JD Vance Is Crushing It As Trump's Running Mate

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

I have to say that I'm liking JD Vance – in fact, he's killing it. Now, I've always liked the guy. I've met him a couple of times and he's not a stiff. He’s a normal human being, as one would expect from an Ohioan (I am one too, despite my California residence for the last half-century). He doesn't have that weird vibe you get from a lot of politicians, that if they take off their suit they'll disappear. The Democrats may think he's weird, or at least claim he is, but that's only because they are weirdos. JD doesn't think that women can become men, nor does he think that socialism is the answer, nor does he create elaborate reasons for dodging his duty – when duty called, JD Vance, unlike Tim Walz, didn't let it go to voicemail. He’s normal. Like us.

Ignore the haters. JD Vance is crushing it as Trump's running mate.

I thought Glenn Youngkin had some advantages over him as far as bringing in regular folks and maybe putting Virginia in play. And while Glenn Youngkin may have been a good advocate, we know JD Vance has been one. Did you see him on the regime media during the last couple weeks? He gets it. He understands how to present himself as a calm, rational, normal person with a mastery of the facts. He also understands what the regime media's job is – not to report the news but to support Democrats and attempt to undermine any arguments the Republicans make. Look what the ridiculous Kristen Welker tried Kamala on the border issue – JD turned her cheesy denial of Kamala's border czar status around on her. It was rhetorical judo, and he got the win.

Nor does JD walk into predictable ambushes. When Welker decided it was important enough to ask him at least two or three questions about cat ladies, JD Vance basically laughed her off. No, he wasn't going to admit he regretted it. He shouldn't regret it. He was absolutely right to lambaste those ridiculous harridans. But he ended up turning it into a big nothing. Welker tried to pin him down, but he wouldn't let her.

Now, there's a theory that you attack a political opponent's strengths, targeting what they put forward as their primary arguments for voting for them. That cheesy French-looking weasel, John Kerry, decided to portray himself as a Vietnam hero, so it was devastating when his own comrades eviscerated him over his inflated war record and his disgraceful betrayal of his fellow troops when he got home following his short tour in 'Nam. That's kind of what they've tried to do with JD Vance. They've tried to hit all his primary attributes. They tried to hit his normality by calling him weird, though the party of men who dress as women and steal luggage probably shouldn't be calling anybody else weird. They hit his military record, but that flopped because he never inflated what he did. He showed up, did his job, and that's it. Walz couldn't even do that, the piece of crap. Then they tried to make him into some sort of demonic lunatic, and his calm, rational, and reasonable demeanor totally undercuts it. If you're going to strike at the king, you better hit, and if you're going to go at someone's strengths, you better take them down or you're just going to remind everybody about his strengths.

That's what's happening with JD. The guy is smart. He's got a great story – another thing they've tried to attack when they gave him grief because he worked his way into Yale after growing up in poverty. It's unclear whether they didn't know or didn't care that another guy who grew up in poverty and then worked his way into Yale was speaking at the DNC right before they launched this lame attack on JD – Bill Clinton. It's weird that the Democrat Party, which still pretends to be the party of the working man even though it hates working men, would attack somebody for upward mobility based on his hard work and talent.

But when you think about how the Democrat Party is currently constituted, that's not surprising at all. What the Democrat poobahs really want is for people to be born poor and to stay poor and be a permanent underclass at the service of these peasants’ feudal overlords who reside in their compounds in Malibu and New York City. They hate JD Vance because he's uppity. He doesn't know his place. And when the swells were gracious enough to allow him into their Ivy League inner sanctum, he dared refuse to wholeheartedly embrace their pagan/communist ideology. That's unforgivable. They don't just dislike this guy because he's an opponent. They dislike this guy because, like Donald Trump himself, JD Vance is a class traitor. We saw even more of that with the attack on RFK Jr. this week. How mad was the Democrat elite that he stopped being one of them and started being one of us because they had abandoned the principles that made RFK Jr. one of them in the first place?

