by | Apr 25, 2024 | Aggregate
It is said that ‘even a broken clock is right twice a day.’ By that, we infer that, due to some statistical oddity, even people who are consistently wrong can sometimes be right.
This applies to Globalist Pope Francis, who is famously wrong in a vast number of issues, but every now and then is able to land one for the right team.
Just some three weeks ago, Pope Francis did something unusual, and issued a declaration called ‘Dignitas Infinita’, in which he strongly defended the Catholic Church’s dogma and doctrine without trying to ‘improve’ or ‘modernize’ it.
He dealt with a dozen contemporary issues through the lens of scripture and church teaching, including abortion, human trafficking, poverty, euthanasia, and the death penalty, among others.
Read more:
‘Cafeteria Catholic’ Biden Reacts to Pope Francis’ New Declaration ‘Dignitas Infinita’ – Stands With Trans Indoctrination Over the Church’s Dogma and Doctrine
However, it also follows that during the rest of the day, the broken clock is necessarily wrong. And so is Francis.
Now, with apparent better health, the Pontiff gave his first-ever US TV interview to CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell, and he made a point of adhering to the Globalist talking point of the day, ‘speaking out against climate change deniers’, calling them ‘fools’.
UK paper Daily Mail hilariously called Francis ‘the often progressive pontiff’, as if that was not a full-time occupation with the Argentine Pope.
Mostly, he talked about the sensible theme of the necessity of Peace talks in all wars, but ‘peace does not sell,’ so MSM will focus on the climate alarmism.
Daily Mail reported:
“He made a pointed effort to express his displeasure with those who deny climate change when asked what he says to those who deny it by O’Donnell.
‘There are people who are foolish, and even foolish if they show you them research. They don’t believe it,’ he said through an interpreter. They don’t understand the situation or because of their interest, but climate change exists,’ he added.”
This is all he said about the issue, so Daily Mail segued it with no less than 5 paragraphs of the purest climate alarmism with a heavy-handed editorial tone that is totally out of the supposed focus of the piece.
The rest of the interview dealt with the Pope’s constant calls for peace in all the military conflicts of the world.
While he may be guilty of over-simplifying the issues, it’s within the expected scope of a Pope’s duties, a relentless quest for peace on Earth.
“When asked what can be done for a million Gazan children facing starvation, he added that they and children in Ukraine must be helped.
‘Those kids don’t know how to smile. This is very hard when a child forgets to smile,’ he said.
His overall message was: ‘Please, countries at war, all of them, stop the war. Look to negotiate peace’.”
But peace and love do not sell papers or help control the population, and fear does.
The post Globalist Pope Francis Gives His First US TV Interview, so MSM Uses Him To Help Push Climate Alarmism Into Overdrive appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Apr 25, 2024 | Aggregate
Ever since America’s largest bank JPMorgan Chase got rid of the Jeffrey Epstein-linked string of lawsuits, its CEO Jamie Dimon has been able to fully reposition himself as one of the main economy commentators in the nation.
He has been a critical voice removed from the rosy-colored forecasts by some liberal economists, and has so far been proven right about it.
Now, Dimon is is concerned that the US economy could be in route to repeat the economic woes that held back the country during the 1970s.
There’s a chance that it can happen again, he said during an appearance Tuesday (23) at the Economic Club of New York.
But what is ‘it’? He is talking about stagflation, a combination of low growth and high inflation, and Dimon has made it clear that he believes such a risk exists again.
Yahoo Finance reported:
“‘I worry that it looks more like the ’70s than we’ve seen before’, he added during a question and answer session with Marie-Josée Kravis, chair of the Museum of Modern Art and wife of KKR co-founder Henry Kravis. ‘There are circumstances in which it’ll look more like the ’70s than what we’ve had for the last 20 years’.”
Dimon has been warning of ‘stickier inflation and higher rates than markets expect’.
And now, even Fed Chair Jerome Powell nixed any rate cuts and alerted they will stay elevated for longer because of unrelenting inflation.
“Dimon said in his April 8 letter that the bank is prepared for interest rates ‘from 2% to 8% or even more’ — and he repeated that prediction Tuesday. ‘We would handle stagflation too’, he added.”
JPMorgan Chase posted profits 6% higher than the previous year, it is suffering from ‘deposit margin compression and lower deposit balances’.
