Category Archives: Donald Trump

U.S. issues travel warning for China and Hong Kong

In June, Beijing cracked down on Hong Kong’s democracy movement and imposed a new draconian national security law on the island, a former British colony that London handed over to Beijing in 1997.

Last month, the Trump administration suspended or terminated three bilateral agreements with Hong Kong covering extradition and tax exemptions, citing Beijing’s violation of its pledge for Hong Kong to retain broad autonomy for 50 years after 1997.

Yesterday, the State Department issued a sweeping new advisory warning U.S. citizens against travel to mainland China and Hong Kong, citing the risk of “arbitrary detention” and “arbitrary enforcement of local laws.”

The U.S. State Department travel advisory reads:

The PRC government arbitrarily enforces local laws, including by carrying out arbitrary and wrongful detentions and through the use of exit bans on U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries without due process of law. The PRC government uses arbitrary detention and exit bans:

  • to compel individuals to participate in PRC government investigations,
  • to pressure family members to return to the PRC from abroad,
  • to influence PRC authorities to resolve civil disputes in favor of PRC citizens, and
  • to gain bargaining leverage over foreign governments.

In most cases, U.S. citizens only become aware of an exit ban when they attempt to depart the PRC, and there is no reliable mechanism or legal process to find out how long the ban might continue or to contest it in a court of law.

U.S. citizens traveling or residing in the PRC or Hong Kong, may be detained without access to U.S. consular services or information about their alleged crime. U.S. citizens may be subjected to prolonged interrogations and extended detention without due process of law.

Security personnel may detain and/or deport U.S. citizens for sending private electronic messages critical of the PRC government.

The PRC government does not recognize dual nationality. U.S.-PRC citizens and U.S. citizens of Chinese heritage may be subject to additional scrutiny and harassment, and the PRC government may prevent the U.S. Embassy from providing consular services.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Majority of donations to Biden and Democrat PAC from untraceable suspect ‘unemployed’ people

Hollie McKay reports for Fox News, Sept. 13, 2020, that Take Back Action Fund (TBAF), a conservative nonprofit political group, is raising “serious concerns” about millions of donations reported by a major Democratic fundraising platform.

A computer analysis by TBAF found that nearly half of all 2019 donations (48.4%) and a little over half of January-August 2020 donations (50.1%) to Democrat PAC ActBlue were made by people claiming to be unemployed and not having an employer.

In contrast, TBAF found that only 4% of 2019 donations and 5.6% of the Jan.-August 2020 donations to the Republican Party’s fundraising platform WinRed came from people who did not list an employer or were unemployed. WinRed was created last year to counter ActBlue.

The contrast between donations to Biden vs. those to Trump is even starker. Whereas, 49.6% of donations to Biden came from the “unemployed”, only 2.6% of donations to Trump were from the allegedly “unemployed”.

TBAF President John Pudner explains why the large number of donations from “unemployed” people is a red flag that they may be illicit contributions (“straw donors”) from foreign interests attempting to influence U.S. elections:

“The name of employers must be disclosed when making political donations, but more than 4.7 million donations [to ActBlue in 2019] came from people who claimed they did not have an employer. Those 4.7 million donations totaled $346 million ActBlue raised and sent to liberal causes. It is hard to believe that at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 4 percent, that unemployed people had $346 million dollars to send to ActBlue for liberal causes. 4.7 million donations from people without a job … raised serious concerns.”

In response to questions by Fox News, a representative for ActBlue refused to share information about how they analyze contributions, and insisted that “we use an array of data sources, internal validation and third-party services to verify the validity of transactions,” and that many of its donations came from retirees and people who aren’t counted as employed, such as homemakers.

Blah, blah, blah.

ActBlue, created in 2004, bills itself as a “powerful online fundraising platform available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations. And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations.

But the ActBlue website allows credit card donations that are not verified, so anyone from any country in the world can donate without a paper trail.

In fact, the issue of unauthenticated political donations via allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards which could be used to mask a donor’s identity, and to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give was also brought to light by The Washington Post in 2008.

