Wednesday, July 31, 2024

The Democrat Party is the Greatest Threat to America


The greatest threat to the survival of the United States as founded is not offshore but within its borders: the Democrat Party controlled by the Obama-led Marxist faction. Indicative of this dominance are the machinations surrounding the 2020 and the 2024 elections, which has brought this wing of the party to the final stages of achieving its long-term goal of transforming America into a one-party socialist oligarchy.

The American Left has long understood that in order to transform the United States, they would have to control one of two major political parties. The Left-leaning Democrat Party, thanks to the socialist sympathies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, was the obvious target.

The turmoil of the 1960s allowed the Marxists to accelerate this process as they focused on brazenly infiltrating the higher-education establishment. By the 1990s they succeeded in dominating this vital societal institution and turning out legions of Marxist/socialist sympathizers to permeate the media and entertainment complex as well as their ultimate target -- the Democrat Party.

In 1994, just 25% of Democrats self-identified as liberal or very liberal (i.e. Marxist/socialist sympathizers). On the other hand, 50% identified as moderates, and 25% as conservatives. The Democrat Party prior to and into the early 2000s was dominated by the self-identified moderates.

However, the years between 2008 and 2018 saw an explosion in those identifying as liberal or very liberal. A major milestone was achieved in 2018. Over 51% of Democrats identified themselves as liberal or very liberal. (By 2022 that number had further increased to 54% and will, in all likelihood, exceed 60% by 2028).

This process began in 2008 when the American Marxists found their ideal stealth candidate, Barack Obama. Not only was he, beneath the façade of glibness, conviviality, and moderation, a fellow Marxist/socialist, but more importantly, Obama was able to exploit the decades of inculcated racial guilt among the populace.

Thus, the Marxist wing of the party effectively checkmated the entrenched party hierarchy who could not be seen opposing the election of the first Black president. Their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, was eventually cast aside as the party rallied around an unknown Barack Obama.

Upon the installation of the most radical administration in the history of the country, the Marxist/socialist wing of the party initiated the final stage of their grand strategy to take over the Democrat Party.

Revealingly, the victors were unabashedly shameless in their triumph. In their belief that the American Marxists and their fellow travelers were permanently ensconced in government, the Obama administration and their sycophants did not hesitate to aggressively infiltrate the party establishment.

Additionally, and for the same overall objective, Barack Obama and his henchmen deliberately fanned the flames of race and identity politics to further divide the citizenry and, using their Marxists foot soldiers, fomenting riots in a calculated Nazi-inspired tactic of further intimidating and marginalizing the “old guard” hierarchy of the party.

In 2016, despite the inroads the American Marxists had made within the party, the establishment still dominated the nominating process and backed Hillary Clinton once again. The Obama/Marxist wing of the party had no obvious candidate to support other than Bernie Sanders, who was perceived to be unelectable. However, comfortable in their newly established position as the dominate influencers within the party, they acquiesced to the establishment’s belief that Hillary was unbeatable in the general election.

However an unexpected thing happened on the way to the coronation, Donald Trump won. The American Marxist’s giddiness during the Obama years over implementing their plans for permanent hegemony in American politics was replaced with uncontrolled anger, pettiness, and an insatiable determination to exact revenge on those who dared deny them their birthright.

Donald Trump, together with all the factions that voted for him, as well as the conservative media, represented an existential threat to their grandiose plans for themselves. In a mindset shared with their now best friends, the party establishment, their mortal enemies must not only be annihilated by any means possible, but their ashes strewn across the desert regardless of the consequences to the nation as a whole.

By 2020 and after four years of futilely pursuing and persecuting Trump, the establishment’s hold on the party further waned while the Obama/Marxist influence was ascendant. But the establishment wing still marginally maintained the upper hand in the nominating process. Who would the party nominate to again take on Donald Trump? In a nondescript field, Bernie Sanders took the early lead in the primaries and panic again set in as the party hierarchy, including the Obama/Marxists, were convinced he could not defeat Trump.

