Tuesday, January 9, 2024

If Trump Didn’t Exist, Democrats Would Have to Invent Him


He’s the devil and Hitler rolled into a bad hairdo and golf shirt. At least, that’s what Democrats insist Donald Trump is. Well, it’s what they insist to the public that’s what Donald Trump is, whether they actually believe it themselves remains to be seen, but I highly doubt it. With the exception of a few particularly stupid Members of Congress, Democrats realize they’re engaging in political lies rather than anything legitimate. They have to, their record is so horrible they have to make the other side seem worse. If Donald Trump didn’t exist, they’d have to invent him.

If your opponent is Hitler, it doesn’t really matter much what you are, you’re better than Hitler. 

That’s the calculation Democrats have made for 2024 – whoever the Republicans nominate, they’re Hitler or worse. Never mind the fact that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were progressive leftists – did they think the National Socialist German Workers’ Party tossed in “Socialist” as a laugh? – reality has little space in the modern Democratic Party. 

The “progressive experiment” cities and states across the country have been engaged in is failing. How many violent criminals have been arrested in the morning, released in the afternoon, then rearrested in the evening because they’ve eliminated cash bail for violent goons? How many Americans are dead because of soft-on-crime policies and an open border? Where is unchecked left-wing power working? 

Is there a place in the country where Democrats have had generational power and junkies aren’t defecating in the streets? Is there a decades-long Democrat controlled city where anyone feels safe driving with their car doors unlocked

I’ll save you the trouble of looking, the answer is no.

With that as your record, what choice do Democrats have? Politicians aren’t exactly known for their honesty, so what’s a lie like that to people who breathe dishonesty? 

Trump doesn’t help. Successful politicians don’t give ammunition to their opponents, yet The Donald’s nearly every move is to do or say something seemingly purposely running right up to the lie, either because he thinks it helps him or he doesn’t realize it does not. 

Whatever the reason, the best thing Donald Trump has going for him is the absolute frenzy Democrats whip themselves into over his every move and his very existence. The girls screaming at television sets as The Beatles played on them in 1964 were more rational-thinking than your average MSNBC host.

If Trump didn’t exist, they’d have to create him. They need him to fundraise, they need him to motivate, they need him to scare.

If Republicans nominate Ron DeSantis, he’s Hitler. If Republicans nominate Nikki Haley, she’s Hitler. Hell, if Republicans nominated Joe Biden, just as a reflex, he’d be painted as Hitler too. 

“Stop Hitler” is a much easier bumper sticker or lawn sign to move than one reading, “Mutilate the genitals of children” or “a $5 loaf of bread is perfectly fine.” The fewer details a Democrat has to give on anything, the better off they are. And the less people know what Democrats actively advocate for, the higher their chance of winning is. That’s part of why they love Trump too – he doesn’t take them on with specifics at his rallies, he mostly just claims he’ll do better and goes off on tangents about his various legal cases. Maybe boring them at events will keep illegals from wanting to come to the country?

Whatever the case, Democrats need to make their opponents Hitler, and have been heading in that direction for some time. What’s really worrisome is what comes next?

Where do they go after they’ve painted all their opponents as Hitler? If you really think about an answer, you come up with nothing good.

Actually, you can come up with only one good answer – they go away. People who paint their opponents as Hitler who don’t take the next step and turn to violence (because if you really believe your opponent is Hitler, what is not justified to do to prevent them from getting anywhere near power?) dissolve. That would be the best-case scenario, and really the only good outcome.

I don’t think Democrats are going to go away anytime soon, unfortunately. So, what we’re left with is the idea that some of them, the masses unthinking enough to buy into the Hitler analogies spewed by the manipulative leadership, will turn even more violent. That, too, will be blamed on Republicans, because why not? 

If Donald Trump didn’t exist, Democrats would have to invent him. And if Donald Trump ever leaves the political stage, the next Republican will be painted at Donald Trump too. It’s all Democrats have.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- January 9

 




A Culture in Collapse ~ VDH

American civilization has been turned upside down, and we have a rendezvous soon with the once unthinkable and unimaginable.


In the last six months, we have borne witness to many iconic moments evidencing the collapse of American culture.

The signs are everywhere and cover the gamut of politics, the economy, education, social life, popular culture, foreign policy, and the military. These symptoms of decay share common themes.

