How Harris and Khan Are Planning a Department of Groceries

As envisioned in Kamala Harris’ economic plan, the FTC plans to use antitrust as a fulcrum to regulate prices and therefore private business itself.

by Robert H. Bork Jr for American Greatness

Have you ever shopped for groceries at a Walmart, a Trader Joe’s, an Aldi, a Costco, a Whole Foods, or a Target?

If you have, you know that clubstores and supercenters offer a wealth of fresh produce, quality meats, frozen foods, bakery items, and canned goods. When you go to a big box retailer with a grocery section, it is no different than going to a stand-alone supermarket like Safeway, Wegmans, or Harris Teeter. You pick your choices and drop them in your grocery cart. You get in line and pay, just like you do at any other grocery store.

However, according to the Federal Trade Commission, Walmart, Costco, Whole Foods, etc., are not “traditional” grocery stores and therefore should not be considered in evaluating the competitive effects of the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons grocery chains. This $26.4 billion merger, now on hold thanks to the FTC, would combine the strengths of two national chains in order to better compete with these super-efficient supercenters and clubstores.

This FTC’s antitrust action, which had its first day in court on Monday, provides a needed bit of agitprop for Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign against “price gouging” grocery chains and their greedy executives. There is no denying that consumers have been burned by inflation. In August 2022 home food prices were 13.5 percent higher than they were a year before. Overall, food prices have risen by 25 percent since 2020.

But it’s worth asking why the inflation in 2022 food prices equaled the entire prior decade. Did corporate executives suddenly become greedy? And why are food prices subsiding now, back to levels at or below inflation? Are those greedy executives suddenly growing a conscience?

Market experts believe the jump in food prices occurred because of supply chain issues arising from the pandemic and the global effects of the Russian-Ukrainian war. I would add that the decision by the Biden Administration to accept the emergency-spending levels of the pandemic as a new normal is another driver of inflation—our federal budget is now adding $1 trillion every 100 days to the national debt.

While inflation is abating—a sure sign that competition exists and is working—consumer anger remains palpable. So political blame must settle on someone, and surely not on the administration that Harris serves. That villain was identified by Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “good old-fashioned price gouging” corporations causing “greedflation.” In this context, FTC Chair Lina Khan’s antitrust lawsuit against the Kroger-Albertsons merger supports the Harris campaign and its proposal to use that agency to regulate food prices. But this lawsuit is bad economics and made-up law.

Khan ignores the intense competition in the grocery market from retail stores like Walmart or Costco in which the grocery section is immense, sometimes bigger than a traditional grocery store. With competitive prices and an array of choices, these grocers draw millions of customers. It is precisely because of this grocery competition from the big box stores that Kroger and Albertsons felt the need to combine their logistics and stores to compete with these behemoths.

Ohio Attorney General David Yost gets this, which is why he is asking a federal court to toss this case to the curb. “The FTC’s tunnel vision in this case risks chilling the very competition that it seeks to protect,” General Yost said. “A full view of the competitive landscape shows no reason to delay this deal further.”

While ignoring powerful players in the grocery sector, Khan and the FTC are trying to get the court to adopt the novel theory that this merger should also be nixed because of its impact on unionized grocery jobs. This ignores Supreme Court precedent that antitrust law cannot be used to regulate labor relations. More to the point, what will happen to those union jobs if Kroger and Albertsons cannot become more efficient in the face of competition from large and highly efficient national retailers?

The Kroger-Albertsons merger credibly promises to generate $1 billion in higher wages and benefits for employees and $1 billion in consumer benefits. But the actual fate of workers—and the central need for antitrust law to benefit consumers—is beside the point for today’s progressive FTC. The point is to protect the Harris campaign while enhancing the political power of the regulator.

As envisioned in Vice President Harris’s economic plan, the FTC plans to use antitrust as a fulcrum to regulate prices and therefore private business itself. If the court accepts this scheme, or if a President Harris enacts her price plan, we will essentially no longer have a vibrantly competitive grocery market.

What we will have will be a new government agency—the Department of Groceries.

X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 4

 

Yes, We Can … Deport All Illegal Aliens!

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

Donald Trump has been talking about deporting the millions of illegal aliens – they’re not “undocumented workers” or “migrants,” they’re illegal aliens – who Biden/Harris let in here and, of course, the regime media and the Democrats, as well as the Never Trump collaborators, are all in on the idea that this is somehow impossible. We can’t do anything about these millions of Third World parasites, so why even try? But you know what? Nothing is impossible if you just do it. Why can’t tens of millions of illegal aliens be deported? There’s an easy answer – they can, and they should be. We just have to do it.