“Dimon returned to some other familiar subjects during his discussion Tuesday, including his concerns about large amounts of government spending and efforts by the Fed to shrink its balance sheet, as well as the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine and their potential to disrupt essential commodities markets, migration, and geopolitical relationships.”
In his speech in the Economic Club of New York, Dimon was in no way a ‘doom and gloom’ prophet, as he described the US economy as “booming”, celebrated the American consumers, US bank credit, home prices, and stock prices.
“Economic growth, he said, is key to solving any number of problems. ‘We need to do more and better, and that’s why we need to grow the economy’, he said.
[…] He didn’t drop any hints about when he might leave JPMorgan, saying only that he wants to ‘leave behind’ a ‘great company’ and ‘I want to help my country. I am very excited about the future’.”
Read more:
JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon: To Stop Oil and Gas Projects Is ‘Wrong’ and ‘Enormously Naïve’ – CEO Warns of Danger of ‘Stagflation’ in Letter to Shareholders
The post STAGFLATION? JPMorgan Chase CEO Dimon Fears US May Be Heading back to 1970s’ Economic Woes appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Apr 25, 2024 | Aggregate
Between judicially disqualifying conflicts of interests to overbroad gag orders that outrageously violate President Trump’s First Amendment rights as a criminal defendant, the President’s lawyers have multiple grounds on which to appeal this present show trial, which makes a mockery of the rule of law currently underway in lower Manhattan. One would have to scour the annals of American legal history to find another case quite like the one brought by Alvin Bragg and aided and abetted by Matthew Colangelo, a former top-level official of Joe Biden’s Justice Department, and prosecuted with inglorious vengeance by the highly conflicted Judge Merchan. The fact that Bragg’s kangaroo show trial is being prosecuted against Donald Trump at all, shamelessly denying him the respect and decorum the office of the President deserves, even in the courtroom, is bad enough. But that it is being waged against the leading candidate, by most leading polls, to become the 47th President of the United States, and leader of the free world, is many steps beyond the pale. Worse yet, that leading candidate has been so unceremoniously stripped of the traditional formalities of the presidential office – a laundry list of indiscretions that includes proper respect in the courtroom, protection of his fundamental due process rights, the right to speak and protest the trial proceeding where necessary. These indiscretions collectively prove that Judge Merchan condemned President Trump before his trial has even really commenced, depriving him of the most important pillar of the Anglo-American legal system: the presumption of innocence.
On these grounds, President Trump’s attorneys must request intervention by a higher tribunal, to either stay the proceeding, or better yet, put an end to this sham kangaroo trial that epitomizes what so many Americans realize as clear as day: a flagrant case of election interference.
The judicial system fortunately provides the defendant tools to appeal an utterly conflicted and corrupt proceeding. All President Trump’s attorneys would need to do is file a motion with the court requesting the judge recuse himself. If the judge refuses to recuse himself, despite being so troublingly conflicted, President Trump’s attorneys will then have the option to appeal the order the court must thereupon issue.
Method Number One: Collaterally Attack Case Through Article 78 Proceeding
There are several ways to appeal a court order of this kind. The first, more conservative approach, would be a kind of collateral attack on the proceeding – which challenges the case on grounds other than the underlying merits of the claim – through what is called an Article 78 filing under New York law. In New York, lawyers have the option to appeal via an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the conduct of judges, including state criminal court judges whose offices are created by statute. There are two reasons why an Article 78 appeal might be easier, and more advisable, than a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. The first reason is that Article 78 appeals would help streamline the process, given that President Trump’s case was brought in state court already, where such appeals are commonplace. It is much more complicated to appeal a criminal case, especially one implicating the thorny and often confused legal issues controlling the proceeding here, to federal court than by way of an Article 78 proceeding, which arises under state law and is thereby governed by much similar rules and principles than those which govern federal court.
The second, perhaps even more compelling, reason favoring an Article 78 appeal, rather than an appeal to federal court, is that under the New York State Constitution, parties have even more expansive First Amendment rights than those that would typically arise under the First Amendment. In the seminal 1988 decision, O’Neill v Oakgrove Construction, the Second Appellate Division of New York held that the “protection afforded by the guarantees of free press and speech in the New York State Constitution is often broader than the minimum required by [the Federal Constitution].” Thus, if the gag order serves as the basis for the Article 78 collateral attack, at least on paper, President Trump has reason to be optimistic because of how speech rights are traditionally protected in New York State, which heavily disfavors any infringements whatever on speech – more so than what would give rise to a valid challenge under First Amendment grounds alone.
