequence of these imposed shutdowns forty million Americans lost their jobs. To many of us, the Democrats’ purpose was clear: to depress the economy and blame the consequences on the president. This became the incessant theme of their political utterances and ads.

Yet these seditious Democrat attacks on the commander-in-chief in the midst of the war against an invisible enemy maintained a cover of plausibility because of the uncertainties surrounding the virus and how it was spread. This mask was dropped when a civil insurrection erupted in the wake of the horrific police murder of George Floyd. In its wake America’s streets were filled with massive crowds of protesters and as it turned out domestic terrorists. These terrorists, led by the communist organization Antifa, used the protests as a cover for violent and hate-filled attacks on ordinary citizens and their businesses. As these attacks escalated into the torching of city centers and the devastation of poor communities, the hypocrisies of Democrats and their true agendas became inescapably clear.

Virtually all the mayhem was centered in Democrat-controlled states and cities. The same mayors who had jailed local business people and ordinary citizens for congregating in groups of more than ten were utterly silent as crowds of thousands formed to tear their cities apart. Meanwhile not a single word was uttered, not a single arrest made, by these same Democrat governors and mayors to prevent the protesters and rioters from violating the social distancing ordinances they had used to close churches and houses of worship the week before. While stores, apartment buildings and even police stations were torched by violent radicals, while ordinary citizens were being terrorized, Democrat governors were reluctant to call out their National Guard and nip the riots in the bud.

This reluctance became active resistance when they defied the president’s appeals to them to take every measure necessary to stop the the terrorists in their tracks and restore law and order to our cities. One of the most frightening sights amidst all the mayhem was the direct threat the street terrorists posed to the White House. Thousands of rioters and protesters gathered in front of the White House.

What were the protesters doing at the White House in the first place? The president had condemned the murder of George Floyd and called his family immediately after the event. There wasn’t a politician or public figure in the entire nation who was defending the killer cop. Why were these crowds menacing the White House and attacking the Secret Service – fifty of whose members had already been injured by their violent assaults? Every night for the preceding week, the “peaceful protest” had turned into violent attacks on law enforcement and the surrounding area. And night after night the Democrat mayor of Washington failed to provide the security necessary to make the street in front of the White House a safe place for the members of our government, including the president.

On Sunday May 31, the mob in front of the White House set fire to the 200-year-old St. John’s Church. Fed up with the support that Democrat governors and mayors were giving to the insurrection and the violence, the president decided on a bold step. On Monday June 1, he massed overwhelming numbers of the National Guard, and demanded an early curfew, planning to clear the streets and demonstrate to the seditious governors and mayors what they needed to do. The National Guard drove the angry mob – protesters and terrorists – away from the White House and then the president and key members of his cabinet walked over to the church.

Every American who cares for their country and its president, who was watching this walk, held their breath, uncertain as to whether the president and his cabinet would be attacked and possibly assassinated, as so many public figures on the left had already advocated. Yet no sooner had the walk been completed than CNN and the Democrat media were mocking the president and creating the Democrats’ new fake news talking point: Trump had ordered the National Guard to use tear gas to attack a group of peaceful protesters in order to feed his narcissism for a photo-op. As if Donald Trump needed a photo op, and as if the peaceful protesters across the country had not systematically provided cover for the black-clad Antifa terrorists wreaking havoc on the country. As if the need to purportedly use tear gas did not expose the menace posed by a crowd that was ready to violate a curfew in front of the White House and resist the representatives of law enforcement who had asked them three times to leave.

Along with Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the Democrat mayor of Washington DC, Senator Elizabeth Warren condemned the president’s action, summing up the party line: “The President of the United States tear-gassed peaceful protestors in order to clear the way for a useless photo-op outside the White House — just after vowing to activate the military against our own people. Lives and our democracy are in danger.”

Lives and our democracy are definitely in danger. But the danger comes from a Democrat Party that is at war with their country and willing to aid and abet a terrorist force, Antifa, whose clearly stated purpose is the destruction of the country.

Last week, the Department of Justice announced that in March, a former Philadelphia election official admitted to, and was convicted of, accepting bribes to stuff ballots for three Democrat candidates for Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge.  He admitted to inflating the votes in primaries in years 2014 through 2016.  He purportedly committed the fraud by standing in a voting booth and voting multiple times.  That he acted alone seems unlikely.  In Pennsylvania, each polling place must have a minimum of five poll workers to open and operate. They all work for thirteen hours – where were they?  This trick could explain why some Philadelphia precincts end up, unabashedly, on election nights with more total votes than registered voters, and an outcome producing 100% of the votes for Democrat candidates. This case is not an isolated incident, as other cases of altering vote counts have been successfully prosecuted.