Our descent is self-induced; it is not a symptom of a foreign attack or subterfuge. Our erosion is not the result of poverty and want, but of leisure and excess. We are not suffering from existential crises of famine, plague, or the collapse of our grid and fuel sources. Prior, far poorer, and war-torn generations now seem far better off than what we are becoming.

What is happening to us is not due to an adherence to a too strict conservative tradition but is almost exclusively the wage of the progressive project.

In short, we are seeing fissures that America has not experienced in our cultural history since the Civil War. The radical Left apparently feels such chaos, anarchy, and nihilism are necessary to topple past norms and customs and thereby adhere to a socialist, equity agenda that no one in normal times would stomach.

Some of the decay is existential and fundamental; some anecdotal and illustrative. But either way, while decline came about gradually over decades, its sudden and abrupt chaos during the three years of Biden’s presidency has shocked Americans.

Financial Implosion

As long as interest rates were de facto zero, both parties ran up gargantuan debt. Now the national debt has hit $34 trillion. But two odd things have also happened under the Biden administration that are beginning to undermine the very existence of the U.S. financial system:

1) Interest rates have soared from de facto zero and are on a trajectory to 5.5%—meaning that the interest on the debt, in theory, in the not too distant future will require 20 percent of the annual budget, squeezing out both entitlements and defense.

2) Yet the upcoming rendezvous with economic Armageddon has not slowed a Biden administration intent on borrowing nearly $2 trillion in the current fiscal year.

The public is baffled: is the Left playing chicken with us? Is the strategy to “gorge the beast,” thereby demanding even higher federal taxes, which, combined with many state taxes, now exceed 50 percent of one’s income?

Is the goal massive “redistribution” by ensuring “equity” by gouging the middle class and rich? Or is the left’s goal more nihilistic: to force a remedy for insolvency by ensuring high inflation, renouncing government debt, or government appropriation of private capital?

Military Crises

Americans have lost deterrence abroad.

Confusion reigns among the public over why the Biden administration fled from Afghanistan, leaving behind billions of dollars of munitions and equipment in the hands of Taliban terrorists. Why did it allow a Chinese spy balloon to traverse the continental U.S. with impunity?

And why did Biden signal to Russia when preparing an invasion of Ukraine that our reaction would depend on the magnitude of Putin’s offensive? Why has military recruitment cratered, shorting the Pentagon of thousands of soldiers?

Why do Iranian proxies attack almost daily U.S. installations abroad and ships in the Red Sea, apparently without fear of reprisal? Why did Hamas slaughter Israelis on October 7? What explains our indifference or ennui?

Is the answer a deliberate effort to curb supposed American “arrogance” by once more leading from behind? Are we rebooting the Obama Administration’s bankrupt idea of empowering an Iranian crescent from Teheran to Damascus to Beirut to Gaza to ensure “creative tension” between Israel and the moderate Arabs and Persian-led theocratic Shiites?

Why do our officer classes rotate in and out of lucrative military consultantships, lobbying billets, and board membership on corporate defense contractors—as if their innate talents rather than their lifelong contacts with current serving procurement officers earned their exorbitant fees?

Why did our retired four stars with disdain violate the uniform code of military justice by serially and publicly trashing the commander in chief? Why has the Pentagon revolutionized the entire system of recruitment, promotions, and tenure in the armed forces by predicating them in large part on race, gender, and sexual orientation rather than merit or battlefield efficacy? Did we learn anything from the old Soviet commissariat system? Would we prefer to lose a war by promoting equity than win one by ensuring liberty?

Why did the top brass go after supposedly “insurrectionist” white males (who died at twice their demographics during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan) in the military, only to discover from their own internal investigations that no such cabal of “domestic terrorists” existed, and only to drive out thousands more of the maligned by stupidly requiring COVID vaccinations from those with naturally acquired immunity?

In sum, the U.S. will either undergo a post-Vietnam-like revolution in the military or, in late Roman imperial fashion, our armed forces will be unable to defend the interests or indeed, the very safety, of the U.S.

Race

Why, when so-called non-white ethnicities and races were achieving parity with or exceeding the majority population in per capita income and when racial intermarriage was commonplace, did we blow up the values of the civil rights movement and revert to precivilizational tribalism? Who were the sophists who convinced us that racially segregated dorms, safe spaces, and graduations, or using race as an arbiter of admissions and hiring, were not racist?

