Friday, October 27, 2023

RNC Selects Lester Holt, Kristen Welker and Hugh Hewitt as Moderators for NBC’s First-Loser Debate in Miami


The 2024 GOP primary debate series is a clown show of knuckleheads following the marching orders of the billionaire donors who fund them.  The RNC is the vessel for the illusion of choice game, orchestrated by the same donors.  Watching the remaining candidates try and qualify to be the first loser is, well, pathetic really.

Into this game of nonsense, the RNC delivers the next round of pretentious moderators for the RNC debate in Miami.  I mean, if you are hosting a Republican debate, one might think the RNC would want Republicans as moderators.  Then again, in the era of the professional Uniparty, there’s not much difference.  Condescending pontificating pustule of pomposity, Hugh Hewitt, will rest atop his familiar high horse.  You couldn’t pay me to watch this one.

WASHINGTON – NBC’s Lester Holt and Kristen Welker are set to moderate the third Republican primary debate alongside morning talk show host Hugh Hewitt, NBC announced on Wednesday.

The three will take the stage at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami on Nov. 8, as the remaining GOP presidential hopefuls — those who can qualify — push to break away from the pack in the polls.

So far, five candidates have hit the Republican National Committee’s increasingly stringent requirements to make it onto the debate stage. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have all qualified, as has the current frontrunner, former President Donald Trump — who is set to again skip the debate in favor of his own rally in nearby Hialeah, Fla.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, has met the polling requirements but still needs to hit the 70,000-donor mark. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has yet to hit either threshold, according to POLITCO’s analysis, though his campaign has claimed he has met the polling requirements. (read more)

Eh, how about, NO!


X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 27

 




Premodern Diversity Vs. Civilizational Unity ~ VDH


Old immigration once enriched America, but our new version is destroying it


Few Romans in the late decades of their 5th-century AD empire celebrated their newfound “diversity” of marauding Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Huns, and Vandals.

These tribes en masse had crossed the unsecured Rhine and Danube borders to harvest Roman bounty without a care about what had created it.

Their agendas were focused on destroying the civilization they overran rather than peacefully integrating into and perpetuating the Empire.

Ironically, Rome’s prior greatness had been due to the extension of citizenship to diverse people throughout Europe, North Africa, and Asia.

Millions had been assimilated, integrated, and intermarried and often superseded the original Italians of the early Roman Republic. Such fractious diversity had led to unity around the idea of Rome.

New citizens learned to enjoy the advantages of habeas corpus, sophisticated roads, aqueducts, and public architecture, and the security offered by the legions.

The unity of these diverse peoples fused into a single culture that empowered Rome. In contrast, the later disunity of hundreds of thousands of tribal people flooding into and dividing Rome doomed it.

To meet the challenge of a multiracial society, the only viable pathway to a stable civilization of racially and ethnically different people is a single, shared culture.

Some nations can find collective success as a single homogenous people like Japan or Switzerland.

Or equally, but with more difficulty, nations can prosper with heterodox peoples—but only if united by a single, inclusive culture as the American melting-pot once attested.

But a baleful third option—a multicultural society of diverse, unassimilated, and often rival tribes—historically is a prescription for collective suicide.

We are beginning to see just that in America, as it sheds the melting pot, and adopts the salad bowl of unassimilated and warring tribes.

The U.S. is now seeing a rise in violent racially and religiously motivated hate crimes.

The border is nonexistent.

Millions of unlawful immigrants mock their hosts by their brazen illegal entrance.

They will receive little civic education to become Americans. But they will learn that unassimilated tribalism wins them influence and advantages.

In contrast, America was once a rare historical example of a multiracial, but single-culture democracy that actually worked.

Multigenerational Americans were often energized by keeping up with new hard-working immigrants determined to have a shot at success in a free society long denied them at home.

Other large nations have tried such a democratic multiracial experiment—most notably Brazil and India. But both are still plagued by tribal feuding and serial violence.

What once worked for America, but now is forgotten were a few precepts essential for a multiracial constitutional state wedded to generous immigration.

One, America is enriched at its cultural periphery by the food, fashion, art, music, and literature of immigrants.

