Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Trump Made Our Political Choice Clear


I used to think that Donald Trump’s greatest accomplishment was banishing the Clintons from the political landscape. I was wrong. Sidelining the Clinton grifters is a distant second to his greatest feat -- showing us, in the starkest possible way, the political choice that we face. He has drawn the radicals into the open, to show us what they have been working towards since the administration of Barack Obama.

I’m an unapologetic Trump supporter, but even I must admit that he makes it easy for some to dislike him. He’s everything the social justice warriors insist that we despise. He’s a white male multi-billionaire who had a privileged childhood. He has a jaded history with the ladies, and is inclined to get into verbal battles that would be better avoided. In other words: he’s just as flawed as the rest of us. But I’m beginning to realize that his unlikability to some is actually his superpower. He causes the Left to act out a self-destructive demonstration of their corrosiveness to the American experiment.

The radicals falsely perceive Trump’s personality as a weakness, drawing them into attacks that reveal their true nature. He’s the cheese, which temps the rats into the transparency trap. He triggers them into openly demonstrating their utter disregard for basic fairness and the rule of law -- things which most Americans still hold dear. Blinded by their hatred, the radicals can’t see that their actions offend most Americans, and result in unintended consequences.

The Left demonizes Trump without realizing that we don’t judge him by the contents of his heart. That’s God’s jurisdiction. We only care about his deeds -- which have been 100 percent beneficial to the citizens of the United States.

We also don’t care about what’s in the hearts of his opponents. We instead are judging them by their deeds, and we’re finding those deeds very disturbing. They have:

  • Trashed our civil rights,
  • Corrupted any notion of due process,
  • Weaponized the government against its citizens, and
  • Destroyed civil debate (i.e., calling opponents fascists).

It was all done to crush one man -- with no acknowledgement of the individual liberties which the Constitution guarantees.

The attorney general of New York, Letitia James, found a friendly judge and got a $464.5 million settlement and a suspension of Trump’s right to do business in New York. He was found guilty of defrauding banks, who claim they weren’t defrauded -- making it a victimless crime, if it was a crime at all. The Left attacked (action) and MAGA grew (unintended consequence).

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll got an $83 million settlement from Trump for the liable of denying that he had raped her -- even though she can’t remember the year in which it supposedly happened. But she had a friendly New York jury, and she was relying on Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to triumph over a preponderance of the evidence. The Left attacked (action) and MAGA grew (unintended consequence).

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump for a campaign finance violation, which the federal election commission ruled wasn’t illegal, and for which the statute of limitations had expired. But by calling it a “conspiracy,” Bragg was able to extend the statute of limitations, even if the act still wasn’t illegal. Bragg is counting on a TDS afflicted judge and jury also. Is that anyone’s idea of justice -- seeking a conviction because you can, rather than because you should? The Left attacked (action) and MAGA grew (unintended consequence).

Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump for the same crime that Joe Biden committed -- having classified documents in his possession (but without Presidential authority in Biden’s case). Special Counsel Robert Hur explained that Biden wouldn’t be indicted because the jury would find him a “likeable old gentleman.” Left unsaid is what that statement reveals: Trump was indicted because he would come across as unlikeable, while Biden was excused because a jury would find him likeable. Again, justice has been turned into the pursuit of the unlikeable, rather than the guilty. Is that what the Supreme Court building inscription “Equal Justice Under Law” intends? The Left attacked (action) and MAGA grew (unintended consequence).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicted Trump for the same action that every losing Democrat since Al Gore has committed -- challenging the outcome of the election with every legal means available. When Al Franken overturned an election in Minnesota, it was a defense of democracy. When Donald Trump didn’t overturn an election, it was a criminal conspiracy in violation of racketeering laws -- because he talked to people about his legal options. We’re not supposed to notice that what is justice for a Democrat is conspiracy for a Republican. Fani got her mugshot, and Trump’s campaign donations came rolling in. The Left attacked (action) and MAGA grew (unintended consequence).

