Politics

The DemocRat Campaign Incites Trump Assassination

Leer en Español

Analysis of the Violent Rhetoric Used by DemocRat Leaders and Their Supporters

1. Introduction

Since the 2016 election and up to the present day, the political campaigns of the DemocRat leaders against Trump have been so irresponsible and dirty, with constant accusations and attacks by DemocRat leaders accompanied by famous "progressive" artists and personalities and with the complicity of media propaganda that they have gone to the extreme of turning political campaigns into a vendetta that promotes the assassination of former President Trump as a normal process.
We have already seen two assassination attempts on Trump and will, unfortunately, continue to see them if the perpetrators of these ethically and morally unacceptable policies do not cease their aim to stop their damaging propaganda that also represents a serious threat to the stability and security of the United States.

2. Political Rhetoric and Its Impact on the Anti-Trump Attacks

Political rhetoric plays a fundamental role in shaping public opinion and a healthy political climate in general. The idea that it is legitimate or acceptable to promote a political opponent with slander, lies, and even physical threats goes against every democratic and constitutional principle in the United States. Regardless of the political or ideological differences that may exist between candidates for any political office, respect for the life and safety of a political opponent must be respected and protected, to prevent the assassination attempts that we are discussing today in the case of the second attempt on the life of former President Trump, due to the rhetoric of the very serious false accusations against Trump that have been promoted and are being promoted by Biden, Kamala, and other senior Democratic Party officials and leaders, portraying him as an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs, who must be targeted, and calling him a threat to democracy and existential danger to the United States, which may stimulate and encourage his fervent supporters to commit the assassination of the president as a righteous and patriotic act in defense of the nation.

Examples of Statements by Democrat Leaders Who Have Encouraged Trump's Attacks

Here are some of the most irresponsible and pathetic statements by Democratic leaders that could be the breeding ground for attacks on former President Trump.

President Joe Biden: "Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs."

President Biden: "Trump is a threat to democracy." A phrase that may have inspired Routh to commit the second assassination attempt as it is written in his book.

President Joe Biden: "Let's stop talking about the debate, it's time to put Trump on the target", days before the first assassination attempt on his Republican rival. A phrase that may have been an encouragement for Crooks to carry out the attack.

Vice President and current presidential candidate Kamala Harris: "Donald Trump left us with the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War", another phrase that could also inspire his fans like Routh who wrote something very similar; "The catastrophe of January 6, perpetrated by Donald Trump and his anti-democratic group."

Kamala Harris: "Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental rights."

Tim Walz (current US vice-presidential candidate): "Are [Republicans] a threat to democracy? Yes... Are they going to endanger people's lives? Yes."

NOTE: In his book on Ukraine Routh wrote: "You are free to assassinate Trump as much as me for that error in judgment (referring to him for electing a president who ended up being brainless and the dismantling of the deal referring to Trump's exit from the Iran nuclear pact)."

Dan Goldman (D-NY-10) in an interview with MSNBC's Jen Psaki said: "Trump's “dangerous rhetoric” represents a risk to democracy and therefore the Republican should be “removed”.

Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House of Representatives): "You have to be prepared to punch Donald Trump."

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT): Donald Trump is "bad for this country" and that Democrats should "punch him in the face."

Joe Biden (2020 campaign): "I'd like to take him behind the gym if I were in high school."
"If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the crap out of him."

Rep. Maxime Waters (D-CA) "I'm going to take Trump out tonight." "If you see someone from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, in a gas station, you go out and you create a crowd, you push them out and you tell them They're not welcome anywhere anymore."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts): "Get it out now. Could President Trump get away with sending in an FBI hit squad to take out anyone he decided was a threat?"

Cynthia A. Johnson (State Representative - Michigan): "Well, this is just a warning to you Trumpers.
Tread carefully. Tread carefully. And for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay."

• Some political leaders have used language describing their opponents as "threats to democracy" or employed aggressive metaphors in their speeches.
• Public figures, including celebrities, have made statements that could be interpreted as encouraging aggressive action.

Responsibility of Leaders

• Political leaders have a special responsibility for the tone of public discourse, as a tone of physical aggression against an opponent can be turned into reality by a passionate supporter.
• Influential figures' words of physical aggression against political leaders can significantly impact how their followers perceive and act in the political arena and can encourage their fanatics to commit the physical aggression expressed in their statements.

3. Media Coverage and Its Role in the Anti-Trump Pandemic

The media play a crucial role in the way political information is presented and perceived. Most of the mainstream media can be included as mediated accomplices to the policies that have provoked the attacks on former President Donald Trump and are most responsible for disseminating the policies of their Democratic allies in a global conspiracy to discredit Trump with countless false publications. Since the former president entered the political arena, they have written millions of articles, essays, editorials, and commentaries discrediting them all with an irresponsible evil cruelty of fake news without the slightest shame and professionalism inherent in their work.