But it would be destroyed if such diversity extended to its core. No one wants Middle-East norms regarding gays or emancipated women.

No one prefers Mexican jurisprudence to our courts.

No one here wants the dictatorship of Venezuela or the totalitarianism of communist China.

Two, people vote with their feet to emigrate to America. They flee their native culture and government to enjoy their antitheses in America.

But remember—no sane immigrant would flee Mexico, Gaza, or Zimbabwe only to wish to implant in their new homes the very culture and norms that drove them out from their old.

If they did that to their new home, it would then become as unattractive to them as what they fled.

Three, tribalism wrecks nations.

Just compare what happened in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq.

Anytime one ethnic, racial, or religious group refuses to surrender its prime identity in exchange for a shared sense of self, other tribes for their own survival will do the same.

All then rebrand their superficial appearance as essential not incidental to whom they are.

And like nuclear proliferation that sees other nations go nuclear once a neighboring power gains the bomb, so too the tribalism of one group inevitably leads only to more tribalism of others. The result is endless Hobbesian strife.

Four, immigration must be measured, so that newcomers can be manageably assimilated and integrated rather than left to form rival tribal cliques.

Five, it must be legal. Otherwise, the idea of citizenship is reduced to mere residency, while the legal applicant is rendered a fool for his adherence to the law.

Six, it must be meritocratic, so immigrants come with English and skills and do not burden their hosts.

And last, it must be diverse. Only that way, can all groups abroad have equal access to the American dream.

A diversity of immigrants also ensures that no one particular ethnic or political tribe seeks to use immigration to further divide the nation.

In sum, the old immigration once enriched America, but our new version is destroying it.



Jake Sullivan’s Article Rewrite Shows His Biden Foreign Policy Brags Crumble In Real Time



The Biden administration has a longstanding habit of embarrassing itself on the subject of foreign policy — and the latest fumble by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is no different.

On Tuesday, Foreign Affairs Magazine published a lengthy piece authored by Sullivan on its website providing an overview of U.S. foreign policy under President Joe Biden. The article — which reads like a White House press release — touches on different areas of foreign affairs, such as U.S. competition with China and the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the national security adviser couldn’t resist taking shots at former President Donald Trump, whom Sullivan claims “damaged” U.S. alliances with key allies.

Most notable about Sullivan’s diatribe, however, are the significant differences between the online edition published on Tuesday and the print version published earlier this month. Included at the bottom of the online edition of Sullivan’s piece is an editor’s note revealing that the section of the article discussing Middle Eastern affairs had been “updated” from the print version “to address Hamas’s [Oct. 7] attack on Israel.” A closer look at the lines scrubbed from the original reveals what little understanding Sullivan and the Biden administration have of the geopolitical environment in the region.

1. Biden has the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under control

In his original piece, Sullivan claimed the “Israeli-Palestinian situation is tense, particularly in the West Bank, but in the face of serious frictions,” the administration has “de-escalated crises in Gaza and restored direct diplomacy between the parties after years of its absence.”

Did the Biden administration forget to tell Hamas about this restoration of “direct diplomacy”? Because five days after Sullivan’s article was published, the Iran-backed terror group launched the deadliest attack against Israel in the Jewish state’s history. Among the more than 1,300 civilians slaughtered were 30 Americans.

2. No more attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria

Following his assertion that “U.S. troops were under regular attack in Iraq and Syria” under the Trump administration, Sullivan claimed “[s]uch attacks, at least for now, have largely stopped.”

Unfortunately for American forces in the region, Sullivan’s analysis turned out to be total bunk. In the weeks following Hamas’ attack on Israel, U.S. troops stationed at military bases throughout Iraq and Syria have been under siege by Iran-backed proxies. According to Fox News, U.S. military personnel “have been attacked 14 times — 11 times in Iraq and three times in Syria — between Oct. 17-24 … resulting in 24 people getting injured.”

3. Biden’s approach to Middle Eastern affairs leads to peace

Sullivan originally contended that Biden’s “disciplined approach” to Middle Eastern politics “frees up resources for other global priorities, reduces the risk of new Middle Eastern conflicts, and ensures that U.S. interests are protected on a far more sustainable basis.”

