Would a Kamala Harris Presidency Be Better or Worse?

by Shawn Waugh for American Greatness

Joe Biden is as unpopular as any other United States president in the history of polling. A recent Monmouth poll had his overall job approval rating at 36 percent. On the flip side, his disapproval is at 58 percent. Biden’s approval has dropped by a whopping 15 points over the span of a year. 

A recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found that 71 percent of registered voters do not want Biden to run for reelection in 2024. 

These are atrocious numbers; hemorrhoids and paper straws would poll better.

Cracking Democrats

It is no secret on why the poll numbers are abysmal. Record high fuel prices, highest inflation in 40 years (and rising), supply chain debacle, a looming recession, and a foreign policy that has the Taliban and China’s President Xi elated. 

The unpopularity of the commander-in-chief seems to have the unity of the Democratic party collapsing. Anonymous Democratic lawmakers are beginning to sing like birds and throw poison laced vocal darts at one another. 

Some members of the Democratic party are starting to grumble. One anonymous Democrat on the Hill criticized the Biden Administration as “rudderless, aimless and hopeless.”

That’s a massive understatement!

Another democratic lawmaker said that “it’s almost like he’s (Biden) hiding. He has the bully pulpit, and he’s either hiding behind it or under it. I don’t know where he is.”

To be fair, Biden doesn’t seem to know where he is most of the time. 

Democrats who would like to keep their seats on Capitol Hill are certainly paying attention to the  administration’s dreadful position in the polls. Recently, Joe Biden has made stump speeches in both Georgia and Ohio. Stacey Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, and Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Ohio, both snubbed Biden, choosing not to appear, claiming they had “scheduling conflicts.”

Conflicts such as washing your car in the rain? I get it. I wouldn’t want to show up either. Biden is almost certain to embarrass himself by stuttering through the teleprompter and the chance of him actually pronouncing the candidate’s name correctly is about as good as the Oakland Athletics winning the World Series in 2022. 

November 2022 Red Wave

Do we expect a “Red Wave” in the midterms? Of course we do. I cannot help but remember that they also expect us to believe that Biden garnered 81 million votes. 

Millions of other Americans are not that gullible. 

While we do expect the GOP to take over the House and quite possibly the Senate, let us not be quick to forget about the myriad issues that arose during the 2020 election. 

Obscure water pipe leaks that didn’t really occur, spontaneously stopping the counting before midnight, hundreds of the thousands of one-sided ballots dropping at 4 a.m., and the remarkable percentage of acceptance of mail-in ballots when compared to previous elections were just a few of the “coincidences” that helped get a basement mannequin elected.  

It can all happen again. Anyone who raises concerns is a racist!

Is Biden Out?

It does appear that the DNC is starting to distance itself from Biden. No one is coming out with pom-poms declaring he will be the nominee in 2024. So far, that has only been Biden and Kamala Harris who boldly said, “Joe Biden is running for reelection, and I will be his ticket mate. Full stop.”

After a quick scolding from those who are actually running the White House, Harris retracted her statement and softened it up. 

With Biden’s advanced age (he’ll be 80 in November) and overt cognitive shortfalls, party officials have begun to murmur about whether he’s really up for a rigorous reelection campaign in 2024. And even if he could, his heinous poll numbers point to certain annihilation. Minus any chicanery, that is. 

Mark Leibovich wrote this about Biden in the far-left Atlantic, “Let me put this bluntly: Joe Biden should not run for re-election. He is too old.”

There are concerns that Biden may not be able to finish out the current term. He is increasingly having troubles with teleprompter reading, sleeping through meetings with world leaders, diction, walking, and has been seen attempting to shake hands with air. Sorry, but as one who practices medicine for a living, these are not signs of a lucid, vibrant, and spry individual.

It’s quite obvious what the alternative to Biden would be if he were to resign or the 25th Amendment is somehow invoked. 

President Kamala Harris

If Biden does not complete the full term in office and the 25th Amendment is invoked, we all know who ascends to the office.

