Tucker Carlson and the Silk Purse

The former Fox News host should announce that he is running for vice president, and force Trump to pick him—but only if the former president agrees to six key conditions.

by Daniel Oliver for American Greatness

For devotees of straight talk, Tucker Carlson’s firing from Fox News is bad news. Who else will tell it as it is?

Was Carlson over the top sometimes? Yes, of course—“of course” because he was a talk show host. He was not pretending to be a scholar or sage. He knew what he was doing. That humility (and attention to detail) should remind us of what Conrad Hilton once said to William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” in response to a comment that went something like: “Say something important.” Hilton pondered deeply (so it seemed; he was a good actor) and then intoned: “Always put the shower curtain inside the tub.” Like Carlson, Hilton knew who he was, and he wasn’t going to pretend he was something he wasn’t.

Donald Trump is a problem—and not just because he’s a jerk: in a free country, people can be whatever they want to be (so long as it’s within the law).

Trump’s a problem because his nomination by the Republican Party may well ensure the election of Joe Biden and his horribly destructive band of woke liars (e.g., Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas) and all the destructive woke policies they will continue to foist on the American republic. Probably any Republican could beat Biden except Trump. Pogo could certainly beat Biden easily. So could Lucy. Charlie Brown could whip his asseverations.

Carlson is very popular, as popular with his audience as Trump is with his. A two-and-a-half minute video Carlson put out after Fox “parted ways” was viewed by 57 million people (!) in less than 24 hours.

At the moment, Trump has no one to run with him as the vice presidential candidate. And really, who—what normal political candidate, who could bring something to the ticket—would want to run with him? What to do?

Carlson should announce that he is running for vice president, making a silk purse out of a Fox’s ear, and force Trump to pick him. Then Carlson should accept, but only if Trump agrees to the following six conditions:

1) Trump will never again mention the 2020 election. That election was yesterday. Elections are won on tomorrow. Many people don’t believe that the election was stolen the way Trump says it was—even if a case could be made (it can) that the election was “stolen” because of the suppression by the woke media of relevant information (see, for example, Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s nefarious, and now exposed, disinformation-plot-quashing coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story—which plot has not yet been covered by the New York Times!).

Trump will never mention January 6 events and his role in them or attempt to exculpate himself. That’s not to imply Trump is guilty as charged by the corporate leftist media. It is simply a recognition that Trump cannot win that argument. But also, and more importantly, that argument is also about yesterday. Again, elections are won by talking about tomorrow.

3) Trump will never mention Mike Pence, his former vice president, whom he now must loathe. And he must never mention his attorney general, Bill Barr, whom he also probably loathes. Both of them are yesterday.

4) Trump will never mention the “perfect phone call” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Just to begin with, describing it (or any phone call) as “perfect” is off-putting. What is a “perfect” phone call, anyway? Just the initial description rankles. Stop it.

5) Trump will never mention Stormy Daniels or Michael Avenatti. They are unattractive people (however sorry you may feel for a girl so down on her luck she has to become a pole dancer. Remember, God can love pole dancers, too—even if He doesn’t like to watch their acts).

6) Trump will never mention his back taxes. They—like most everything else the hyperbiased media throw at him—are so yesterday. And he should release whatever tax returns his opponent releases, not because it’s intrinsically a good idea to release them, but because not releasing them will distract the voters from understanding the real issues.

Trump might not like those conditions, but he may be savvy enough to realize that without more discipline, he has a very good chance of losing. 

Fact is, many—most?—of the “illegal” 2020 voting rule changes will still be in place in 2024. Trump needs to attract all the people he got in 2016 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and didn’t attract in 2020 as well as additional voters if he expects to win next time.

He should focus on the obvious constituents, such as suburban housewives. They don’t want their daughters having to share locker rooms with boys; they do want all their children to learn true American history, not the bogus “1619 Project” history foisted on us by the New York Times.

Carlson is far more articulate than Trump is on those topics and many others besides. He was asked recently what should be at the top of every person’s list of things to do each day. Carlson’s reply: tell every person you love that you love them, because affirming things out loud makes them real. “Words are important,” Carlson said. “In the beginning was the Word.” Just so. Donald Trump, take notice.