In Pennsylvania, more insidious than the overt fraud just exposed by the Justice Department, are the myriad subtler ways in which perhaps more systematized election fraud occurs.  Out-of-date voter rolls often list multiple names at the same address. Deceased voters may not be immediately purged.  Once an individual has voted in Pennsylvania, a poll worker is not permitted to ask for identification.  If that individual keeps voting, their name remains on the rolls without question. That’s how dead people vote. That’s how multiple residents at the same address vote.  Moreover, if a live voter has recently moved, it is possible they can vote in two different polling places.  In the past few years, Pennsylvanians have been successfully  prosecuted for: fraudulent use of absentee ballots, either through forgery, or filing without the real voter’s knowledge; duplicate voting; ineligible voting due to lack of citizenship; and, multiple registrations both inside and out of state. These abuses frequently occur in other states as well.

In 2019, Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf signed a law that all registered voters could apply for an absentee ballot without having to provide a reason.  Previously, one could only vote absentee by stating on the application that one would be out of state on election day or was physically prevented from voting in person.  As previously reported, Wolf enacted one of the more stringent COVID-19 stay-at-home mandates in the country – closing the entire state to all but essential workers.  Pennsylvania’s primary was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing stay at home mandates.  Large parts of Pennsylvania cannot reopen until two days after the new primary date of June 2, 2020, and most polling places have been relocated.  Predictably, chaos reigns; the likelihood of fraud has spiked.  Moreover,  Wolf and election board officials are encouraging voters to vote by write-in ballot.  Stay home, they exhort.  President Trump has a different message and has correctly pointed out the propensity for fraud and election theft when distance voting is the norm.

The draconian stay-at-home measures and warnings have scared most poll workers and voters alike.  As noted above, without a minimum of five poll workers, a poll cannot open.  With poll workers’ mass refusals to work, 60% of all existing state poll locations have been closed.  The remaining polls have been bunched and moved to public schools – many counties have yet to announce the new locations

Prior to Wolf’s cockamamie change, the procedures for absentee ballot control were tighter, but problems existed.  To apply for an absentee ballot, a registered voter had to apply, complete the application with the reason for the request, and mail back to the county Board of Elections, all within a certain time frame prior to the election date.  When the ballot was received, it was accompanied with two envelopes:  the smaller, unmarked envelope was used to seal the completed ballot, and the larger was to insert the sealed ballot and mail back to the Board of Elections – again within a certain time frame before the election.  The weekend before the election, the Judge of Elections for each polling place, would pick up all materials assigned to their poll.  Included were the absentee ballots, the books containing the names of registered voters, and a list of all voters who had submitted absentee ballots.  The list was posted on a wall and the ballots counted to ensure the numbers matched.  They were then separated, and unopened until the polls closed, and the tallies were taken.

When voters first enter the polling place and it is their turn to vote, they sign their name in the spot where they are listed in the registration book.  If they have submitted an absentee ballot, it will be marked in the book.  The clerk informs the Judge of Elections, and before the voter can vote, their absentee ballot is publicly pulled from the absentee ballot bag, nullified, and their name is crossed off the list.  After the polls close, at least two pre-certified poll watchers enter the polling place (one from each party), watch the votes being counted and check the results.  Only then are the absentee ballots taken out, the outer envelopes destroyed, the ballots shuffled, and counted.  Cumbersome and time consuming, yes.  It was far from perfect and problems abounded.  Even with these controls in place, there were accusations of lost ballots, applications and ballots arriving too late to be returned by the deadline – especially among the military, and stashes of absentee ballots discovered after the election and too late to be counted. While the pandemic was not a factor when Wolf changed the write-in ballot rules, it is now.  And the likelihood for fraud has grown exponentially.

With Democrats in a vast majority, Philadelphia as of one week ago had received 158,000 write-in ballots compared with a presidential election record of 23,000.  Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, had received more than 225,000 ballots when in a normal primary they receive 10,000. In Montgomery County, a densely populated suburb of Philadelphia, the Board of Elections is also controlled by Democrats. Issues are mounting. Pre-COVID-19 restrictions and warnings, numbers such as these were never anticipated or planned for adequately.   Requested write-in applications and ballots have been slow in arriving.  As many as 2,000 ballots have arrived in error – such as to party affiliation, wrong county list of candidates and/or with incorrect instructions.

