Thursday, February 8, 2024

National Defense Magazine: White House sets new ‘goal’ for eco-friendliest bloodshed in the history of human warfare


The Seer of seers and the Prognosticator of prognosticators is no longer Punxsutawney Phil, that cute little creature who lives in Gobbler’s Knob—it’s the collective group of conservative satirists and jokesters.

You may or may not have seen it, but back in October, a video that purportedly showed Greta Thunberg promoting “environmentally-conscious” warfare spread rapidly across the web; see below: 


As you might have noticed, there’s a “Community Note” attached to the post, informing the viewer that this was actually a deepfake creation. Now, there’s an obvious “dunk” and that is that it’s getting harder to tell what is satire and what is real; like Seth Dillon of The Babylon Bee said, “We found that the world is very difficult to satirize right now because it’s so insane.”

Yet, satirists like Bee employees, or the pranksters responsible for the Thunberg clip, aren’t just comedic geniuses—sure they’re funny, but they’re also eerily prescient.

Here’s this, from an article written by Hope Hodge Seck, and published by the National Defense Magazine in their latest February issue:

Electric Vehicles — As Tactical EV Plans Take Shape, Army Charges Ahead; Marines Stay Cautious

When green energy entrepreneur and researcher Tom Holm invited Defense Department personnel to a first-of-its-kind tactical electric vehicle expo in San Diego last September, some 500 stakeholders and decision-makers from across the military services showed up….

…

The event was so well received that it’s expanding in 2024 with a transition from TEVx to TEVCON: a full-blown convention for those invested in the challenge of weaning the vehicles that carry troops into combat off their conventional fuel sources in favor of more green and sustainable electric power [emphasis added].

…

[T]he services are under pressure from within and without to solve these problems and make serious headway toward total electrification [emphasis added] of their fleets. In 2022, when the services were more bullish on the timeline for adopting electric tactical vehicles, the Pentagon adopted a sustainability plan [emphasis added] laying out steps to move toward the White House’s goal of making every vehicle in the U.S. military climate-friendly [emphasis added].

Seck, without a hint of irony, actually talks about the probability of “all-electric tanks[s]” in the future, and notes that these battery-powered vehicles would simply bring along a “portable generator” for quick, battlefield charge-ups—no, I’m not even joking—and although Seck doesn’t elaborate on what kind of “fuel” is in this generator, I can only assume it’s diesel. But, the prospect that this generator is really a battery storing an extra charge is almost worse, because it means that there are now two lithium targets aboard a military asset: lithium is highly flammable, and these batteries are notorious for “thermal runaway,” or “inextinguishable fires.” Seems like a bad idea to saddle a vehicle sent into combat with two components that if hit by enemy fire/artillery/weaponry, would explode into a blaze that can’t be put out.

Other than that, this all sounds like a great plan… just as long as war doesn’t break out in an area where external temperatures fall outside the “optimal” window of performance, like in Russia… or China… or Iran… or the Middle East… or the U.S., or basically, the entire planet.

And, just as long as we have the charging infrastructure in place near battlefields and warfronts, and that charging infrastructure remains intact and safe from enemy sabotage.

And, just as long as each vehicle brings along a portable diesel generator.

And, just as long as an adversary doesn’t launch any EMP  attacks, rendering our entire military fleet, which has undergone total electrification, immediately inoperable.

“Climate-friendly” vehicles for spilling the blood of the human cannon fodder? Uncle Sam’s leftist war pigs sure have a strange way of signaling their “virtue.”




at

X22, On the Fringe, and more- February 8 (Nevada's Big Night)

 




at

Canterbury Cathedral defends decision to host silent disco

 

Canterbury Cathedral has defended its decision to host a disco in its nave.

The 90s silent disco will be attended by 3,000 people spread across four sessions on Thursday and Friday.

A cathedral spokesperson insisted the disco would be "appropriate and respectful" and that it was "not a rave in the nave".

A petition calling on the event to be stopped has had more than 1,500 signatures and a prayer vigil is planned for outside the cathedral. 


A silent disco is an event where people dance to music they hear on wireless headphones rather than on speakers.

The Canterbury event is part of a series of silent discos taking place in cathedrals and historic buildings around the UK and Europe.

A Canterbury Cathedral spokesperson confirmed that alcohol would be on sale at the event.