We all also cringe at the thought of cackling Kamala leading the United States. She polled at less than 1 percent during her presidential run during the primary season of the 2020 election. She tanked in her own state of California and barely outlasted a life cycle of CNN+. 

Her popularity as vice president has mingled in the sewer along with her boss. She has consistently had an approval rating in the 30s. Current polling numbers have her approval at 38 percent and disapproval at 53 percent.

What would a Kamala Harris Administration look like? If you ask this question in public many would look at you cross-eyed, dismiss it altogether, or give a defensive Harris cackle because they simply do not know the answer.

But it is a serious question that many have dreadfully pondered.

The Lesser of Two Evils?

Conventional wisdom on the Right is that Harris would be worse than Biden in the White House. I argue that she wouldn’t be better or worse. 

Even though Biden sits in the Oval Office, he is clearly not calling the shots. If Harris were catapulted into the position, nothing would change. It was the intention of the ticket from the outset. 

Those pulling the puppet strings pushed to run a decrepit old man with cognitive incontinence. His running mate would have to meet the progressive criteria of a black female. Both would have to be equally imbecilic so they could be controlled by those behind the scenes. 

You couldn’t have synthetically produced a better match! 

Harris Has a Track Record

Harris was given the task of being the “border czar.” She has essentially done nothing with this as illegal immigrants cross the border in record numbers month after month. She still hasn’t been to any portion of the border that is significant. I’m sorry but El Paso doesn’t count, as we have a major military base (Fort Bliss) located there and this just isn’t an area where the cartels are bringing their clients. 

She hasn’t hosted an immigration event in 10 months. She is either not interested in the job or she is just not good at leading. In either case, the fortitude required for a real presidency is not present. 

But the puppeteers, whoever they may be, do not care. They would control a President Kamala Harris in the same way they have controlled Biden. 

The plan would be to keep her away from the media as much as possible, provide handwritten explanations on what to do in every situation, make the teleprompter her best friend, and blame Vladimir Putin for everything that has been and will be disastrous moving forward. 

In the end, President Harris would be as detrimental as President Biden. 

Because it isn’t the president or vice president calling the shots. 

X22, And we Know, and more- July 11

 

Small news bit: 

Usually OG NCIS and LA start filming around the same time. Except I don't know if the cast has returned from their vacations yet, so it might be another week before LA starts. (Stay tuned).

Here's tonight's news:

Our New Antoinettes ~ VDH

These humanitarian rich feel just terrible about the

 sins of America, but not terrible enough to sacrifice 

any element of their privileged lifestyles—

the just deserts they feel for being so righteous.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Marie Antoinette, the beheaded wife of the beheaded French Bourbon King Charles Louis XVI, did not really say “Let them cake.” 

But in the short time that the French Revolution became utterly unhinged, toxic, and nihilistic, she became nonetheless iconic as an out-of-touch elite who had lived in a make-believe world at Versailles, without a clue (or care?) about the ordeal of the masses. 

Rather than worry about the drudgery of the French peasant, Marie dressed up as one. And she roamed about in her idyllic faux peasant “farm” at the Hameau de la Reine, near the palace at Versailles. 

Apparently, during these brief rustic interludes, Marie felt that the more she might act out a sort of aristocratic peasant life, the more she could find simplicity and escape the drama of court life, but without the real-life, crushing poverty of the poor. 

The modern left-wing elite are becoming our version of Antoinettes. Thirty-eight-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is worth over $60 billion. But he enjoys T-shirts, jeans, and apparent simplicity in his many landed estates. He is so worried about the wrong voting tendencies of the clueless middle classes that he poured nearly $420 million of dark money from his vast fortune into the 2020 election—de facto absorbing the work of key precinct registrars—to ensure the “right” result for the unthinking multitudes. 