Do any of these “other global priorities” involve giving $100 million in aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza?

4. All quiet on the Middle Eastern front

It’s tragically obvious that Sullivan’s original claim that the Middle East “is quieter than it has been for decades” holds about as much validity as Bruce Jenner’s belief that he’s a woman — Zilch.



The First Shoe Drops Against Rashida Tlaib in the House, but It's Not Enough


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

The first shoe has dropped against Rep. Rashida Tlaib in the House of Representatives. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has filed a motion to censure the Democrat congresswoman, a move that will likely succeed.

Tlaib infamously waited days to comment on Hamas' deadly slaughter of 1,400 people in Israel on October 7th. Yet, when Hamas officials claimed Israel had bombed a hospital, she immediately ran with the story, parroting terrorist propaganda, including the allegedly overinflated death toll.

Even after much evidence had come out to show that the damage was actually done by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket misfiring, she refused to apologize or retract her claim. Instead, she repeated her claims at a rally in front of the Capitol Building in which she accused Israel of committing genocide. That rally then turned into an insurrection as protesters stormed inside, occupying the rotunda and interrupting the business of the Congress. 

Whether the resolution will succeed or not isn't so much in doubt compared to the question of whether some Democrats will join with Republicans in passing it. Tlaib has taken fire from her own party members for her behavior in the week following the insurrection that occurred and her refusal to show any remorse. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could see Jewish members of the Democrat caucus vote in favor of censuring her. 

With that said, while this is a good first step, it's not nearly enough. What Tlaib has done is essentially offer aid and comfort to terrorists who tortured, raped, and slaughtered civilians, including over 30 Americans. Her continued propagation of misinformation regarding the scene at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza has been a boon to Hamas and has likely bolstered the terrorist group's decision not to release the over 200 people being held hostage.

What she has done and continues to do goes well beyond the boundaries of what should be allowed from a member of the U.S. Congress. In short, Tlaib needs to be expelled from the body, not just censured. Would such a motion succeed? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. What's important is to get people on record. Make Democrats own a member of their party who has routinely sympathized with terrorists. At the very least, some clarity will be provided. 



House GOP Provides Evidence Jamie Raskin Lied About Biden Bribery Investigation


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Did Rep. Jamie Raskin lie when he claimed that Donald Trump's DOJ found the FD-1023 form accusing Joe Biden of bribery to be not credible? That's the allegation being made by the House Oversight Committee after recent testimony directly contradicted Raskin. 

Specifically, former U.S. Attorney Scott Brady, who was part of the decision-making process regarding the investigation, confirmed that they found enough indications of corruption to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware.

"My understanding of Mr. Raskin's public statements is that, based on the determination that I and my team found the allegations in the 1023 not credible or other information not credible, we did not escalate the assessment to a limited or full investigation," Brady said. "That's not true."

Brady also went on to describe the difficult relationship he had with the FBI, accusing them of a reluctance to want to investigate anything related to the alleged corruption surrounding the Biden family. 

“It was a challenging working relationship,” Brady said of the FBI in testimony earlier this week that was reviewed by Just the News. “I think there was reluctance on the part of the FBI to really do any tasking related to our assignment from DAG Rosen and looking into allegations of Ukrainian corruption broadly and then specifically anything that intersected with Hunter Biden and his role in Burisma. It was very challenging.”

Further, Brady said in his testimony that the FBI never told his office about Hunter Biden's laptop nor that they had confirmed it was real. 

Brady was critical of the FBI, noting the bureau never told his office it had Hunter Biden's laptop and had corroborated its contents even as DOJ prosecutors investigated the Ukraine allegations.

"I would have thought that would be something, especially as has been publicly reported, there's information relating to Hunter Biden's activities on the board of Burisma in Ukraine, that might have been helpful in our assessment of the information that we were receiving about him. I would have expected that be shared," he said.

Why did the FBI not find it worth sharing with the DOJ that it had received a laptop containing credible evidence of criminal activity by Hunter Biden? That's a question FBI Dir. Christopher Wray would have to answer, but given his obstructionism before Congress in the past, there's a better chance of pigs growing wings and flying. 