When did we lump together an entire cadre of diverse ancestries, ethnicities, religions, politics, classes, and values and dub them all “white,” and then smear them collectively in stereotypical fashion? When did we calibrate race as the chief determinative factor in our identities? Have we become premodern tribal people—feuding clans right out of the Norse sagas, ghosts of the Balkans nursing ancient grievances and hatreds? Since when in history has a nation’s “diversity” ever been preferable to its “unity”?

The Sexes

Did anyone in, say, 2004 believe that in just twenty years, the Left would try to mainstream the previously rare medical malady of gender dysphoria into a transgendered civil rights issue by insisting on three rather than two sexes?

Would anyone have believed that leftists, gays, and feminists would have done their best to destroy a half-century of female athletic achievement by allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports and thereby erase the record performances of three generations of women?

Would anyone have believed that a feminist and accomplished swimmer like Riley Gaines would be cornered, swarmed, threatened, and barricaded in at a university for the crime of daring to state the obvious: that transgendered women are still, in terms of their musculoskeletal physiques and frames, males and thereby have no business competing in women’s sports?

Would anyone have believed that a gay senate aide would have engaged in passive, unprotected sex in a public and hallowed Senate chamber, filmed in graphic detail his act of sodomy, had it circulated among friends and social media, and then, when outrage followed, claimed victimhood by accusing those offended of being homophobic toward him and his active homosexual partner?

Lawlessness

We are witnessing the steady erasure of jurisprudence, both civil and criminal. Does the law as we knew it a mere decade ago still exist? Massive looting with impunity is now largely exempt from justice in our major blue-state cities. In Compton, a van slams into a Mexican bakery as waiting crowds swarm, loot, and destroy the business. And for what? Some free pies and cakes? Or the nihilist delight in ruining the livelihood of a hardworking family business?

Such smash-and-grabs rob stores of billions of dollars in revenue each year. Can we even comprehend that employees and security guards are now ordered to stand down, as if the apprehension of such thieves might in some way seem illiberal or racist?

Does anyone even care that pro-Hamas protestors—many in America as guests on green cards and student visas—shouted support for the October 7 massacre of Jews, screamed for the destruction of Israel and the Jews in it, shut down the Manhattan and Golden Gate Bridges, defiled the Lincoln Memorial and White House gates, and disrupted Christmas celebrations in our major cities with complete exemption? Is storming the California legislature, and disrupting it in session, now a felony in the manner of those convicted after January 6, or do we have two sets of laws, dependent on ideology, race, and party affiliation?

In one of the most chilling videos in memory, Las Vegas Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus was recently violently attacked by an unshackled career felon defendant (with three prior violent felony convictions and facing additional new felony counts). The assailant, Deobra Redden, leaped over the justice’s bench with ease and began beating her and pulling her hair before two bailiffs, with great difficulty, managed to restrain him. Why was Redden out on parole given his violent record, and why was he not shackled given his toxic past? His self-admitted effort to kill the judge, his ability nearly to pull it off, and the record of past leniency accorded him are a commentary on a sick society.

But then again, in our major cities, George-Soros-subsidized prosecutors have all but destroyed civil society. They have been systematically releasing felons with violent criminal records on the same day they are arrested, freeing convicted felons early from prisons and jails, and sabotaging the law by arbitrary enforcement on the grounds that it is inherently either unfair or racist.

The post civilization civil bookend to that precivilizational subterfuge was a systematic legal effort, for the first time in American history, to remove in an election year the leading primary and general election candidate Donald Trump from various state ballots. The Soviet-like charge was that he was guilty of “insurrection,” a crime he has never been charged with, much less convicted of. Meanwhile, three state prosecutors and one special federal counsel—all leftists and some previously bragging in their own election campaigns of their intention to destroy Trump—have charged candidate Trump with an array of felonies. The vast majority of Americans agree Trump would never have been so charged had he just not sought to seek reelection—or had been a liberal Democrat.

Education

In ancient times, the President of the Harvard Corporation was a signature scholar and intellectual, befitting Harvard’s own self-regard as the world’s most preeminent university. No longer.

Now-resigned president Coleen Gay’s meteoric career was based on a flimsy record of a mere 11 articles—the majority of them plagiarized. Her entire career was fueled by the tired pretext that the privileged Gay was somehow deserving of special deference given her race and gender.

Confronted with such corruption, the Harvard Corporation, its legal team, and 700 faculty sought to downplay Gay’s intellectual theft. Indeed, they smeared her critics as racist—only then to deal with her new billet as a professor of Political Science with a long record of plagiarism that was exempt from the sort of punishments dealt out to students and faculty for less egregious defenses.