Oh, and the new Dem babbling point is that somehow RFK Jr. has replaced JD Vance in the eyes of Trump, and that's just stupid. JD's not going to fall for that kind of cheesy manipulation. He's busy playing his own role, which is complementary to Trump's. And to Trump's great credit, as JD Vance shines – he is shining – Trump isn't offended or resentful. Trump loves it and is out focusing on doing his own things while JD does the things he needs to do.

The debates are going to be interesting. JD Vance has the quiet confidence of someone who has lived through adversity and prevailed. He survived grinding poverty, Marine Corps boot camp, and a deployment to Iraq. He survived at Yale as a normal person. And he's survived being beaten up by the regime media, coming out smiling at the other end of this gauntlet. He can survive a 60-year-old communist blue falcon who looks like he's 75 and on the verge of vapor locking.

What can you say about Walz? The guy suffers from a giant impostor complex based on the fact that he is a giant imposter. He inflates his modest achievements precisely because he knows he's a fake. He knows he's a fraud. That's why he lies about his résumé. Everything on it is a lie. He has to be the head coach when he's just an assistant. He has to have an award from some Nebraska Chamber of Commerce when he doesn't. And he's got to be a command sergeant major (sic) when he most certainly is not.

When they meet, it's going to be glorious because Walz will be scared and angry. JD Vance will be calm and precise and wield the rhetorical scalpel that will cut this communist Chinese puppet to shreds. Walz is terrified that JD Vance will expose him to the world, and you know what? JD Vance is going to expose the real Tim Walz to the world.

Nobody votes for the vice president, but sometimes they vote against the vice president. JD Vance has been a huge advantage to the Republican ticket. Many people have been complaining, including GOP rivals and rival-aligned people. Some don't like the fact that JD represents a more populist version of Republicanism, But the people that they would prefer to have been totally repudiated. We're not going back to the Busch era. We're not going back to Romney or McCain. JD Vance is the future, and the future is bright.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 29

 

Giggler and Snitch: Two Phonies atop the Democrat Ticket

posted by Jonathan Cohen at American Thinker 

Fox News commentator and author Tyrus nicknamed Kamala Harris “The Giggler” and V.P. candidate Tim Walz “The Snitch.”  The label for Harris stems from her frequent nervous laughter that accompanies her public comments.  Democrat party spin is now portraying the giggling as the politics of joy, and Republicans frame it as a lack of seriousness.  More likely, it is simply a nervous response to uncomfortable situations.  Walz earned the nickname for instigating a telephone hotline during the pandemic for people to inform on neighbors who were seen leaving their homes unmasked.

With the choice of Walz as the Harris V.P. candidate, reports of Walz exaggerating his service record have resurfaced.  The most serious of these is a video where he claims to have held a weapon of war in an actual war zone, something that never happened, as he was never deployed to a war zone.  The second report is that he retired from his post as command sergeant major of his National Guard unit subsequent to learning that his unit would be deployed to Iraq.  Finally, as a result of his retirement before completing special training, his retirement rank was reduced from command sergeant major to simply master sergeant, something he failed to mention in referring to himself in campaign biographies.

Another Democrat party exaggeration about Walz is implying that he was the head coach of a state championship football team.  He was not.  He was an assistant coach.  There is a huge difference between being a head coach and an assistant coach.  Take it from me: I was both for my sons’ youth soccer, basketball, and baseball teams.  There is a world of difference.

When you are an assistant coach, the most trouble you might encounter is a parent asking you to intervene with the head coach concerning the playing time and positions of his child.  As a head coach, you have to tell parents that you are not going to let their kid pitch because he can’t throw a baseball within three feet of the strike zone, and you aren’t going to make every kid sit around and watch him walk ten batters in a row.  Or you have to tell another parent that you won’t let her son play first base because he is the shortest kid on the team, and he has difficulty catching baseballs.  The result is that you spend a season with a small group of resentful parents who sit through the games complaining about you.  It can get pretty unpleasant.