Pudner said: “ActBlue‘s insistence on refusing to allow banks to verify their donations is an invitation to foreign programmers or others to send money through them using fake American names, and we encourage them to start letting banks verify the identity of donors to stop the potential for millions of dollars to influence our election. We found it took other vendors only a matter of hours to switch their system to allow verification of donations and thus prevent the possibility of illegal foreign money being moved into campaigns. Choosing to use an untraceable system has a higher cost in terms of the risk of credit card fraud and also tends to incur higher bank fees. And this untraceable system allows someone with a gift card to make donations in anyone’s name, even if that person never actually made that donation, or even if that person doesn’t exist at all.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe told Fox News that “China poses a greater national security threat to the U.S. than any other nation. That includes threats of election influence and interference.” On August 19, 2020, the daily newspaper Global Times, which is a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, endorsed Joe Biden for President. (Gateway Pundit)

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Why 63% disapproval of Portland’s radical left mayor Ted Wheeler is bad news for conservatives

Portland, Oregon has now had more than 100 consecutive nights of violent mayhem by Antifa and BLM anarchists and thugs.

Portland mayor Ted Wheeler

Portland’s mayor, 58-year-old Edward Tevis “Ted” Wheeler, boasts higher-educational credentials of a B.A. in economics from Stanford University, a Master’s in business administration from Columbia University, and a Master’s in public policy from Harvard University.

The epitome of so-called “white privilege”, Wheeler is a 6th-generation Oregonian, born to and heir of a conservative wealthy family who made their fortune in the timber industry. Wheeler worked in the financial services industry for corporations including Bank of America and Copper Mountain Trust before entering politics in 2006 as a registered Republican when he was elected Multnomah, OR county commissioner.

In 2010, he was appointed State Treasurer by Oregon’s Democrat governor Ted Kulongoski. Later that year, Wheeler switched party and won the Democrat primary for Treasurer; in 2013, he was elected Treasurer in a special election. Three years later, in 2016, Wheeler was elected mayor of Portland with 54% of the vote.

George Floyd protests began in Portland on May 28, 2020. Initially peaceful, the protests turned into a riot two days later on May 30. Despite that, on June 9, Wheeler proposed the defunding of three Portland police units, including the gun violence reduction team; the “diversion” of $12 million from the police bureau and other city departments to support “communities of color”; and banning officers from using chokeholds. On June 17, the Portland city council defunded the city police by cutting at least $15 million from the police department and eliminating 84 positions.

In early July, the federal government deployed law enforcement officers to Portland for the stated purpose of protecting federal property, including the U.S. courthouse that repeatedly had been vandalized since June. The federal officers made arrests and fired pepper spray or tear gas at protesters who got too close to the courthouse. Ted Wheeler and Oregon’s Demonrat governor Kate Brown denounced President Trump’s deployment of federal officers to protect federal property in Portland.

On August 28, Wheeler wrote an open letter to President Trump asking him not to send the National Guard to the city, saying that “We don’t need your politics of division and demagoguery.” This, despite the fact that a year ago in August 2019, Wheeler had requested that the National Guard be on standby in anticipation of a potentially explosive stand-off between Antifa demonstrators and “far-right” groups. Gov. Brown denied Wheeler’s request.

On September 1, 2020, after Antifa rioters attacked, vandalized and burned a fire in the apartment building in which Wheeler has a condo, he said he would move out “for the safety” of the apartment’s residents.

Here on Fellowship of the Minds, we have wondered why Portland residents are tolerating the continuous, unceasing nightly riots and mayhem — of arson, vandalism, looting, toppling of statues, assaults, and the shooting death of a Trump supporter. Some of us speculate that Portlanders are not doing anything about the continuous riots because they fear being targeted and attacked.

But their silence and do-nothing do not mean approval.

Everton Bailey Jr. reports for Oregon Live, Sept. 8, 2020, that two months ahead of the November 3 election (and Wheeler’s reelection), a new poll shows that 63% or two-thirds of likely Portland voters have an “unfavorable” impression of mayor Ted Wheeler.

That finding has been trumpeted by conservatives, including talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh, as a sign that the tides are turning.

But is it?

My reaction to the poll is one of incredulity . Only two-thirds of Portlanders disapprove of their mayor? That means as many as a third of Portland voters actually approve of Wheeler’s handling of the continuous riots?