Americans, almost uniquely among modern nations, mostly do not envy, much less despise the rich. But there is a certain sort of privilege that they do not like: the sanctimonious and hypercritical rich whose rhetoric is at odds with their own lifestyles and the methods by which they inherited or made vast sums. And they especially are turned off by those who exude open disdain for the clinger/deplorable/dregs class—to paraphrase the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden nomenclature. 

An especially grating habit of the left-wing wealthy is to lecture the middle class on their supposed illiberality. Often, those struggling are told they need to pay more for what White House economic advisor Brian Deese recently called the “liberal world order.” 

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or George Soros, to take a few examples, are multibillionaires who live lives unlike any in the history of civilization. They also fund various agendas through multibillion-dollar foundations and their own personal riches. 

Their causes are all deemed critical to the nation and planet, but unfortunately not fully appreciated as so vital by the peasant classes—whether they be global governance, massive restructuring of the economy to stop carbon releases, radical abortion on demand, or the sponsoring of critical legal theory prosecutors who feel crime is but a rich man’s construct. 

Indeed, when various pollsters recently asked the public what their chief worries were, they found the culprits were the prohibitive price of gasoline, the ruinous effects of hyperinflation, supply chain shortages, the nonexistent southern border, or the escalating violent crime wave—all of which concerns are of apparent little interest to left-wing billionaires. 

In other words, the worries of the Antoinette liberal elite—climate change, abortion on demand, transgenderism, strict gun-control—are not those that terrify the middle and lower classes. The latter, for some reason, first want to survive one more day with enough affordable food and energy and to be safe from criminals. 

Why Democrats are currently unpopular transcends even Joe Biden’s daily, dangerous, and tragic loss of cognition. Their low ratings arise more from the implementation of an array of disastrous policies dreamed up at left-wing university departments and think tanks. 

As a result, voters have concluded that the Left “just doesn’t care.” 

By that, they conclude that the drivers of modern hard progressivism—the billionaire donor class, the highly compensated professional bicoastal elites, the ideologues who have captured and transformed the old Democratic Party—ignore criticism of their policies. Or they claim that their disasters are unappreciated benefits, or mere PR problems, or shift blame to the Russians, the Emmanuel-Goldstein Trump, the toadish media, or the victims of their disastrous policies. 

The border is overrun by illegal aliens. Lethal drugs, cartels, gangs, and child traffickers enter at will without consequences. American towns and cities are being swamped by hundreds of thousands of unlawful border crossers. In response to public outcries, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas either ignores the anguished or falsely claims that the border is “secure.” Translated that means Americans either are racists or should get over the fossilized idea of a border itself.  

Gasoline is at all-time highs. Joe Biden tells the public “Putin did it”—although prices soared well before the Ukraine War. Translated, that means the spiral to nearly $5 a gallon in California by February 2022—before Putin invaded Ukraine—was “cheap” compared to the current $6.70 a gallon. 

When Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was asked whether she might take measures to ease the fuel burden on American commuters, she laughed and thought it “hilarious” that she either could or would consider such action. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) scoffed that clueless gas-guzzling motorists should buy a Tesla (base price for a low-end Model 3: $46,990) like she drives and so skip the greedy service stations. 

Biden will not reconsider pipelines, new federal leases, or his green demonization of fracking. But he will drain the strategic petroleum reserve on four apparent Orwellian principles:

• Oil pumped into an underground vault and then pumped back out does not exude the stigma of pristine oil pumped first out of the ground.
• Motorists would be encouraged by cheaper prices to drive more and thus consume more of the dirty fuel that Biden wishes to restrict.
• The oil pumped out of the reserve to cushion Americans in times of national emergencies can be sent into the global market and thus end up in the hands of our de facto enemies, the communist Chinese.
• Biden looks to the reserve, the Russians, the Saudis, the Venezuelans, and the Iranians to pump more of the awful fuel that America has in abundance, needs desperately—and should not dare extract.