Accordingly, President Trump’s lawyers have strong grounds to make an Article 78 appeal on the basis of the unconstitutional scope of the gag order that Judge Merchan arbitrarily imposed upon him, which fails to meet normal strict scrutiny analysis under federal law, as I have previously detailed at length. Therefore, if the gag order fails to pass muster under the Supreme Court’s own precedent from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which governs when courts may prohibit speech in exceptional cases, surely the gag order here would likewise fail to meet the even more rigorous standard for speech prohibitions that arise under New York State’s Constitution.
Another issue that might be included in an Article 78 appeal is the issue of judicial misconduct: in other words, the conflict of interest serving as the basis for the appeal. Again, New York law is arguably more rigorous than federal law on this issue. Under New York law, “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…”. An important ground for dismissal is when “the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person … has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”
One such interest that can be substantially affected by the proceeding is an economic interest. Namely, the economic interest of Loren Merchan, Judge Merchan’s daughter, who happens to fall “within the sixth degree of relationship” stipulated under the rule. As exhaustively discussed elsewhere, Loren Merchan works as a senior officer and fundraiser for a political consulting firm, Authentic Campaigns, whose “featured clients” include none other than the Biden-Harris campaign and various far-left lawmakers, including Adam Schiff and Kathy Hochul, with interests that would, to say the least, create a strong impression of impropriety that severely undermines Judge Merchan’s ability to rule fairly and impartially. Moreover, as also reported previously, Judge Merchan’s own wife allegedly works for Attorney General Letitia James’ office, who campaigned on “getting” President Trump and whose office put strong political pressures on both Merchan and Bragg to prosecute the 45th President in this criminal trial – to say nothing of presiding over President Trump’s concurrent civil cases taking place in New York State. Furthermore, reputable sources have reported that Loren Merchan’s firm profited, to the tune of at least $93 million, off the political persecution of Donald Trump happening in lower Manhattan.
Under the federal canons of judicial conduct, a judge must recuse himself whenever the judge, his spouse, or a relative “within the third degree of relationship” of the judge is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” Reading these two rules together, it is notable, first, that the state ethics code encompasses relatives to “the sixth degree of relationship,” giving strong reason to believe that, much like speech law, the standard for impropriety under New York State laws governing judicial misconduct is even more rigorous than federal law.
Second, a daughter presiding over a business that raises tens of millions of dollars for political candidates and campaigns, and stands to – with very good reason – earn a windfall if her father happens to prosecute and convict the man poised to be her firm’s client’s political opponent in the upcoming presidential race, would, I conjecture, qualify as an example (if not textbook example) of “more than a de minimis interest in the case.” Ditto too is Judge Merchan’s wife, Lara Merchan, if the reports alleging an employment connection, as special assistant to Letitia James, between her and Letitia James’ office prove true, given how much James’ political career rests on “getting” President Trump, which she irrefutably made the central issue of her statewide race for Attorney General, and short-lived race for Governor.
Beyond these damning revelations, the fact that Judge Merchan himself is a noted and long-term donor – directly via donations, and indirectly via PAC monetary contributions – and friend of Joe Biden should, even if the facts brought about the daughter and wife did not come to light, alone be sufficient grounds for a recusal. In a case involving a presidential candidate taking place just months before Election Day, politics are necessarily all-controlling. There is no getting around it. Hence, to any reasonable observer, the courtroom drama in lower Manhattan cannot be understood other than as a brazen act of election interference by the incumbent president in Biden against his likeliest successor in Trump.
Otherwise, what else explains the seven-plus years of delays in which this case was kicked down the road from the DOJ to the FEC to Bragg’s office, not once, but twice, only to finally be prosecuted at a politically convenient hour: the moment when Donald Trump became, for the third time in as many cycles, the presumptive Republican nominee. There were also various changes in the law (all of which in hindsight look like strategic meddling by Democrats in the New York state legislature making preparations to jury-rig the legal system in advance to prosecute Donald Trump) made over the years. These include a change in the statute of limitations that allowed Bragg to prosecute this case well beyond the original limitations period. In addition, there was a 2018 change in tax law that made hush money write-offs for sexual indiscretions unlawful.