It’s true Carlson has no executive experience, but his first job was at the Heritage Foundation, and there is no doubt its legendary founder and long-time chief executive, Ed Feulner, would give Carlson all the assistance he needs.

This is Trump’s last stand. He has seen the deep state in operation, working against him and against the American people. He should talk about that, sticking close to what the American people want and what he knows. In short, he should put the shower curtain inside the tub.

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- May 2nd

 

No one ever said that witnessing the downfall of evil would be easy.

But at the very least, they should've given cheat sheets with small descriptions to how much you'd end up going through before it's all revealed to the world to see. Like 'The rest of your escapism will be affected by greedy Hollywood unions refusing to make deals to prevent strikes, and 1 of them will occur in the same month you'll be saying what may or may not be a happy goodbye to the show that changed your life for good.'

(Yeah, that ain't short, but you get the point.)

The Other Hills to Die On

Woke ideology is the train. Total monitoring and control over money and energy is the destination.

by Edward Ring for American Greatness

Few on the American Right are unaware of Anheuser-Busch’s recent foray into woke politics. Taking their regular customers for granted, the once-great American company “partnered” with a transsexual person to become a new product spokesperson for Bud Light.

The imbroglio that followed is just one of the latest installments of the culture war over woke ideology, now working through its “trans” iteration, which is keeping the lights on in political consultancies across the nation and consuming huge percentages of conservative mind-share.

The encroachment of woke ideology threatens the American way of life. How it is resolved will define our national character and values for generations to come. But conservatives must recognize that the issues that either define woke ideology or fall under its umbrella—race, gender, and even abortion—are not the only battles in the war. Even if the Right defines what victory looks like on these issues, and somehow manages to win these battles, it will not matter if they lose the war.

As conservative troops and resources flood the zone to resist the woke agenda, bigger threats are neglected. Woke ideology is both a distraction from and a fraudulent justification for pushing toward the ultimate objective: gaining absolute, centralized control over the American economy. The method to accomplish this takeover is via two mutually reinforcing policy shifts that are already happening: the move to a central bank digital currency and enforcing increasingly restrictive rules governing energy.

One of the most fundamental expressions of freedom Americans take for granted is the ability to conduct transactions using cash. The fact that ordinary Americans can settle debts and sell goods using cash may not be fully appreciated until cash is taken away.

The privacy afforded by cash is irreplaceable. Bitcoin and other digital currencies may be difficult to track, but undisclosed Bitcoin accounts are already illegal, and it isn’t hard for authorities to identify who is using virtual servers and other methods of concealment.

The case for cash, however, isn’t that we want to encourage an underground economy. It’s that the existence of cash can at least prevent the arm of government from coming down to even the most petty transactions. Did you use cash to pay your gardener or an occasional babysitter or a handyman? If so, you might decide not to give them a 1099. Did you sell some old utensils, books, CDs, and furniture at a garage sale, and collect cash? If so, you might decide not to get a resale permit to collect sales tax. Once cash is eliminated, those choices will be made for you. Wasn’t that de minimis? It won’t matter.

The anonymity of cash offers some safeguard as well against a growing and even more serious problem, the ability of corporations and government agencies to stifle transactions by people deemed a “threat to democracy.” Confined at the moment to intemperate bloggers and other supposedly seditious conspiracy theorists, and restricted so far to canceled online financial services and frozen bank accounts, imagine what could be accomplished with central bank digital currency. Here’s JH Investments explaining the “risks” of CBDCs:

CBDCs may pose a threat to privacy. The central authority that will be responsible for collecting and distributing identification and transaction data will have access to all monetary transactions. In addition to the threat of central banks disallowing or curbing transactions between citizens, the data could be vulnerable to hacks or misuse, if leaked.

There’s the understatement of the century. If CBDC replaces cash, it will be possible to precisely target and control what and how much every individual is permitted to buy or sell. Not only government agencies but major corporations will have this control.

The implications are sickening. It will be possible to vary how much someone has to pay for goods based not only on their social credit score but also on their income. It will be possible to ration individual consumption of any commodity that might be deemed to endanger the planet. It will be possible to control movement by putting geographic restrictions on where any individual can spend their digital currency.