How did Ivy League degrees so quickly become mostly certifications of ideological and woke orthodoxy? Or is it worse than that? Does a Stanford history major or Yale literature graduate know anything, respectively, about the Civil War or Shakespeare’s plays? Do they even know that we, the public, know that they don’t know?

Was Elizabeth Warren really Harvard’s first law professor of color? Was Claudine Gay truly an impressive and respected scholar of political science? Are the governing members of the Harvard Corporation the nation’s best and brightest?

How in less than five years did our elite universities destroy meritocracy, abolish SAT requirements, require DEI oaths and pledges, and mirror the worst commissariat institutions of the old Warsaw Pact nations and Soviet Union? How and why these elite universities blew themselves up in a mere decade will baffle historians for decades to come.

The End of Sovereignty

The Biden administration has shattered federal immigration law, as some 10 million illegal entries will have crossed unlawfully and with impunity in the first Biden term—all by intent. The southern border is not merely porous; it no longer even exists.

Did the Left want new constituents? New entitlement recipients to grow government and raise taxes on the clingers and deplorables?

Did it want a larger DEI base to replace the steady exodus of non-whites from left-wing agendas? Does it shun sovereignty, preferring a global village without arbitrary borders? Do these utopians in Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard similarly feel their own yards and grounds need no walls, no barriers, and no boundaries to deny the underprivileged their rights to enjoy what the predatory classes possess?

In this new America of ours, Joe Biden is hale and savvy, while Hunter did nothing wrong. Our heroes are Dylan Mulvaney, Gen. Rachel Levine, and the two Sams, Bankman-Fried and Brinton.

In today’s America, Karin Jean-Pierre is truthful, while Alejandro Mayorkas is honest. An innocent and saintly George Floyd was randomly murdered; his death proof of systemic police racism. And defunding the police brought calm and quiet, in the way our border is secure and the homeless are mere victims.

Dr. Jill is an impressive academic. Oprah and LeBron are the downtrodden and victimized. Gen. Mark Milley is a brave maverick, and so is Adam Schiff. The flight from Afghanistan marked a brilliantly organized retreat.

The Chinese balloon really did not take too many pictures of sensitive areas. January 6 was an armed insurrection, preplanned by fiery conspirators and revolutionaries. Ashli Babbitt deserved to be blasted in the neck for entering a broken window. 

Kamala Harris is a wordsmith. Russian collusion really happened. So did Russian laptop disinformation. Christopher Steele’s dossier was mostly true, in the fashion of Claudine Gay’s dissertation and Barack Obama’s memoir. And 51 former intelligence authorities bravely came forward to offer their expertise in certifying that Hunter’s laptop was cooked up in Moscow.

With all this, what do we think the Iranians, Putin’s Russians, the communist Chinese, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas now think of the United States?

That we are the nation that won World War II or fled from Afghanistan? Did the eight million who broke our laws and simply walked across our border respect us, fear us, admire us, or come here to manipulate and use us? Did Hamas appreciate the hundreds of millions of dollars we gave them, in the same way Iran was friendlier after we lifted the sanctions?

In sum, American civilization has been turned upside down, and we have a rendezvous soon with the once unthinkable and unimaginable.



Civil War 101

For Lincoln, the preservation of the Union was the chief goal of the war. All other objectives were subordinated to that one.


Question: What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

Select one:

1. The anchovies were running strong that year

2. Donald Trump

3. Slavery

4. Climate change

5. Donald Trump

6. Intersectionality

7. None of the above or other

For extra credit, write 800 words defending your choice.

Last week, presidential contender Nikki Haley was asked the same question. Her word-salad answer got her into a peck of trouble. She said first that it was not an “easy question,” which didn’t make a lot of sense since the questioner hadn’t seemed to struggle a bit asking it. What Haley meant was that producing the right answer would not be easy. That turned out to be an understatement.

Haley’s answer was “basically how government was gonna run—the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.” Having to listen to sentences like that could easily persuade people to vote for another candidate.

Then she added, “We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want without government getting in the way.”

OMG! We digress for just a moment: “so that individuals . . . can . . . do . . . anything they want. . . .” Anything? Anything? Please.

The questioner then said that it was astonishing that Haley had said nothing about slavery, to which Haley replied: “What do you want me to say about slavery? Next question.”

Who says, “Next question” to, well, to anyone? What a brushoff, and not the typical response to someone whose vote is being solicited.

