Trump, For a Limited Time Only

It’s hard to know what to make of Trump’s entry into the world of NFTs. But his commitment to free speech and limiting the activities of deep state censorship should be applauded.

by Roger Kimball for American Greatness

So, Donald Trump had a major announcement on Thursday. It had nothing to do with digital playing cards, about which too little cannot be said. “These limited edition cards,” Trump wrote on his Twitter alternative Truth Social, “feature amazing ART of my Life & Career! Collect all of your favorite Trump Digital Trading Cards, very much like a baseball card, but hopefully much more exciting. Go to collecttrumpcards.com & GET YOUR CARDS NOW! Only $99 each!” Ever helpful, the former president suggested that they “Would make a great Christmas gift. Don’t Wait. They will be gone, I believe, very quickly!” 

Our experts are divided about the first claim but it turns out that the concluding boast was accurate. I am told that the consignment of 45,000 digital cards (minus a reserve of 1,000 tokens) sold out in a matter of 12 hours. I was told that there would be no math, but if each of those NFTs went for $99, that would have yielded nearly $4.5 million. Apparently, the novelty token quickly lost value—a phenomenon not unknown in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency—but as of Friday afternoon the lot was still valued at more than $500,000. 

No, I do not understand it either. The announcement, as the Wall Street Journal noted, sparked widespread ridicule, even among some of Trump’s allies. I am going to draw a veil over this lucrative prank—if it was a prank—simply noting two things. First, most people could not have done what Trump did: that is, they could have said they had a “major announcement” on social media and then revealed that they were selling digital trading cards. But there would have been this difference: no one would have paid the announcement any heed, nor would they have plopped down $100 for images of you dressed as a superhero, smiling on a golf cart, etc. It is part of Trump’s genius that he could do it and rake in more than $4 million in 12 hours.

Second, I have to conclude that the timing of the announcement was significant. Hours later, Trump delivered a sober, thoughtful speech about the importance of free speech, outlining some of the initiatives he would take to protect it if (when?) he assumes office again. Was the contrast between playful braggart and thoughtful maven deliberate? If so, what was Trump getting at? I don’t know the answer to this last question. But I suspect that the answer to the former is “Yes.”

Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of Twitter has led to his appalling discovery that, as usual, things were much worse than we had been led to believe. They were worse in at least two senses: First, Twitter was far more systematic in its imposition of woke identity politics on the communication at the site. Second, Twitter had been systematically infiltrated by government intel entities from the FBI and CIA on down. Indeed, Tucker Carlson wondered whether Twitter had morphed into a platform whose primary business was surveilling the American people and suppressing opinions and news that went counter to the establishment narrative.

Whatever one thinks of Trump’s digital cards, it is hard not to admire his stalwart defense of free speech and commitment to rooting out corrupt government and business efforts to impose a woke agenda of identity politics on the marketplace of ideas. 

He set forth a multipart “Bill of Rights” to make Elon Musk’s renovation of Twitter a national enterprise. On his first day in office, Trump said, he would sign an executive order “to ban federal agencies from colluding with any entity to censor or categorize the lawful speech of American citizens.” Among other things, he would ban the use of federal money to label speech “mis-“ or “disinformation.” He would fire every federal bureaucrat who “has engaged in domestic censorship activity,” he would revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which insulates entities like Twitter and Facebook from liability for engaging in censorship, and “impose a seven-year cooling-off period before employees of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS, or DOD can work at tech platforms possessing vast quantities of U.S. user data.” 

Trump put it with his characteristic bluntness, but he is right: “In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of deep state bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people. They have collaborated to suppress vital information on everything from elections to public health.”

As I say, I do not know what to make of Trump’s entry into the world of NFTs. But his commitment to free speech and limiting the activities of deep state censorship are to be applauded. “The fight for free speech,” he noted, “is a matter of victory or death for America—and for the survival of Western Civilization itself. . . . By restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.”

Is Donald Trump the best ambassador for these initiatives? I do not know. But he is clearly one of the most passionate and forthright. Nevertheless, all the smart, credentialed people are in the process of writing off The Donald. 