It was the establishment wing of the party that effectively drafted a compromise with the Obama/Marxists to back an obviously mentally incapacitated Joe Biden to be the nominee. Both factions were convinced they could get him elected despite his obvious frailties by portraying him as a grandfatherly moderate and exploiting the Coronavirus lockdowns in order to keep him off the campaign trail while instituting mass mail-in voting, manipulating the voting laws of various states, and unleashing ballot harvesting and voter fraud.

Biden was acceptable to the Marxist wing as they, in particular Obama, were well aware of Biden’s lifelong mendacity, venality, and avarice that they could exploit to further their agenda. They further insisted a compliant Marxist true-believer be chosen as vice-president to protect their interests in the highly likely event Biden could not finish his term or run for re-election; Kamala Harris was the chosen one.

This same faction of the Democrat Party staffed virtually the entire Biden administration with their fellow-travelers. Their hold over Biden succeeded as he essentially did what he was told and promoted the entirety of the American Marxist agenda, including radicalizing the Federal Judiciary, marginalizing Congress, and weaponizing the Justice Department.

By the late spring of 2024, and despite the three-year effort of the Democrats and their ally, the legacy media, Biden’s accelerating frailties could no longer be obfuscated. The time had come to move Joe out of the race by telling him to debate Trump, have the American people see firsthand his mental and physical frailties, and then dispatch the legacy media to promote the necessity of his exiting the race.

Once the Republican convention was over and Trump was irretrievably their nominee, it was time to strike a deal with the Biden family syndicate in exchange for Joe walking away from the campaign and endorsing Kamala Harris. A deal which included future pardons, “other” considerations, and remaining in office until at least election day.

By waiting until the Republican convention was over also coronated Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee; essentially making it impossible for another non-Obama/Marxist approved Democrat to make a run for the nomination at their convention.

It is now unarguable that the Obama/Marxist wing fully controls the party as the nominee will be Kamala Harris or, if she falters prior to the convention, another equally compliant candidate will be designated. There is no room in the party hierarchy for anyone not acceptable to this dominant faction.

In 2020, the Obama/Marxist wing thwarted the will of the people by initiating unprecedented voting fraud and manipulation in order to further their radical agenda by placing an easily blackmailable and addled Joe Biden in the White House.

In 2024, the Obama/Marxist wing thwarted the will of the people by stage-managing the nominating process and unilaterally choosing the Democrat nominee. All the while planning a reprise of the 2020 campaign of mendacity as well as massive voting fraud and manipulation.

After the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency, the Marxist faction and, thus, the Democrat Party has increasingly and unabashedly adopted Nazi tactics to consolidate their power. Additionally, virulent antisemitism has become an ideological bedrock of the party.



Rally coverage, On the Fringe, and more- July 31

 




Average Family Spends 43 Percent of Income on Taxes, More Than on Necessities: Report

 I wonder what American Families income tax burden is?

The average Canadian family continues to spend more of its income on taxes than on basic necessities, according to a newly released report.

The Fraser Institute released its latest Consumer Tax Index on July 30. The index has been tracking Canada’s tax burden since 1961.

The average Canadian family in 2023 spent 43 percent of its income on taxes and 35.6 percent on basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter, the report said.

“Considering the sheer amount of income that goes towards taxes in this country, Canadians may question whether or not we’re getting good value for our money,” Fraser Institute director of fiscal studies Jake Fuss said in a statement.

The institute said the average household earned $109,235 in 2023 and paid $46,988 in total taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, and vehicle taxes.

By comparison, in 1961, the average family had an income of $5,000 and paid $1,675 in taxes, for a total tax burden of 33.5 percent.

The institute notes a 2,705 percent increase in Canadians’ tax bill since 1961. In comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the average price consumers pay for items such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care, rose 901 percent over the same period.

When adjusted for inflation, Canadians’ tax bills have increased by 180 percent since 1961, the institute said.

The Fraser Institute also notes that since governments are running deficits, these will eventually need to be paid for by taxes.

“The total tax bill of the average family would be much higher than it actually is if, instead of financing its expenditures with deficits, all Canadian governments had simply increased tax rates to balance their budgets,” the report said.

Adding this deferred taxation would raise the 2,705 percent tax increase since 1961 to 2,852 percent.