The Very Rev Dr David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, said: "Cathedrals have always been part of community life in a way much wider than their prime focus as centres of Christian worship and mission.

Dr Monteith added that "whilst dancing of all different kinds has happened in the cathedral over the centuries" he accepted that "some will never agree that dancing and pop music have a place within cathedrals".   


Cajetan Skowronski, who set up a petition against the disco, said: "Everyone likes a silent disco. But its place is in a nightclub, not in Canterbury Cathedral - the most important Christian church in England.

"It will not bring young people closer to Christ, rather it will send the message that Christ and his church, and all the truth, beauty and goodness it has to offer, are unimportant - that entertainment deserves our attention more than God."

This is not the first time a cathedral has put on an event to get a different demographic through its doors.

Rochester Cathedral saw a 100% increase in visitors after converting its nave into a crazy golf course in 2019, the same year a full-size helter-skelter was constructed inside Norwich Cathedral. 



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-68231565   





at

Are We on The Doorstep of Another Civil War?


Before I get into my analysis, I want to make it clear I believe that anyone who wants a civil war to happen in the U.S. is dangerously naïve, insane, or working for one of America’s enemies.  Imagine a Russia-Ukraine-type conflict in the U.S.

Thanks to Hollywood, most Americans believe that rebellions can be started and won by small ragtag groups of patriots, freedom fighters, insurrectionists, or everyday common folk.  All you need are pistols, assault weapons, bows and arrows, and maybe a few Molotov cocktails.  Blow up the Death Star, and the problem is solved.

But that is not how it usually works.  Revolutions require armaments, soldiers, money, something worth fighting for, and popular support.  Unless lives are at stake, few people are angry or committed enough to leave jobs or families to risk going to jail or dying needlessly.

The most daunting task is overcoming the opposition.  The weaponry and manpower available to peacekeepers in our country is formidable.  This includes the local sheriff’s departments, city police, state police, National Guard, and various federal agencies, most notably the FBI.  Plus, in a crisis, these organizations will usually work together.  An uprising of twenty, fifty, or even a hundred-plus armed citizens would quickly fail.

Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794?  In 1791, Congress passed a distilled spirits tax.  Residents of western Pennsylvania, who used whiskey as money, protested and refused to pay the tax.  Sporadic acts of violence and resistance began, along with threats to secede from the Union.  The unrest culminated in 1794, when a group of around 600 armed citizens took a federal marshal prisoner.  When the government sent 13,000 troops, commanded by George Washington, to restore order, the rebels went home without firing a shot.

What about John Brown’s Raid?  In 1859, abolitionist John Brown and 21 other armed followers attempted to start a slave rebellion by capturing the Federal Arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia.  He and his followers were confronted by U.S. Marines, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee.  Ten of the rebels were killed during the ensuing firefight.  Seven more were tried and hanged later.

Remember the Weather Underground?  This was a Marxist antiwar faction that wanted to start a revolution by radicalizing students to oppose the Vietnam War.  The Weathermen, a group of around 400 people, were involved in numerous bombings of federal and state facilities between 1969 and 1973.  Almost all of them were eventually arrested and imprisoned.

This brings me to the two most significant military conflicts on American soil, pitting family against family and brother against brother.  One is the American Revolution, basically an English Civil War, and the other is the American Civil War.  One was fought over taxation and individual rights, the other over slavery and states’ rights.

The battles that started the Revolution were between the British army and the Massachusetts militia.  Some might equate the word “militia” with a mob.  But at that time, the militia was a legitimate military organization, like today’s National Guard.

On April 19, 1775, around 700 members of the British occupation force in Boston were sent to capture or destroy military supplies stored at Lexington and Concord.  During the early morning hours, the militia was warned that the British were coming, so individual units began to assemble while the military stores were being moved.

At Lexington, around 77 local militia faced roughly 400 British troops.  The militia realized they were heavily outnumbered and were about to disperse when someone fired a shot, prompting the British to open fire and charge.  Eight militia members were killed and several wounded.  This might have been swept under the rug as an unfortunate incident except for what happened at Concord.

At North Bridge, roughly 400 militiamen faced off against about 100 British soldiers.  As both sides maneuvered to control the bridge, supposedly, a panicked British soldier fired his musket.  Before their officers could stop it, other British soldiers opened fire.  In self-defense, the militia did the same, resulting in several killed and wounded on both sides.