X22, And we Know, and more- December 18

1 week until Christmas. Here's tonight's news:

Nice display of Satanism: There has been a big increase in killing unborn babies in TV this year

 

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/12/18/tv-abortion-plotlines-skyrocket-as-hollywood-doubles-down-on-roe-v-wade-outrage/

Hollywood put more abortion plotlines in its TV shows in 2022 than in any of the past five years, as the studios and networks ratcheted up the outrage machine following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.

There were at least 60 abortion plotlines or mentions of abortion in 52 distinct TV shows from January to December 2022 — more than any other year since 2016, according to the annual “Abortion Onscreen” report from the pro-abortion organization Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health.

That outnumbers the 47 abortion plotlines in 42 shows in 2021, the report said. A third of abortion plotlines on TV portrayed barriers to access, compared to only two in 2021.

Shows that featured abortion this year include ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy, NBC’s New Amsterdam, NBC’s Law & Order, MTV’s Teen Mom, Netflix’s The Hookup Plan, and Starz’s P-Valley.

Even the variety comedy series Saturday Night Live featured then-cast member Cecily Strong sharing the story of her own abortion — dressed up as a clown in an attempt to wring some laughs out of the grisly, life-terminating procedure.

As Breitbart News reported, New Amsterdam filmed an over-the-top somber montage for a November episode mourning the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.

The “Abortion Onscreen” report noted that wealthy white women made up the majority of characters who get abortions on TV.  In reality, the report stated, the majority of people who have abortions in the U.S. are minority women.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, the country has seen 10,000 fewer abortions as of the end of October, according to a Five Thirty-Eight report.

The Hollywood entertainment industry is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. (well duuuh, that's been obvious for a very long time!)

As Breitbart News reported, several studios including Netflix, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery have vowed to pay travel expenses for employees looking to get abortions. As some commentators have noted, paying for an employee’s abortion is cheaper for a corporation than the costs and lost productivity associated with maternity leave.

Creative Historical Interpretations Are Not History

posted by Jack Bovee at American Thinker

The dominating narrative in American schools and the popular culture today is that slavery began in America in 1619.  Unfortunately, there is about as much truth in that scenario as there was in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” media crusade in August 2014.  Nikole Hannah-Jones and her Critical Race Theory comrades prove beyond doubt the accuracy of Arthur Schlesinger’s maxim that “history is a weapon.”  They distort the historical narrative by omitting key facts that, if told, would present an entirely different view of the past.

There seems to be a general consensus, regarding the arrival of African slaves at Jamestown in 1619. They were first captured in Angola, and sold to Portuguese slavers based in Luanda. While in transport towards Mexico, two English corsairs flying a Dutch flag captured this Portuguese ship in the Gulf and removed some of the slaves, who were then brought to Jamestown, which was in desperate need of laborers. Here, “some twenty odd” Africans were exchanged for “victuals.”

Then, the historical concurrence stops.  Hannah-Jones argues that all the Africans were reduced to slavery, while others argue that they were given the same status as White contracted laborers. Some argue that the word “servant” and not “slave” was used in Virginia’s first census of 1620. What complicates matters is that indentured servants sometimes referred to themselves as slaves.

The status of the Africans is also unclear because after the 1625 census we lost sight of them.  In putting forth the claim that those Africans who arrived in 1619 were life-long slaves it’s necessary to generalize events and omit key facts. For example, in 2011 Barack Obama signed a proclamation at the landing site, which read:

The first enslaved Africans in England’s colonies in America were brought to this peninsula on a ship flying the Dutch flag in 1619, beginning a long ignoble period of slavery in the colonies and, later, this Nation.