One must ask: why did the radicals think they would benefit from such public displays of raw political corruption? Was it because they presumed that our values were aligned with theirs? Did they think that we hated Donald Trump more than we loved our republic? Were they expecting us to celebrate the destruction of due process -- if it was to “save our democracy”?

Surprise! The leftists were wrong. We value our country far more than any one man. We will not excuse them for trashing our justice system -- to “save our democracy.” Unlike them, we know that “saving our republic” depends on fairness -- especially towards those whom we may dislike. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for reasons which we understand -- and they clearly don’t.

The Left’s hatred of Donald Trump caused them to show the public their complete disdain for legal norms. In their lust to attack him, they revealed the lengths to which they are willing to go in attacking our republic. Considerations of justice, fairness, and the common good were of no consequence in their decision making.

Leftists put the question to us: Do you dislike Donald Trump enough to excuse us for trashing legal norms to keep him out of office? We have given them a resounding: No! But rather than hear us, the radicals continue to do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result. They refuse to accept reality -- that we prefer the America of our founding over the North Cuba which they are creating. So, they continue to attack, and MAGA continues to grow.

With each indictment, Trump’s chances of returning to the Oval Office have increased. He now beats Biden in national and swing state polling. His meteoric climb in the polls is not because we adore Donald Trump. It’s because voting for him is the only way to express our displeasure with what they are doing to our republic. It’s our means of delivering judgement on their actions.



at

X22, And we Know, and more- March 6

 



at

What’s So Great About NATO?

A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be good for both Europe and the U.S. For that to happen, Europe must rearm itself, and the U.S. must accept that Europe will no longer be in the position of vassals.


Donald Trump resumed his role as the “wise fool” in recent, off-the-cuff remarks about NATO. He suggested that free-riding NATO members who do not pay their fair share might have to fight Russia on their own. National security hawks and Trump’s media enemies responded with lots of pious talk about our sacred NATO obligations. Joe Biden even said Trump was “un-American.”

Trump is not the first to suggest NATO partners should pay their fair share. But unlike his predecessors, he is willing to employ some leverage to make it happen. The real dirty secret here, as evidenced by how long this situation has gone on, is that enabling the Europeans to neglect their own defense is a feature and not a bug of America’s dominance over the NATO organization.

The weaker our European partners are militarily, the more they need the United States. With the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and imposition of severe sanctions against Russia, Europe is even more dependent on the United States for energy supplies than it was before the war began.

One disturbing and Machiavellian implication of American policy is that the official reasons for the war, such as deterring “unprovoked Russian aggression” or protecting democracy in Ukraine, are just fig leaves to conceal the real function of the campaign. Namely, the United States may be cynically funding the war to weaken Russia and Europe at the same time.

If that were true, this conflict would not merely be an expression of misguided idealism but proof of American indifference to the welfare of its vassal states in Europe. It would also demonstrate the perfidy of European leaders, who have not admitted they are hurting their own countries’ welfare in exchange for personal power.

Whether an intentional outgrowth of American policy or otherwise, the Russia-Ukraine War has put the European economies into freefall because they were built on cheap natural gas from Russia.

Does NATO Enhance the Security of Member States?

With the recent proliferation of maudlin pro-NATO rhetoric, important and controversial first principles have not been explored, such as: Why are we in NATO? Why didn’t NATO dissolve after 1991? And how much “peace in Europe” has NATO really secured?

NATO’s defenders say that it has kept the peace in Europe “since World War II.” This justification falls apart under minimal scrutiny. After World War II, the European countries that made up NATO had common interests, low levels of nationalism, and few border disputes. During the Cold War, they were united because they faced a common threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. They would have had this unity regardless of any formal treaty structure.

By contrast, after the end of the Cold War, NATO’s contribution to European collective security and world peace has been less impressive. First, all of the European partners have significantly shrunk their militaries. This has made the protection of their collective sovereignty all the more dependent on nuclear weapons, of which the United States is the chief possessor.