To date, not one of Merchan, Bragg, Colangelo, James, or Biden’s DOJ could explain why it is imperative to commence a six-week trial right here and now, rather than postpone it – for just another seven months – until after election day. To channel our eloquent Commander-in-Chief: For God’s sake it’s been seven years already, what the hell is another seven months going to make a difference! The choice to prosecute President Trump now, perhaps at the summit of his political clout, where most reputable polls have him trouncing Biden in the upcoming general election, just reeks of improprieties – and indeed, election interference – of the worst possible variety.
Method Number Two: Direct Interlocutory Appeal To Federal Court
Separately from the Article 78 proceeding, President Trump’s lawyers also have the option of making an interlocutory appeal directly to federal court – either to the Second Circuit or, better, Supreme Court. Under well-settled federal law, the Supreme Court has permitted interlocutory appeals from state to federal court, in the decision Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser (1989), if the appeal satisfies the three-prong test of what the High Court called “the collateral order doctrine.”
The collateral order doctrine says that appeals are permitted as long as the following elements are met:
1. The outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue;
2. The matter appealed was collateral on the merits;
3. The matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed.
In President Trump’s criminal proceeding, all three elements are easily met. The matter appealed – the recusal order – would conclusively determine the outcome of the case because if the Judge is found conflicted under New York or ABA canons regulating judicial ethics, there would be strong grounds for a mistrial. Even if President Trump’s attorneys appealed just on the gag order issue, that still would likely satisfy the collateral order doctrine – because President Trump’s ability to speak about, and expose, the conflicts of interest implicating Judge Merchan and his family would reveal a disqualifying economic interest in the case that goes directly to the reason why it was brought in the first place. If it can be shown that Judge Merchan had a judicially disqualifying economic stake in the case, which should be easy here because he incontestably does, the entire case would have to be dismissed on grounds of unfair prejudice to the defendant and his constitutional rights. Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that there would be no case without Judge Merchan – in other words, a recusal alone would not mitigate the prejudice to President Trump here, because that prejudice runs to the heart of the proceeding itself, regardless of the identity of the judge presiding over the case.
At the bare minimum, however, the judge’s myriad conflicts of interest serve as more than sufficient grounds for an order for recusal – there is absolutely no way President Trump’s due process rights can be guaranteed so long as Judge Merchan remains on the case. If a recusal order is successfully appealed, given how damaging Judge Merchan’s conflict was in the case at bar, the court will likely have to stay this proceeding until after the election, in order to avoid a repeat of the same dangers here that severely harmed President Trump’s fundamental rights – which stand as a grievous indictment of New York’s judicial system.
The other two elements are also easily met. The matter appealed, whether on the gag order or recusal issue, is collateral to the merits of the underlying legal claim: which involves an alleged fraudulent business records scheme. What is more, if Judge Merchan is not recused, the matter cannot be reviewed unless on appeal. Put differently, the only way President Trump can request relief here is by appealing any ruling Judge Merchan might issue on a recusal order. Given the probability that Judge Merchan will deny any order filed by his attorneys for his recusal, there will be a basis for an interlocutory appeal to either state or federal court.
Why else might a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court, rather than to state court via the aforementioned Article 78 proceeding, be more desirable? Well, for one thing: the legal basis for it should not be that hard given that federal questions run amok all throughout this case. Whether dealing with President Trump’s First Amendment rights, or denial of his due process rights – or even the alleged FEC violations at issue here – there are more than sufficient grounds, as a matter of procedure, to kick this case into federal court for appeal. Of course, federal crimes require federal jurisdiction: but there are likely jurisprudential grounds, not the least of which has to do with the issues controlling here, especially with the FEC, that implicate the interstate commerce clause, that would create the nexus to make the underlying issue a federal question.
I mean, this is the President of the United States, we are talking about, who also happens to be an out-of-state resident! So, the question to be raised: why is this a state court matter at all seems so obvious – and yet has bizarrely not been talked about enough, despite being a central and unaddressed issue, either by the legal pundits or the prosecution.