Unfortunately, that’s not the entire story. The words probably, may, and likely, are freely used to support the argument that the enslavement of Africans in colonial America began in 1619.  The Africans were indeed slaves when they arrived in Virginia, and they undoubtedly would have continued to remainslaves had they reached their intended destination in Mexico.  What the historical record in Virginia does show is that the small group of Africans was repeatedly referred to as “servants” in the annual censuses of 1620, 1624, and 1625.  Moreover, several of them appear later as free persons.  For this to happen, they undoubtedly had to have been accorded the status of their White equals (indentured servants).  Anthony  Johnson — one of the earliest Africans to arrive — began his life in Virginia as an indentured servant who gained his freedom and eventually became the owner of 250 acres of land through the headright system. His African wife, Mary, arrived in Virginia around 1622 or 1623 and was reported as living with Anthony in 1625.  They were both free before 1645 and “became comparatively prosperous landowners” on Virginia’s eastern shore.  In February 1653, Johnson’s home and some outbuildings were consumed by fire and he received public assistance from the colony because of his “hard labor and known service.” There’s more:

Two years later, when he and his family had again attained a modicum of prosperity, he successfully sued a prominent planter who he accused of illegally confiscating some of his livestock. Then in 1654, an incident took place that proved that Johnson, a black man, not only owned another member of his race, but was able to keep him in bondage for the rest of his life. The man in question was a ‘Negro called John Casor,’ who convinced a white neighbor that he was an indentured servant who should have been freed at the expiration of his tenure. Believing Casor, the man took him home to work in his own tobacco fields . . . In the end, the justices decided that Casor ‘shall forthwith be returned unto the service of his master Anthony Johnson.’

It’s ironic that this civil suit, which is cited as the first example of an enslaved African, had an African master.  The life of John Pedro provides another example: in 1625, John was listed in the household of Francis West, but was a free landowner in Lancaster, Virginia by the 1650s. Another, John Phillip, was thought to have been “the only African to arrive in Virginia free.”

Unfortunately, the scant records do not tell us much about the lives of these few dozen Africans.  Some Africans achieved free status and successfully sued — not just once, but twice — more prominent White colonists.  It is true that by the 1660s, the colonies were increasingly moving towards the institution of slavery, but when viewed within the context of global events, this is hardly seem surprising.  English civilians had long been at risk of enslavement themselves by Africans — as the White aristocrats in charge of the early Virginia colony were fully aware.  The coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland had been targeted by Muslim slavers from North Africa.  Since the Berber invasion of Spain and France, large Islamic armies had launched massive slave raids against Christian Europe.  Unlike Europe, which sought spices, Muslim armies sought “white gold” — slaves.  Men  were prized as galley slaves, eunuchs, and laborers who were worked to death in the mines and  quarries of North Africa.  Between 1400 and 1700, hundreds of thousands of white Christian boys and girls were seized by the Ottoman Empire in a form of “child tax” called devshirme.  It should be noted the early English explorer of Virginia, James Smith, was a soldier of fortune whose military experience fighting the Ottomans helped the colony to survive.  In August 1625 — the very year the Virginia census listed 25 Africans living there — Muslim slavers from Africa seized over 60 English residents who sought refuge in a church in Cornwall.  That same month, the Plymouth mayor decried that “27 ships had been taken and all the men on board, over 200 of them – had been made slaves.”

From Lundy Island, Muslim slavers established a permanent base and preyed upon England and Ireland for years. On two occasions, they sailed to Iceland, successfully capturing nearly 400 people, leaving more than 36 dead, some burned alive.  In 1631, African slavers seized 89 women and children and 20 men from Ireland, selling them in Algiers.  African-based slavers even attacked the Faroe Islands while continuing to ravage helpless towns all over coastal Europe. One Icelandic historian writes:

By the 1650s, there were 30,000 prisoners from coastal lands all over Europe in Algiers alone… As one of the hapless 400, Guðríður spent nine years in what’s now Algiers before the Danish government finally came up with ransom money… She was ransomed in June 1636 but had to leave her son behind in Algiers.

Ben Johnson succinctly summarizes it here:

For over 300 years, the coastlines of the south west of England were at the mercy of Barbary pirates (corsairs) from the coast of North Africa… Between 1677 and 1680 the English were losing 3,000 people to Muslim slavers per year, highlighting a problem that had not abated for the entirety of the century.

In the first half of the seventeenth century, more White Europeans were seized and taken to Africa than Black Africans seized and taken to America.