Head coaches get blamed when the team loses and praised when the team wins.  They have to make decisions about who plays and who doesn’t.  In high school, they have to decide who makes the team and who doesn’t and who gets to pitch and who doesn’t.  It involves making decisions that are often painful for kids and their parents, and you can make a lot of enemies.

There is much that is admirable about Walz’s military service and his contributions as an assistant coach.  The problem is that his embellishment of his role is done to suggest a level of leadership and courage under fire that he hasn’t earned.  Walz is perfectly happy to be described as “coach,” leaving the impression that he is the gruff old guy who is willing to make the hard calls essential for leadership.  Walz is not that guy.  During the days following the death of George Floyd, he dithered about applying sufficient force to stop the violence.  He could have called in the National Guard immediately and greatly limited the damage, but it would have required standing up to an angry mob encouraged by too many politicians and too many members of the media.

Kamala Harris also has her moments of embellishment.  In the 2019 Democrat presidential primary debate, she told a tale of her heroic role in integrating the Berkeley public schools.  During her convention speech, Oprah compared Kamala getting bussed to school as a little girl in Berkeley, California to the courage showed by several small children who were the first black students to integrate a school in Louisiana.  This is nonsense.  Berkeley was the most liberal city in America.  Its schools were never segregated.  The schoolchildren, both black and white, were bussed away from their neighborhood schools to achieve a greater amount of racial balancing, a policy that was probably more about income balancing than racial integration.  In truth, the schools, including the teachers and the students, welcomed the change.

To be sure, some parents would have preferred to have their children walk a couple blocks to their neighborhood school rather than have to sit on a school bus for a half-hour going to and from a faraway school.  But comparing Berkeley’s response to bussing to the Southern resistance to school integration is absurd.  When Kamala said in the debate, “That little school girl was me,” she was ascribing to herself a heroic role similar to the first schoolchildren integrating schools in the Deep South.

Compare her situation with that of 15-year-old Elizabeth Eckford, one of the first nine teenagers to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.  According to Wikipedia,

On September 4, 1957, Eckford and eight other African American students (known as the Little Rock Nine) made an unsuccessful attempt to enter Little Rock Central High School, which had been segregated. An angry mob of about 400 surrounded the school that day, with the complicity of the Arkansas National Guard.

Fifteen-year-old Eckford tried to enter the school, while soldiers of the National Guard, under orders from Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, stepped in her way to prevent her from entering. Eventually, she gave up and tried to flee to a bus stop through the mob of segregationists who surrounded and threatened to lynch her. Once Eckford got to the bus stop, she couldn’t stop crying. A reporter, Benjamin Fine, having in mind his own 15-year-old daughter, sat down next to Eckford. He tried to comfort her and told her, “don’t let them see you cry.” Soon, she was also protected by a white woman named Grace Lorch who escorted her onto a city bus.

That is what valor looks like.  For Kamala Harris to suggest that her experience was similar to Elizabeth Eckford’s is the definition of stolen valor.

Harris and Walz have espoused extreme positions on important issues, and these need to be fully vetted for their views.  But what also must be exposed is what these two poseurs at the top of the Democrat ticket really are.  They are phonies.  That is something everyone understands.

Evidence Mounts for Kamala Role in J6 Plot

posted by Jack Cashill at American Thinker 

For a criminal defense attorney, the scariest moment in any trial is when his client unwittingly opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence.

On Thursday, during her acceptance speech, Vice-President Kamala Harris opened that door. The Trump people would have preferred that no one at the DNC talk about January 6, but Rep. Jamie Raskin shattered that hope on the convention’s opening night in a speech so laden with lies Satan was envious.

Harris was much more careful, too careful. So crafted were her words that they revealed a signature speech pattern. As shall be seen, this pattern was evident in her first -- and last -- interview about her role on January 6, which she gave in January 2021. The silence then and since screams out for an explanation.