Data from the institute also indicate how the average expenditure for shelter has increased over the years. It marks the highest increase among basic necessities, with a 2,006 percent rise since 1961 compared to 901 percent for food and 478 percent for clothing.

Canadians have been experiencing affordability issues in recent years with first a spike in inflation and more recently with high interest rates as the central bank works to rein in inflation.

The Liberal government has been focused on creating social programs to help with affordability, whereas the Conservative Opposition has said limiting the size of government and cutting spending is needed to bring down the cost of living.

To help fund its programs, Ottawa recently increased the capital gains “inclusion rate.” Individuals previously paid tax only on 50 percent of their total capital gains. Under the new measure, effective June 25, they now pay tax on 66.7 percent of any capital gains above $250,000, though they still pay tax only on half of their capital gains up to that threshold.
“Canada could finance these critical investments by taking on more debt, but that would place an unfair burden on younger generations,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said about the measure on June 10.
Ms. Freeland also said the recently enacted Digital Services Tax on large foreign tech companies is needed for the same reason.

“As Canadians, we have such a crying need for investment in so many things in our country, whether it is housing, or making life more affordable, or investing in productivity and growth,” she said in early July.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/average-family-spends-43-percent-of-income-on-taxes-more-than-on-necessities-report-5696480?&utm_source=MB_article_paid&utm_campaign=MB_article_2024-07-31-ca&utm_medium=email&est=Xh4Bk8sPRp%2B83VfLvVC5inYifRtOGRaWukW4WdVPUpwJkj9Wu2yJpg31PBb5WPVwhYhf&utm_content=highlight-news-2


No Biggie, but They Tried to Murder Trump


It’s been nearly three weeks since somebody shot President Trump, and you’d never know it if you didn’t remember it. Google has already buried it. Try googling “assassination of Donald Trump” and see what happens. Go in there and Google “Trump is literally Hitler,” and you know it’s going to autocomplete that. But shooting the candidate supported by half of America? No, we’re going to forget about that. 

The loser who shot Donald Trump was obviously some leftist-inspired weirdo. We don’t know much about him. We don’t know anything about his family. We’ve seen a couple of clips of local media interviewing his acquaintances. Now, if it had been a MAGA busting caps on Democrats, they’d have been very interested in what happened. It would be 24/7 about how Donald Trump‘s hateful rhetoric created an environment ripe for murder. But of course, it was Donald Trump and some patriots who got shot, and since the Democrats’ hate that inspired it, you’re not going to hear anything at all.

A lot of conservatives think this was a conspiracy to kill Donald Trump, and after the last few years, don’t look to me to tell you to take off the tinfoil hat. They have not earned our default rejection of the worst-case scenario. Maybe the CIA programmed this weirdo to go and do the deed, but I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories because I don’t think our enemies are competent to pull them off. This was more like a soft conspiracy. They pegged the hate meter into the deep red so that unstable people would get the message that you better shoot this guy, or he’s going to literally Mussolini all over America. Combine that with a Secret Service leadership that finds it hilarious not to give Donald Trump the security he needs because Take that, Trump! and you have a recipe for murder. A man is dead because of it, and they don’t care.

But was this a conscious plan? At some point, gross negligence and active malice become almost indistinguishable. If this was planned, what would they have done differently? Still, there were a lot of moving pieces and a lot of different agencies. The Secret Service did not tell cops not to get on that roof. The Secret Service just failed to make sure someone did. And the failure is spread around so no one is truly responsible. We learned a principle of warfare pretty early in officer school, and that’s unity of command. There’s one guy in charge. He makes the final decisions, and he’s the guy who is responsible for the mission. Now ask yourself this question: “What’s the name of the guy in charge in Butler, Pennsylvania, that day?”

We don’t know. Sure, the DEI halfwit allegedly in charge of the Secret Service was sacrificed as a scapegoat, but who was in charge at the scene? What was his name? Or her name? Or their name. How come we don’t know who that person is?

Let’s talk about this shooter and his rifle. The Secret Service knew he was walking around. They saw him doing things. Nobody went and got him. Nobody raised the alarm. “Hey, we had a weirdo on a roof. What’s up with that? Maybe the president shouldn’t speak for a minute until we take care of it.” That didn’t happen.