Nor were the English unfamiliar with events in eastern Europe — Ottoman slave raids from the Crimean Khanate enslaved an estimated 2 million people over hundreds of years.  Nor were the colonists in America immune.  The enslavement of White Americans and Europeans continued until actions by the United States in 1815 and England in 1816 finally brought it to an end. By this time, both the nations had outlawed the trans-Atlantic slave trade by stationing fleets of warships to intercept and free any slaves they encountered.  It’s worth remembering that very few of the slaves from Africa ever arrived in North America.  African-American historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. states that — of the 10.7 million who disembarked in the New World — only 450,000 African slaves were ever brought to North America.  Africans from Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, on the other hand, are estimated to have enslaved 1.25 to 1.5 million  White Europeans.  Just as the facts surrounding the details of those few dozen Africans who disembarked in Virginia remain unclear, so the total number of Europeans who suffered enslavement by people of color remains hazy.

What is clear is that there has been a deliberate omission of the historical record in American schools regarding the subject of slavery and how it influenced the foundation of America.  Nor are many Americans aware that in its first 100 years as a nation, the U.S. fought three anti-slavery wars — two to free White slaves and one to free Blacks.  To deliberately ignore these historical truths is not only deceitful and wrong, it’s malicious.  What has been the result of this deliberate distortion of our nation’s past? National division.  Increased racial tension and hate crimes, emanating from a false narrative.  A lack of patriotism in our younger generation.  New forms of discrimination and racial segregation aimed against those who supposedly “enjoy” the benefits of “White privilege.”  Increased social upheaval within our once grand cities.  A collapse of our educational system.  A weakened military. Increased tribalism all across the nation.

This has been the toll of the false historical narrative. Literally, the survival of our nation is at stake.

How do we correct the problem? Simple.  We demand a return to the honest teaching of American history.

Liberate America's Children from Leftism

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker

I saw some commie ninny praising the enlightened brilliance of child activists advocating for left-wing causes, and my eyes nearly rolled back far enough in my skull to leave me blind.  Only cultists and communists hang on to every utterance from the most inexperienced humans now alive and treat their incipient musings as evidence for refined wisdom.  It doesn't matter if it's Greta Thunberg proving she has no understanding of climate science or some poor, brainwashed tot conditioned to recite his/her/its "special" pronouns — when an adult goes gaga over a kid's political pronouncements, it's creepy, not compassionate. 

My beef isn't with our youngest generation; my fury lies with their tormentors.  Innocents are being used today, just as they have always been used throughout history, as sacrificial lambs for the unscrupulous to slaughter.  Oh, look, a child — who is neither old enough to possess a necessary base of knowledge for true reflection nor experienced enough to comprehend a world filled with deceit — the ideal sucker for leftists everywhere!  First to be pushed to the front lines of battle, first to have their futures stolen from underneath their feet, first to be manipulated by the wealthy and powerful who see them not as special — but as vulnerable and weak!

Dear children: When adults think you are too immature to own a firearm or live without financial dependence upon the government but believe you should nonetheless be voting in elections by the time you're sixteen, they value not your mental acuity, but rather your naïveté.  They're the conmen; you're their mark; and if they inappropriately insist on sexualizing their conversations with you, you're also their prey.  Run far away!

Totalitarians always use children to unleash evil because everyone else has been around long enough to know exactly how evil begins!  Psychopathic murderer Lenin infamously boasted, "Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."  Psychopathic murderer Mao taught grade-schoolers to torture their teachers during the Cultural Revolution.  Psychopathic murderer Hitler had his innocent-looking yet devilishly dangerous Hitler Youth.  Africa's psychopathic warlords have for decades recruited and enslaved child soldiers for their armies.  Today, psychopathic Antifa targets adolescents to fill the ranks of its shock troops, not at all different from the get-'em-while-they're-young recruiting strategies of criminal gangs.  Whenever and wherever in history young people have been told that they are smarter and more deserving than the older generations living beside them, they have been manipulatively used as a cheap supply of cannon fodder, a means to instigate murder and mayhem, and an army of gullible dopes too unworldly to protest.

