Americans Must Reject Kamala Harris’s Cave to the Darker Parts of the Democratic Party

by Fred Fleitz for American Greatness 

One politician stole the show in Philadelphia this week when Kamala Harris rolled out the 2024 Democrat vice presidential candidate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. It wasn’t Harris, Walz, Philadelphia Major Cherelle Parker, or the other little-known speakers. The politician who brought the house down was the man who unexpectedly was not chosen to be Harris’s VP: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Shapiro gave a rousing speech that was inaudible at times due to a “thunderous applause” that illustrated “Pennsylvania Democrats’ love for the first-term governor.” Given that Pennsylvania may decide the 2024 presidential race and Minnesota appears firmly in the Democratic column, how could Harris pass over Shapiro and choose Walz?

The Harris campaign said the decision was because Harris and Walz have good chemistry. The campaign also claimed Walz was chosen to help Harris, a California liberal, pick up votes in the Midwest. There were also press reports that Shapiro was not chosen because he was too ambitious and might have overshadowed Harris.

There may be some truth in these explanations. But make no mistake: the main reason Harris did not select Shapiro is because anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas progressives pressured her not to choose the Pennsylvania governor since he is a pro-Israel Jew. 

Progressives have denounced Shapiro as “genocide Josh” for his support of Israel in its war against Hamas and for criticizing U.S. universities for failing to protect Jewish students during violent pro-Hamas protests that broke out on many campuses last spring.

This included Shapiro’s condemnation of then-University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill’s testimony before Congress, in which she described determining whether speech calling for the genocide of Jews violated the university’s rules of conduct as “a context-dependent decision.” Shapiro called her statement “shameful and unacceptable.”

To his credit, Florida Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz expressed his disgust with the progressive campaign against Shapiro in an August 1 tweet:

CNN commentator Van Jones made a similar comment on August 6, saying that Harris caved in to the “darker parts” of the Democratic Party when selecting her running mate. Jones also said he believed that elements of anti-Semitism have been “marbled in” to the Democratic Party.

Although some have accused Harris of giving in to Israel-hatred and anti-Semitism in her party when she didn’t choose Shapiro, this decision also reflected her own pro-Hamas, anti-Israel views. This is why Middle East expert Caroline Glick has called Harris “the most outspokenly anti-Israel member of the administration.”

Even the Biden White House regards Harris’s anti-Israel views as a problem. These views reportedly led the National Security Council last March to water down harsh remarks about Israel and the humanitarian situation in Gaza in a speech that Harris planned to deliver. The vice president’s office denied this report.

Harris’s anti-Israel bias was clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Washington last month. Harris failed to meet Netanyahu when his plane landed outside Washington and skipped his speech to a joint session of Congress. Although Harris agreed to meet privately with Netanyahu, the Israeli leader reportedly was irritated by her on-camera statement after the meeting, which he believed would harm negotiations over a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal, according to an Axios report.

Harris spurned Shapiro for Governor Tim Walz, one of the most far-left governors in the United States. Walz’s positions on Israel and the Israel-Gaza War are generally nuanced and similar to Biden’s. Harris probably assumed the Hamas wing of her party would accept Walz to deny the VP post to Shapiro and because of his progressive positions. Walz’s praise for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whom the Republican Jewish Coalition once called “the most vicious anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Member of Congress,” probably helped endear him to the Democratic Party’s far left.

So desperate was Harris to appease progressives by picking Walz that she reportedly ignored reports that he avoided a tour of military service in Iraq and misrepresented his military career before Harris chose him. This issue has become a growing scandal and forced the Harris campaign to quietly reviseWatz’s biography on the campaign website.

Because of the corrupt process that led to the un-democratic selection of Kamala Harris to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential candidate, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman recently endorsed Donald Trump and called for Harris to be overwhelmingly defeated for the good of the party. Ackman said in an August 6 tweet:

Ackman is right. There are many reasons for the Harris/Walz ticket to be defeated. But I believe the most important thing is that a political party that is so broken that it would reject a vice presidential candidate who could substantially increase its chances of winning a presidential election because of his religion deserves to lose decisively.

Therefore, when going to the polls or casting their mail-in ballots for president this fall, the American people must vote to repudiate the dangerous increase in anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, and anti-Semitic sentiments in the Democratic Party and the far-left radicals like Kamala Harris who are promoting them.

X22, Red Pill news, and more- August 10

 

Is Kamala Going to Get Away With This?

posted by Katie Pavlich at Townhall 

In the aftermath of booting Joe Biden and while the current president was still pulling knives out of his back, Harris illegally took over his campaign war chest and quickly got to work scrubbing her record – the record that earned her a total of zero votes in the 2020 Democratic primary.  