We hear a lot about his marksmanship skills, but he didn’t have any. He apparently took eight shots and managed only to nick Donald Trump’s ear. People keep saying that a headshot at that distance is a relatively routine shot, but most people aim center mass. He was probably aiming at that, and he missed seven of eight and barely nicked his target once. This was no Day of the Jackal; it was Day of the Jackass.

So what does this whole sordid thing tell us? First, the Democrats inspired the attack on Donald Trump with their lies and garbage rhetoric. It no doubt preyed upon the mind of a loser and got him to throw his life away, botching his attempt to write his name in the history books.

The Secret Service brought further discredit upon itself. The federal government was never perfect, but were its component parts always grossly incompetent? If you look at what happened with Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan in 1981 after that guy shot him in a bit for the attentions of Jodie Foster – talk about barking up the wrong tree – the photos show butch-looking Secret Service dudes with massive labels packing Uzis and .357 magnums looking like they were ready to fight and win World War III. Yeah, bad guys do bad things. The enemy gets a vote. But those guys looked tough. You look at today’s Secrets Service, with roly-poly agents who can’t even holster their guns, and your mind starts playing circus music.

But while the government humiliated itself, Donald Trump walked away bloody but defiant and unbound, his fist raised in the sky. Oh, you’re not going to see much of that iconic photograph anymore. They’re going to memory hole that, too. But they can’t memory hole our memories. We remember. We know. Donald Trump distinguished himself from the kind of femmy wussboys who jumped on Pete Buttigieg’s “White Dudes For Kamala” fundraising call. And the left knows it.

They tried to kill Donald Trump, not specifically, not planning it down to the gnat’s rear end, but by creating an environment where it could happen and ensuring the failed security that would let it. They thought they would rid themselves of the problem of Donald Trump. But they got Donald Trump the Legend, and we won’t forget that.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Biden Wants To Destroy The Supreme Court So It Can’t Curb Government Power-Mongers

Recent dissents from SCOTUS’ left wing contradict Biden’s claim that it’s the conservative majority endangering freedoms.



This week, President Biden introduced his plan for “reforming” the Supreme Court, featuring an unconstitutional proposal for imposing term limits on justices. This development follows years of relentless leftist attacks and unfair criticism towards the constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

President Biden claims these “reforms” are necessary because “what is happening now (on the Supreme Court)… undermines the public’s confidence in recent court decisions” and has negatively impacted “our personal freedoms.” In reality, the political left simply doesn’t like that recent rulings have held up the Constitution’s limits on the power of government.

Biden’s hypocrisy on “personal freedoms” is most evident in the recent dissents by the court’s left wing — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. All betray a lack of concern for upholding the Constitution’s protections against an oppressive central government and abusive prosecutors.

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated investment adviser George Jarkesy Jr. and his investment advisor firm, claiming he had committed investment fraud. The SEC then prosecuted him in-house, not in a court of law, using an administrative law “judge” — an SEC employee — who, surprise, surprise, found Jarkesy guilty and imposed a $300,000 fine.

Jarkesy challenged this procedure, arguing this administrative prosecution violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a court of law. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed — that is, the six justices who are constantly being attacked by President Biden and the mainstream media agreed.

Yet Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson saw no problem with, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, the bureaucrats in an executive branch agency assuming the “roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury.” The dissenters, said Roberts, would give the government the authority “to penalize citizens without a jury, without an independent judge, and under procedures foreign to our courts.” It was to prevent such violations of “individual liberty” that the Constitution built “high walls and clear distinctions.”

In Sotomayor’s disturbing dissent, which was joined by Kagan and Jackson, she wrote she would knock down those high walls. In her view, nothing in the Constitution “requires the Government to seek civil penalties” in such a securities fraud case “before a jury in federal court.”

That view is a recipe for a despotic government that can abuse its law enforcement authority to prosecute members of the public without the due process of law. It is a frightening view of unchecked government power that impacts “personal freedoms” in a way that Biden approves.