Here are some other findings of the phone and online poll of 435 “likely” Portland voters, conducted by California-based FM3 Research, which indicate that Portlanders haven’t really changed:

  • Only a little more than half (59%) believe Portland is heading in the wrong direction.
  • 76% view the Marxist Black Lives Matter favorably; 22% unfavorable.
  • 92% support “non-violent protests”, but as many as 67% are in favor of “these protests” — i.e., the ongoing mayhem.
  • A majority of Portlanders believe there is a systemic problem in the city’s policing system. 70% said they would vote for a November ballot measure to create a new community-driven independent police oversight system, whatever that means. Not surprisingly, there is a partisan divide on the the ballot measure, with 90% of Democrats and 60% of Independents supporting the measure, whereas 78% of conservatives and 70% of Republicanas are against it. Alas, conservatives make up a small portion of the Portland electorate.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Why the polls are wrong again: As in 2016, Trump supporters are not divulging their vote intentions

The polls leading up to the 2016 presidential elections showed Hillary Clinton winning, but the polls turned out, happily, to be wrong.

Democrats, who had believed the polls, were outraged.

To this day, Demonrats are in denial, having convinced themselves that their candidate lost because Trump had colluded with those dastardly Russians — for which, after a two-year exhaustive FBI investigation that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, there is zero evidence.

None. Nada. Zilch.

Of course, that hasn’t stopped Demonrats in repeating the fake Russian collusion story because of their “I’ve made up my mind! Don’t confuse me with facts!” psychopathology.

Well, the signs are pointing to the polls being wrong again in the 2020 election.

Although polls after the Democrat and Republican party conventions show that Joe Biden still has a four-point lead over Trump, this is why those polls are wrong: Many Trump supporters simply are not telling people for whom they’ll vote on November 3.

On September 3 and 6, 2020, Rasmussen Reports conducted a national phone and online survey of 1,000 likely voters, with a +/- 3 margin of sampling error and a 95% level of confidence.

The survey found that:

  • As many as 17% of those who Strongly Approve of the job President Trump is doing say they are less likely to let others know how they intend to vote in the upcoming election. In contrast, only 8% who those who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s performance say they won’t tell others how they’ll vote.
  • Not surprisingly, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to tell others how they intend to vote: 16% of Republicans vs. 12% of Democrats.
  • Independents, i.e., those not affiliated with either major political party, are even more inclined to keep secret for whom they’ll vote — 21%.
  • Liberals are more likely to talk up their vote than moderates and conservatives are.
  • Blacks and other minority voters are less likely than whites this election cycle to tell others how they plan to vote.
  • Republicans are more enthusiastic about the election (which means they are more likely to turn out to vote).

In the 2016 election, Trump supporters also were less likely to divulge how they intended to vote. At this same time in the 2016 election cycle, Rasmussen found that:

  • 17% of Likely Republican Voters were less likely to let others know how they intend to vote compared to previous presidential campaigns. In contrast, just 10% of Likely Democratic Voters said they were less likely to tell.
  • 25% of Independents said they were less likely to say publicly which presidential candidate they will vote.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

BLM riot in Beverly Hills turns into MAGA/YMCA dance party

#WalkAway fron the hate!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Carpe Donktum: Take Back America

Time to take back America and end the demorat-approved violence!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Richard Grenell gives the media a well-deserved smackdown

On Friday Ric Grenell participated in a press conference to announce a Serbia, Kosovo, and Israel economic deal. Listen to Ric talk about this agreement below:

At the announcement, a reporter wanted to ask about another issue: the push to decriminalize homosexuality. Because heaven forbid the media actual report about this event. Instead they aim to control the narrative by asking THEIR planned questions to somehow turn it into the story THEY want to create.

Fortunately Ric was having none of that during this historic announcement (listen below).

And libtards’ heads exploded. Witness this tweet from this Vox reporter:

This is the same Aaron who publicly apologized to Greg Gutfield for smearing him as a racist.

I’d say the media DESERVES every smackdown coming their way. They’ve been despicable for the last four years and have EARNED this title:

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Student’s Love Trump’s Second Term Agenda…When They Think It’s Biden’s

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

What are they pumping into Joe Biden? His hand has a bruise from IV-drip

Yesterday, when Joe Biden visited Kenosha, Wisconsin — after condemning President Trump’s visit — a video of Biden shows a dark bruise with a needle puncture mark on his left hand.