Commercial air travel is in near shambles. Shortages of everything from baby formula to tampons are making America seem akin to the old Soviet Union. For Biden’s cabinet, this disaster is called “transitioning” to a better green future.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg presumably oversees our nearly ruined commercial air travel system, ports where cargo ships are backed up to the horizon, and gas and diesel prices that are impoverishing the middle classes. In response, when he is not on paternity leave, Buttigieg brags that he rides a bike, and lectures Americans on the racist origins of their once modern but now ossified freeway system.

Why does the party of caring and good ole Joe Biden from Scranton seem so indifferent? Why is the Left so callous to the consequences of Biden’s self-created high inflationary, unaffordable gas-and-food presidency and what it has done to the middle class? 

The answer is not just that the Democratic leadership or the progressive elite are smugly “rich.” Rather, the problem is that they are “Antoinette rich.” 

That is, they have lost any empathy for those who endure firsthand the consequences of the elites’ ideological rigidity. So, this is not the Democratic Party of Harry Truman or even of Bill Clinton. 

Hunter Biden, without any apparent income, is renting a $20,000 a month Malibu mansion, necessitating that the Secret Service rent a nearby $30,000 a month mansion to watch over this 50-something trainwreck of an adult. The elite know that Hunter’s prior income came from quid pro quo shakedowns of foreign governments, that he failed to pay taxes in a manner that would earn any other American a jail sentence, and that he is exempt from investigation. 

Americans are not supposed to even mention the truth: the president’s son was enriched, deeply leveraged by the Chinese, and so, too, by association was the president himself. And such “collusion” may explain the Biden Administration’s inexplicable tolerance for Chinese aggression. 

Multimillionaire Governor Gavin Newsom lectured Californians on why they must wear masks and avoid social gatherings even as he declined to do so while enjoying a birthday party at the pricey French Laundry restaurant in Napa. He was captured on camera, maskless again, and in the company of the celebrity Magic Johnson while the state mask mandate remained in place. 

Now Newsom preens that California won’t pay for its state employees to travel to supposedly backward, homophobic Montana for business trips. But Newsom has no problem dragging his costly state security detail to his in-laws’ tony Montana ranch. 

From time to time, Michelle and Barack Obama pontificate to Americans about their racist, sexist, and homophobic pathologies—but always from their Washington, D.C. Kalorama digs or their Martha’s Vineyard chateau, or now from their new, third mansion on Oahu. 

How strange that the more millions of dollars the Obamas earn, the more castles they acquire, so all the louder they hector the struggling middle classes. Most apparently illiberal Americans can hardly afford to fill their 250-gallon propane tank; the Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard estate tanks require 2,500-gallons of dreadful carbon polluting fuel. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi castigates the illiberality of the deplorable classes. During the lockdowns that she championed, however, she got caught maskless violating quarantines—to get her hair done. 

Pelosi also released a clueless Antoinette video of herself boasting about her just delivered $13 a pint ice-cream, stocked up in her twin $23,000 sub-zero refrigerators in her Napa estate. Her multimillionaire husband, Paul, recently wrecked his new Porsche (a carbon guzzler) while driving under the influence. 

Americans are reaching the point where they either cannot afford vacations at all or are terrified of flying only to be left stranded in the now inert airport archipelago. No matter. The woke Pelosis this week are guests of superstar Andrea Bocelli at his Tuscan beach estate. 

No one begrudges the elite Left their riches or their frolics. But they do resent the talk-down and accusatory sermons that come with them and the hypocrisy that fuels them. 

This list of Democratic “men and women of the people” who are detached from the people could be endlessly expanded but the size of it explains why they seem tone deaf to the struggles of others they never wish to see or hear. Their exalted status reflects the new globalized wealth of the United States that is found most often in high-tech, media, entertainment, professional sports, finance, investment, law, universities, and insurance—and is mostly left-wing. 