The same misguided view of government is apparent in these justices’ dissent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which tossed out the so-called Chevron doctrine. Chevron was a regrettable 1984 decision in which the Supreme Court said courts should generally “defer” to federal agencies when interpreting the statutes those agencies administer, at least so long as the statute is “ambiguous” and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, even if the court decides that it is not the best interpretation of the statute in question.

In other words, if there was any question about whether an agency had gone beyond the power granted to it by a federal statute, federal courts should not question an agency’s permissive interpretation of the extent of its own authority. Over time, this resulted in federal bureaucrats having carte blanche to do almost anything they wanted.

t also flew in the face of Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous ruling in Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” as well as Congress’s judgment in the Administrative Procedure Act that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

In Loper Bright, the National Marine Fisheries Service used that “interpretation” power to claim it could require commercial fishermen to not only carry NMFS observers on their boats, but to actually pay the observers’ salaries, even though there was no such provision giving the NMFS that power in the authorizing statute.

As Roberts said in the majority opinion, this deferral to federal agencies was a “fundamental disruption of our separation of powers” in the Constitution. The “Founders envisioned that ‘the courts [would] check the Executive by applying the correct interpretation of the law.’” The Chevron doctrine had stripped the “courts of judicial power by simultaneously increasing the power of executive agencies.”

Yet once again, the three dissenters, led this time by Kagan, saw nothing wrong with giving executive branch agencies such power. According to her, when Congress has “left an ambiguity or gap” in a statute, the courts should leave it up to the swarms of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide how much power they have, and how far they can go, to regulate the lives, professions, and property of the American public and their businesses.

Kagan saw nothing wrong with “sen[ding] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” to cite one of the complaints about the English monarchy in the Declaration of Independence.

Of course, one of the areas the leftist justices don’t mind curbing government is when giving local governments the ability to try to clean up their cities and make parks and other public places safe for families and children. In a revealing dissent in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, Sotomayor, again joined by Kagan and Jackson, bizarrely argued that local ordinances against camping in public parks violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights not to tie the hands of government officials trying to address a vexing problem, but to prevent, as Justice Neil Gorsuch points out in the majority opinion, “certain barbaric punishments like ‘disemboweling, quartering, public dissection, and burning alive.’” Anti-camping ordinances are a key part of solving the homelessness problem that is overwhelming so many cities across the country. That includes places like San Francisco, which in its amicus brief in the case related that it has thousands of individuals sleeping in “tents and makeshift structures” in its public places.

As Gorsuch says, potential solutions to that problem need to be resolved through the democratic process, not by federal judges. The Eighth Amendment “does not authorize federal judges to wrest those [democratic] rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

Adopting the leftist bloc’s view would turn judges into super-legislators with veto authority over local laws and ordinances they don’t like under the guise of constitutional interpretation. That is judicial activism, pure and simple. Accordingly, when Joe Biden claims that we “stand in a breach” and must defend democracy against the conservative appointees on the Supreme Court, it is to prevent them from further reigning in these kinds of unchecked government powers.



It's Not News, It's Democrat Fan-Fiction


I'm often torn between two opinions about the leftist media complex. 

On one hand, I see their reporting and wonder if they're living in the same reality I am. Do they see everything that I'm seeing? Surely, they're bearing witness to the same events, hearing the same people talk, and seeing the same outcomes I am. If not, then where are they? 

On the other hand, I know good and well that evil exists and that in a fallen world like ours, evil would seek out places of influence and power in order to infect everything it can. Through a series of unfortunate decisions and life events, one can be influenced to spreading that evil themselves. They can even convince themselves that the evil they spread is good, or that this evil is necessary in order to achieve ends they see as good. 

Either way, what we end up with is a media complex that has no problem blatantly lying, misrepresenting facts, and deliberately hiding the truth in order to push agendas they see as positive in some way, shape, or form. They report the world as they want it to be, not what it is. 

In the cultural realm, we would call this kind of writing "fan-fiction" or an enthusiast's non-canon story that utilizes the characters, settings, and more from a pre-established story. Sometimes fan-fiction can be very good, but most of the time it's awkward, horribly written, and nonsensical. It's the "fan-fiction" realm, where you'll find fan-written garbage about how Luke Skywalker and Han Solo ended up being lovers or Harry Potter transforms himself into a woman and proceeds to get up to weird stuff. 