CBDCs will put every transaction, no matter how small, onto the grid. Small businesses and individuals will have to navigate nuisances such as issuing 1099s and collecting sales tax, along with countless other regulatory requirements, and these nuisances will multiply once CBDCs make all this micromanagement feasible. But it won’t be universally feasible. It will place a burden disproportionately on the small players that lack the scale to pay for the compliance overhead.

And, of course, never forget the whole system falls apart with one big cyberattack or electromagnetic pulse.

Cash is freedom. Don’t let the government take it away.

If making cash illegal is the path to total control over economic activity, the destruction of a fossil fuel-based economy is not only a parallel pathway to total control by government and corporations but also to the systematic reduction in our standard of living.

The facts are indisputable. Affordable energy is the foundation of economic prosperity. For everyone on Earth to consume just half as much energy per capita as Americans consume, global energy production must double. This is impossible without developing and consuming more fossil fuels.

Producing twice as much energy worldwide is necessary, among other things, to stop impoverished billions across the equatorial regions of the planet from stripping the forests for game meat and cooking fuel. It is necessary to preserve and expand the middle class everywhere. It is required to make extremely large families economically unnecessary in the developing world, and to make having children economically feasible again in the developed world. It is a prerequisite to global peace and prosperity.

The good news is there are enough known reserves of fossil fuel to sustain civilization at twice the current rate of consumption for at least the next few centuries.

Rather than take this enlightened path, the elites who run Western nations are determined to crack down on fossil fuel consumption. They have concluded that theories of climate catastrophe—and these are theories that should be subject to vigorous and public debate—require an immediate transition to “renewables.” In their embrace of the theory that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel is an existential threat, they ignore other facts: Renewables are more disruptive to the environment, there aren’t nearly enough raw materials to deploy them, failure to develop more fossil fuel will cause global energy starvation, and in so doing there will be war, famine, poverty, tyranny, and certain environmental destruction.

Yet they push forward with this madness, determined to create scarcity, high prices, rationing, and punitive measures to enforce environmentalist edicts.

Central bank digital currency and energy rationing must be challenged with the same passion and urgency that informs the resistance to woke ideology. And, crucially, resistance to woke ideology must recognize it is not merely a distraction from the CBDC and climate crisis agendas; it is also a phony moral cover for that agenda. We must submit to corporate and government micromanagement of money and energy because only in doing so can we save the planet and overcome race and gender inequity.

Woke ideology is the train. Total monitoring and control over money and energy is the destination.

When imagining a political overthrow of the prevailing agenda of corporations and government in America today, an accurate but discredited term for the necessary coalition-building process is “fusionism.” During the Reagan era, this was the “big tent” that united religious conservatives, anti-tax libertarians, and Cold Warriors in a coalition that gave Republicans 12 years of national dominance between 1980 and 1992.

The coalition that worked 40 years ago is obsolete. But fusionism isn’t obsolete. Envisioning a fusionist revival in America requires different electoral factions uniting over new issues. And to do that, resistance to woke ideology will not suffice. The same factions that resist unification over how to address woke ideology can nonetheless unite in resistance to woke’s endgame, which is total monitoring and control over money and energy.

American conservatives and moderates alike can join with independent voters and even large percentages of moderate and progressive Democrats in rejecting the expanding surveillance state, the abolition of private monetary transactions, the inevitable poverty attendant to rationed energy, and the endless wars required to enforce an international agenda that imposes crippling austerity on any nation willing to try for “net zero.”

These values, respecting privacy, investing in energy and practical infrastructure, and resisting wars of aggression, once defined the Democratic Party. They still define millions of Democratic voters, whose support America’s corporate and government establishment can only still depend on through relentless demonization of MAGA Republicans.

But they are treading on thin ice. If MAGA Republicans and moderate Republicans can unite on a platform that prioritizes preserving cash currency and restoring energy independence, they will attract the independents and Democrats that to-date are being taught to fear them.

Central bank digital currency and monitored, micromanaged access to all energy use are the means by which government and large corporations will achieve absolute control over the population.