Bragg has hidden the ball so much with regard to his theory of criminal liability here, which can only be attributed to one of two reasons: 1) he has no basis for bringing this case in state court because has no idea what on earth he is doing, or 2) he realizes that to the extent a crime is ascertainable at all amid Bragg’s legal muddying of the waters, it is emphatically one that warrants prosecution in federal court, not state court, ergo explaining the lack of transparency on his end. Given the fact that Bragg is so heavily relying on a federal prosecutor from Biden’s DOJ, Matthew Colangelo, to help him contrive a theory of criminal liability here, is all the more reason to believe that this matter belongs in federal court, not state court.
That being said, I discussed advantages for collaterally attacking this matter via an Article 78 proceeding rather than making a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. The first reason is that Article 78 proceedings might be easier: similar rules and legal principles would apply for both the criminal proceeding and Article 78 appeal. The second reason is that New York State Law, at least in theory, is even more protective of both President Trump’s speech rights and offers an even more rigorous standard for judicial ethics than what is observed by the ABA.
But the advantages to a state court proceeding should be placed alongside the advantages of a direct interlocutory appeal to federal court. These advantages may be described as follows: 1) even though state law is supposed to apply more generous speech protections, considering the current cast of characters in charge of New York’s law enforcement – from Hochul to James to Bragg to Merchan – it is improbable that President Trump’s state constitutional rights would be adequately protected. It would thus be incumbent upon federal actors, either judges or prosecutors, to apply New York law faithfully – or, in the alternative, use the federal standard to exonerate President Trump from the endless indignities of New York’s corrupted judicial system. 2) The second reason favoring federal appeal is that federal courts – and the Supreme Court, above all – has the greatest means to establish a national standard for the ongoing criminal (and potential other) proceedings against President Trump.
Now that Donald Trump is officially the presumptive Republican nominee, it would be much easier for the Supreme Court to simply issue a stay on all proceedings against him until after November 5th. That, the Highest Court of the Land has the power to do – and should do, if it truly cares about the rule of law, the protection of individual rights, and safeguarding the republic from nefarious and gratuitous political prosecutions, particularly during a hotly contested election year. An emergency interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court would be the best way to preserve our democracy from the subversive forces, acting at the behest of Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice, working actively to expel President Trump from the political arena. Granted, it may be a difficult feat to pull off, given all the time constraints and political hurdles, but President Trump’s attorneys should treat the persecution against him as a serious act of legal warfare, one that must be responded to in kind – using every tool in the arsenal – or risk defeat by our enemies, hellbent on bringing down the remaining morsels of the American republic for all time.
The post Alvin Bragg’s Legal Assault On President Trump Is Lawfare Of The Worst Kind: Strategizing A Legal Counterattack appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Apr 25, 2024 | Aggregate
Author Jeremy Carl joins Tucker Carlson
In his latest episode, Uncensored: Systemic Racism Against White Americans, Tucker Carlson asks, “There is systemic racism in the United States against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come?”
Jeremy Carl, author of The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart joined him to discuss the issue.
Tucker Carlson: If somehow you were able to be airlifted directly or teleported directly from 1994 to 2024, you’d notice an awful lot of changes. Primary among them would be the internet. But the biggest change you’d probably notice about our public conversation is how white people were so openly attacked and denigrated. Yes, a racial group. So in 1994, you were about 30 years past the civil rights movement. And in 1994, the operating assumption of virtually everyone in the United States was the main lesson of the civil rights movement. Of the letter from the Birmingham Jail on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and all the different sacred moments that we grew up hearing about.
The main lesson of those moments was it is immoral, in fact, unacceptable to attack people on the basis of their race.
So then, if you fast forward 30 years to find the same country engaged in a public hate frenzy against people because of their race, you would find that bewildering. How did this happen? Of course, there would be the discrimination, the institutional racism of hurting people on the basis of their race in hiring, in admissions to schools, in federal contracting, in promotions, there would be all of that.
But there would also be the public manifestation of it, of saying out loud, “We just don’t like you. You’re not as good. You are morally defective because of your skin color.” You say this about white people, people who founded the United States. You’d be shocked by that. And then to turn on the TV and see the President of the United States do the very same thing. You’d think maybe you’d been drinking ayahuasca. You’d see Joe Biden say things like this:
Biden Soundbites:” History has thrust one more urgent task on us. Will we be the generation that finally wipes out the stain of racism from our national character? We’ve all seen the injustice on the neck of Black Americans. Racism, nativism, fear, demonization, have long torn us apart.