Here, for instance, is an example of Harris’s duplicitousness excerpted from her convention speech. “[Trump] sent an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol, where they assaulted law enforcement officers.” For starters, the mob was conspicuously unarmed. Of course, too, Trump encouraged the crowd at his speech to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” And finally, the crowd at the Ellipse where Trump spoke did not reach the Capitol until at least an hour after the Capitol was breached.

In her defense, Harris might say Trump did tell his crowd to go to the Capitol. If not with guns, some were armed with flag poles and the like, and a few probably did mix it up with the police. Together, however, these half-truths amount to a conscious misrepresentation of Trump’s role on January 6.

In a similar pattern, the half-truths Harris shared with Jane Pauley, on the January 17, 2021, edition of CBS Sunday Morning, amount to a conscious deception about her whereabouts on January 6.

After showing a series of riot images, Pauley asked Harris, “January 6 was something seismic. Something seismic happened that day. May I ask, was the TV on? Did someone say, 'Madam Vice President-Elect, you gotta see this, come.’ How did that unfold?"

Responded Harris cautiously, "I was at the Capitol that morning, and then I was in a meeting, and I was told that I should leave. And then I was taken to a secure location, with my husband.” Yes, Harris was at the Capitol that morning. Yes, she was in a meeting. Yes, she was taken to a secure location.

Together, however, these carefully crafted half-truths amount to a lie. Here, Harris left the impression that she had to leave the Capitol because of the riot. In fact, she was at the DNC and had to leave that location at about 1:15 p.m. because of the pipe bomb found outside the building ten minutes earlier. The Capitol would not be evacuated for another hour.

This deception had consequences. As I detailed in an earlier piece in American Thinker, for nearly a year prosecutors were telling J6 judges and juries that Harris “remained within the Capitol building” throughout the riot. As a Secret Service protectee, any site Harris visited was considered “restricted.” The scores of defendants who violated this restricted space had their charges amplified.

The question remains: why did Harris deceive not only the public but also the courts about her presence at the DNC? For those who prefer video to print as an explanatory medium, Los Angeles filmmaker Joel Gilbert and I compressed the whole of “Kamalagate” into a three-minute video.

Whatever Harris’s role, the evidence continues to mount that there was a plot underway on January 6 to incite enough chaos to shut down the certification process. The launch hour seems to have been 1 p.m, the time when the certification process began at the Capitol.

In brief, Ray Epps and his crew breached the Capitol perimeter just before 1 p.m. A still unidentified man put the noose on a pre-constructed gallows at 1 p.m. The still unidentified “scaffold commander” mounted the media scaffolding and began barking orders to the protestors shortly after 1 p.m. And, most relevant for Harris, pipe bombs planted by an unidentified bomber were found near the DNC shortly before and shortly after 1 p.m. respectively.

There has been an obviousness to the plot most evident in the failure of the FBI to identify key January 6 provocateurs and in their kid gloves handling of Ray Epps. Not only did Epps encourage the initial breach and a secondary breach, but he also provided hands-on help to those pushing a large metal Trump sign into a line of police officers. At 2:12, Epps texted his nephew boasting that he had “orchestrated” events at the Capitol. He wasn’t kidding.

Perversely, the more evidence that surfaced against Epps, the more the media embraced him. Not until September 23, 2023, did Epps plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge with no jail time and only then because his preferential treatment embarrassed the keepers of the narrative. As to the scaffold commander, the faux hangman, and a few other window breakers, they somehow baffled the facial recognition tools of the FBI.

Even more damning is the pipe bomb story. As intrepid reporter Julie Kellypointed out in a detailed account last week, “Newly discovered video appears to justify the belief that the DNC ‘pipe bomb’ scare was part of an inside job perhaps orchestrated by law enforcement or others to initiate panic in Washington on January 6.”

At 12:51 p.m. the video shows a Metropolitan D.C. officer leave his vehicle in front of the DNC with bag in hand, walk towards the area where the bomb was found, and return with the bag moments later. For some inexplicable reason, the security camera never shows the bench where the bomb was found, nor, unfortunately, the officer’s action at that bench. The bomb would be “found” 15 minutes later by a Capitol Police officer.