As the British began to retreat, other militia units began to arrive.  Word of the casualties at Lexington and Concord had spread, prompting a running firefight between the militia and the British all the way to Boston.  In only one day, the situation had gone from an uneasy peace to an armed rebellion.  In 1776, the other colonies finally chose sides and declared their independence.

In 1860, the U.S. was divided over the issue of slavery.  When Abraham Lincoln, who supported the abolition of slavery, was elected president, seven Southern slave states decided to secede.  These states then asked that all federal facilities within their jurisdiction — forts, shipyards, etc. — be turned over to them.

However, Lincoln refused to give up Fort Sumter in South Carolina.  So, on April 12, 1861, the South Carolina militia opened fire with artillery and bombarded the fort.  Two days later, the small contingent of federal troops defending it surrendered.  Lincoln then issued a call for volunteers to fight the rebels.  At that point, the eight other slave states decided to either secede from the Union or stick with it.  Now that sides had been chosen and shots fired, the war began.

You might notice a pattern here.  First, important issues divide our country, like independence versus obedience to the king or slavery versus freedom.  Then, either a military skirmish occurs before sides get chosen or sides get chosen before the military gets involved.  Both the Revolution and the Civil War were started by state military organizations, not by groups of armed radicals.

We are at a similar junction in history right now.  Politics has divided the country, and the pivotal issue is unlimited illegal immigration.  Few wanted it.  No one expected it when he voted for Biden.  And now almost no one is willing to pay the price socially or financially to support it.

The White House may have believed that its open border policy would get someone, anyone, to pick up a gun to stop the madness.  It would give Biden an excuse to impose martial law, ban assault weapons or handguns, or both.  But the horde of right-wing extremists the far-left fantasizes about does not exist.

It seems the administration may have gone too far too fast.  The whole country is aware of this issue, and opposition is rising, leading the states to get directly involved. 

The Texas National Guard has been sent to the border to stop the flow of migrants.  Roughly half of the states have declared their support for Texas.

If Democrats want to continue unlimited illegal immigration, Biden could nationalize the Texas National Guard, take control, and send it home.  But what happens if Texas says no?  Would Biden order the armed forces to disarm or attack the Texas Guard?  Would the use of the armed forces be legal?  Do Democrats care?

History tells us that civil wars happen when our country is divided and the states believe they must get involved.  That time may be at hand.

Pray that sanity prevails.



at

Without Mass Deportations, America’s Demographics Shift Will Result In Radical Politics

Democrats understand that the short-term backlash for our open borders is just the cost for a long-term payoff in maintaining power.



The much-anticipated Senate border bill unveiled this week is another example of the destructive and unserious people who lead this nation. President Biden and Democrats are now blaming Republicans for failing to pass the bill, but the reality is that for the “open borders” Democrat Party, everything is going according to plan.

The Democrat Party is well on its way to fundamentally changing America’s demographics, all to secure what they believe will eventually become an unbeatable coalition of new voters. To understand the progress they’ve made, consider that in 2018, research conducted at MIT and Yale determined that the most accurate population estimate of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. was 22.1 million. Given the staggering surge of illegal aliens under the Biden administration, that estimate would now be in the range of 30-plus million. To put that into perspective, if we created a 51st state comprised entirely of illegal aliens, its population would be larger than every state except California, and it would be 77 percent of the entire population of Canada.

Going forward, even if we somehow prevent 100 percent of future illegal immigration, it only buys us time — and not much. Democrats know this, of course. It’s the reason they continue to accept short-term backlash from our open border in exchange for a long-term payoff. By pointing out that illegal aliens cannot vote, the left claims that this whole thing is a “racist conspiracy theory.”

This disingenuous tactic ignores three things: 1) Democrats have routinely tried to pass some type of amnesty that would eventually allow illegal aliens to vote, 2) Children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. can legally vote when they turn 18, and 3) In 2020, Joe Biden carried Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona by a total of about 45,000 votes, meaning a presidential election could be decided by only 0.15 percent of the illegal alien population voting in the right states.

Two of these three points are hypotheticals — amnesty and illegal aliens voting — but the other is a mathematical certainty. Children are the future, and this is where the left has placed its chips. Assuming we can prevent amnesty from passing while magically stopping all approximately 30 million illegals from voting in perpetuity, children born to illegal aliens are turning 18 every year in tranches. Unless there is a titanic shift in voting demographics, each tranche makes it more difficult for Republicans to win elections. Democrats don’t need to pass amnesty. They don’t need illegal aliens to vote. They just need to wait it out.  