The new zillions are quite unlike the old, fossilized money in timber, mining, agriculture, oil, construction, and manufacturing that was grounded in grubbier realities and without the high-altitude sermonizing. Whether one calculates elite blue money by ZIP code, congressional district, or counties, the result is the same: the Democratic Party is run by billionaires and is the sanctimonious party of highly compensated bicoastal professionals. 

Both have agendas that transcend the middle class and reflect the reality that they care little for those who cannot match their wealth and tastes. The “crazies” and “clingers” lack the elite’s supposed empathy, superior talent, and wisdom. More bothersome, our left-wing elite has the means to ensure that it is never subject to the disasters that naturally follow from its own ideological bankruptcy. 

In other words, the left-wing has a problem. These humanitarian rich feel just terrible about the sins of America, but not terrible enough to sacrifice any element of their privileged lifestyles—the just deserts they feel for being so righteous. To square that circle, of indulgence for their rich selves, and sacrifice for poorer others, they hector and preach—and thereby find medieval penance and indulgence that excuses their own spectacular levels of illiberal consumption. 

To the bread-poor masses, the irredeemables, the chumps, and the “right-wing Latinas” they don’t quite say: “Let them eat cake.”

Instead, as they jet about on private planes, free of their own bothersome quarantines, edicts, and masks, while acquiring additional, carbon-gulping, seashore estates, they let their guard down with cries of, “Let them drive Teslas,” “Wear a mask!” and “Transition to a greener future!”

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Unfortunately, (a) she’s not talking about energy or oil production/supply; and (b) she believes it.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, a comprehensively incompetent and unqualified person selected to run the commerce department, blames, without hesitation, a “fundamental lack of supply” for the cause of U.S. inflation [04:38].  She’s not pretending, Raimondo genuinely believes this.

I have struggled with the question of whether it’s incompetence or intentional ideology that drives some of these cabinet members to say stupid stuff.  In the case of Commerce Secretary Raimondo, it is clearly incompetence.  In order to believe that a lack of supply is driving inflation; which is not coincidentally the same demand-cause opinion held by the federal reserve; a person has to ignore the dozens of key economic indicators that show consumer demand has contracted, inventories are climbing, and orders to manufacturers have dropped.

Even Samsung, one of the largest producers of electronics sold in the United States, has told all their suppliers to stop sending the component goods used to manufacture their products because orders for finished goods have plummeted.  Hell, consider this…. THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, yes, that’s right, the Department that Raimondo is in charge of, has collected the data showing RETAIL SALES have DROPPED.  Yet here she is blaming a lack of supply for inflation.  WATCH:

It is not a lack of supply driving supply side and producer inflation. It is the massive increase in material, processing and transportation costs associated with Biden’s energy policy that are impacting supply-side inflation.   Demand has contracted, inventories are climbing, manager orders have plummeted, and consumers are squeezed.  Yet this knucklehead thinks recession is unlikely.

Gina Raimondo was also on Meet The Press, with another knucklehead, Chuck Todd.

Michael Moore Writes Totalitarian '28th Amendment' That Would Take Away Americans' Gun Rights

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Welp, it’s been a minute since we’ve heard from this guy. And by this guy, I mean the self-aggrandizing, irrelevant independent filmmaker and attention w***e extraordinaire, Michael Moore, who for some delusional reason continues to believe he’s a super-respected, far-left influencer. Hell, maybe he is.

Either way, Moore’s back with another radical leftist idea — one of his “best” efforts in a while.

As the left continues its meltdown in the aftermath of several mass shootings and a couple of Second Amendment rights decisions by the Supreme Court, Moore has taken it upon himself to write his version of a 28th Amendment — there are currently 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — which if passed by Congress would do away with the Second Amendment and the rights it preserves and instead, put in place massive federal confiscation of legally-purchased firearms owned by law-abiding gun owners.

Nope, nothing totalitarian police state about any of this, at all.