Adding to the mystery around the pipe bomb is the convenient deletion of January 6 text messages from at least two dozen Secret Service officials and agents, including former director Kim Cheatle.

For all the circumstantial evidence, any indictment of Harris calls for a theory of the case. Here’s mine. I do not believe Harris was an original participant in the plot. I believe she stumbled into it. Her silence, however, has made her complicit. By January 17, 2021, as politically useful as it would have been for her to recount her near assassination by way of a terrorist bomb, she had learned to keep her mouth shut.

As she surely knows by now, the bomb plot bears no scrutiny. The FBI continues to insist the RNC and DNC bombs were viable and planted the night before, but the presence of the Secret Service at the DNC for several hours on the morning of January 6 makes that contention hard to believe. Agents swept the exterior of the building more than once.

I do not believe the conspirators expected Harris to be at the DNC. The recently released video evidence suggests a last-minute adjustment to the plot so awkward and obvious no one wanted to be held responsible for it. No one wanted it even mentioned. Harris got the word.

In a real campaign, a real media would be hounding Harris with questions. But the Harris campaign is about as authentic as the pipe bombs. Although they won’t get an answer, Republicans are going to have to ask the questions, starting with, “So, Kamala, what did you know and when did you know it?”

🎭 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. 

Say What? Kamala Spox Steps in It Big Time With Response to Critics of Joint Harris-Walz Interview

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

As RedState reported, the Harris-Walz campaign has faced growing criticism from even some in the media after it was announced Tuesday that Vice President Kamala Harris had finally granted her first interview since the July palace coup that installed her as the Democratic presidential nominee in place of President Joe Biden.

The details, as we documented here, were pretty pathetic. Noted Democrat apologist Dana Bash, a CNN anchor, will be conducting it. Further, it won't be a live interview. It will be pre-recorded, and there are no guarantees that the edits made before it airs Thursday at 9 pm ET will be justifiable. 

Perhaps worst of all, it won't be a solo interview. Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, will be sitting next to her as a security blanket.

---

Journalist Asks the Question of the Day After Kamala Harris/Tim Walz CNN Interview Deets Announced

---

As conservative strategist and CNN political commentator Scott Jennings observed, the decision to bring Walz along was a "weak sauce" moment for the Harris campaign, and, as he also noted, it raised even more concerns about just what type of president Harris would be.

"...what kind of president would you be if this kind of a small-time decision - can we do an interview or not  - what does that look like for your decision-making process [and] so on?" Jennings asked.

In response to her critics - which included former CBS News senior White House correspondent Mark Knoller, Kamala Harris for President senior spokesman Ian Sams laughably declared that the joint interview was part of a "rich tradition" that they wanted to uphold:

While it's true that post-convention interviews in recent presidential election cycles featured both the nominee and their running mate, this time around it's a different scenario in more ways than one:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden sat for an interview with 60 minutes after Mr Biden was selected as the vice-presidential nominee in 2008. Eight years later, Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine did the same. For Ms Harris and Mr Biden in 2020, they picked ABC’s 20/20. And less than a week after Trump announced JD Vance as his running mate, the pair were jointly interviewed on Fox.

But since Mr Biden passed the torch to her late last month, Ms Harris has limited most of her engagement with the press to scripted and highly-controlled environments. Her last formal sit-down interview was on 24 June, more than two months and a political lifetime ago.

Her occasional interactions with reporters - brief answers to shouted questions on her way to and from campaign events - have done little to quell Republican claims that she is shirking any opportunity to have her record and agenda put under the microscope.

Further, the leaning heavily into "tradition" here is farcical in the extreme considering there is nothing whatsoever traditional about Kamala Harris' presidential candidacy considering the way you typically win a nomination is by going through an intense primary process where you campaign to win the support of voters, not forcing out the incumbent to make the path free and clear for you to conveniently step in without doing the work.  

And there are, of course, the interviews you do along the way, which have also not been done here.