The Cost We Pay

Illegal immigration is wreaking havoc on our hospitals, schools, housing, public lands, and budgets while facilitating a drug epidemic that kills scores of Americans. Not to worry, our best people are on the case. Savvy New York City Mayor Eric Adams has helped craft a plan to dissuade more illegals from coming. The solution? Spoil them rotten.

NYC is creating a program that uses taxpayer money to fund $53 million worth of prepaid credit cards for illegal aliens. Adams insists this will save taxpayers money. How does that work, you might ask? According to Adams, the current method through which taxpayers are fleeced to foot the bill for illegals would end up costing more than $53 million.

The illegal aliens receiving these prepaid credit cards must pinky swear to use the money only for food and baby supplies. City officials gave this meaningless promise a fancy name (“affidavit”) so unsuspecting voters will be duped into thinking it’s worth something. Adams also notes that they will prioritize “culturally relevant diets” for illegal aliens. They’re picky eaters, you see. We wouldn’t want the taxpayer-funded cuisine to disappoint the people who jumped our border. That would be downright cruel.  

These programs are a fantastic way to get illegal aliens and their children accustomed to government handouts as soon as they step foot in America while making sure they eventually vote for politicians who promise to keep the gravy train running.

Mass migration is also creating a new brazen crime wave. One recent example is the brutal assault of two New York City police officers by a mob of illegal aliens. Not to be upstaged by Eric Adams’ tough approach, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul finally put her foot down in response to this crime. When asked if deportation for these men should be on the table, Hochul said it “should be looked at” and was “definitely worth checking into.” Instead, the illegals responsible for the assault were released without bail, flipped their middle fingers to the media’s cameras, and fled to California.

It’s worth considering that if Joe Biden’s America has become such a joke that illegals will beat the tar out of police officers in broad daylight without fear, maybe some of them are convinced they can also get away with voting.

Can Republicans Win This Demographic?

It is sometimes said that because a large percentage of illegal aliens are Hispanic, Republicans can win them over as conservative cultural values are common in the Hispanic community. This theory remains unproven. It assumes cultural values supersede financial incentives, and it would require assimilation on a massive scale.

Assimilation is no longer celebrated by America’s institutions as it’s been replaced by the left’s religious tenets of diversity, multiculturalism, and “anti-whiteness.” As our nation becomes more diverse, tribal politics pay dividends for the left, and as racial animosity ensues, our country becomes a powder keg waiting to blow. This is hardly an environment that could cultivate the kind of integration required to assimilate tens of millions of people while simultaneously trying to assimilate the more than 1 million legal immigrants we take in every year.

The “conservative cultural values” argument also assumes that cultural values supersede financial incentives. Illegal aliens (and many recent legal  immigrants) are poor with little or no skills, and whatever skills they possess will become less valuable over time as AI and other technologies displace low-skilled workers. Dependence on welfare programs will increase as a result, and despite whatever conservative cultural values these people may or may not hold, how likely is it that a majority will consistently vote in one election after another to eliminate checks and in-kind benefits they receive from the government?

More importantly, whether most illegal aliens will eventually assimilate is likely a pointless debate. Because the nation is in such dire straits, we cannot afford to wait a generation or two for the mere possibility that assimilation will occur on a grand scale. If the Democrat Party of today (and especially of tomorrow) were to gain even temporary control of the federal government that included a supermajority in the Senate, the damage inflicted would be irreparable. If they were to succeed in establishing a new coalition of voters who usher in sweeping victories, the left would no longer fear electoral consequences for their increasingly deranged policies, and their lunacy would know no bounds.

For these reasons and more, the next president must mobilize the federal government to deport as many illegal aliens as possible, beginning with violent criminals and the most recent arrivals. Our asylum system, which is scammed by millions of foreign nationals, must be scrapped, and we need a southern border wall. Our current trajectory is not sustainable, and while the task will be difficult, it is far better than watching the greatest civilization that’s ever existed go down the drain because we didn’t want to be perceived as “mean.”

It is not righteous or morally defensible to destroy our nation because we don’t want to inconvenience people who break our laws by coming here illegally. We must become a nation that enforces its most basic and necessary feature — its borders. 



at

Watch As Josh Hawley Smoothly Dunks Hysterical Pro-Hamas Code Pinker in Senate Hallway Clash


Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

Though hardcore leftists have just as much right to question politicians and protest as conservatives do, those of us on the dark side still reserve the right to call out the more annoying lefty agitators when the occasion presents itself.