Analysis of Media Coverage

• All major mass media outlets in blatant collusion with the DemocRat party have sensationally promoted and amplified ad nauseam divisive and misleading statements against President Trump, contributing to the distortion and persecution that Trump is America's worst enemy who must be eliminated at all costs and by any means.
• The polarization of this media can be seen in the fact that assassination attempts against Trump have been downplayed and even justified with specious causes in collusion with the Democratic Party.
• The anti-Trump media have downplayed the seriousness of the assassination attempts against the former president, even promoting justifications linking the events to alleged grievances against Trump's policies and rhetoric, demonstrating the media's lack of objectivity and integrity, as well as its bias in favor of the Democratic Party.

In the first assassination attempt against Trump, the anti-Trump press ridiculously tried to downplay the assassination attempt:

• The Washington Post ran the disgraceful headline "Trump escorted outside after loud noises heard at Pennsylvania rally."
• CNN shamefully disinformed with the following headline: "Donald Trump is injured after falling during a rally in Pennsylvania."
• Newsweek blatantly tries to hide the magnitude of the assassination attempt with the headline: "MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement responds with outrage after Donald Trump was injured at a rally" highlighting the outraged reaction of Trump supporters with the malicious aim of downplaying the seriousness of the assassination attempt.
• And endless misleading headlines to minimize the possible causes of the assassination and to protect the bad reputation of the DemocRat politicians who have incited the use of violence and political assassination against the former president.

In the second assassination attempt against Trump, the anti-Trump press ridiculously tried to play down the assassination attempt:

• In the second attack journalists who were deeply in cahoots with Democrat media leaders, such as Lester Holt of NBC News and Norah O'Donnell of CBS News, tried to link Trump to the false bomb threats in Ohio, to justify the assassination attempt by promoting that Thirty-three false bomb threats! But they had no proof! The media was trying to blame the assassination attempt on Trump, and that was part of a collusion that was as bogus as it was blatant. Governor Mike DeWine confirmed that the 33 bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio, were false.

4. Risks of Divisive Escalation Promoted by the Democrat Party

• In these extreme cases, the divisive rhetoric that the DemocrRats have generated in their campaigns to generate visceral and unhealthy hatred against the former president has contributed to an environment where some individuals may even consider actions to assassinate Trump to be justified.
• This poses a risk to democratic stability, the safety of political opponents, and the public safety of the nation that has long been considered an example of the world's most advanced democracy and is now in question.
• The DemocRats need to stop spreading their extremist and divisive escalation of their sick hate messages against Trump as they are irresponsibly encouraging the use of violence that could lead radical elements and/or deranged individuals to the assassination of the former President.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the speeches of the Democrat political leaders, the Biden campaign, and the current Kamala campaign in collusion with the mainstream media against Trump have crossed the red line of insult and moral and political discrediting of the political adversary by irresponsibly promoting a discourse that generates physical aggression and thus the assassination of the former president by inciting violence against him using the most grotesque patriotic epithets against the former president. This irresponsible and dangerous attitude must be condemned by all citizens who value peace, democracy, and respect for the fundamental rights of all people. It is time to put an end to the violent and extremist rhetoric of the Democratic Party and work together for a safer and more prosperous future for all.

3-On-1 Presidential Debate: Trump vs Kamala and the Two ABC "Moderators"

Leer en Español

A summary of the issues in Donald Trump's presidential debate against Kamala Harris and the two ABC (team democRata) ‘moderators’ David Muir and Linsey Davis who did not comment on a single one of the lies Kamala told that I would point out in their responses. The references for the lies are authored by Shawn Fleetwood.

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Economics and Cost of Living
3. Pacific Power Transfers  and Civil Unrest
4. Abortion and Reproductive Rights
5. Immigration and Border Security
6. War of Israel-Hamas and Hostages
7. War in Ukraine
8. Afghanistan
9. Race and Identity
10. Healthcare and Obamacare
11. Climate Change
12. Other Issues and More Lies from Harris
13. Final Statements

1. Introduction

The presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was an event where Kamala told many lies by making controversial claims and misleading statements that require further analysis. 

 

Direct link: https://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

 

Continue Reading …3-On-1 Presidential Debate: Trump vs Kamala and the Two ABC Moderators

Politics and Science Have To Go together but Separate From Pockets

Leer en Español

Politics, Science, and Funding: A Critical Analysis

Index

1. Introduction
2. Funding and Positions on Abortion
3. Financing and Policy Positions on Gender Change in Children
4. Financing and Policy Positions on Climate Change
5. Measures to Safeguard Scientific Integrity
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The intersection between politics, science, and funding is a complex and often contested terrain, especially in election periods, when politicians seek to defend their policies and ideologies, some with patriotic passion and others with petty intentions to enrich themselves and/or satisfy the globalist agendas that fund them with the support of scientists and personalities who support the highest bidder who will line their pockets. This article examines how funding can influence policy positions on scientific and social issues, focusing on three key areas: abortion, gender reassignment in minors, and climate change.

In addition, the interaction between politics and funding can create conflicts of interest that undermine the credibility of scientific research. Economic interests may lead politicians to support or oppose certain scientific discoveries based on their potential impact on industry or commercial interests. This can lead to cherry-picking of data, manipulation of research results, and even suppression of unfavorable results, all of which erode public confidence in the integrity of scientific research.