The dependence on the American security umbrella has both costs and benefits for us. On the cost side, other NATO countries can do little to assist the United States, and we spend an unsustainable amount on defense. But, on the benefit side, this arrangement does make Europe more dependent on trade with the United States. It “keeps the peace,” but it also impairs European nations’ sovereignty, independence, and self-respect.

Twenty years ago, France meaningfully opposed American ambitions in Iraq and otherwise voiced its own national interests. It is hard to imagine an Emmanuel Macron or an Olaf Scholz doing so today. The latter didn’t even protest his country’s natural gas lifeline being blown up. Like other welfare cases, their nations are parasitical and weaken the host, but they do not forget who is boss.

Second, NATO did little to stop the violence during the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. A military structure in search of a mission, President Clinton turned to NATO when the United Nations rejected American regime change proposals in Serbia. Under the NATO banner, the United States initiated a shameful attack on Serbia to assist Kosovar separatists in 1999.

The Kosovo War revealed NATO as the very opposite of a defensive alliance, but rather a meddlesome and bellicose gang whose hypocrisy had become hard to deny. This was all the more apparent when NATO conducted a similar unprovoked war on spurious humanitarian grounds against Libya in 2011.

Third, NATO’s expansion towards the borders of the former Soviet Union and then to the former Soviet Baltic states served as a massive and needless provocation. By then, Russia was a non-communist, non-ideological, and non-expansionist nation, shaking off the dreadful economic conditions and national humiliation of the Yeltsin years.

Even as George W. Bush claimed he saw into Putin’s soul, the United States and NATO did not change course. Our national security apparatus expanded the alliance to Russia’s borders, suggested Ukraine and Georgia would soon become members, placed ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, and even supported jihadist rebels in Chechnya. Combined, this all made Russia rather predictably fearful and hostile.

These policies also worked at cross purposes with American interests in other parts of the world. By encouraging a de facto alliance between Russia, China, and other emerging powers, our policy strengthens our adversaries and renders the continuation of “sole superpower” status less and less tenable.

How Would We React If Someone Treated Us Like We Treat Russia?

The possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO has not been fulfilled, but it has resulted in a massive, unfortunate, and avoidable war between Russia and Ukraine. While not a formal belligerent, NATO has openly and dangerously provided intelligence and reconnaissance support to the Ukrainians, in addition to massive financial and military aid.

Russia has so far avoided targeting American Global Hawk drones and RC-135 aircraft patrolling its borders—both of which are undoubtedly providing information Ukraine uses to attack and kill Russian forces. But imagine for a moment how the American public would react in the reverse scenario.

We know this because of the public reaction to fake intelligence that said Russia put out bounties to encourage the killing of American troops in Afghanistan. Some members of the intelligence community leaked this falsehood as a political attack on Trump during the final days of the 2020 election, and it made a lot of people understandably angry. It was, like so many of these stories, later disavowed. It is still important, though, because it reveals the incompetence and politicization of our intelligence services.

Even at the time, this always struck me as a ridiculous claim considering Russia’s permission of overflights allowing troops and equipment to reach Afghanistan. But illogic has never been a strong deterrent to lurid tall tales about Russian intrigue.

The neocons have cultivated a pervasive, unthinking, and mostly fact-free anti-Russian ideology ever since that country became more capable and assertive following Putin’s rise to power in 2000.

The Other Cold War Treaty: SEATO

Alliances are supposed to make nations stronger, not weaker. They are supposed to be mutually beneficial, and hopefully, they serve to prevent wars.

Alliances can also weaken their members by exposing them to conflicts that would otherwise only implicate a subset of their members. Alliances also make their members weaker if things go “kinetic” and member nations fail to meet their commitments. In such a case, the fair-weather friends lose their credibility, and their allies lose that nation’s help.