Moore’s proposed 28th Amendment, which he laughably signed, “The above constitutional amendment was written by Michael Moore of Michigan and presented to the 117th United States Congress on July 11, 2022,” reads like something out of Vladimir Putin’s Russia (or that “WW II guy” Democrats love to equate with Donald Trump), from beginning to end. Let’s check out a few excerpts:

XXVIII AMENDMENT

SECTION 1.
The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.

SECTION 2.
Congress shall create a mandatory system of firearm registration and licensing for the following limited purposes: (a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for the sport of target shooting; and (c) for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.

All who seek a firearm will undergo a strict vetting process with a thorough background check, including the written and confidential approval of family members, spouses and ex-spouses and/or partners and ex-partners, co-workers and neighbors. A mental health check will also be required. There will be a waiting period of one month to complete the full background check.

SECTION 3.
Those who meet all the requirements for the restricted gun owners groups and successfully pass the background check must take a firearms safety class and pass a written test on an annual basis.

Coupla questions, Mikey. (Most Mikes and Michaels loathe “Mikey.” Long story, but trust me, here.)

“The right of people to be kept safe from gun violence.” By whom? With self-defense all but made unconstitutional by your silly amendment proposal, you’re suggesting that more than 300 million Americans should rely only on police officers — the very people your equally silly comrades want to “defund”?

And hunters and recreational firearms enthusiasts must receive approval from not only family members and ex-family members, but from co-workers and neighbors, as well? Dude, have you even read the U.S. Constitution and/or any of its amendments? I highly doubt it.

Ah, but there’s more. A few “highlights”:

SECTION 5.
Congress will stipulate and continually update the limited list of approved firearms for civilian use, including weapons in the future that are not yet invented. The following firearms are heretofore banned:

• All automatic and semi-automatic weapons and all devices which can enable a single-shot gun to fire automatically or semi-automatically;

• Any weapon that can hold more than six bullets or rounds at a time or any magazine that holds more than six bullets;

• All guns made of plastic or any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life.

SECTION 6.
Congress shall regulate all ammunition, capacity of ammunition, the storage of guns, gun locks, gun sights, body armor and the sale and distribution of such items. No weapons of any kind whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life are considered legal. Congress may create future restrictions as this amendment specifically does not grant any American the “right” to own any weapon.

Maybe it’s just me, but I love it when the gun-grabbers refer to ammunition as “bullets.” “Rounds” or “shells” is fine, but “bullets” always sound a bit too Barney Fife in my mind.

Anyway, Moore’s clairvoyance as to “any kind (of weapon) whose [sic] sole intention is the premeditated (wait — now guns can think?) elimination of human life are considered illegal,” is ominously hilarious, as is this line: “Congress may create future restrictions as this amendment specifically does not grant any American the ‘right’ to own any weapon.”

Nebulous as hell, right? Of course, it is — on purpose — because it would give the federal government the legal right to change the rules on the fly.

Finally, Section 8:

Persons already owning any of the above banned firearms, and who do not fall into the legal groups of restricted firearms owners, will have one month from the ratification of this Amendment to turn in their firearms for destruction by local law enforcement. These local authorities may organize a gun buy-back program to assist in this effort.

Good luck with that, Michael.

While it’s virtually impossible to determine the number of legally-owned guns in America, according to American Gun Facts, earlier this year, more than 81 million private American citizens legally own in excess of 393 million firearms.

Moreover, estimates of legally-owned AR-15-type rifles (AKA: “assault rifles,” “weapons of war,” “really scary-looking guns only owned by white supremacists and other lunatics,” etc.) range from a low of 5 million to well beyond 20 million.

Yep, Michael, good luck with that.

J6 Committee Members Founder Badly When Asked About 'Corroboration' for Cassidy Hutchinson Claim

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

We’ve been waiting on the members of the Jan. 6 Committee to provide any corroboration at all for the inflammatory testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson that President Donald Trump supposedly tried to grab the wheel of The Beast and lunged toward a Secret Service agent. She didn’t view this; she was just relating what she claimed she overheard from a Secret Service agent (Tony Ornato), so it started off being a questionable story.