Conservatives are correct to recognize woke ideology as an existential threat to the health of American civilization. But wokeism has no inherent strength. It is insanity, propped up by establishment billions merely because it is useful to them. If the ultimate destination, authoritarian government through CBDCs and rationed energy, is destroyed, the woke train will derail.

This is the fight that matters more. It is also a cause for which there is broader and more immediate potential for a consensus that translates into majority electoral support. These are the hills to die on. These are the hills we must win.

Biden: ‘Free Press Is A Pillar Of Free Society,’ Unless Your Name Is Tucker Carlson

Biden’s ‘joke’ about Tucker Carlson may have been hilarious to people who hate the pundit, but it didn’t land with the American people.

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist

Less than one week after Fox News abruptly ousted its most popular host, Tucker Carlson, President Joe Biden joined in the chorus of corporate media, Democrats, and celebrities praising the exit as a victory for the left.

Biden began his speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night with a tribute to the press and the First Amendment that keeps them in business.

“The free press is a pillar — maybe the pillar — of a free society, not the enemy,” he said in his opening comments.

Minutes later, after he quoted Thomas Jefferson’s letter about preferring “newspapers without government” over a “government without newspapers,” the Democrat took a moment to toot his own horn and relish in Tucker Carlson’s abrupt departure from Fox News at the same time.

‘Well, the truth is we really have a record to be proud of,” Biden started. “Vaccinated the nation. Transformed the economy. Earned historic legislative victories and midterm results. But the job isn’t finished. I mean — it is finished for Tucker Carlson.”

Biden’s jab was met with an “oooh” and laughter from the crowd.

“What are you wooing about like that?” Biden said between laughs. “Like you think that’s not reasonable? Give me a break. Just give me a break.”

It’s hauntingly ironic that the president and his allies in the corporate media spent their weekend laughing at the dismissal of one of their top political enemies while regular Americans mourn the loss of the nation’s most influential critic of the corrupt ruling class.

Ever since the Murdochs decided to yank “Tucker Carlson Tonight” from the air, disenfranchised viewers committed to divorcing the network in droves.

At the end of the day, however, neither Biden nor the corporate media care that the man whose show consistently ranked as the highest-rated cable news programming, including among young Democrat viewers, is no longer on screens all over the nation.

It’s been clear for years now that the same First Amendment rights the media’s preferred candidates like Biden pretend to affirm are not afforded to commentators like Carlson or anyone else who questions The Narrative™.

Carlson admitted this during his last public address before news of his departure broke.

“No, we have a First Amendment. That can’t happen here, but it has,” Carlson said at The Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary gala celebration.

It is easy for Biden to sing the praises of the press when all he gets from them are fawning, optimistic attention, and cover that caters to his every request. For those like Carlson who expose the cozy relationship between Democrats and media, only condemnation awaits.

Because Carlson reports on issues that the president’s allies refuse to — like Biden family corruption, election maladministration, and Democrats’ Jan. 6 show trial — the Biden White House has repeatedly sought to discredit the host and his former employer.

Biden pretends, like at the Correspondents’ Dinner, that the journos who gladly help Biden use cheat sheets at his few and far between press conferences are not “the enemy” of society and democracy — though Americans overwhelmingly know better. At the same time, he gloats that one of his personal enemies, a member of the press, could potentially stay off of cable news for good.

Biden’s “joke” about the former Fox News host may have been hilarious to a room full of people who rooted for the death of Carlson’s career for years, but it didn’t land with the American people. If anything, Biden’s Carlson crack further confirms that the regime only plans to recognize the constitutional rights of its allies.

SCOTUS Grants Review of Case That Will Gut the Federal Bureaucracy

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

In the biggest news to come out of the Supreme Court of the United States since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Court has granted a review of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. In its deliberations, the court will deal with the question of whether to overrule the infamous Chevron Doctrine, a ’70s-era precedent that granted broad powers to the bureaucratic state to interpret vague, often narrow statutes with near zero accountability.

Here’s a quick explainer on the Chevron Doctrine via Cornell Law School.