Sometimes alliances can make their members both stronger and weaker. Shortly after NATO came into being in 1959, the United States entered into a similar treaty called SEATO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. SEATO’s members included Australia, the Philippines, France, Great Britain, and the United States. SEATO was one of the foundations for our country’s military commitments to South Vietnam.

The United States stuck to these obligations for nearly two decades, using logic similar to our current involvement in Ukraine, including the importance of maintaining credibility. But the Vietnam War proved very costly, and, over time, the American public lost confidence in the mission.

After cobbling together a peace treaty between North and South Vietnam, we skedaddled in 1973 and failed to honor our treaty obligations and other commitments to South Vietnam. This all culminated in the successful North Vietnamese offensive of 1975. When South Vietnam fell, it became clear that the loss of so much life, treasure, and credibility was a worse outcome for the United States than not having been in such an alliance in the first place.

The United States is about to learn this lesson again in Ukraine. We have no treaty obligation to Ukraine, but Biden has put our prestige on the line by repeatedly committing to stay “as long as it takes.” Since Ukraine is going to lose and the front has already started to collapse, the ultimate failure of the mission will further undermine our credibility as an ally. It will also discredit the deterrence value of America’s own military capabilities since so much of the war was fought with American equipment, American money, and American tactics.

While the credibility hit is unavoidable, America should end its involvement not only with Ukraine but with NATO before things come to a head. It seems very likely the disunited American public would renege on our treaty obligations if it meant World War III to resolve a border dispute in Romania or Estonia. There is nothing sacred about NATO; our connections to Europe have been weakened by diversity, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on hopeless border wars in Europe is not in the American interest.

For the American NATO withdrawal to happen, Europe must rearm itself, and the United States must accept that Europe will no longer be in the position of vassals, whose inferiority is reinforced by enabling their neglect of their own collective self-defense. The current arrangement only gives the illusion of power and stability, but it is fragile and also stokes resentment and dependency among our allies.

This is to say, an American withdrawal from NATO would be good for both Europe and the United States. It would tamp down current European hostility toward Russia—because they would need to be more circumspect—while giving Russia a sense of safety that it currently lacks. It would also restore America’s strongest attribute, which is the “soft power” that we once possessed because of our rejection of colonial empire building. Our international prestige has always been inseparable from this aspect of American idealism, but it has also declined as America behaved more and more like the displaced European imperial powers in the post-Cold War era.

Outside of the NATO treaty structure, America could still care about European civilization, maintain strong commercial ties, and involve itself where its friends are threatened without having an ironclad treaty obligation to do so. This would reduce tensions and restore American flexibility. It would also be consistent with broader principles of justice that enhance our prestige and “soft power.” 

This is the way counseled by George Washington, and such a posture would honor and protect American sovereignty and independence.



at

The Media Lawyers Are Almost All Idiots


The Supreme Court’s 9-0 humiliation of the raving cadre of Twitter lawyers, MSNBC, legal analysts, and commie law professors was a welcome repudiation of these unbelievable half-wits. I don’t think you guys understand the pain I go through as a lawyer – and a competent one – listening to the nonsense these half-wits spew. You can’t believe anyone in the media (social or otherwise) except me and a few other folks, including Harmeet Dhillon, Randy Barnett, Mike Davis, Ron Coleman, and some others when it comes to political and legal issues. The fact is that these leftists, many of them ex-federal prosecutors (ugh) or law school faculty (ugh2) who haven’t been in a courtroom in 20 years (at least not as an attorney), are just utterly incompetent. They don’t understand the law, and they are blinded by their fascist left-wing ideology. Everything they say is stupid. Never listen to them.

How bad are they? They’re terrible. They actually thought that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ridiculous ballot-booting decision, which was 4-3 on an all-Democrat court, was some sort of brilliant legal analysis that totally justified their One Weird Trick approach to disqualifying their political opponent, Donald Trump. But if you read the Colorado decision, which I tried to do before throwing it across the room, it’s not a legal opinion. It’s a political jeremiad, a ridiculous list of accusations and criticisms of Donald Trump, with no discussion of or relation to the law. And that’s a problem if you like the rule of law.