The testimony was immediately called into question, with reports indicating that the Secret Service agents who she referred to would dispute the claim that Trump either grabbed the wheel or lunged at the agent. The Secret Service also indicated the agents would be available to testify to the Committee again to respond to these claims.

Ornato wasn’t in the car, but Engel and the driver were, and are still denying it, according to sources.

Both Ornato and Engel, who remain active Secret Service agents, have said they are willing to testify under oath to dispute Hutchinson’s narrative, even as they have refused to speak publicly about it. The unnamed driver, the agency has signaled, is also denying her account.

“Ornato is a red herring,” the source said, noting that he was in his office at the time and not at the rally.

“There are three people in that vehicle: Bobby Engel, President Trump and the limo driver,” the source said, and both agents are “saying that did not happen.”

Trump has also said that it didn’t happen.

It’s not clear if the Committee has called the agents back to testify again.

From Hot Air:

In fact, the committee has gotten rather quiet about their due diligence on vetting this story before putting it on national television:

The Jan. 6 Committee Tuesday did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital asking if it has attempted to speak to Ornato or Engel since the hearing. It also did not respond to questions on if it reached out to the Secret Service to verify the allegations, if there may be further subpoenas related to Hutchinson’s claims, or if it’s taken any other actions to verify what she said.

USSS spokesperson Anthony Gugliemi said the agency does not have any information to share when asked if the committee has taken further steps to verify Hutchinson’s claims.

Gugliemi said that the Committee had not reached out to them over the 10 days before Hutchinson’s latest testimony, indicating that the Committee hadn’t reached out to them to corroborate the claim before putting her on before the world.

Committee members Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) appeared on shows on Sunday.

Lofgren told CNN’s “State of the Union” that they didn’t ask witnesses to corroborate other witnesses.

A member of the Jan. 6 committee indicated former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was not directly asked to corroborate or respond to Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that he had advised former President Donald Trump against going to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said on Sunday that Capitol riot investigators do not call witnesses to “corroborate other witnesses” but stressed that Cipollone provided testimony that “does not dispute” what Hutchinson told the committee.

Then Kinzinger was on ABC with George Stephanopoulos. But Stephanopoulos made the point that they didn’t ask Cipollone to corroborate the specifics of Hutchinson’s testimony.

It’s been reported that the committee didn’t ask Mr. Cipollone to corroborate the specifics of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. What’s the reasoning behind that?

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Well, look, we — it was an eight-hour interview. We went through a lot of stuff. And as Zoe said, he did not contradict anybody.

Look, we’re not — first off, we’re not going to bring somebody in and just sit around and ask them about what other people said, too. We’re getting their information, their front, position. And I think it’s very clear, you’ll see over the next couple of hearings a little of what he said. Certainly you’ll see a lot of that in the report. But at no point was there any contradiction of — of what anybody said. But the rest I’ll have to leave to the presentation for the — for the committee.

If you don’t ask him the question then yes, you’re likely not to get a contradiction. But I’m not sure what they thought this proves any way, even if this part of what she said was true. He, of course, wouldn’t know anything about her other testimony about what happened in the car, since he wasn’t there; he’s not repeating things he didn’t see, like her.

These are the word games the Committee is trying to play with us, and they still haven’t put anything forward to support the Hutchinson claims about what happened in the car. But in terms of what they’re saying about not having witnesses corroborate other witnesses, Kinzinger had no problem attacking Tony Ornato and calling him a liar. So, they are certainly willing to attack their witnesses if they think they aren’t serving their narrative.

The “Pop Rocks Killed Mikey” of Abortion Stories

The Disinformation is coming from inside the White House.

posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

If you’re my age or thereabouts, you probably remember that 1970s urban legend about how Mikey from the Life cereal commercials succumbed after ingesting a deadly combination of Pop Rocks and soda.

If you’re nowhere near my age, you may not have heard of it at all, so permit me to recap.