There's nothing "traditional" about avoiding the press and formal interviews especially for a month and a half while enjoying the trappings of being the nominee in waiting.

As far as I'm concerned, bringing Walz to tag along for emotional support just proves the point many have been making about Harris going back to her failed run for president in 2019: She's not ready for prime time, certainly not that 3 am call, and never will be.

Kamala Harris’ Unserious Foreign Policy Is A National Security Threat

Kamala Harris stands as the leader of an administration that has shown itself to be entirely unserious on national security.

posted by Chuck DeVore at The Federalist

This week marked the third solemn anniversary of the botched, deadly pullout from Afghanistan. Vice President Kamala Harris was nowhere to be seen. President Joe Biden was on his second vacation. The families of the 13 servicemembers who died in Kabul — none of whom have heard from either Biden or Harris — asked former President Donald Trump to lay a wreath in Arlington National Cemetery to mark their sacrifice.

Harris is said to have been “the last person in the room” as the fateful decision was made to evacuate Afghanistan, even as the Taliban violated Trump’s conditions-based withdrawal agreement. Yet leading is about more than making decisions — it’s about leadership — and leadership, it may be elementary to note, is about leading people. When leading those in uniform, that includes interacting with those in uniform and their families, in time of victory and of loss.

Yet during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris dismissed former Trump an “unserious man.”

But it is Harris that stands as the de facto leader of an administration that has shown itself to be entirely unserious on national security. Her position as Biden’s second-in-command has been one of presiding over a series of disastrous decisions. Harris is fully complicit in the administration’s manifold national security failures, including the most dangerous threat — covering up the extent of Biden’s mental decline.

Covering Up Biden’s Decline

Biden’s cognitive deterioration — his unsteady gait, frequent verbal gaffes, and inability to respond coherently to basic questions — signaled a serious problem for years. But it was after his final, crushing loss in the debate with Trump that Biden’s decline could no longer be hidden.

Then, after being relegated to a midnight swansong at the convention, Biden immediately slouched off to one vacation in Santa Barbara, California, followed without respite for work by another in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Biden is checked out — presuming he could ever check back in — with Harris and the Democratic Party caring only about the preservation of political power. They executed a half coup d’état, removing Biden as nominee but not going all the way via invoking the 25th Amendment. This leaves Biden’s empty husk in office to serve as a sham scapegoat, indulging Harris the fiction of running as an outsider in her own administration with the help of the media-industrial complex.

The Reagan Contrast

Contrast Biden’s actions with former President Ronald Reagan, who, in 1994, five years and 10 months after leaving office, made a public announcement to the world: He had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Reagan, then 83, chose to address his illness with courage and transparency through a heartfelt letter.

This openness allowed the nation to reflect on his legacy and marked an important chapter in America’s handling of serious medical conditions affecting leaders.

Fast forward to today, President Joe Biden is 81, and the differences between Reagan’s graceful exit and Biden’s current leadership are stark. Unlike Reagan, who acknowledged his deteriorating condition as a private citizen, Biden remains in the Oval Office as commander-in-chief. And yet, despite Biden’s incapacity, Harris and Biden’s cabinet and senior staff have covered up the president’s condition — a testament to the fundamental unseriousness (and frankly foolhardiness) of both Harris and the Biden administration.

National Security Failures

The Biden-Harris administration has presided over the most catastrophic foreign policy failures in modern American history. Consider the deadly fiasco that unfolded in Kabul in August 2021. As the U.S. prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan, a process that should have been measured and orderly turned into a chaotic disaster. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed in a suicide bombing during the evacuation, while thousands of American citizens and Afghan allies were left stranded. The rapid fall of Kabul to the Taliban, a group that harbored and aided the 9/11 terrorists, was a monumental failure of planning and execution — one in which Harris’ presence in key decision-making rooms makes her complicit, at the least. And not one general, diplomat, or national security staffer has been held to account. Not a single decision-maker has lost their job.