Predictably, all the usual suspects jumped on Haley and instructed her that the cause of the Civil War was slavery. President Biden posted an online video stating, “It was about slavery.” Whether that was an original Biden answer or whether he copied it from someone else’s paper, we don’t know—yet. President Trump may appoint a special prosecutor to find out.

The liberal intelligentsia has been nodding, knowingly, at Haley’s gaffe, some predicting (gleefully) the end of the Haley campaign, some predicting it was only a one-day story.

Which leaves the rest of the public to wonder—and ask—What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

And, though no one seems to have asked this yet, is it possible there was more than one cause?

What is interesting, and a bit puzzling and troubling, is that the Civil War, whatever caused it, began in South Carolina, Nikki Haley’s home state, indeed the state of which she was governor.

Charleston, South Carolina, was the center of secessionist sentiment. Fort Sumter was a federal facility located on a small island in the harbor of Charleston. The secessionists in South Carolina had demanded that the fort be evacuated—something Lincoln’s predecessor, President Buchanan, refused to do.

As Wilfred McClay writes in his excellent Land of Hope, “Lincoln made the decision to attempt again to resupply . . . the fort. Unwilling to permit this, the Confederates opened fire on the fort and, after more than thirty hours of shelling,

forced its surrender in advance of the arrival of the resupply effort.” The fighting had begun.

That, ladies and gentlemen, was the beginning of the Civil War.

And now we come to the heart of the matter. Per McClay:

For Lincoln, the restoration and preservation of the Union was the chief goal of the war. All other objectives were subordinated to that one. It is important to stress this. It was not until well into the war that the overthrow of slavery became an important part of the Northern agenda. There could be no doubt that the existence of slavery was a central cause of the war; but there also can be no doubt that, as the war began, opposition to slavery was not the central reason why the North embraced a war against secession.

Events can have, for the sake of simplicity, what we will call proximate and ultimate causes. If a ball is hanging from a string and you cut the string, the ball will fall. What caused the ball to fall? The proximate cause was the cutting of the string. The ultimate cause was gravity.

Which cause did Haley’s interrogator have in mind? Almost certainly the ultimate cause. But anyone who knows anything about Lincoln knows that for him, at least initially, preserving the union was key.

In Lincoln’s second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, he did say the “slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” But he said that long after the war had begun and only three months before it ended.

One of Lincoln’s most famous quotes has to bother people who think the Civil War was only or primarily about slavery. In a letter to Horace Greeley dated almost three years earlier, on August 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So we can ask again, What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

In the spirit of Kwanza, students who answered “Donald Trump” get partial credit.



Totalitarian Governments Creating 'Climate Crimes' - It's Not About Climate, It's About Control


Whenever a government creates a whole new category of crimes, you know it isn't about the action being criminalized; it's about the control. In her work "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand (who grew up in the Soviet Union and knew all too well of what she wrote) laid out how it works very plainly in a conversation between steelmaker Henry Reardon and a government agent, Dr. Floyd Ferris:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Among the various governments of the world's nebulous, ill-defined NewCrimes are "climate crimes," which neatly fit Dr. Floyd Ferris's description of laws that "...can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted." And it's gone international.

  • In jolly old England, “property owners who don’t comply with new energy rules may face prison,” says the London Telegraph. “Ministers want to grant powers to create new criminal offenses and increase penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets,” the Telegraph continues. “Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to” nearly $19,000 in U.S. dollars.
  • Three guest authors writing in CarbonBrief about “climate misinformation” said that justice for those who dare challenge the global warming narrative includes “bringing in a correction or a collaborative approach after the misinformation has been received, or even putting in place punishments, such as fines or imprisonment.
  • Then there’s England’s lunatic Guardian newspaper. One of its climate correspondents has suggested “financial penalties or prison time” for oil company executives for their “40 years of lying about climate change,” as well as “the propagandists they’ve employed and the politicians they’ve funded” who so far “have largely escaped blame.”
  • The United Nations has wondered if “international criminal law” should “be used against those who promote this dangerous trend” of spreading “climate denial.”

Of those four, mind you, three of them propose to penalize people for saying the wrong thing - in a word, Wrongthink. In this field of discourse, dissent is not only not patriotic but must be suppressed at all costs. 