Immediately, staffers picked up the phone to speak with her allies in the media, issuing statements about 180-degree changes on Harris’ most liberal and unhinged positions. Despite putting on “the vibes” of a strong, independent prosecutor capable of speaking for herself, she has explained nothing directly and has happily outsourced this responsibility. She claims to be prosecuting the case against former President Donald Trump but refuses to make the case for herself. 

Nearly three weeks into the Harris presidential campaign and after choosing a radical vice presidential running mate in Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Harris finally made her way to the cameras this week for a three-minute back and forth with reporters. The questions, as predicted, were softballs about her feelings and lacked much-needed indignation from the press that she be more transparent. In typical fashion, Harris didn’t answer any surface-level inquiry with detail or clarity before quickly scurrying back onto Air Force Two. Laughably, she noted she plans to participate in a sit-down interview, no doubt with a friendly “journalist,” sometime in the next three weeks. 

It was a pitiful, pathetic showing just a few hours after former President Donald Trump stood for more than an hour at his Mar-a-Lago estate at a press conference with dozens of reporters — answering question after question, many hostile. He discussed the state of the race and his vision for the country. He also challenged Harris to three debates, two of which she’s already rejected. 

So the question keeps coming up. How can she possibly continue to get away with running a brment strategy campaign? How can she keep disrespecting voters by refusing to show up? The answer is — because she just might get away with it.

The glowing media profiles and gaslighting of Harris’ changed positions are working. There’s no doubt a Vogue cover is in the works. The “journalism” class has simply accepted that Harris is a new, capable candidate with no baggage. The branding that Harris is the way of the future and Trump is of the past has pushed her ahead in many of the polls – in the places where it matters among likely voters. The Harris campaign has done very little. The Democratic media complex has already done most of the work and, of course, her bidding. That's paying off and she’s surging. 

Could that change after the honeymoon wears off? When voters tune in after Labor Day to weigh their options? Sure, but that’s under the assumption the leftist media will fall out of love with their favorite candidate less than three months to go until Election Day in November. 

As for the issues, until Harris disavows her previous positions directly, in front of cameras and with real explanations — not word salad — Americans are fair to assume her classification of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as KKK members, her goals of making private health insurance illegal, her support of a fracking ban, the decriminalization of illegal immigration and much more — still stand as her current positions. It’s the Trump campaign’s mission and obligation to remind voters of who she really is and define her with a mirror as she hides from scrutiny.  

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

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

The 17th

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system the senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate.   The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.

The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government.  However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials.  We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem.  At least we admit the Senate exists.

All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate.  If we correct the problems with the Senate and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change.  However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.

When the 17th amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th amendment.

Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber.  Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us.   When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.

It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen.  Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature.  [Common Explainer Here]

Seventeenth Amendment- “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (link)

Prior to the 17th amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests and senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position.  Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.

The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate.   Get the right people in the State legislature and you can get the Senator appointed.

Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC.   [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.]  Additionally, prior to the 17th amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.

The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state.  Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.

A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years.  The 17th amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the congress as it was written by the founders.

Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch.  The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”  The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them.  Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch.   The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.

If we can repeal the 17th amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance.   [NOTE: Within the repeal effort we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]

◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th amendment “.  This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.

This approach gives presidential candidate Donald Trump the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election.  We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude. We need Donald Trump.

◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the 2024 election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.

Obviously, this would be an ugly battle.   The second path is a convention of states in the first year of President Trump’s second term in office.

The ‘convention of states‘ would be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the 2024 GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins).   That way, if congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th amendment “.  That’s it. Full Stop.  Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.

There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this.  However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government.   The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.

The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative.  In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest.  This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.

Repeal the 17th amendment and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.

NBC News Pretty Much Confirms Tim Walz Lied About His Military Service

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

It's the Democrat media complex at work, though they’ve become more shameless since the Obama era. After Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, there was a conscious effort to disregard the truth to protect Democrats and help them no matter what. It’s the only explanation for the flurry of ethical and overall journalistic malpractice that we’ve seen, from the Russian collusion hoax to Hunter Biden’s laptop; we do not hate the media enough for their overt corruption. 

And now, NBC News is reporting through some unnamed Kamala Harris spokesperson that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who the vice president selected as her running mate to appease the far-left elements of the Democratic Party, lied about his military record: 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz "misspoke" in a 2018 video circulated by the Harris campaign earlier this week that included the vice presidential candidate talking about his handling of weapons "in war," a campaign spokesperson said Friday. 

The clarification comes after Republicans, led by veteran and vice presidential candidate JD Vance, have attacked Walz over his military record. 

“Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country — in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way," the Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement. 

"In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke. He did handle weapons of war and believes strongly that only military members trained to carry those deadly weapons should have access to them, unlike Donald Trump and JD Vance who prioritize the gun lobby over our children,” the spokesperson added. 