But it’s not a problem if you’re trying to get the MSNBC audience all riled up and excited over the thought of getting your political opponent thrown in jail or off the ballot or bankrupted by using the law in a way that’s never been done before. And that’s what all of these lawfare ploys are. No one has ever tried to throw a president off the ballot because of an “insurrection” that has never been proven to be an insurrection in, you know, a court of law. Apparently, it’s OK to just call it an “insurrection,” and that’s enough to kick him off the ballot. Sorry, half of America, you’re disenfranchised, and if you don’t like it, do you hate the Constitution so much?

The Washington, DC, criminal case uses charges that have never been used in this way before and will probably not be allowed to be used this way again when the Supreme Court decides a related case in June. And that’s only if there’s no presidential immunity, but there is presidential immunity, and what the Supreme Court is going to do is send this back to the lower courts to have the lower courts determine what actions of Donald Trump are covered by presidential immunity. The pinkos slobbering at the thought of a DC conviction before the election will be more disappointed than their spouses were on their wedding nights.

The documents case in Florida is an utter joke for a number of reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump had a right to declassify anything he wanted to declassify. There’s also another problem – selective prosecution. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute Biden for the same things Trump allegedly did (except Biden could not declassify anything) because he is too senile and stupid to be held responsible for his crimes. But make no mistake, the report found that Biden committed crimes. So Biden is not getting charged, but Trump is, and that’s supposed to be OK. But that’s not OK. And it’s not going to be held to be OK. That case is going to go away, too.

And then there’s this idiotic New York City criminal case. Once again, it features laws never used and never applied this way against anybody else being used to convict Trump. We also saw that with the NY civil case brought by an attorney general who ran for office promising to find something to sue Trump for. The ridiculous judge, the one who looks like a refugee from the cast of The Walking Dead, was attempting to bankrupt Trump using civil statutes that have never been used this way before. That’s going to go away, too. The criminal case is going to go away because this ridiculous case has no legal merit, but it will continue for a while because the liberal judge and the liberal jury pool will keep it alive at the trial court level until it is inevitably killed off at the appellate level. They hope a conviction, however legally meritless, will tarnish Trump, but people see through the lies.

The same thing is true in Georgia, where you have the aptly-named Fani Willis, who is a crook, making up charges against Donald Trump. Again, none of these charges have ever been used against anybody before this way, and while the case might slip through the left-wing jury pool, it’s going to get killed on appeal, too.

And the legal morons will be shocked and angry. See, the problem for the nitwits on Twitter who assure you that these are brilliant legal theories and absolutely ironclad prosecutions and persecutions is that they are either idiots or think you are an idiot. Here’s the thing – as we saw it with the 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court cares about its reputation. It might not like Trump, but it’s not willing to utterly destroy its credibility by going along with this left-wing nonsense. That’s why it threw out this Colorado case. Yeah, most of them, including a couple of the conservatives, would probably be happy for Trump to just go away. But they also don’t want to get a dozen new cases throwing Biden off the ballot in red states for committing “insurrection” by refusing to enforce our laws and seal the border off. After all, if an individual state can decide what an “insurrection” is, they will. The Supreme Court has no intention of being the janitors cleaning up the mess of leftist legal theorists who are trying to deprive a plurality of Americans of their ability to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

The bottom line is don’t listen to the idiots on Twitter. Mock them. Laugh at them. If you want to listen to somebody, listen to me in a few of the ones I’ve named and some others. We generally get things right because we’re actual lawyers who actually practice and aren’t living in a giant fantasy world. When we see something bad for our side, we’ll tell you. We won’t ignore it. We won’t pretend it doesn’t exist. We won’t claim that anytime we’re wrong, it’s an attack on Our Democracy. A lawyer’s job is largely telling people, “No,” No, you can’t do that. No, that idea won’t work. No, you really can’t sue over that because it’s stupid.