The options are numerous, from the Occupy Wall Street fanatics, to the Planned Parenthood/NOW radicals, to the Antifa/Black Lives Matter-led rioters, to the CHAZ/CHOP occupiers - and everything in between.

There is of course a lot of overlap and coordination between those core "progressive" protest groups. The newest incarnation seems to be the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas contingent that has not just made general nuisances of themselves since the Oct. 7th Hamas terrorist attacks but has also, in some instances, openly admitted they believed innocent Israelis deserved to be brutalized and murdered.

In even more disturbing instances, some have called for the genocide of Jewish people.

Needless to say, such hate groups should be treated with the contempt and disgust they deserve, which is exactly what happened Wednesday when members of the far-left, pro-Hamas group Code Pink tried to corner Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in a Senate hallway, with one keffiyeh-wearing Useful Idiot in particular pouring on the hysterics in hopes of getting Hawley to lose his cool.

He didn't. 

Instead, Hawley calmly told the woman in no uncertain terms that there shouldn't be any type of "ceasefire" from Israel until the Hamas terrorist organization was eliminated. That seemed to set the woman off even more, as she weirdly responded that they would "never" be eliminated, which kinda sorta made her sound like a Hamas apologist, in my opinion.

At one point toward the end of the heated exchange, Hawley called the ranting woman antisemitic and "pro-terrorist," saying if things went the way she wanted them to there would be another Holocaust before walking away, which she didn't like very much:

These confrontations have become a near-daily thing on the House and Senate sides, with protesters even showing up at times in front of the homes of some members of Congress. For instance, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has had Code Pink types outside her San Francisco home on a weekly basis since the war began after she, too, defended Israel's right to defend itself.

In any event, good on Hawley for not pretending, as some Democratic Senators and even Joe Biden have done, these groups have legitimate grievances.  As far as I'm concerned, any group that believes Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself and its people and that also believes Jews got what they deserved and should be wiped off the map doesn't deserve the time of day, much less to be shown one ounce of respect.

Don't go away mad, left-wing wackadoodles. Just go away.



at

Leftists Lose Their Minds When Wall Street Journal Notices Michigan-Grown Jihadis

The headline is regarded as far worthier of condemnation than the fact that thousands in one city repeatedly celebrated the indiscriminate massacre and rape of men, women, and children.



Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed titled “Welcome to Dearborn, America’s Jihad Capital,” by Middle East expert Steven Stalinsky. While the usual corners of the political left, including President Biden himself, excoriated the article, no one has proven it to contain a single incorrect fact.

Stalinsky outlined how, in the wake of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel, the Detroit suburb erupted in pro-Hamas protests. At these, thousands in attendance shouted “Intifada, intifada,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “America is a terrorist state.”

The Ford Performing Arts Center in Dearborn hosted a rally on Oct. 10 that local outlet The Midwesterner depicted as “Michigan rally cheers Hamas attack.” At the event, Imam Imran Salha of Dearborn’s Islamic Center of Detroit celebrated the butchery before hundreds of attendees, declaring that Israel’s deeds have ignited a “fire in our hearts that will burn that state [Israel] until its demise.” Stalinsky notes that 16 months ago, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security awarded this Islamic center $150,000 in grants.

Not to be outdone, at a rally the following week at Dearborn’s Henry Ford Centennial Library, Imam Usama Abdulghani referred to Oct. 7 as “one of the days of God” and a “miracle come true” and to Hamas terrorists as “honorable.”

Stalinsky also notes various institutions within Dearborn valorizing Hamas, such as the Hadi Institute. That organization oversees an Islamic Montessori school and was found to have hosted a “Commemoration of the Martyrs” in honor of sanctioned Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani and other “martyrs” just last month.

Unsurprisingly, as Stalinsky notes, one of the most prominent jihadist sheiks happens to be a born and raised native of Dearborn and current resident. Ahmad Musa Jibril regularly calls for holy war from his house in Michigan, urging his followers to wage jihad against the “infidel West.” He is regarded as the inspiration for the 2017 terror attack on London Bridge. True to form, retweets from an X account in his name celebrated the Oct. 7 massacre.