2. Funding and Positions on Abortion

 

Direct link: https://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

 

Continue Reading …Politics and Science Have To Go together but Separate From Pockets

Kamala Doesn’t Know How To Govern and Copies Trump’s Policies

Leer en Español

Index

1. Introduction
2. Immigration policies 2.1 Border security 2.2 Border wall 2.3 Measures against illegal immigration
3. Environmental policies 3.1. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing)
4. Economic policies 4.1. Tip taxes
5. Police reform
6. Conclusion

 

1. Introduction

Kamala's inability to govern America is remarkable. She has neither the ideas nor the brains to govern. She resorts to plagiarising Trump's policies on immigration, the environment and tax advice to garner support from the more centrist wing by masking her left-wing extremism and toning down her image as a socialist.

In particular, in areas that were characteristic of Donald Trump's administration, this article examines Harris's policies, which he has copied almost word for word from Trump's policies in three main areas: immigration, the environment, and the economy.

The article also examines Harris's policies, which he has copied almost word for word from Trump's policies in three main areas: immigration, the environment, and the economy.

2. Immigration Policies

2.1. Border Security

Kamala Harris, who fiercely criticized all of Trump's border security policies, has been left with no choice but to adopt the former president's policies by copying them verbatim because of her inability to generate ideas to sustain an impossible government to which she was nominated and hand-picked by the Democratic Party elites and the globalist powers. The Biden-Harris administration has emphasized the need to strengthen security on the southern border, an approach blatantly copied from Trump's policies.

2.2. Border Wall 

 

Direct link: https://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

---

Harris in April 2017, just after becoming a US senator, claimed that funding for the wall was a ‘stupid use of money’. ‘I will block any funding for it,’ she said then.

Biden and Kamala stopped Biden and Kamala from funding the wall.

Biden and Kamala halted construction of Trump's border wall, but have recently authorized construction of new sections in Texas, citing ‘an acute and immediate need’. This decision marks a significant shift from Harris's previous position that she has changed her stance and is committed to building a wall on the southern US border to stop illegal immigration. Previously, she had harshly criticized the idea of funding Trump's border wall, calling it stupid. However, he has now become responsible for the border and advocates building the wall after presiding over the worst illegal immigration crisis in US history.

2.3. Measures Against Illegal Immigration

Harris has copied Trump on tougher measures to deter illegal immigration, including expedited deportations and faster processing of asylum claims, while previously being a promoter of open borders that led to the largest influx of illegals in US history. She was in favor of getting rid of ICE and even said that crossing the border illegally was not a crime. ‘We're not going to treat undocumented people who cross the border as criminals,’ he said.

3. Environmental Policies

3.1. Fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing)

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Harris was very critical of Trump's support and push for fracking, saying she would ban it on the first day of her presidency. However, she made it very clear during an exclusive interview with CNN that she now supports fracking, the oil and gas extraction process that is largely opposed by climate and environmental activists. His change is because he wants to woo voters in Pennsylvania, which provides 19 electoral votes.

His change is because he wants to woo voters in Pennsylvania, which provides 19 electoral votes.

Vice President Kamala Harris said she would not stop fracking if elected president, reversing her previous opposition to the technique used to produce most of America's oil and gas today.

‘As vice president, I did not ban fracking, Harris said Thursday in an interview on CNN, her strongest statement on the issue since becoming the Democratic nominee.

’As president, I will not ban fracking.‘

"As vice president, I cast the tie-breaking vote that increased permits for fracking. So I'm very clear on where I stand,’ she said, arguing that the US can have a clean energy economy and still embrace fracking.

Trump has historically supported the fracking expansion and prioritized boosting domestic oil and gas production. His administration reduced regulations on the industry, emphasizing energy independence and US economic growth. In contrast the Kamaleon Harris opposed in 2020 when she was a candidate for president for the Democratic Party.

4. Economic Policies

4.1. Tip taxes

Recently, Kamala has proposed eliminating tip taxes, copied verbatim from a measure that Trump had considered during his presidency and is now using in his campaign policies. This policy is intended to benefit service sector workers.

5. Police Reform

Police reform: Although with different approaches, Harris has copied Trump on the policy to increase police funding rather than ‘defund the police’ as he previously proclaimed in 2020. On the ‘Ebro in the Morning’ program on 9 June 2020, Harris claimed that the ‘defund the police’ movement ‘correctly’ questioned the amount of money spent on the police rather than on essential community services. Harris argued that more police do not necessarily translate into greater public safety and criticized the militarization of police departments in American cities.

Harris argued that more police do not necessarily translate into greater public safety and criticized the militarization of police departments in American cities.

6. Conclusion

Kamala Harris's policy changes are carbon copies of Donald Trump's and reflect an inability to govern and a need to adapt to political and economic realities. While the motivations and methods may differ, these botched copies of the candidate underline the insecurity and lack of principle of Kamala's ideology that the big money interests of the DemocRats and the globalist media seek to cover up.

It is important to note that despite these changes that they want to show to the voters to get out the vote, they are merely cosmetic changes of partisan propaganda, which do not imply a substantial change in the neo-Marxist ideology that they intend to implement in the United States.

Don't be fooled by the Hyena-Smiling Chameleon!