Pop Rocks was a candy that crackled when you put it in your mouth. And sometime during the 1970s, a rumor started spreading that the cute little boy, Mikey from the Life cereal commercials ate pop rocks and then drank a soda, and the combination was so toxic that his stomach exploded and he died.

Yeah. It never happened.

But you know how urban legends go.

The “Pop Rocks Killed Mikey” story spread like wildfire.

The rumor grew so prevalent that in 1979, General Foods was forced to run full-page ads in dozens of major publications letting consumers know that the Pop Rocks/soda combo was totally safe.

Imagine if, from the podium at the White House, then-President Jimmy Carter had brought up the tragic story of how Pop Rocks killed Mikey as a way to drive home a point on a particular issue Carter was flogging.

That’s what happened on Friday from the Biden White House.

In his address before signing executive orders on abortion, Old Joe brought up the current urban legend promoted by our garbage news media that a ten-year-old girl in Ohio was raped and impregnated and had to travel to Indiana to get an abortion.

There is no evidence that this girl even exists. None.

Even the Democrat-supportive fact-checking outlet Snopes couldn’t independently corroborate the tall tale.

The story was unquestioningly reported in major news outlets, none of whom appeared to take the time to find out if the story was remotely true.

The single “source” of this raped, pregnant 10-year-old urban legend is a virulent pro-abortion activist. That’s it. No corroborating sources, nothing.

It is the “Pop Rocks Killed Mikey” of Abortion stories.

The urban legend began to unravel after PJ Media writer Megan Fox did what every other reporter is supposed to do and dug into the claims.

In a Twitter thread on Wednesday, Fox dissected the story and its source and tracked how this urban legend spread, not through high schools like the “Pop Rocks Killed Mikey” rumor, but in major news outlets. She then recapped her thread in a column at PJ Media.

The fact that this uncorroborated “reporting” made it into every major American news outlet (and some overseas) without a single reporter doing even basic fact-checking says a lot about the state of our so-called “free press.”

But the fact that the President of the United States promoted this unsubstantiated story from the White House says a great deal more about this administration.

Admittedly, the story got even more outlandish in Biden’s telling of it. The ten-year-old didn’t travel to Indiana to terminate a pregnancy. In Joe’s telling, she traveled to Indiana to “terminate the presidency.”

Yeah, really.

To this White House, it doesn’t matter if the ten-year-old even exists. The story supports the narrative, and that’s all that matters.

It’s like the “Ghost of Kyiv” tall tale out of Ukraine.

Footage showing the mythical ace fighter pilot shooting Russian jets from the sky turned out to be footage from a video game.

Propaganda is as much a part of war as trench foot, shortages, and the clap.

And for the Democrat Party and their handmaids in the media, the overturning of Roe v. Wade means war.

Abortion is the hill they will die on. They will never surrender. So they will use every weapon in their arsenal, including fomenting violence against conservative justices, ramming through executive orders to defy a Supreme Court ruling, undermining the sovereignty of the states, and lying through their teeth.

In the service of abortion, a made-up story about a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana to terminate the presidency pregnancy is useful. The truth of the story matters about as much as a June bug in July.

So too is the dishonest claim that some states make treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies illegal.

By the way, Biden used that lie in his stupid speech as well:

This is the same administration that claims “disinformation” is a “threat” to “our democracy.”

And yet there’s President Puddin’ Brain peddling disinformation from the White House podium that was written ahead of time by members of the White House staff.

As Jesse Kelly said of that clip, “Biden is rapidly approaching overtaking Obama as the most vile piece of trash who ever occupied the White House.”

The Pop Rocks Killed Mikey story was silly. It makes for a fun trivia item. But ultimately, it was harmless.

But the lies the pro-abortionists are willing to peddle could cause actual harm.

If any woman is afraid to seek treatment after a miscarriage or for an ectopic pregnancy, it will be because these hideous liars made her afraid, all in service of their creepy religion’s sacred abortion rite.