One of the most important principles in administrative law, the “Chevron deference” was coined after a landmark case,Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute.

In other words, lower courts have been bound by former Justice Stevens’ assertion that “reasonable interpretations” of statutes by administrative agencies are to not be overruled. In this case, the word “reasonable” has been stretched to absolute extremes, and that has allowed the bureaucratic state to reign supreme with near impunity.

That’s how you get the ATF banning bump stocks despite there being no actual statutory allowance for such a violation of personal freedom. It’s also how you get the lion’s share of environmental regulations, including literal puddles in backyards being hit with ridiculous, costly EPA enforcement. The federal government has been completely out of control for decades, and the Chevron Doctrine has been at the heart of many of the abuses.

Now, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the doctrine at some major level. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is already recused from the case, meaning that the conservatives don’t have to deal with one of the most liberal justices in oral arguments and deliberations. On that front, most of the conservatives on the court have already signaled a willingness to curb the power of the bureaucratic state by rolling back the Chevron Doctrine.

So while 2024 presidential candidates all make mostly unenforceable promises to roll back administrative overreach, this coming SCOTUS decision is, by far, the most probable way that actually gets done. The story won’t get weeks of headlines because it’s not sexy, but it’s incredibly important. A rollback of administrative agency power would positively impact American lives more than almost any policy Congress or a president could institute. It would send shockwaves throughout the federal government.

The left’s bureaucratic fiefdom is facing oblivion, and that’s a very good thing.

Democrats Now the Party of the Rich as Billionaires Line Up to Back Biden

Becky Noble reporting for RedState 

The Democrat party has traditionally been thought of as the party of the “working man” – the type of guy who carries a lunch pail to work and works with his hands was the guy who voted for Democrat candidates.

But the days of Democrats being seen as caring about the working man and Republicans being portrayed as elitists are appearing to come to and end. While both parties have high dollar donors, it is the billionaire heads of tech, finance, and media that are throwing their support behind President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign. It is making it pretty clear, which party the nation’s elites are behind.

Among some of the Biden campaign’s most lucrative supporters, Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, has offered to host fundraising events for Biden. In 2021, Hoffman hosted a virtual fundraiser for the Democrat National Committee, and although is unable to attend, was invited to a donor meeting in Washington scheduled for this week.

An advisor to Hoffman stated of the Democrats party, “They know they can rely on us.” Former vice chairman at Evercore and the founder of Signum Global Advisors Charles Myers stated that, not only will he be a major donor to the Biden reelection campaign, but will also do fundraising as well. He said, “Stakes are higher than ever. Trump 2.0 would be devastating for the country and arguably the world. Also from the world of finance, hedge fund executive Donald Sussman is eager to back the Biden campaign saying, “No one since FDR has accomplished as much for Americans. I am thrilled his unique leadership will continue.”

It is no surprise that Hollywood and media types are lining up behind Joe Biden. DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg is a long-time Democrat donor, and is a co-chair of Biden’s campaign. Katzenberg stated that he was “inundated,” presumably by other names in Hollywood with messages of support after Biden’s announcement last Tuesday that he was officially running for reelection. In a recent interview, Katzenberg said he believed the Biden campaign will raise even more than the roughly $1 billion raised in 2020.

He also said, “I’ve emphasized what he has accomplished and his leadership, and how essential it is in this moment in time for him to, one more time, saddle up and go do this. I have been as active and ambitious as possible in encouraging and supporting Biden to run again. I’ve been at it pretty consistently now for the last year.” Media mogul Haim Saban is also all in on a second Biden run. Saban raised millions for the Biden campaign in 2020 and said that he will “improve on that” in the 2024 cycle. He also has offered to host fundraising events.

He stated that he, “will do all I can to have President Biden reelected for a well-deserved second term.”

Some other familiar high-dollar names include Alexander Soros, son of uber-left billionaire George Soros is also on board the Biden train. In 2022, the elder Soros donated roughly $178 million to national and state Democrat candidates. It was recently revealed that Alexander Soros has been a frequent visitor to the White House since Joe Biden has been president. Records show that the younger Soros has made at least 14 trips to the Biden White House.