Returning to Raskin, someone should ask him where he got his original claim from. Who fed it to him? Was it the FBI? Was it the Biden administration? It seemed too specific to have just been made up by Raskin. Clearly, the cover-up attempt was in full swing the moment the FD-1023 was released to Congress. 

This entire incident is reminiscent of Rep. Adam Schiff's time on the Intel Committee, where he used his position to spread numerous falsehoods regarding the Trump-Russia hoax. On more than one occasion, Schiff claimed to have seen direct proof that collusion occurred. He has never produced it to this day. Raskin appears to be the next Democrat in line seeking cable news hits by repeating falsehoods. 



Jack Smith Is Baiting President Trump to Get His Suspended Gag Order Reinstated


At this point, I am writing this for a whole bunch of people, and it’s ridiculous.

(1) – No, Mark Meadows never told Jack Smith that President Trump didn’t declassify records.  That was the Lawfare leak to ABC News in August – intended to dilute the defense of declassification in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  It was made up by Jack Smith, and leaked to ABC for a specific purpose.

(2) – No, Mark Meadows never told the DC grand jury (under immunity) that he informed President Trump that Joe Biden’s election was legitimate. Again, that was a Lawfare leak to ABC News this week – intended to undermine President Trump’s DC defense (mens rea, know it) that Trump’s state of mind was such that he knew he was violating the law by saying the election was stolen.  This story was made up by Jack Smith and leaked to ABC for a similar specific purpose.

In reality, Meadows was questioned under oath, during the grand jury, and asked if Joe Biden was the legitimate President.  Meadows responded (encapsulated), “Well, he’s president isn’t he”?  The rest is a manufactured narrative.

(3) – No, Mark Meadows never wore a wire as a confidential informant while he was President Trump’s Chief of Staff.  Again, yet another Lawfare fabrication to the alt-right media, via layers of plausible deniability – intended to get President Trump to attack Mark Meadows and provide fuel for Jack Smith to request the reinitiation of a currently suspended gag order against President Trump.  The ABSURD story is pure Lawfare bait.  The absurdity of the story is why even ABC News couldn’t be used.

And right on cue….

(NYP) – Special Counsel Jack Smith has implored a judge to revive the partial gag order in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump — citing the ex-president’s “threatening” social media posts about former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Smith’s team argued in a filing late Wednesday that Trump, 77, is capitalizing on a stay in the gag order “to send an unmistakable message to a foreseeable witness in this case… with knowledge that it would reach him.” (read more)

Learn how the Lawfare game is played…. Every leak has a purpose.

Trust me, even allied idiots do not know when they are getting played as part of a long-term operation.  Allow me to give you a familiar visual aid:

.

In this latest example, Ryan Fournier – a supposed Trump ally – is pushing the outlandish Mark Meadows wearing a wire story, without even thinking about the stupidity of it.

Jack Smith knows Mark Meadows is a weasel, a creepy and pure swamp creature.  Personally, I cannot stand Mark Meadows, and I know his exact character.  Meadows is a fabricator, an exaggerator of his own importance, and a person of weak fortitude when it comes to aggressive attention upon him.  Meadows is a cross between a weasel and a jellyfish.

However, that said, it is the weak nature of Meadows…. and President Trump’s prior knowledge of Meadows’ untrustworthiness and weakness, that makes Meadows of specific value to the Machiavellian Lawfare constructs of Jack Smith.

Lawfare!

Learn it!

Capiche?

…. And, fuel the court to do what the judge already wants to do, Gag Trump!


Speaker Mike Johnson Sits Down with Sean Hannity for Extensive Interview


Sometimes I just sit and shake my head.  Why these guys keep appearing with Sean Hannity is beyond my understanding.  That said, the platform and host is the first warning sign, the content of the interview is another.