Another fraud-including factor is that the city/county of Philadelphia, and its surrounding suburbs of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery are all sanctuary counties. Investigations by the watchdog group Public Interest Legal Foundation have forced election board officials to admit that illegal residents have registered in high numbers.  Estimates place the total of over 100,000.

Additionally, alarm bells should be ringing in every Republican’s heart from an article published in Politico, May 24, 2020, by Holly Otterbein:

Key swing state warns of November election ‘nightmare’. 

‘Pennsylvania could determine the presidency.  But it might not be clear for days who won the state on Nov. 3.

Election officials throughout the critical battleground, which is implementing no-excuse mail-in voting for the first time ever amid pandemic, say they are unlikely to finish counting those ballots the night of the general election.

If the race is close enough – as it was in 2016, when Donald Trump carried the state by only 44,000  votes – that could mean the status of one of the nation’s biggest swing states could remain up in the air long past Election Day.

“My nightmare is that on Election Day in November, you’re waiting for Montgomery County results to declare Pennsylvania to declare who wins the White House,” said Montgomery County Commissioner Ken Lawrence, a Democrat who chairs the Board of Elections there.  “The reality is that all of our counties are going to be in that same situation, and it will take a while to actually count the ballots.”

Less than two weeks away from Pennsylvania’s primary, some state election officials said they lack the funding and staff needed to handle the massive influx of mail-in ballots they’ve received for that race.

They also said the fact that they legally can’t start counting those ballots until the morning of Election Day is complicating matters…’

Rewind: ‘ … they legally can’t start counting those ballots until the morning of Election Day…’?!

If the officials start counting on the morning of election day, how is a cross check enacted to ensure that double in-person voting is thwarted?  If not stopped, the Democrats seem to be setting the stage for How to steal an election, in November.

On Wednesday night, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that President Donald Trump will sign an executive order regarding social media and Big Tech companies, following his public battle with Twitter after the social media platform added a “fact-check” to his tweets.

“Very critical” is an understatement.

Twitter included a blue “fact-check” on Trump’s tweets attacking Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) for capitalizing on the coronavirus crisis to unilaterally change California voting laws, claiming the president spread utter falsehoods about vote-by-mail. Yet Trump was far from alone in voicing such concerns, and the California Republican Party — which is suing Newsom — cited many experts and news reports demonstrating the abuse vote-by-mail enables.

The president accused Twitter of attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

“[Twitter] is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post. Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

Is This Twitter Exec With a Long History of Anti-Trump Tirades the Force Behind the Trump ‘Fact-Check’?

Trump continued on Wednesday.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again,” he tweeted. “Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!!”

Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that….

Twitter’s decision to take sides in a contentious political battle — which has a legal aspect — arguably undermines the argument for its protection under Section 230. But it remains unclear exactly what kind of drastic action Trump can take by executive order on this issue.

Trump’s policies have been called a lot of names, but “childish” isn’t one of ‘em

Anyone who’s been around children long enough knows they occasionally come up with unanticipated and timeless pearls of wisdom, moments of clarity cloaked by cute-as-a-button exteriors and tendencies to prefer chocolate chip cookies to healthy broccoli and Brussels sprouts at dinnertime. As we get older it’s often said we grow more child-like in our preferences, and it’s not intended as a compliment. To be labeled “childish” usually infers whatever you’re doing is either unimportant, trivial or annoying.

The dictionary defines “childish” as, “of, like, or appropriate to a child”, or, “silly and immature.”

Democrat nominee-in-waiting Joe Biden visited the Washington Post op-ed page earlier this week to weigh-in on President Donald Trump’s response to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or Wuhan virus and suggested the chief executive’s handling of the crisis was akin to kids playing in a kindergarten yard’s sandbox. Or something like that.

Joseph Simonson reported at The Washington Examiner, “Joe Biden took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to continue attacking the federal government’s coronavirus policies, which are led by President Trump.

“’[Trump’s] goal is as obvious as it is craven: He hopes to split the country into dueling camps, casting Democrats as doomsayers hoping to keep America grounded and Republicans as freedom fighters trying to liberate the economy,’ the former vice president and presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee wrote in a Monday guest piece. ‘It’s a childish [emphasis added] tactic — and a false choice that none of us should fall for.’ …

“’States and cities that have attempted to reopen are discovering that the economy isn’t a light switch you can simply flip on — people need confidence to make it run, and that confidence must be earned by credible leadership and demonstrable safety,’ he wrote about Georgia, which reopened its dine-in restaurants in late April but found that demand has barely ticked upward.”