Watching the media, it's oftentimes that level of weirdness. 

Take, for instance, this bit of blatant fiction from MSNBC contributor Molly Jong-Fast who said, with a completely straight face, that Donald Trump's VP pick, J.D. Vance, wants more white children because he believes in the "great-replacement" theory. 


For those who don't know, Vance's wife is Indian ethnically, and they have three children together. If Vance is a white supremacist as Jong-Fast is implying, then he's one of the worst I've ever seen. 

And it's not like Vance is hiding his children. He's taken plenty of pictures with them that are available to the public. I just checked his Wikipedia page, and it also mentions his multicultural wedding and the three children he had with his Hindu wife, and Wikipedia is a bastion of left-leaning information. 

What kind of world does Jong-Fast live in? Because it's not ours. Her take on Vance's stances are pure fantasy and demonstrably so. 

We don't have to stop there. One of the largest purveyors of Democrat fan-fiction is "The View" where the hostesses consistently demonstrate their ability to soak their own minds in falsehoods in order to believe in a world that doesn't exist. 

As my colleague Mike Miller covered, the coven went into how Kamala Harris is a "moderate" as Sara Haines noted: 

Vice President Harris is really – and this is my — I don't have input here, but what I'm seeing — only looking at moderate beloved Democrats. And what that says to me is, for the person saying, "You're too extreme," she's the only one that's actually checking in with the American public. 

Forty-three percent of this country identifies as independents. They are more moderate than the minority extremes would like you to think. By minority I mean partisan extremes. But the country is in the middle.

She's saying, ‘I see you as voters.’ So, it’s not just political strategy. I feel like she's thinking about people like me when she's picking her vice presidential candidate.

Miller put it well in his article. 

"Setting aside Haines's complete mischaracterization of JD Vance, for a bit, the co-host's portrayal of far-left-wing Harris was the stuff of fairy tales — delusional fairy tales, that is," Miller wrote. 

It's true. Harris is demonstrably no moderate. She's not only advocated for what amounts to communism, her radicalism has been on full display for ages. Her time as California's AG is a perfect example of how authoritarian and leftist she is, and it's not exactly a hidden fact. Tulsi Gabbard blasted that info out on national television during the 2020 Democrat primary and so much of America saw it that it forced Harris's popularity to plummet and eventually forced her out of the race early.


That, my friends, is a canon event...yet to the media none of that ever happened. 

Harris isn't a woman who cares about the American people. She locked them up for far longer than they should have been given their charges and used them for what amounted to slave labor. It looks really bad when quite a few of these people she locked up were minorities. 

If Vance had done that in any capacity, the media wouldn't be able to shut up about it. Instead, they're too busy making up stories about a fictional Harris. 

They're writing their own personal take on events hoping you would believe it too. To be sure, there will be some who do. The media's influence is crumbling, but it's still pervasive. They will convince people that certain individuals have characteristics they don't actually have, and rewrite events so that the thing that happened didn't happen at all. 

It's fan-fiction, and it's pathetic. 



Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh Killed in Tehran, Iran


It seems like this has now been confirmed. Two Sources:

IRAN – Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards were killed after his residence was targeted in Tehran, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) confirmed in a statement.

A statement by the IRGC’s Public Relations Department said the attack was carried out early Wednesday, adding that a probe is underway to find the cause of the incident.

The statement offered condolences to the people of Palestine, the Muslim world, and the Resistance Front’s fighters over the Hamas leader’s death.

A statement by Hamas says an “Israeli” raid killed the Palestinian group’s leader Ismail Haniyeh in his residence in Tehran.

Earlier on Tuesday, Haniyeh had attended the inauguration of Iran’s new president and met Iran’s Supreme Leader.  SOURCE

REUTERS – CAIRO, July 31 (Reuters) – Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Iran’s Tehran, the Palestinian militant group Hamas said in a statement on Wednesday.

In a statement, the Islamist faction mourned the death of Haniyeh, who it said was killed in “a treacherous Zionist raid on his residence in Tehran”. SOURCE