Speaker Mike Johnson, who is a significant upgrade from Speaker Kevin McCarthy, sits down for an extensive discussion on current political events where Sean Hannity believes he can tell Johnson his role and responsibility as Speaker. WATCH:



Bare Your Fangs, Mike Johnson


If I was in charge of hiring the Speaker of the House, I would see Louisiana's Mike Johnson to be a man with a stellar resume and a strong candidate for the job, I'd just have one question to ask him. 

"Are you hungry for combat?" 

As my fellow editor Joe Cunningham wrote on Thursday, Johnson checks all the boxes for someone who could be a tremendous Speaker of the House. He's pro-life, has a strong Christian foundation, is a policy hawk, principled, and a competent lawyer. 

(READ: A True Conservative Speaker)

This is all well and good, and it excites me to have someone in that position who looks like someone with the potential to be the total opposite of Nancy Pelosi, someone who's about as full of corruption as she is alcohol. However, Republicans have a nasty habit of being reasonable and friendly. These are great traits to have out in the normality of everyday America, but not the Thunderdome of D.C. where every interaction is a battle. 

Republican voters have been let down time and again by "principled conservatives" who talk a big game but then demonstrate that they're so ready to get along with Democrats that they start to resemble Democrats themselves. It's one of the reasons McCarthy was so reviled by voters by the time he was ousted by the Gaetz Eight and the Democrats who couldn't help but chase the carrot on the stick. 

Nothing I've read about Johnson gives me too much concern...except this. 

As my colleague Sister Toldja reported on Thursday, the left is busy flipping out over Johnson's Speakership role, claiming that he's an "election denier" — a favorite pastime of the Democrats up until recently — and as you drift further left into the Democrat Party, the more furious they become, especially after the man's first action was to support Israel

But one comment from Toldja's report caught my eye and it came from CNN's Gloria Borger who said Johnson was "hard to demonize": 

"You know, I think he is a person who’s hard to demonize. You know, it's very easy to demonize somebody like a Jim Jordan, who’s a firebrand. He's out there, he's fighting. And then Donald Trump can demonize an Emmer because he didn't believe the election was rigged. 

But you had this kind of, I don’t use the word 'milquetoast,' that's not quite the right word, he's a serious person, who is not prone to getting in big, huge fights with people. He is known as a listener, I was told. He is hugely conservative, but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve all the time. So he can get along with moderates and listen to them. And it will be interesting to see what happens with Ukraine aid, for example. But, you know, he’s not the devil incarnate."

I don't mind a leader who can work with Democrats to get some real bipartisan legislation passed that truly helps the country...but that's not exactly what Democrats are about nowadays. Democrats aren't out to help America, they're out to help Democrats. That much has been made very clear, and a quick glance at my reporting alone will show you that's pretty apparent. 

(READ: There Is No Democrat Party)

Here's the issue. 

Democrats love the idea of friendly Republicans. Friendly Republicans can be manipulated, used, abused, and tossed aside. You can ask McCarthy about that.

We don't need a "friendly" Republican. We need a fighter. No, scratch that. We need a conqueror. Someone willing to be a real issue to Democrats. Someone who, with the mere mention of his name, can send the left into an apoplectic rage because of how much damage he's done to their agenda and will continue to do for as long as he wields the gavel. 

And to be clear, Republican voters need this right now. 

As it stands, the Republican Party is leaderless. Sure, they may have their idea for a 2024 candidate in mind, but while everyone awaits the promotion of the Republican's Captain, there's an opportunity for Johnson to become a stupendous First Sergeant. 

Johnson can set the pace and be the leader that shows the voting populace what the Republican Party is and what it's capable of. To be sure, there are a lot of hangups thanks to midterms that didn't deliver as it should, but it's here that Johnson can shine. He can be the spiritual leader of the Republican Party by showing that he's willing to fight uncompromisingly against the left, support Republican candidates running for office, and all while still holding to principles that this country can truly get behind. 

Republicans need this right now. It's a Party in disarray with a voter base that has lost faith in it. Johnson has to prove that Republicans are still a fighting force for the people, capable of doing tremendous damage to the internal enemies of America and holding the corrupt accountable. If he can do that, then Johnson won't just be a great Speaker, but a superb American leader who may, one day, be the people's choice for President. 

All he has to do is bare his fangs and bite when the time comes.