(Note: You can read the entire op-ed by clicking here.)

No one I know ever hinted that reviving an economy that was wholesale wrecked by government decision-makers would be as simple as flipping on a light switch. For a major party candidate to assert this is patently… childish. There must be a deeper motivation here, something besides the plain truth that Biden’s flat run out of things to say these days.

What it is then? Georgia this, Georgia that. Georgia, Georgia, Georgia. Expect Grampa Joe and the Democrat propaganda crew to relentlessly bash on the Peach State in the coming months as a shining example of a reddish purple jurisdiction with a Republican governor who just happened to have won his office by besting Democrat upstart and the vastly unqualified Stacey Abrams, the woman who refused to concede defeat and remove her name from liberal cable news channels’ headlines despite being behind by 50,000 votes after the count was concluded.

Of course Abrams is widely rumored to be near the top of Biden’s veep short list. Instinct and observation indicate Biden is dying to choose her to fill out his ticket. But the party establishment probably isn’t swayed, since Abrams doesn’t have any high-level executive or legislative experience (she served in the Georgia House for ten years and as Minority Leader for six) and it would be an extremely tough sell to bill her as ready to step into the POTUS role on day one behind the visibly faltering and mentally slipping Biden.

Heck, even Barack Obama had been a U.S. senator for a couple years before launching his presidential campaign — and Stacey Abrams ain’t no Obama. True, like “the One”, Abrams is a diehard leftist activist — hence, her appeal to Biden — but she’s not all that articulate and comes across as a lightweight loony nutcase (such as when she delivered the party response to Trump’s State of the Union speech, which thankfully for Democrats, no one watched).

Plus, to put it mildly, she’s not much to look at. Yup, I said it. Democrats and liberals will scream “FOUL!” for even bringing up the appearance angle, but big-time American politics rarely advances those who’d finish last in a beauty contest line-up. Biden could solve that particular dilemma by drafting the much more attractive Kamala Harris — the other prominent black woman supposedly in contention — since Obama himself once said the California Attorney General (at the time) was the “best looking” among her colleagues. If ‘ol back slappin’, hair sniffin’, child repellin’, shoulders massagin’, nude swimmin’ and sexual assault denyin’ Grampa Joe wants a looker, it ain’t gonna be Ms. Abrams.

Which presents a minor dilemma for Joe and his campaign team since they need to check all the appropriate demographic boxes for his number two. The buzz surrounding an Abrams selection would last approximately three hours until people got a glimpse of her on the evening news — and listened to her speak. Talk about a rapid decline. But then again, when the Biden/Abrams ticket loses in November, Democrats could cry and moan about how it was due to nationwide voter suppression (only in the states that went for Trump) and that racist Trump-ian “deplorables” backwards-butt rednecks couldn’t stomach the prospect of voting for a homely black woman.

Never mind Abrams. Biden and crew need a convenient kicking boy on the issue-of-the-hour, coronavirus. Georgia just happens to be it.

After all, Colorado’s reopening mirrored Georgia’s and you don’t see or hear doddering Joe and his fellow Democrats stringing out Democrat Governor Jared Polis for his callous disregard of “science” or testing or whatever it is they’re talking about at the moment. Biden’s — and the media’s — highlighting Georgia is 110% politically motivated, since if they can convince enough folks that Gov. Brian Kemp acted carelessly and jumped the gun, then perhaps they can steal a normally reliable GOP state and make their Electoral College challenge not quite as daunting.

The testing issue also isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Most lay people hear virus “testing” and think it’d be as easy as walking into a clinic, providing a urine sample in one of those little cups and receiving a courtesy phone call within an hour or two with the results. Not so. According to family members familiar with the actual coronavirus test, it involves taking a sample from deep within the nostrils and the process is described as “extremely uncomfortable.”

Necessary, yes, but it’s quite painful and not exactly the type of thing anyone would do unless they’re symptomatic (or your doctor orders it) and reason it’s time to know for sure. Therefore, even if a testing station were right down the block it’s doubtful people would be lining up to endure it, especially when the chances of testing positive aren’t exactly that great (a check revealed there have been about 10 million tests and “only” about 1.4 million confirmed cases).

Are there more people out there with the virus? Emphatically, yes. Even the experts agree there’re exponentially more carriers than confirmed cases. And they keep popping up in places you’d never consider, such as inside the Vice President’s office. So yes, lots of people have the virus, lots more are worried sick about getting it and the public is apprehensive about venturing out like “normal” when no such thing exists any longer.