The implications of this are huge. People could, literally, be jailed for expressing an opinion. Formerly free nations would be required to stand up to a Disinformation Police, who would monitor, presumably, all of our utterances online and off and summon people before some kind of Disinformation Court to defend themselves - a sort of Inquisition, one might say, which nobody was expecting.


There is precedent. The Biden Administration is trying to regulate appliances, activists are deriding houseplants of all things, and things are bound to keep getting more and more ridiculous. This isn't about the climate; it's about control. It's always about control.

None of these things will apply to the elites, of course. They will retain their private jets, their yachts, and their filet mignon with spotted owl appetizers. And it’s not the climate they are pushing for – it’s power, the power to control what the hoi polloi say and do, and that’s for sure and for certain. The foot soldiers of the climate movement are loud, loutish, and annoying. But the leaders – many of them – wield power, and it is their agenda on which we must stay appraised. Ayn Rand saw it coming. We are seeing it arrive.

That, of course, is the key. Liberty depends on an informed public, aware of what is going on, and on the free exchange of ideas. You don't defeat bad ideas with suppression; you defeat them with good ideas, and liberty is always the best idea. Whether we are talking about the climate, guns, speech, or anything else, we can never go wrong defaulting to liberty. The legacy media is on the side of those who would control; fortunately, there are alternatives. You're reading one of those alternatives now.

As for the climate: as always, I'll start believing there's a climate crisis when the people who keep telling me there's a climate crisis start acting like there's a climate crisis.



James Clyburn Introduces Joe Biden to 2024 AME Precinct Captains and Ballot Receivers



Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.   The cold, stark reality of the thing just sits there, staring you in the face, regardless of the discomfort it creates in the process.

Yesterday as expected, Joe Biden traveled to the Mother Emanuel AME Church in South Carolina where he was introduced to the Election 2024 AME precinct captains, ballot stuffers, electioneering tabulators and vote counters.  Gotta do that thing again, prompted:



Knowing they may have to go it alone, Team Biden kicked-off the MAGA extremist “threat to democracy” narrative in Philly last week. Then, immediately they head to the second part of the prior 2020 playbook – the AME Church network.

The AME Network is the race-based element they need for actual ballot manipulation in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County), Georgia (Fulton County), Nevada (Clark County), and Michigan (Wayne County).  It is the AME Church who organizes the racially motivated ballot creators, counters and precincts etc.

If you know the playbook, if you have watched the prior performances, you can clearly see the 2024 moves they make.

If you have not been following CTH research and election road mapping, you might not have the accurate context. So, a brief summary:

In 2020 in order to avoid Bernie Sanders, The Lightbringer and South Carolina’s James Clyburn agreed to merge BLM with AME. [Biden was oblivious] BLM would use George Floyd to activate action – the AME church network would use their implanted precinct captains. Chicago Jesus/Clyburn then agreed to Kamala. Shortly before Super Tuesday they told pudding brain, who had no options.  Then Obama got on the phone, organized the exit strategy for the other candidates, and made the promises of the precursory indulgences they would receive.   The bringer of all progressive enlightenment told Elizabeth Warren to stay in a little longer to ensure the Sanders (progressive) group was divided, and Super Tuesday went as planned.  That’s how 2020 rolled.  The AME team then fabricated the ballots as needed in the general.

Here’s the refresher as a repost from the earlier 2020 tripwires:

Once you understand what took place in the 2020 Democrat primary that saw all candidates fall in line behind Biden, according to the process that Obama initiated, then everything centered around the DNC moves makes buckets of sense.

Despite how the media is presenting this, it is not Biden’s plan. This is Obama’s 2024 insider club roadmap, and it specifically includes the alignment of interests that he created in 2020 to remove the threat that Bernie Sanders represented.  More on that in a moment.  First, the DNC plan:

(Via Politico) – […] The DNC is on track to reshape its primary calendar after dissatisfaction with the traditional first state, Iowa, boiled over in 2020. Members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, charged with recommending a new calendar, gave a near-unanimous vote of approval on Friday for Biden’s proposal, with only minor tweaks to the dates and two ‘no’ votes from Iowa and New Hampshire members.

The revised proposal would see South Carolina host the first 2024 presidential primary on Feb. 3, a Saturday, followed three days later by New Hampshire and Nevada. Georgia would then hold an early primary on Feb. 13, and Michigan would hold its contest on Feb. 27. Iowa would be out of the early lineup altogether.  (read more)

These changes are all about keeping the corporate wing of the DNC in control and eliminating the influence of the momentum progressive candidates.  Just like the RNC wants MAGA destroyed, the DNC corporation wants control over the Bernie Sanders wing and Democrat socialists.