Then there is the Biden administration’s handling of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. After months of warning signs and clear intelligence reports pointing to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressive designs on Ukraine, the administration failed to deter Russia’s actions. Instead, the White House watched passively as Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation in Europe. The ensuing war has led to widespread destruction, untold human suffering, and instability in global energy markets — all on the watch of an administration that should have taken stronger steps to prevent the conflict.

Most recently, Hamas’ brutal terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, underscored the Biden administration’s failure to contain the resurgence of Iran’s terror proxies. The massacre, involving rape, murder, and torture, demonstrated that the administration’s policy in the region is in tatters. Iran, the primary backer of Hamas and other terror proxies, has reemerged as a major player, emboldened by a White House that has failed to hold Tehran accountable while shipping the Iranian regime billions of dollars. The administration’s continued willingness to engage with Iran, lifting sanctions and negotiating weak nuclear deals, has only strengthened the regime’s resolve to destabilize the region.

An Unserious Administration

Harris’ comment that Trump is an “unserious man” rings hollow when considering the catastrophic failures of the administration she now effectively leads in all but title only. The Biden-Harris administration has shown itself to be utterly incapable of confronting the serious challenges facing America and the world. From foreign policy disasters to economic mismanagement, the failures of this administration are legion.

Yet in Harris’ own acceptance speech, she claimed she would, “never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists … never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals.” But we’ve long since overdrawn our accounts — we’ve written checks we can’t cash. Just last week, Harris’ U.S. Navy announced it was mothballing 17 support ships due to lack of qualified personnel — ships such as resupply vessels, fleet oilers, and transport ships. Words are cheap, deterring war is expensive, war with China would be catastrophic.

By refusing to remove Biden from office, Harris has demonstrated that she is not the capable leader she claims to be. Instead of prioritizing the safety and security of the nation, she has allowed a cognitively impaired president to remain in power, all while presiding over a series of foreign policy blunders that have emboldened America’s enemies.

The Biden-Harris administration’s unseriousness is the true national security threat. Harris’s inaction and coverup in the face of Biden’s decline, coupled with her failure to competently manage foreign policy, has left America more vulnerable than ever.

Divorced From Both Reality and Common Sense: The Press Defies Pragmatism in Order to Support Kamala

Brad Slager reporting for RedState 

Look, it has become very apparent over the course of a month that our journalism complex in this country is fully on board with a Kamala Harris presidential run. This is a woman who was announced as the de facto yet unelected head of the Democratic Party over one month ago, and she has yet to sit for a formal interview or hold a press conference. Yet the media has insisted that her campaign is doing gangbusters.

It is all thanks to the press. But in their unwavering backing of the campaign, the press has gone over the horizon in terms of common sense. In order to prop up this Potemkin campaign, journalists need to present things to the public in outward defiance of what is obvious to basic thinkers. They are attempting to tell the public – to tell us - things are the opposite of what we can clearly discern. The amazement is that it does not require plucking select instances over the past month; in just the past few days, we have multiple examples of the press-defying logic.

Let’s just start with the most audacious example. At CNN, Jamal Simmons attempts to state that Donald Trump LOST the debate held with Joe Biden. That would be the debate where Joe Biden’s political career came to crater-inducing conclusion, where the post-event analysis on CNN and MSNBC saw their panelists looking as if a hand grenade had been dropped on the set. The debate where Democrats and press members were in a panic before it was even halfway over.

This week saw the third anniversary of the military deaths that took place when a bomber took the lives of 13 servicemembers at the airport in Afghanistan during that ill-fated withdrawal from the country. This has been a black stain on the Biden administration evidenced by the desperation in the press to blame it on Donald Trump.

In order for this argument to hold up, it has to mean that Joe Biden is completely and entirely ineffectual, unable to make any decision that was allegedly set in place before his arrival. But the obvious reason for this senseless approach is that it reflects poorly on Kamala. So if Biden is excused from culpability, then Harris, by extension, is even more blameless for the fiasco. Of course, all of this withers and falls apart under the realization that Harris is on record bragging about how she was the last person in the room during the extraction process and declaring the decision was all Biden’s, so her attachment to the debacle can only be blamed on herself. 