Youthful inexperience combined with unearned confidence, excess exuberance, or outright haughtiness makes it easy for tyrants to fill their ranks.  This stubborn and disheartening reality always reminds me of one of Philip Larkin's poetic masterpieces: "This is the first thing / I have understood: / Time is the echo of an axe / Within a wood."  Those who use innocents to fight their battles never have trouble crafting a new axe with which to cleave society in two.  Yesterday it was Mao and Stalin; today it is the Democrat party and the World Economic Forum.  Adults who put children on pedestals also put them in unmarked graves.

Oh, children, I pity what you endure today.  Your political leaders are scoundrels.  Your culture is sick.  Your schools are cesspools for indoctrination, where knowledge and critical thinking skills go to die.  You have been told that a changing climate will destroy the planet.  You have been told that COVID will kill your family.  You have been told that you will kill your grandparents for not wearing enough face masks or — Heaven forfend! — giving too long of a hug.  You have been told that boys and girls don't exist and that all of the obvious physical differences between the sexes are social fictions.  If you are white, you have been told you're an oppressor.  If you're black or brown, you've been told that you're oppressed.  If you're a boy, you've been warned about your "toxic" nature (which is counterintuitively still possible in a world pretending to be ruled by social constructs).  If you're a girl, you've been taught that you've never been valued enough.

The nub of it is that children have been told outrageous lies their whole lives from just about anybody in a position of authority outside their homes.  To the extent that their families have contradicted these lies with articulated truths, they have been forced to grow up learning two realities simultaneously: the one taught in the privacy of your own home and the one forced upon you by "educational" and other public institutions governing the outside world.  That is no easy trick for even a seasoned adult!  It is an enormously unfair burden to lay on any child just trying to figure the world out!

In another era, we would call this obvious psychological abuse.  Today's children just call it part of growing up.  

In the past, churches and community leaders could be counted upon to set good examples for all children.  Today, too many of betray their missions, responsibilities, and faiths.  In the past, Americans were taught that hard work and discipline would take them far; now they are taught that too much competition or preparation is a sign of "white supremacy."  In the past, Americans were encouraged to sustain their spiritual devotion to God; now they are taught that they are merely "hackable animals" without souls or the capacity for free will.  In the past, science was understood as an objective pursuit of knowledge whose journey could never be complete; now science is either politically "settled" and no longer permitted to be debated or presented as proof of "capitalist indoctrination," racism, or rooted sexist beliefs.  

Not long ago, most international corporations could be trusted to provide wholesome entertainment and moral content for children; now even brands once synonymous with protecting and promoting childhood innocence — such as Disney — go out of their way to sexualize kids!  Until recently, the number of people outside a family capable of influencing any child was relatively small; now TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have opened up a world of bad actors promoting eating disorders, transgenderism, suicide, and other self-harm.  Fifteen years ago, our society knew that young girls could be tomboys and young boys might go through a playacting "phase"; now medical "professionals," teachers, television shows, and even lost presidents encourage our very youngest to cut off body parts and embrace infertility at the first sign of a personality trait that might be claimed as "gay."

Before the spread of Christianity began two millennia ago, much of the world saw children as disposable "things," unworthy of consideration until reaching a certain age.  One of the immeasurable blessings derived directly from Christ's teachings is the recognition that we have a profound responsibility to protect and nurture the youngest and most vulnerable among us.  Today, that civilizational foundation is crumbling.  Whether it is governments' wholesale embrace of abortion on demand, the inexcusable sexualization of minors for adults' entertainment, or the endless barrage of lies children are force-fed every day, this world right now is failing them in every way.  

For decades, leftists have been screaming, "Save the children!" in order to get their way on any hot-button issue.  In reality, they've been burying the children right before our eyes.  For those who understand what's happening, the only Americans who can "save the children" from lasting harm are those willing to fight back against the deadly world leftists seek to create.

'Decolonizing Light': Another Ridiculous Example of Dumbing Down Science in the Name of 'Woke'

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Let’s get two observations out of the way, up front. First, this is yet another example of the “woke” among us attempting to destroy critical knowledge, as the ChiComs and Russians shake their heads in laughter. Second, if you understand a lick of it, you’re “smarter” than your humble political pundit.