“But a black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child. When you’re walking down the street, don’t have a hoodie on when you go across the street.”
“Domestic terrorism from white supremacists is the most lethal terrorist threat in the homeland.”
News Soundbite: If I were your daughter, what advice would you give me the next time I am stopped by the police?
Biden Soundbite: If you’re my daughter, you’d be a Caucasian girl and you wouldn’t be pulled over.
Carlson: White supremacy is the most lethal threat to the United States. White people are the threat. They are evil and they are dangerous. That’s not just a senile President making that one statement. That is the people in charge of the country reinforcing that statement and that theme every single day of the year, not just by their words, but with their deeds.
What is this? Why does no one mention it’s happening? Why does anyone who does mention it’s happening get attacked as a white supremacist for complaining about racism? And maybe more important, where does it go? Is there any other ending to the story but hurting people physically, lots of people? Could we have a resolution that doesn’t look like Rwanda? J
Jeremy Carl is an author who’s thought a lot about this. He’s got a brand new book called The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart.
He joins us now. Jeremy, thanks so much for coming on. It may be a an advantage or maybe disadvantage of being a little bit older that it’s this is like the one thing you never thought or I never thought you would see in America, which is our leaders openly attacking people on the basis of their race. Just 60 years after the civil rights movement that supposedly taught us the opposite lesson in the Civil Rights Act. So how did this happen, do you think?
Jeremy Carl: Well, it’s an interesting question, right. And I think you just hit on a key point, which is 60 years. We are as far now from the Civil Rights Act as they were basically from the Wright brothers. So there’s been a lot of time that’s kind of, a lot of water under the bridge since that time. And a lot of things have happened. And I think it was begun with very sincere intentions, but I think rather quickly, certainly, you know, 10, 20, 30 years down the line, it got really hijacked to the point that we went from trying to treat people equally to what has eventually amounted to reverse racism.
Carlson: Right? Or just I guess I would just call it racism, because it seems like the standard would remain the same. No matter the race of the person being discriminated against. You can’t attack people. You can’t punish people for the color of their skin for how they were born. So like that seems like a pretty easy principle to uphold, is pretty straightforward.
Carl: Well, I would agree with you, Tucker, but it’s, you know, nonetheless, we’re really seeing throughout, and this is what I really wrote the book about, throughout many different areas of endeavor, and whether that be when we’re looking at how, crime gets talked about to what’s going on in Hollywood, to the educational system and monuments coming down and everything you could imagine, kind of the white person is kind of the great enemy. It’s the, the kind of, the evil guy in 1984, the kind of two minutes of hate we have to have against him. The Emanuel Goldstein figure, kind of is the white person in particularly the Democratic Party’s discourse today.
Carlson: What’s interesting, though, is it typically when you see these moments of scapegoating, which are clearly, you know, kind of inherent to people, I mean, they pop up in every society at every time through history, like there’s something in people that wants to separate a small group and like, blame all its problems in that group. But it’s usually it’s the minority. Of course, you know, the persecuted minority, whites are still, for at least as of today, probably change soon, of course, but they are still the majority in the country. So like, have you ever seen anything like that happen?
Carl: You know, I haven’t Tucker. It’s it’s kind of amazing to watch because this is whites are still a 58% majority. It’s no longer a majority of the under 18, but of adults it’s still a solid majority. It’s a super majority of our voters, still, in every presidential election, although just barely in the last presidential election. And yet they’ve become this figure of hate. And it’s really been kind of fascinating and disturbing to watch and to kind of think about why that happened.
And one of the things I suggest in my book is that really, ultimately, this is a legitimizing ideology for ultimately resource transfer and resource confiscation. And that takes, the form of some of this reparations conversation or land back or some of these other things, and they sort of start out on the extreme left and everybody goes, oh, well, that’s silly. That’s never going to happen. And then all of a sudden, you know, it is happening and you’re a racist if you think it’s a bad idea.
Carlson: Yeah. I mean, of course it’s happened and it’s still happening in other countries. You know, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the whites were killed and their land was taken and their money stolen. And it’s happening in South Africa right now. Of course, we’re not supposed to look at it, but it is happening, actually. I wonder why people are, why the majority is putting up with it?