But for Biden to maintain Trump’s response “divided” the country between heroic freedom fighters and doomsayer Democrats isn’t exactly accurate. It’s not childish at all. And by no means is it a “false choice” either. Simply look at Florida’s success under the stewardship of GOP Governor Ron DeSantis and you’ll see there’s a vast difference between political leadership that trusts people to rely on good judgment and sound advice to stop the spread of the pandemic.

Contrast DeSantis with blue state governors in Connecticut, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Illinois and New York, all of which exercised their petty tyrant powers to shutter businesses (many permanently, as this report indicated) and punish citizens for demanding more freedom. Polls also show Republicans are significantly more likely to support relaxing or ending social distancing mandates. Paul Bedard reported, “In a new Gallup survey, 60% of Republicans said they are avoiding ‘small gatherings,’ down from a peak of 76% at the end of March. Since the survey dates ended May 3, the number is likely down more.

“By comparison, 74% of Democrats are still avoiding small gatherings, down from a high of 84% at the end of March.”

The distinction is easily explainable. Republicans and conservatives don’t live their lives based on an expert’s or governor’s arbitrary opinions or dictates. Democrats are much more receptive to being “ruled.” Case closed.

If Grampa Joe Biden can’t talk about testing (and a lack of it), what else is there to say?

Imagine you’re a Democrat (you can envision yourself as Biden himself if you wish), or, if you are already a member of the party, try to think objectively. You’re positioned in a conference room at headquarters, (or these days, you’re taking part in a Zoom call) with other strategists.

Everyone’s tossing out ideas on how Grampa Joe might improve his political position vis-à-vis Trump during the coronavirus quarantine phase. Invariably the conversation winds down to the “when do we reopen” dilemma and there are no solid answers, other than perhaps to shed doubt on Trump’s statements on the need for and availability of mass testing (note: Trump has recommended all nursing home patients and staff be tested — finally, some common sense on the subject). Bingo! You’ve got your op-ed topic and you hire a ghostwriter to pen something legible from Joe’s typical stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

Since only a tiny fraction of U.S. citizens have been tested, you try and scare the bejesus out of the ones who haven’t been and tell everyone to damn the economic consequences and stay the (heck) away from each other for another month — or until a vaccine is developed, approved and distributed. It’s all you have. Let’s run with it!

Trump Derangement Syndrome won’t be enough for Democrats to win in 2020

While most Democrats we see on TV are more than committed to a campaign strategy of bashing Trump 24/7, a token few voices are recommending party candidates include more substance in their pitches to voters. Seth McLaughlin reported at The Washington Times, “One of the masterminds behind Pete Buttigieg’s rise in national politics said Monday Joseph R. Biden’s path to the White House hinges on presenting voters with a positive alternative vision for the nation, and not getting too wrapped up in ‘Trump derangement syndrome.’

“Lis Smith, a senior advisor to Mr. Buttigieig’s 2020 bid, said the coronavirus has provided Mr. Biden with an opportunity to think outside the box when it comes to campaigning and said she hopes the party learned some lessons from the party’s mistakes in 2016.

“’There is a theory in the Democratic Party that if we just kept giving Donald Trump rope that he would eventually hang himself,’ Ms. Smith said on Political Playbook virtual interview. ‘Well, he didn’t, and I think it is completely wishful thinking to think that he will self-destruct and that we can just run against Trump and Trumpism.’”

From all appearances, Grampa Joe Biden isn’t taking Smith’s advice. Grossly mislabeling the president’s policies and attitudes towards reopening the economy — meaning, Trump is pushing for it — isn’t just childish, it’s ineffective. Biden’s formulated his political career out of pretending to be somebody he’s not (smart, accomplished, empathetic, ahead of the curve), so ripping at Trump is what he does best.

But sitting around in a basement bunker lofting bombs in the Washington Post is a lot closer to Trump Derangement Syndrome than it is to offering concrete proposals. Why doesn’t Joe jump into the issue mosh pit and start throwing some elbows?

Because he doesn’t have a clue what to say, so he defaults to calling Trump “childish.” When should the economy open, Joe? Would everyone be forced to take a test? What happens to those whose tests don’t match your projections?

With the quarantine portion of the weird coronavirus conundrum seemingly winding to a close, politicians like Joe Biden will be compelled to come out of hiding and supply substance rather than submitting op-eds to the Washington Post and calling Trump “childish.” Will Joe offer something more than Trump Derangement Syndrome? Voters want to know.