OK, ready?

A group of “scholars” at Concordia University in Montreal have dedicated themselves to “Decolonizing Light.” I don’t mean as in Bud Light, or “light salt,” we’re talking about light. You know, the “electromagnetic radiation that can be perceived by the human eye” kind of light that allows us to see in the otherwise dark.

As reported by The College Fix, the group’s tagline is: “Tracing and countering colonialism in contemporary physics.” You knew this was going “there,” right? “Countering colonialism.”

The effort, funded by the Canadian government, seeks to explore “ways and approaches to decolonize science, such as revitalizing and restoring indigenous knowledges” and to develop “a culture of critical reflection and investigation of the relation of science and colonialism,” according to the project’s website. Call me “racist,” but I find it hard to see “indigenous knowledge” bettering the exploration of physics.

The project, far as I can tell, is not about banning streetlights and computer screens and stuff [sarc], but rather, as noted by The Fix, about “advancing other ways of knowing about light, science, and physics.”

See what I mean? You lost, yet? If not, keep reading; you will be.

Donna Kahérakwas Goodleaf, Concordia’s director of “decolonizing curriculum and pedagogy,” co-authored a 2021 paper that intentionally targeted physics for so-called decolonization due to the field’s “unique scientific authority.” #ProTip: science is exactly a unique scientific authority, Ms. Goodleaf.

Au contraire, wrote Goodleaf and her co-authors:

Physics is commonly regarded as the ‘most objective’ and the ‘hardest’ science.

It fundamentally defines scientific key concepts such as energy, matter, force, light, space, and time, for all the other sciences. It stabilizes its knowledge authority in relation to all other knowledge systems.

Try working in a bit of decolonizing physics and pedagogy while plotting an Earth-Mars transfer trajectory and lemme know how that all works out, Ms. Goodleaf.

It gets stupider.

In the worldview of Goodleaf and her co-geniuses [sarc], physics, rather than solely as a science, should also be viewed as a “social field.”

For our purpose, it is important to understand physics as a social field rather than as ‘pure knowledge’ independent from social values and decisions.”

Incidentally, when writing absurd nonsense like this, I often envision Xi Jinping ringing up his pal Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, laughing hysterically as Vlad answers: “Did you see the latest nonsensical crap from our enemies in the West?” Xi asks.

“Nyet,” curtly responds an obviously drunk Putin, no doubt on a hell of a binge since he made the brilliant decision in February to send the no-longer-vaunted Red Army into Ukraine. “What are you talking about?” he gruffly asks Xi. The ChiCom dictator fills him in, pouring a drink of whatever he drinks, while Putin refills his vodka tumbler (no ice), as they laugh uncontrollably.

Here’s even more ridiculousness, via The Fix:

The reason they chose to focus on light, the scholars noted, was because of its ubiquity across societies and languages, its importance in fields such as astronomy and spectroscopy, and its value at prestigious, well-funded research facilities like the Canadian Light Source in Saskatchewan.

As part of their effort to decolonize light, the three wrote, they plan to develop courses with indigenous scholars and “Knowledge Keepers” in which indigenous knowledge is elevated and Eurocentric western science is de-centered and scrutinized for its alleged past and present contributions to colonialism.

[…]

One of the guiding principles of this effort, the scholars wrote, is the practice of Two-Eyed Seeing, which they claim allows people to view natural phenomena through two eyes, or two worldviews, one based in indigenous knowledge and the other on western science.

Two worldviews of physics? Brilliantly and intentionally idiotic.

The Bottom Line

Patanjali Kambhampati, a professor of chemistry at McGill University who conducts research on ultrafast spectroscopy, commented via email to The Fix, “Decolonizing STEM is absurd and offensive to many people of all walks of life, including me as a scientist born in the 3rd world.”

“There are no other or alternative ways of knowing,” Kambhampati said. “There is only science. And it was largely developed in western Europe and [the] USA.”

Yet, here we find ourselves, while those with the stated intention of dominating the world continue to laugh at us, licking their chops in totalitarian anticipation.