This desperation echoes what we covered yesterday — how Politico, in similar fashion, tries to say that JD Vance is somehow in the wrong to attach Harris to anything policy-wise with the current administration. It is a weird paradox attempted in the press, to sell Harris as a vessel of change when she is the vital component of the current administration in power. 

The comedy here is that there is a need to distance her from the record of Biden administration policies, so the question first asked is: What is the problem with the results of Biden’s policies? The follow-up to this becomes: If this means Harris had no involvement in policies, how is she at all qualified to run the country herself? The press demands that we ignore this reality, so this way, they can accuse Vance of wrongly “tethering” Harris to…um, to…the Biden-Harris administration.

Also at Politico, we have Jonathan Martin attempting to demean the Trump campaign as not having a consistent message. If you just tilted your head in a confounding reaction, just wait; it gets more obtuse.

Martin’s argument is that Trump and Vance daring to be critical of any negative reports involving the Harris-Walz campaign serves as proof that the duo is showing they have no tangible campaign issues to run on for the cycle. Trump being available at multiple news conferences and Vance being a regular fixture on the news interview circuit are to be ignored; latching on to negative items about their opponents shows a lack of an agenda, supposedly.

Best of all? One of the items said to prove Trump has no agenda is Trump pointing out that Harris has not declared any policies at all. Seriously, this is Martin’s position.

Perhaps no better example of the press needing us to overlook core sensibilities in order to sell us on a storyline is this nugget from the Associated Press. Reporters Zeke Miller and Chris Megerian are simply marveling at the way Harris is seemingly able to take credit for certain positives from the Biden campaign as well as selling herself as an agent of change — as if she does not represent the incumbent administration.

Kamala Harris is having it both ways as she hits the campaign trail after the Democratic National Convention, taking credit for parts of President Joe Biden’s record in rallies staged in front of Air Force Two while casting herself as a new leader who rails against “the politics of the past.” In every presidential cycle candidates run on experience or freshness, but Harris so far appears to be successfully harmonizing two seemingly competing messages, much to the frustration of former President Donald Trump and his allies.

Uh, yeah — Zeke and Chris? Harris is not the one doing this – you are the ones doing this! Kamala is barely putting anything out there policy-wise, so if this tactic is “working,” it is because sycophantic journalists like yourselves are acting like the PR division of the Democratic Party.

Real journalists would be digging into these details and exposing the offender. In generations past, candidates contradicting their message were criticized, changing their political positions on the fly were called out as flip-flopping opportunists, and making claims that defied years of prior service were scorned for pandering to voters. A candidate outright refusing to speak with the press would have motivated journalists into a caffeinated furor of investigation.

Today, all of these traits from Kamala Harris are regarded as positive selling points and a sign of a cagey campaign. The press have spent over a month trying to oversell Kamala to us, and in the process, manage to only devalue themselves even further.

Maintaining Bloom on Ruse – Kamala and Walz Will Pre-record Interview for Broadcast Tonight

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Kamala Harris has yet to give a press conference or sit down with any journalist to discuss the construct of a campaign around her.  The media has largely tried to cover for this lack of openness, but even hardcore narrative engineers are starting to become twitchy at the extreme handling of Hawk Tuah Harris.

To deflect attention from the absence of questioning, HT Harris primary handler Brian Fallon, has arranged a scripted interview with CNN.  Together with her sketchy running mate, Tim Walz, Mrs Harris will be questioned by Dana Bash in a taped interview which will be edited, smoothed and broadcast on CNN fake news tomorrow at 9pm ET.

WASHINGTON DC – Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, will face questions from CNN anchor Dana Bash in an interview expected to air 9 p.m. Thursday, the network announced Tuesday. The interview will take place in Georgia as the vice president is on a bus tour through the battleground state.  (read more)