So, eventually, this will all get sorted out, and the left will be further humiliated. This isn’t going to stop Trump, you know. It will only help him because people see this for the scam it is. People see this as election interference and an attempt to use legal means to eliminate a political opponent. And that is as old as history. The Romans did it. They were going to prosecute Julius Caesar when he laid down his legions, Which is why he didn’t lay down his legions and instead took one across the Rubicon to march on Rome. The left ought to keep that in mind.



at

Democrats, Not Trump Or His Supporters, Are The Real Extremists


The recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling should be a stark reminder that Democrats aren’t playing by the rules anymore.



Hot on the heels of a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that states have “no power” to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot, Democrats and their lackeys in the corporate press denounced the court for supposedly meddling or interfering in the election.

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” said former Rep. Donna Edwards on MSNBC. NBC News’ Ken Dilanian mused that the 9-0 ruling would “be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election.”

Got that? When Democrats interfere in a presidential election and launch what amounts to an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court steps in and unanimously puts a stop to it, it’s the court, not Democrat activists, who are interfering in the election.

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking but not unexpected. Democrats engage in this kind of projection constantly, taking an extreme position and then decrying any dissent or resistance to it as extremist.

In the Colorado case, two well-funded leftist groups with anodyne names — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Free Speech for People — waged a lawfare campaign with a far-fetched reading of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” managing to get Colorado’s Democrat-dominated Supreme Court to rule in December that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot. The plan was to do this in numerous states, foreclosing the possibility of Trump’s reelection.

From the outset, it should have been obvious that the legal argument was bogus, a cynical and clumsy ploy to prop up President Biden’s reelection bid by robbing voters of the chance to cast ballots for Trump. It’s hard to imagine anything getting a unanimous ruling on our deeply divided Supreme Court, but these bozos managed to do it — and in the process embarrassed the many corporate media commentators who twisted themselves into pretzels arguing that the Colorado case was strong.

But if we step back a bit and consider all this in the context of nearly every other scheme Democrats have hatched in recent years, it’s possible to see why they thought it was worth a shot. Time and again, Democrats take unprecedented steps and trample every conceivable norm to advance their agenda, and when anyone objects, they label them an extremist or insurrectionist or Christian nationalist (whatever that means). They project onto their opponents, and especially onto Trump, the very things they are actively engaged in doing.

An obvious example of this is when Democrats warn that if Trump is reelected, he’ll use the Department of Justice and the FBI to go after his political rivals. Oh really? This is exactly what the Biden administration has been doing for the past three years to Trump, his lawyers, and his supporters. The criminal cases against Trump are nothing if not the weaponization of the DOJ to crush an unpopular sitting president’s chief political rival. 

This weaponization began even before Trump won the White House in 2016. In the waning days of the Obama administration, Democrats used the FBI and the intelligence community to go after the Trump campaign — and continued going after Trump after he won the presidency, perpetuating the Russia-collusion hoax for years with the assistance of a complicit corporate press. If anyone is using the levers of government power to go after their enemies, it’s Democrats, not Trump.

Other examples of Democrat projection abound. After months of letting our cities burn in Black Lives Matter riots, excusing them as “mostly peaceful,” Democrats threw the book at anyone who wandered into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, arresting, jailing, and prosecuting more than a thousand Americans to date, often on flimsy charges that otherwise would hardly merit a fine.

Just last week, the FBI arrested Blaze Media investigative reporter Steve Baker for his coverage of Jan. 6, marching him out of Blaze’s Dallas office in handcuffs. Democrats feign outrage at the arrest of The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich in Russia, but they gloat, as NBC News did, when the Biden administration does the same to right-of-center journalists here in America.

Pick almost any controversial issue, and you’ll find the same pattern at work. Democrats flood the internet with disinformation and propaganda about Covid, and then decry dissenting voices (and accompanying data) as agents of disinformation who must be censored and banned by Big Tech. Same thing for what they call “election disinformation,” which merely refers to opinions and data that run counter to their preferred narrative.