Keep in mind, we wrote about this over two three years ago, when Obama stepped into the 2020 primary to create the AME/BLM alignment.

Right before the 2020 SC Primary, the DNC Club knew they had a problem with the Bernie Sanders momentum.  An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.  Barack Obama was instrumental.

♦ BACKGROUND – There is a history – a backstory – that only a small group of people genuinely understand.  The answers around this 2024 DNC change boil down to the less discussed issue of ideological camps and the modern alignment that has taken place over the past decade.  The most visible reference for the inflection point was the 2008 primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Throughout the first decade of this millennium, there was an ideological shift, an inflection point, that became most clear in the rise of a little-known state representative who was appointed to become a Senator from Illinois; his name was Barack Obama.  In the background of Obama’s rise were the people who designed the modern political left. Those Obama creationists were/are hardline revolutionary communist types.

This RevCom group was comprised of the more radical elements of the progressive movement, those who wanted to “fundamentally change” the United States, and who have a very patient and methodical plan to do so.  Those elements took control by convincing the far-left labor movement to abandon the traditional Democrat apparatus and support a more radical approach.  The SEIU, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, UAW, UFCW and others were leveraged to this position through promised financial benefit if they went along.

Those groups became the more powerful ammunition needed by the radical community activist teams, which were entirely on the side of Obama.  Hillary Clinton’s first run for the presidency was crushed under the weight of the leverage all of the radicals aligned on the Obama side.  Clinton was only left with the option to support the extremists in exchange for support in 2016.

However, the support she received was not full-throated.  The ideological hatred that was created during the earlier inflection point, when the camps were at war, left scars.  Those scars never healed; and, quite frankly the radicals were not going to support someone they just didn’t like.

Radical foot soldiers operate best on feelings and emotions. Clinton just didn’t do it for them.  One by one, the traditional Democrat left was wiped out by the more extreme radical leftists.  [Remember the destruction of the Bart Stupak “blue dogs”?]

Fast forward to today, very recently, and what we are seeing is the outcome of the Obama coalition in complete control over the internal club systems and political party apparatus.  It took some time for this takeover to matriculate.

We are there now…. and into this far-left soup of radical elements the new left-wing media is mixed.  The media are now activists for the radicals.  This is why there is a more brutally obvious bias present today that was not present before.  The bias was always present, but the scale of the ideological nature of the bias was not always as visible.  Today the ideological support is crystal clear.

Right before the 2020 SC Primary, the DNC Club knew they had a problem with the Bernie Sanders momentum.  An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.

Barack Obama, the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance.  If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power.

A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster for both clubs.

To get rid of Sanders, BLM (based in Georgia) and AME (based in South Carolina) aligned.  This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics.

Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions.  The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders.

Within 48 hours, all members of the club and candidates had their instructions and proceeded to follow through on the plan.  They had no choice.  If they did not comply, they would suffer the consequences of a fully aligned club hierarchy who would target them personally and financially.

The plan worked flawlessly.  A few days after their meeting, James Clyburn endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them.

As part of the coordinated deal, Representative James Clyburn was put in charge of the Biden campaign; Clyburn stunningly admitted this immediately after the strategy went public.  James Clyburn and Barack Obama also controlled the vice-presidential nominee.

Joe Biden has dementia. Everyone knows this to be true.  The Biden presidency is a front – a ruse, a manipulative scheme that needed a face in 2020. That’s Joe Biden.

In the background, the DNC Club has been in full control of everything behind the scenes.  All policy is Club policy; and, specifically because of their importance in triggering the origin of the entire enterprise, the primary policy beneficiaries were the corporate donors, the AME church network and the BLM activists.

The new DNC primary contest map essentially codifies the control process and blocks any rogue non-club approved candidate from entering a challenge.   Only the corporate and club approved candidates will benefit from the changes.

(Politico) – […]  DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, who attended the meeting, also called the proposed early window a reflection “of the diversity of our party” and “a more equitable and accessible nomination process that puts our candidates in the best position to win.” Harrison is the former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

But David McDonald, another longtime DNC member, did raise light concerns that the committee’s introduction of large states, including Michigan and Georgia, could “effectively [create] a bias toward certain kinds of candidates,” particularly those who enter a presidential primaries with significant financial resources, which would allow them to compete more effectively in expensive media markets. (link)