Here’s the video (h/t @Q_Stewardess):

And here’s a screenshot I took from the video (I circled the bruise in yellow):

Tweeters who are nurses and other medical professionals all identified Biden’s bruise and needle mark as the bruising from an IV (intravenous) drip, elderly people’s skin being thin and easily bruised. Joe Biden will be 78 years old on November 20.

Tweeter @MAGABruno1917 alerts us to the fact that there is an experimental drug called aducanomab that is delivered via monthly IV infusions to reduce cognitive decline in patients with early Alzheimer’s, the most common form of senile dementia.

From Wikipedia:

Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody that has been studied for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).[1] It was developed by Biogen Inc., which licensed the drug candidate from Neurimmune, its discoverer.[2] The antibody targets aggregated forms of β-amyloid found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, in the hopes of reducing its buildup.[3] […]

A Phase Ib study was published in August 2016, based on one year of “monthly intravenous infusions” of aducanumab, with brain scans to measure amyloid plaques.[12] Phase 3 clinical trials were ongoing in September 2016,[12] but were canceled in March 2019 after “an independent group’s analysis show[ed] that the trials were unlikely to ‘meet their primary endpoint.'”[13]

Despite this, in October 2019 the company announced their intention to seek regulatory approval, following a reanalysis of the data.[14][15][16]

Demonrats’ typical tactic is to deflect from their problems by going on the offense.

No wonder their accomplices in the media, including Drudge Report, babbled about President Trump having had mini-strokes — which both the President and his physician, Dr. Sean P. Conley, have denied.

Unlike Joe Biden, President Trump is lucid and shows no sign of cognitive impairment from strokes or senile dementia. On the contrary, he has the energy of a man half his age.

H/t MCA

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Why Democrats hate the flag: Seeing even a small American flag can make you vote Republican

This why “Progressives”, including “woke” corporations like the NFL, are allergic to the American flag and the national anthem.

A study found that just seeing even a small American flag one time shifted both Democrats and Republicans toward the Republican end of the ideological spectrum in beliefs, attitudes, as well as voting intentions and behavior.

The study, “A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later,” by Travis J. Carter (University of Chicago), Melissa J. Ferguson (Cornell University) and Ran R. Hassin (Hebrew University) was published in Psychological Science on July 8, 2011.

Here is the Abstract:

We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior. In Experiment 1, which was conducted online during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, a single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months after the exposure to the prime. In Experiment 2, we replicated the findings more than a year into the current Democratic presidential term. These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.

Ed Yong of Discover magazine has more details on the study.

Experiment #1:

  • In the run-up to the 2008 US presidential election, a group of around 200 volunteers were asked them about their political views.
  • A month or so later, the volunteers were divided into two groups that were comparable in their political beliefs, voting intentions and other variables.
  • Both groups rated how likely they were to vote for either the Democrat Barack Obama or the Republican John McCain on an online questionnaire.
  • The questionnaires were identical except for one small detail – in the top left corner of the screen, one group saw a small American flag and the other saw nothing.
  • That tiny difference was enough to swing their voting preferences. Those who saw the tiny flag became more likely to vote for McCain than Obama (relative to their answers at the start of the experiment); felt more positive towards Republicans; and showed a small Republican bias in their unconscious atittudes.
  •  After the election, the volunteers were asked whom they actually voted for. Those who saw the flag were less likely to have voted for Obama than those who didn’t (73% versus 84%). They were also more likely to think that the media were unduly harsh in their treatment of McCain.
  • The flag effect lasted for at least 8 months. In July 2009, eight months after the experiment, participants who saw the tiny flag on-screen still showed some Republican bias. They were less happy about Obama’s job performance than their peers, less warm about other Democrat leaders, and even held slightly more conservative views.

Experiment #2:

  • In spring of 2010, with Obama a year in power, a new group of 70 volunteers were asked to look at four photographs. Half the people saw buildings with flags in front of them; the others saw photos where the flags had been digitally removed.
  • Even though the two groups had the same spectrum of political beliefs beforehand, the flag group shifted towards a Republican worldview after seeing the photos.

Now you know why the Left — Democrats, Progressives, woke capitalists, the media — are allergic and downright hostile to the American flag, national anthem, statues of the Founding Fathers, and patriotism in general.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0