What we need is the will. What we need is not to allow ourselves to be swayed by sympathy for criminals who shouldn’t be here in the first place. What we need to do is be tough. I’m not sure that a majority of Americans are tough anymore, but I think I’m a minority of Americans are tough enough to do what needs to be done. Time to get deporting!

Now, am I saying the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies should sweep through immigrant communities to sweep up the illegal aliens, toss them on trucks, and dump them into Juarez? Well, yes. I’d love that. But that’s unrealistic for several reasons, including the fact that we don’t have that many trucks. It’s a logistical challenge. Luckily, there are other, more efficient ways to do it. 

We do it in ways that incentivize them to get the hell out of our country. Yes, we do conduct some sweeps to keep them on their toes, but we want law enforcement’s active enforcement to focus on the dangerous criminals. We need to check the citizenship of anybody who gets arrested. Any suspects who don’t come back as American citizens don’t get out of jail. They get put on a bus and sent south once they have served their sentence. No bail. This crap about not complying with immigration holds must stop – and it can stop if we just refuse to give federal money to any municipality that doesn’t hold illegals in custody. I find it bizarre that all these illegal alien murders, rapists, and drunk drivers always seem to have just been released from custody. Release them from custody at the Rio Grande, and then kick their butts in. 

It’s the others, tens of millions, who are here sort of working that we need to incentivize to leave. How do we do that? Well, first of all, we stop giving them money. Illegal aliens currently get a ton of money, usually funneled through NGOs, that ends up paying for their hotel rooms, food, cell phones, pot, and booze. Stop giving them money. Give them nothing. No aid, no support, no welfare, no healthcare, no shelter. Where will they sleep, asks the bleeding-heart sissy? I don’t know – not my problem – but they can’t do it here. Go crash in Tijuana. Get the hell out.

Derailing the gravy train is only a start. Some illegals are actually working here, taking American jobs that would be filled once we stop paying American citizens not to work. We need to target and tax their remittances. That’s money sent back to their families back in their garbage from third-world countries of origin, usually by Western Union or some other process that we normal people never use. We should tax remittances at 50%. That makes it economically difficult to work here, as well as allowing these parasites to pay for the damage they’ve inflicted on our society’s checkbook.

We need to vigorously enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. Companies are not supposed to be hiring legal aliens. For too long, we’ve winked and nodded at businesses that do. That must stop. Don’t focus on the illegal aliens because that’s not efficient. We focus on the businesses. We make it uneconomical for companies to hire illegal aliens. And guess what? They will stop, or at least slow down. But we will need to do a little more than just send inspectors with clipboards out to review company payrolls.

After all, doing it with straight-up up law-enforcement is inefficient. There are far too many businesses. We must unleash the lawyers and allow them to use their powers for good instead of evil for once. We must allow individual citizens to sue companies that hire illegal aliens to recover a portion of the damage that the illegal aliens have caused society (the rest of the money goes to the Treasury), and, of course, we set a presumption of the damage that the illegal alien has caused the society as, say, $5,000 each, plus attorney's fees. We must create an army of bounty hunters who go out and look for businesses to sue for hiring illegals. Why do they hire illegals? Because illegals are cheaper. Stop making them cheaper.

There’s a proven of proven record of success in enforcing regulatory compliance through the use of lawsuits. Do you know why there are not high towel racks and narrow doors at businesses anymore? Because of the Americans With Disabilities Act. There is a thriving cottage industry of disabled plaintiffs who go out to companies, make note of all the ADA violations, and then file lawsuits. This is why businesses comply with the ADA, not because they’re nice or because it’s the law. They know that some jerk in a wheelchair is going to roll up and sue them for thousands and thousands of dollars because the sink isn’t exactly the right distance off the floor. It’s very annoying. There’s a lot of abuse. I’ve defended many companies who’ve been hit with this kind of lawsuit, but the overall effect is that the businesses finally comply. And that’s what we need to do with the illegal aliens. Imagine you’re some poultry company, and some dude sues you because you’ve got 300 illegal aliens chopping chicken. Calculating 300 illegals at $5,000 each comes to a lot of money, and suddenly, hiring illegal aliens is no longer economical. 

When there’s no market for hiring illegal aliens here, they will go home all by themselves. I’m not heartless. I would give them bus fare to the border. But they need to go. There’s no situation where they should stay. If we don’t enforce the laws that we pass through the democratic process – yeah, I know we don’t have a democracy, and yeah, I know that the left doesn’t actually want a democracy – we don’t actually have a democracy. But I prefer a country where I have a say in how things are run, and I think you probably do too. That’s a prerogative of American citizens, and this American citizen says that illegal aliens need to get the hell out.