Carl: Well, that’s a good question, Tucker and I, I can’t even fully I don’t have the perfect answer for that myself. And ultimately, I one of the main reasons I wrote this book is because I don’t think the majority, I don’t think anybody should be putting up with it, regardless of race. I mean, we shouldn’t have, we shouldn’t be putting up with racial discrimination in our society in 2024.
But I think, you know, kind of white people, they’re almost it’s like a Stockholm syndrome, almost where they’re they’re like in a hostage mode in terms of some of the ways that they’re thinking where they they sort of are in love with their captors. And they’re not able to kind of accept what’s going on, and particularly on the left, it’s this sort of notion that, because we, of course, like every nation, have had an imperfect past, that white people have some hereditary blood guilt. And I think the balance of American history just shows that that’s a really myopic and childish way to look at our history in our country.
Carlson: Well, it’s demonstrably absurd if America is so racist, if systemic racism is such a barrier, then why are nonwhite people moving here by the millions. So obviously that’s silly, but it’s a little weird to say that, you know, you hate whites, but you need to live in a country founded by whites who systems are Anglo systems like that. I mean, maybe I’m being too logical here, but it doesn’t make any sense.
Carl: No, it doesn’t. And I mean it sort of. It points to some of the absurdity here. And you also touched that. Of course, people from all sorts of different backgrounds are clamoring at the door. We’re right now dealing with this, of course, with illegal immigration. And even if you look at some of these groups and again, something I discuss in the book, there are all sorts of nonwhite ethnicities in this country among immigrants and among citizens, in which, particularly among Asian American groups, but not exclusively. I mean, if you were to even look at Nigerian Americans, or particularly Igbo Americans, for example, they would have an average, higher, income than the average white American. And so this kind of notion that whites are sort of on the top is really a selective editing of any story, no matter how true that belies that or any statistics that belie that. It’s one of the reasons you actually see Asian Americans frequently eliminated from these comparison sets when they’re talked about, because it doesn’t tell the story that, the left wants to tell.
Watch the full interview:
Ep. 98 There is systemic racism in the United States, against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come? pic.twitter.com/hSrU9BPVb4
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 24, 2024
The post Tucker Carlson: There Is Systemic Racism in the U.S. – Against Whites! (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by | Apr 25, 2024 | Aggregate
Bryan Bedder/Getty Images
Hedge fund mogul Bill Ackman has publicly announced that he is considering voting for President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, has been vocal in his disgust of what is happening on college campuses across the county as students rally to support Hamas, a terrorist organization, particularly at Harvard University.
Ackman’s political views have been significantly shaped by his interactions on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, where he actively participates in discussions.
He credits these exchanges with providing him insights that are often overlooked by mainstream media.
During a conversation at the TED 2024 conference in Vancouver, Ackman spoke passionately about the importance of free speech and open debate. He highlighted the social media platform X, owned by tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, as a pivotal space where these values are upheld.
“I’m a big fan of X. I think it really is an open free speech platform,” Ackman said per QZ. “I’ve learned a lot, and it’s affected my views, my politics, my insights. And I think it’s one of the few places you can go and have a true free speech platform.”
On Wednesday, Ackman posted a blunt statement on X, saying, “For anyone who is still confused on the topic, I am not voting for Biden.”
For anyone who is still confused on the topic, I am not voting for Biden.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
A curious user on X asked Ackman, “First time not voting Democrat in your life? Have you ever voted Republican, Bill Ackman? For all of us confused folk.”
Ackman responded, confirming his past voting behavior: “Yes. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016.”
Yes. I voted for @realDonaldTrump in 2016.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
He added that he had switched his vote to Biden in the 2020 election.
Biden
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
When journalist Laura Loomer asked him when he is going to endorse President Trump, Ackman responded, “And yes, I am open to voting for Donald Trump.”
And yes, I am open to voting for @realDonaldTrump.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
He further noted that he prefers to keep his options open, saying, “I will share whom I am supporting when I make my decision closer to the election. I like to preserve optionality.”
I will share whom I am supporting when I make my decision closer to the election. I like to preserve optionality.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 25, 2024
The post Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager Bill Ackman Says He is Open to Voting for Trump in 2024 Presidential Election appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