The Republican Party Does Not Want to Change

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of this site.

After its catastrophic performance in the midterm elections, the Republican Party is currently in a period of reflection, in which it is deciding how it should proceed going forward. Or is it?

At this point, it seems the GOP will remain set on business as usual, as it prepares for the next election season. Many on the right, including myself, have questioned whether the party’s leadership actually wants to win–or if it is content with continuing to play the role of the “Party of No.” So far, most indications suggest this is the case.

One of those sounding the clarion call for change is attorney Harmeet Dhillon, who is challenging Ronna McDaniel for Republican National Committee (RNC) chair. During an interview with Fox News, she cautioned that the GOP needs to “change and adapt or die,” and criticized the party’s leadership for failing to change in a way that allows it to appeal to more Americans. She noted that McDaniel has overseen a six-year losing streak for the party, and that Republicans must change course.

“We need a change at the RNC. I’m hearing that from voters. I’m hearing that from donors. I’m hearing that from influencers online and figures in the movement,” she argued.

McDaniel took over the position in 2017 with the endorsement of former President Donald Trump. In 2018, the GOP lost the House, then the presidency in 2020. In 2022, the party narrowly took back the House of Representatives–despite being expected to win big in both chambers of Congress. Democrats expanded their hold over the Senate, after Sen. Raphael Warnock defeated Herschel Walker in Georgia’s runoff election.

“The party has not been a leader on hustling ballots into the boxes. We’re still talking about emotionally appealing to voters, buying very expensive ads hoping that people will turn out on Election Day,” Dhillon said. “Guess what, Democrats don’t do that. They get out there where ballot harvesting and early voting are legal, which is in most states now. They get out there and they hustle those ballots.”

The attorney pointed to one of the party’s longstanding flaws: Its failure to articulate a winning message to present to the American people.

“I don’t think we have been great at articulating our vision of why people should vote for us. I think we’ve been allowing the Democrats to set the agenda and allowing them to really dictate what our party stands for and what we’re doing,” she noted.

Indeed, conservatives have often failed to bring new ideas to the table, choosing instead to rely almost exclusively on criticizing Democrats for their flawed solutions.

Dhillon also brought up excessive spending at the RNC, noting that “there’s a lot of bad consulting contracts, vendor contracts that are not competitively bid” and lamented that there is “a real sense of wanting to keep everything exactly the same” in the organization.

Indeed, RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar published a piece delving into the irresponsible spending practices of the RNC under McDaniel’s leadership, an issue that has enraged donors, both large and small.

McDaniel and the RNC responded to the report as might be expected – with deflection and personal attacks. Instead of addressing the issue, a spokesperson chose to highlight the amount of money that has been raised under McDaniel’s leadership. The chair sent an email to committee members, ostensibly to “debunk the lies about roughly 0.8% of the RNC’s total spending.”

Not surprisingly, the email did not address the exorbitant expenditures found in the report. As Van Laar noted:

That the RNC under Ronna McDaniel has brought in a lot of money isn’t in dispute. The point of the analysis, coming after losses in critical races, was the expenditures, both the types and the amounts. None of those expenses were addressed in their emails. They simply, and sadly, chose to use the same exact strategy former Rep. Katie Hill used against me to attempt to avoid accountability for her actions.

Reckless spending notwithstanding, McDaniel is still favored to win re-election and will likely continue leading the RNC, showing once again that the GOP only pretends to believe in the idea of a meritocracy. It is this hypocrisy that has soured many – including myself – on lending support to the party. Why should people continue trying to persuade the party to change, when it clearly does not want to?

Even if, by some miracle, Dhillon won the election, the establishment forces in the party would impede her progress at every turn. They would fight every effort to reform the GOP and transform it into something the American people would want to consider. These people want business as usual, as long as it keeps them in positions of power – and they clearly don’t have to lead the party to victory to do this. So, why would they care?

Perhaps there is a better way to get the leadership Americans need than to continue propping up an establishment that is not serious about affecting positive change in the country.