Democrats do this with everything. On abortion, they take the extreme position that it should be allowed up until the moment of birth, then denounce Republican-led states that impose restrictions that are the norm across the Western world. On transgenderism, they insist children can consent to genital mutilation and sterilization, then condemn modest efforts to ban or limit these practices as child abuse. On immigration, they throw open the southern border and let 10 million illegal immigrants flood into the country, then attack anyone who suggests we have a crisis at the border and need to secure it. On crime, they defund the police and decriminalize a host of antisocial, destructive behavior in our cities, precipitating a crime wave of robbery and assault, then denounce as racist any arguments for law and order. On racism itself, they tar everyone on the right with the label but look the other way when the racists on their side call for the genocide of the Jews and defend (even celebrate) Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians.

On nearly every major issue today, Democrats are the extremists. Their denunciations of Trump and his supporters rise in direct proportion to their own extremist agenda. The projection is a tactic, a crude rhetorical ruse. Don’t fall for it.



at

The Democrat Party Is Breaking


Normally, the Democrat Party is a house united with nary a toe out of step. Even if there was internal strife, Democrats did a very good job of hiding it. It inspired a hive-mind mentality that has been one of the biggest hurdles for Republicans, a more individualistic party, to overcome.

But it's pretty clear that the hive isn't so united anymore. In fact, it seems to be more than willing to eat itself alive as weak leadership and years of radicalization have the party in a state of chaos. Moreover, as Donald Trump's shadow looms longer and longer over 2024, Democrats seem to be lost as to what to do. 

All problems start at the top, but for Democrats, it's pretty unclear where the top is. Normally, it would be the President, but even the media can't seem to decide whether or not to support Joe Biden or help destroy him. He's just as likely to snap at them in anger as he is to not take questions. 

(Joe Biden Frustrated With Media for Telling the Truth: He's Losing It)

Clearly, Biden's mental capacity is severely hampered and while no one is coming out with the honest truth, he shows heavy signs of dementia. Someone else is running the show but it's not entirely clear as to who that is. 

This is incredibly embarrassing for the party which makes it sound like they always have the answers and are always in control. Pair this with an out-of-control economy that was much better under a much more charismatic Trump, and the Democrats have a major problem, especially with 2024 approaching fast. 

But while that's an immediate problem, there's a much larger problem that comes in the form of the monster that the Democrats created; the radicalized leftist. 

The Democrat Party spent years crafting the radical. They spend an inordinate amount of time and money attempting to brainwash the youth through the culture, the education system, and more to create little future voters or, even better, mindless activists. 

They created winners and losers, divided entire swaths of the population against one another, created villains out of normal, everyday Americans, and made it clear that action against them was the only way to defeat them. They encouraged people to get up, get out, and get into the faces of the oppressors of our society and that end justifies any means. They backed it up by applauding as rioters burned down cities brd on lies and even said next to nothing when a member of one of their protected groups killed people, including children. 

This might actually be great for a time, but ultimately, these radicals begin setting their sights on loftier and loftier goals that far outstrip the original intention of the people who created them. When that happens, the radicals will turn on their creators. 

This is exactly what's happening to the Democrat Party. They created zealots who are now far bigger believers than the church they sprang from. These radicals are even willing to go after radicals in positions of power. You saw that very thing happen recently with AOC being confronted at a movie theater by Pro-Hamas protesters. 


If Democrat politicians are angry about this and feel these protesters overstepped their boundaries, they shouldn't be. This is exactly what the Democrat Party taught these people to do. 

The Democrat Party is imploding and despite the media attempting to make it seem like it's not as big a problem as it is, the collapse can be seen without it needing to be pointed out. Normally, the Democrats would create something to unify around, but nothing seems to be catching like before. 

There's no Black Lives Matter, no Women's March, no COVID-19, and every attempt at trying to get people to rally seems to be falling flat. The desperation became clear to me personally when I saw a post from the White House on Instagram that simply said "BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS" in all caps as if that was going to mean something to anybody except radicals. 