The video clip of Walz's previous remarks shows him discussing gun control and referring to his own military background. “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” Walz says in the clip posted by Harris’ campaign on Tuesday. 

Walz's 24 years in the military included serving overseas and supporting forward units, but he was not deployed to a combat zone. 

So, isn’t this an admission of stolen valor? To compound this matter, CNN’s Laura Coates interviewed Tim Walz's former Command Sergeant Major Doug Julin, who gave a damning interview, indicating that the Minnesota governor knew about his unit’s deployment to Iraq in late 2004, a good six-to-seven months of foreknowledge before turning in his retirement papers. It sure seems like the man cut and ran—literally.   

Regime-Approved ‘Fact-Checkers’ Rush To Downplay Tim Walz’s Stolen Valor Controversy

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler aims to convince readers his ‘fact-checks’ are valid, despite their representation as attempts to run interference for Walz.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

It’s another day that ends in “-y,” which means legacy media hucksters are running dishonest interference for the Democrat Party.

The latest example comes in the form of a Friday “fact-check” by The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler. Known for his willingness to lie on behalf of Democrats, the Post’s “democracy dies in darkness” guru decided to offer his “assessment” of the controversy engulfing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

While lauded by regime-approved media for his National Guard service, Walz’s rollout as Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate has been marred by reports and resurfaced clips indicating he committed “stolen valor.” As Matt Beebe has detailed at length in these pages, Walz abandoned his unit before it deployed to Iraq to run for Congress and has inflated his military rank throughout his political career.

Rather than present those facts up front for Post readers, Kessler begins his “fact-check” by citing a quote from Harris announcing Walz as her vice-presidential pick and the following paragraph:

Since [Harris’ announcement], Walz’s record has been under attack by Republicans, with claims that he abandoned his troops on the eve of a deployment to Iraq and that, in an instance of “stolen valor,” inflated his credentials and wartime experience.

The implication, of course, is that any and all scrutiny of Walz’s record and prior claims about his military service are solely the product of GOP partisanship — not the actual facts documenting Walz’s dishonesty. By deploying this deceptive tactic, Kessler aims to convince readers his subsequent “fact-checks” are valid, despite their representation as blatant attempts to run interference for Walz.

In assessing Walz’s decision to abandon his unit prior to its deployment, Kessler lays out a timeline of the Minnesota governor’s military career, from the time he enlisted with the Guard in 1981 to when his unit returned from Iraq in 2007. While admitting that Walz knew his battalion could be sent to the region shortly before moving to retire from service, the Post’s chief “fact-checker” claimed, “whether he abandoned his troops is a matter of perspective,” and seemingly justified the decision by noting the governor “had served nearly a quarter-century in the guard and had already announced he was considering a congressional race” prior to being informed his unit could be deployed.

I guess it’s not enough that Walz’s former colleague and replacement has publicly blasted him for ditching his fellow service members when they needed him most.

The Star Tribune’s “fact-check” of Walz’s resignation was even worse. The Minnesota-based outlet deemed claims about Walz bailing on his colleagues “false” by making it appear that Walz had no idea they would deploy to Iraq when he submitted his retirement papers. But that insinuation isn’t true, as a press release issued by Walz’s inaugural 2005 campaign and cited by Kessler shows.

But let us not forget the Post’s residential gatekeeper of “truth.” He also assessed claims that Walz committed an act of “stolen valor” by inflating his rank throughout his political career.

Despite repeatedly claiming the rank of command sergeant major, Walz is actually a lesser-ranked master sergeant. He was promoted to command sergeant major during the waning years of his service, but did not complete the minimum number of years required to retain the rank when he left to run for Congress.

The Harris-Walz campaign tacitly admitted the governor’s untruthfulness when it quietly altered his biography on the campaign’s website to say he, “served as a command sergeant major,” rather than saying he’s a “retired command sergeant major.”

These facts apparently weren’t good enough for Kessler to deem claims about Walz committing stolen valor as “true.” Instead, the Post “fact-checker” wrote: “This is on the line. He did achieve the title he has claimed, for a total of seven months, but it would be more accurate to say he ‘served as command sergeant major’ rather than claim the title outright.”

Kessler’s antics didn’t stop there. He also whitewashed Walz’s dishonest attempts to portray himself as a combat veteran involved in on-the-ground operations in Afghanistan. While Walz’s unit was deployed overseas, it was sent to Italy — not the Middle East.

“This is also on the line. We can find no evidence Walz ever claimed he served in Afghanistan,” Kessler wrote, seemingly ignoring Walz’s endorsement of a book falsely claiming he served in Afghanistan.

While Kessler did rate Walz’s claim he carried “weapons of war … in war” as untrue, he sugarcoated the lie by asserting the Minnesota governor’s language was “sloppy” — a term he’s previously used to sanitize Democrats’ radicalism and lies.