Video – Governor Ron DeSantis Advocates for Politicians to be Owned by Billionaires, Laments Campaign Finance Limits

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

As soon as this information gets mainstream, watch for an entire tribe of ‘conservative’ pundits to suddenly find advocacy for the benefit of billionaires controlling politicians. Indeed, there will likely be a benefit to bookmarking this post.

Against the backdrop of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis receiving 94% of his campaign support from multinational corporations, billionaires and Wall Street tycoons, there has been a debate about whether DeSantis would be a purchased GOP nominee for the presidency in 2024.

Based on current available evidence, the announcement of a 2024 presidential bid is a mere formality, likely to surface later in 2023, as all the background datapoints reflect the strategic and financial team behind Ron DeSantis have been positioning an announcement since late 2021.   One visible datapoint has been his campaign office, specifically his then spokesperson Christina Pushaw, reaching out to a group of Florida influencers and organizing a meeting on January 6, 2022.

By the late spring of 2022 the branding and management of the pending Ron DeSantis presidential bid was strongly underway, and by early August 2022, not coincidentally timed with the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, after an unusual five days in a bunker, a new national campaign team was announced and launched.  Everything from that national image launch has been carefully managed, organized and constructed.

With the Florida legislature set to change the law permitting DeSantis to run and remain as governor; and with the intentionally elevated profile and controlled national branding in place; the office of the Florida governor has transformed from a state executive focus to a launch vehicle for higher office.  State policies and office advocacy now run through the priority prism of national politics, as the announcement of the DeSantis book launch is simultaneously positioned.

All of the datapoints flow in one direction, Desantis seeking the 2024 GOP nomination.  None of the carefully managed policy points are contradictory to a national intention. However, the original question about who is controlling Ron DeSantis remains unanswered.   It is with this specific outlook in mind that we can now find Governor Ron DeSantis’s perspective on donor money influencing politics by looking at how he answered this exact question in March 2014.

In March 2014 a young man asked exactly this question.  During a Q&A session at Embry-Riddle University, then U.S.Congressman Ron DeSantis, representing Florida’s 6th District, was asked about money influencing politics.   Within his answer we can gain an understanding of why 94% of Ron DeSantis donations are coming from the billionaire influence class.

Video prompted to 00:49:11 of the session, where Ron DeSantis says he feels limited campaign contributions are a problem.  Congressman DeSantis says that billionaires should be permitted to fully fund political candidates, without limits, as long as the donations are fully transparent.

Beyond the view of billionaires being permitted to fund candidates for office, pay particular attention to the example that DeSantis uses regarding online sales taxes and his opposition to it.   Within that specific answer you are about to see a major contradiction, that tells us something significant.  WATCH:

The K-Street lobbyists and campaign donors DeSantis is describing in the online tax example, are the Club for Growth types who wanted states to deliver national equality on the issue of state collection of online sales taxes.

Apparently, in 2014 Congressman DeSantis was willing to take the C4G donor money and yet not support the online sales tax that would hurt Florida consumers.

However, very quietly in April of 2021, Florida Governor DeSantis signed a law requiring all online businesses outside Florida to charge Florida sales taxes on products ordered by Florida residents.  The online tax for Florida residents was projected to net an additional $1 billion in revenue for the state.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis very quietly and without much fanfare signed a new online sales tax bill into law Monday, requiring out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales taxes.

[…] Under the law, “marketplace providers” that aren’t located in Florida will be required to remit sales taxes “when delivering tangible personal property” to consumers. (read more)

As you can see from the bigger picture issue of billionaires purchasing politicians, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis felt massive wealthy interests should be permitted to fund politicians.  This is in line with his 2022 position of massive donations from billionaires, hedge fund managers, multinational corporations and Wall Street flowing into his campaign and Political Action Committee coffers.

Simultaneous with this 2022 increase in billionaire funding, DeSantis reversed his 2014 position on online sales tax collection for Florida residents, putting himself in direct alignment with Club 4 Growth and other K-Street lobbying groups he said would not influence his policy.  DeSantis received $2,000,000.00 from Club 4 Growth.

Add in the endorsement of Paul Ryan (link), and Jeb Bush (link), and the Wall Street republicanism reemerges as the DeSantis platform.