Despite all these uncontested facts, leftist outrage over The Wall Street Journal noticing them was swift. Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin posted on X, “Bigotry. Hatred. Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim. If the headline was about any other minority — with the worst stereotype of that group — it would have never gotten through the editors at the WSJ.”

Slotkin’s most pointed criticism lands on the headline, which admittedly is pithy and aggressive, but hardly at odds with the argument Stalinsky presents. Indeed, her critique doesn’t point to one factually incorrect statement — rather, it is his presentation of facts that is somehow bigoted.

Dearborn’s mayor echoed similar sentiments, calling the article, “Racist. Bigoted. Islamophobic.” Biden himself posted on X, “Americans know that blaming a group of people based on the words of a small few is wrong. That’s exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate, and it shouldn’t happen to the residents of Dearborn — or any American town. We must continue to condemn hate in all forms.” Quite ironic coming from the president constantly associating his political opposition with “extremism” and turning “MAGA Republicans” into a smear.

Biden’s critique is particularly interesting because it demonstrates a failed logic chain. As National Review Online contributor Pradheep Shanker noted on X, no one believes the term “murder capital” means every person in the city is a murderer. Rather, the phrase means an unusual amount of violence in the city far surpasses that of peer cities.

A quick Google search of this phrase reveals its ubiquity. The Associated Press in 2017 called New York City the “murder capital,” while The New York Times described St. Louis in 2019 as “often considered the nation’s murder capital.” Just last year, The New York Times portrayed El Salvador as formerly the “hemisphere’s murder capital.”

Similarly, no one believes that the term “jihad capital” means every person in Dearborn supports jihad. The terminology suggests a high concentration of extremism in Dearborn that outstrips other cities. Based on Stalinsky’s assembly of facts, is this deduction incorrect?

The angst about the Journal article is revealing. The headline is regarded as far worthier of condemnation than the fact that thousands in one city repeatedly celebrated the indiscriminate massacre and rape of men, women, and children, including dozens of American citizens.

We can debate the utility of the attention-grabbing headline, but it is somewhat ironic that those expressing upset over the piece would probably prefer you not read it. They wish that your knowledge, like theirs, remain confined to the four corners of the headline.

They deliberately don’t engage with the substance of the article. Now ask yourself why.



at

CNN Quietly Admits Mental Decline Has Forced Biden Into Hiding From Super Bowl Interview

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

As the 2024 presidential election nears the corner, critics ramp up their speculation that President Joe Biden will not be able to handle a second term. 

After the White House announced that Biden would not be partaking in the traditional presidential interview before the Super Bowl, CNN suggested his declining mental health may be the reason for it. 

During CNN This Morning, Salena Mohsin— Bloomberg’s senior Washington correspondent— questioned why Biden was skipping the Super Bowl interview, saying it is expected of him to do it. 

“[H]im saying no to something that he’s expected to do, a serious interview, he can really get his message out to an audience, just sitting, waiting for him, waiting for his message, is telling,” Mohsin said, adding, “Is it because he can’t handle it?”

The question forced CNN host Phil Mattingly to wonder if the president would participate in any presidential debate leading up to the election. 

“I think I’m in the minority on our team in that I am convinced there will be debates, and I don’t see any way there is not. Am I wrong?” Mattingly asked. 

“Look, since 2016, everything we were convinced of, we need to throw out. Maybe it will happen; it will happen for different reasons than it used to,” Mohsin replied. 

Mohsin then referred to a clip of Biden mumbling his way through a previous interview, pointing out that it is a problem the president cannot get through a few sentences without losing his train of thought. 

“[J]ust look at that clip we just saw. If he is not able to follow the questions, if his staff is worried that he can connect the dots and find the word that he’s looking for, that’s a problem,” she said. 

Earlier this week, former President Trump called on Biden to “immediately” debate him. 

“I’d like to debate him now because we should debate. We should debate for the good of the country,” Trump said. 

While drinking a milkshake, Biden responded, saying, “I’d want to debate me, too.” 

According to the latest NBC poll, three-quarters of voters, including Democrats, say they are concerned with Biden's mental and physical health. 

"I think that [Biden’s] health and age kind of gets in the way of his ability to be a good president of the United States,” a female Democratic poll respondent said. 

The poll found that 76 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns about Biden not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for a second term, compared with 24 percent who have either minor concerns. 