Whatever strength the Democrat Party once had, it's now gone, and that lack of strength has plunged it into chaos. 



at

Here We Go – Senator Krysten Sinema Is Out and Will Not Seek Reelection



It’s all going to play out the way it is going to play out, and my dearest friends… this is going to be the biggest, ugliest, most consequential and potentially transformative inflection point in modern USA politics.

Trust your instincts; I mean really trust them.  Trust that sense of foreboding you feel, and steel your nerves for some of the most dangerous times ahead.

She knows what is coming.  Senator Sinema may not know the details and/or the specifics, but she knows the scale of conflict that is going to happen, and she’s not internally prepared to participate in it.  It’s not about the current polarization from a left -vs- right conflict; the traditional issues are not akin to debate.

This is full combat bloodletting that is coming into focus, and it is going to be exceptionally ugly.  The stakes are extreme, and we will walk through them in advance. The U.S intelligence apparatus is going to participate on behalf of the worst elements in government.  As if they have not completely dropped pretense already, and on behalf of the administrative state that provides their authority, the powerful institutions of our nation are going to forcefully align in combat against We The People.

Arizona will be one of the “all or nothing” states this year – filled with extreme anger.  Not accidentally clad in purple hues, Senator Sinema is tapping out in advance.



“I love Arizona and am so proud of what we delivered.” … “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening and working together to get stuff done, I am leaving the Senate at the end of this year.”

WASHINGTON – Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) announced that she will not seek reelection this year, avoiding an unpredictable three-way race in the swing state that had many national Democrats worried about holding onto the seat.

“I believe in my approach, but it’s not what America wants right now,” Sinema said in a video announcing her plans that painted a bleak picture of a dysfunctional political system she no longer sees a place in. (read more)

NEWSWEEK – […] In head-to-head matchups between Gallego and Lake, the pair splits numbers based on the poll. The most recent polls conducted in late February by Rasmussen show Lake with a 4-point lead, with 1,001 registered voters surveyed.  An Emerson College poll around that same time show Gallego with a 7-point lead.

Lake, a strong Donald Trump supporter, still has to defeat Republican challenger, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, prior to facing Gallego. She is viewed as a strong favorite against Lamb. (link)

Prepare your affairs accordingly….


at

Listen to the Way He Says It – John Thune: “I hope to be” Senate Majority Leader



This is an interesting response to the question of whether South Dakota Senator John Thune intends to seek the position of senate majority leader.  Listen to the way he says it and the transparency of the long-discussed plan is crystal clear {GO DEEP, 2022}  WATCH:



We have written about this plan for several years.  Mitch McConnell personally groomed Thune for the position and has introduced him to all the key financial players that keep the DeceptiCons (Deceptive Conservatives) in office.   GO DEEP and GO DEEP

Thune talks about assuming the role as the natural outcome of his time with McConnell.  Unfortunately, almost all the GOPe Republicans will support this passing of the baton.  The only thing that makes the Deep State professional Republicans nervous, is the potential for President Donald Trump to intercede in the anointing.


There is the potential for this to be an inflection point if President Trump weighs in on the role of the next Republican Senate Leader.

I would expect Mitch McConnell to try and pull a Machiavellian move with an endorsement of Trump and a promise of non-conflict.  McConnell may even make pledges of support for Trump’s nominees in an effort to play the long game for Thune.   Of course, as customary, that would all be a ruse, and Thune would await the opportune moment to play the role of DC Brutus.

It’s a complicated political dynamic, because Senator Thune comes to the negotiating table with all the Senate support needed for his installation.  The power game is almost equally matched, with only WE THE PEOPLE as the tilting weapon to shift leverage to the side of President Trump.

In the background, the interests that support Thune will be quietly working every angle to block and/or ultimately remove President Trump.   Senator Thune knows this game; it’s his home turf.  So does Trump, and he has us.  So, we keep watching.


at