Climate change enthusiast and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer tweeted out his support of Biden, particularly for his positions on climate change, “We need a leader who understands the urgency of this moment and will work with our allies to strengthen our global response – that’s @JoeBiden.”

The fact that America’s millionaires and billionaires are jumping in to support Joe Biden and the Democrats speaks volumes as to how in touch they are with the rest of their fellow Americans. In March, a U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse survey showed that 38.5% of Americans said it had been “somewhat,” or “very difficult” to afford household items in the seven days prior to the survey.

While that is down from February’s number of 39.7%, the same poll showed that 94.7% said that they were feeling some level of stress by price increases, 46.7% said they were “very” stressed. A quick look at Open Secrets also reveals that more high dollar donations are coming from Democrats. It tells you everything you need to know about billionaires who continue to promote and fawn over disastrous Biden policies, as long as they think it will achieve their childlike liberal utopia, and be so horribly out of touch with the everyday plight of regular Americans under the Biden administration, and really just don’t care.

“Unburdened by what has been” ad nauseam

It’s Kamala’s second favorite phrase after “in terms of.”

posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

When Kamala Harris made it to Number 2 of “Dianny’s Ten Most Tiresome People of 2022,” I mentioned her habit of repeatedly using the phrase “unburdened by what has been” in virtually every speech she has given since she first launched her ill-fated presidential campaign in 2019.

To drive home the point, I included a few clips of Kamala trotting out her “imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been” phrase and suggested that it might be Kamala’s second favorite phrase after “in terms of.”

I’m sure Kamala thinks it sounds profound. And maybe it did, the first time she used it four years ago. But now that she is using it in every damn speech she makes, it isn’t profound anymore. Instead, it sounds like the canned response that it is, devoid of any true meaning.

I compared Kamala to a one-hit-wonder, “touring the country warbling out the one and only tune she knows.”

As I said before:

This would be like Martin Luther King Jr. deciding to toss in his “I have a dream” sequence in every speech. It stops being profound after the third or fourth time.

As I was hunting for video clips to include in Kamala’s segment for the Ten Most Tiresome People list, I thought to myself, “Boy, I wish someone would just compile a single montage video of all the times Kamala used the phrase, “unburdened by what has been.”

Well, it took four months, but the RNC finally delivered.

Last night, RNC Research posted a video featuring all of the times Kamala has used her second favorite phrase. And, to give you an idea of how many times she’s said “unburdened by what has been” over the last four years, the montage video is three and a half minutes long.

It’s downright robotic.

She’s the living, breathing embodiment of AI-generated predictive text.

Don’t feel bad if you didn’t make it through the entire montage. I confess when I watched it this morning, I only made it to about two minutes before I had enough.

Oddly enough, it wasn’t having to hear Kamala repeat her canned “unburdened by what has been” line that did me in. It was watching her using the same accompanying hand movements time after time after time.

I bet you ten bucks that Kamala practiced her choreography in front of the mirror while saying, “Imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been” over and over until she got the hand motions to her satisfaction.

It also made me laugh because I could always tell when Kamala was trotting out that line for a black audience. Her head bobs a little and she takes on that black preacher cadence. It’s hilarious.

You have to admit that this video highlights just how vapid and inauthentic Kamala Harris is.

Whenever one of the concern trolls in the news media frets that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just doesn’t come off as personable, think of this video montage of Kamala burping out the same faux inspirational line again and again and again.

My guess is, some speech writer inserted the line in one of her speeches years ago, and Kamala, vapid lightweight that she is, thought to herself, “Wow. That’s good. I’m gonna remember that and maybe I’ll use it again.” And then she did, speech after speech, interview after interview until it became an embarrassing meme that punched her in the face.

Has there ever been a politician in recent memory who is this bad at public speaking?

Kamala makes Joe Biden look like Winston Churchill.

Honestly, this woman couldn’t talk about the weather without somebody else writing the script.

Then again, if you did ask her about the weather when her speech writer wasn’t available, it would probably go something like this:

“Is it still raining outside, Madam Vice President?”

“Yes, it is. But I can imagine a future with sunshine,
[point up]
unburdened by what has been.”