In addition, 95 percent of Republican voters, 81 percent of independent voters, and 54 percent of Democrats say they have major or moderate concerns about Biden’s health for a second term.



at

Dick Durbin Needs to Shut the Hell Up About Clarence Thomas and the Trump 14th Amendment Case


Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Democrats appear to be panicking at the possibility that the Supreme Court will throw a monkey wrench into their plan to use the 14th Amendment to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot in various states.

The scheme was first introduced in 2023 before the campaign season started. Anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats began putting their plan into action as the primaries began, filing lawsuits in several states to remove Trump’s name from the ballot to prevent voters from choosing him.

In Colorado and Maine, state officials made the decision to disqualify Trump. Now, the former president is challenging Colorado’s ruling at the Supreme Court, which is slated to hear the case on Thursday. This has prompted many on the left to call for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself--because of his wife’s role in the “Stop the Steal” movement that cropped up after the 2020 presidential election.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) wrote a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, parroting this call for Thomas’ recusal from the 14th Amendment case, because this would supposedly mean that “there’s no question of bias.”

I’m calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in the 14th Amendment case determining if Donald Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot.

Given questions surrounding his wife’s involvement, Justice Thomas should recuse himself so there’s no question of bias.

Others have expressed similar sentiments, arguing that the “Stop the Steal” campaign led to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building.

Thomas, the court's most senior conservative, has unique association to events at the center of the ruling.

His wife Virginia Thomas, who goes by Ginni, is a longtime conservative activist and Trump booster who helped lead the "Stop the Steal" campaign to overturn results of the 2020 election and who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally near the White House but did not march on the Capitol.

 Gabe Roth, executive director of progressive activist group Fix the Court, said:

Ginni Thomas was a supporter of Donald Trump's, from pretty early on in his campaign, and she has maintained that support even through today. And those attempts to overturn the election was what led to the insurrection, which is what led to Trump being kicked off the ballot in Colorado.

Earlier in 2024, eight Democratic lawmakers and others sent a letter to Thomas, demanding that he recuse himself from the case, citing the same reasons.

“Fewer than half of all Americans trust the Supreme Court, and that number will fall even lower if you rule in this case,” the eight Democrats warned. “To protect the Court’s integrity and the legitimacy of its decision in this monumental case, you must recuse yourself.”

[Retired federal judge Jeremy] Fogel said Thomas should also weigh how his decision to hear the case will affect the public’s perception of the court and its eventual ruling.

Ginni Thomas’s involvement “raises the question of whether he can fairly assess the gravity of the conduct that President Trump is accused of,” Fogel said. “Even if it’s not the precise issue that the court is deciding, it [may create] the appearance that he is going to try to find a way to rule in President Trump’s favor because of his wife’s affiliations and advocacy.”

So, let’s tear this thing apart, shall we?

For starters, Ginni Thomas was not involved in Jan. 6. She was present at the rally but was not among those who went to the Capitol building afterward. She was not even named by congressional investigators as one of the individuals involved in the riot.

The effort to remove Trump from the ballot seeks to use a provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits people who participated in a rebellion against the government from holding office. It was originally intended to apply to former members of the Confederacy.

Those seeking to use this provision against Trump argue that he fomented an insurrection against the government on Jan. 6, and that Ginni Thomas was somehow involved, which would mean that her husband should not be involved in adjudicating the case. However, if there is no evidence that Ginni was involved, their argument falls apart.

Next, we have the inconvenient reality that there was no actual “insurrection,” nor did Trump incite anyone to violence. At no point did he advocate for rioting or other type of violent activity in response to the outcome of the election. In fact, during his speech, he urged his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” at the Capitol building. This is not exactly the language one would expect from someone trying to incite a riot, is it?

Lastly, those calling for Thomas’ recusal don’t actually believe the words coming out of their mouths and digital pens. Not a single one of these people had the same energy for Fulton County (Georgia) district attorney Fani Willis, who recently admitted to having a romantic affair with one of the prosecutors she hired to prosecute the former president for election interference.

But we know what this is all about, don’t we, dear reader? They don’t want Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife. They want him to recuse himself because they know he is more likely to vote against removing Trump from the ballot. Folks on the left see that this strategy might go up in smoke, and they are desperate to do something about it. At the end of the day, the 14th Amendment stratagem isn’t about protecting the Constitution, it is about influencing the upcoming election--nothing more, nothing less.



at