Philadelphi Corridor With Egypt Has Become Netanyahu’s Stalingrad

Pressure From White House Builds for Him To Bow to Hamas’s Demands

 ‘Hamas must be demilitarized, and it can only be demilitarized if the Philadelphi Corridor remains under firm control, and is not a supply line for armaments and for terror equipment,’ Netanyahu says.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing a growing tide of Israeli and world opposition — including from America and Arab allies — is adamant on maintaining control of a tract of land that has become a symbol of the Gaza war’s end game. 

“Hamas must be demilitarized, and it can only be demilitarized if the Philadelphi Corridor remains under firm control, and is not a supply line for armaments and for terror equipment,” Mr. Netanyahu said Wednesday during an English-language press conference. 

After accusing Hamas of rejecting a cease-fire and hostage release deal, the White House is now blaming Mr. Natanyahu for undermining it. President al-Sisi of Egypt is on a rare visit to Hamas-allied Turkey, where he is making clear that Cairo would not accept Israeli presence on its border with Gaza.

In a Wednesday statement, Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are expressing support for Egypt, and also demanding an end to the war.     

Mr. Netanyahu insisted Wednesday that controlling Gaza’s border with Egypt would hasten the release of hostages. If Israel leaves, he said, hostages could be smuggled out and “end up in Iran, or Yemen, or whenever,” adding, “I think that’s clear to most Israelis, to all Israelis.”

As he spoke, though, hundreds of protesters clashed with police at Tel Aviv for a third day in a row, following the news Sunday of Hamas’s execution of six hostages in Gaza tunnels. They demanded of Mr. Netanyahu that he ink a war-ending deal and secure the release of 101 remaining hostages, dozens of whom are presumed alive. 

A poll issued by the center-left Madad group, though, indicates that a plurality of Israelis side with Mr. Netanyahu. On Sunday 49 percent of surveyed Israelis agreed that “Israel must not give up control of the Philadelphi corridor as part of a hostage deal,” while 43 percent supported giving up the corridor for a deal.

Mr. Netanyahu’s stance, however, is opposed by powerful voices, including many in the security establishment.   

“The hostages must be returned, even at a very heavy price,” a top political opponent of Mr. Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, told reporters Tuesday. He agreed that returning to the corridor is a must, but only after hostages are released in a deal. Mr. Netanayhu counters that if Israel leaves Philadelphi, tremendous international pressure would render a return there nearly impossible.  

“If he is not strong enough to withstand the international pressure, let him put the keys down and go home,” Mr. Gantz said. Yet, Mr. Netanyahu, for now, adamantly resists demands to end the war before the demise of Hamas and its leader, Yehya Sinwar. The Philadelphi Corridor has become his Stalingrad. 

In his press conference, Mr. Netanyahu noted that for months — including as late as last week — American officials, from Secretary Blinken on down, publicly said that Israel has made “generous” compromises and agreed to deal proposals that Hamas rejected. 

“What has changed,” Mr. Netanyahu said, is “that they murdered six of our hostages in cold blood.” Now there is a world-wide pressure on Israel to concede more. The message such pressure sends to Hamas, he added, is “murder more hostages, you’ll get more concessions.”

The White House is now saying that by insisting on control of the Philadelphi Corridor, Mr. Netanyahu is reneging on commitments he had already made in negotiations over a hostage deal. Those include deal principles Mr. Netanyahu proposed back in May, which was before the Israel Defense Force captured Rafah and the border with Egypt.  

“The deal says that they have to remove the IDF from all densely populated areas in phase one,” the National Security Council’s spokesman, John Kirby, told reporters Tuesday. “That includes densely populated areas around, or are adjacent to, the Philadelphia Corridor where it intersects with those densely populated areas.”

The Philadelphi Corridor, though, is far from “densely populated,” mostly consisting instead of border fences and watchtowers on dirt roads. Dozens of deeply dug tunnels under it have long been used to smuggle arms, troops, vehicles, and cash. 

Those bolstered Hamas and ultimately enabled it to execute the October 7 assault, Mr. Netanyahu said Wednesday. Israelis say Egyptian officials, including some at the highest level of government, have either turned a blind eye or profited from goods smuggling into Gaza. 

President Biden is telling reporters that he remains hopeful for a deal. Rather than talking to Mr. Netanyahu, though, he is consulting with Emir al-Thani of Qatar and with Mr. Sisi. As of yet, Washington has declined to use its leverage over these countries, which have much sway over Hamas, choosing to pressure Mr. Netanyahu instead. 

https://www.nysun.com/article/philadelphi-corridor-with-egypt-has-become-netanyahus-stalingrad-as-pressure-from-white-house-builds-for-him-to-bow-to-hamass-demands

The Great Realignment

posted by David Prentice at American Thinker 

The Trump campaign has been shaking the foundations of America since he came down the escalator.  Part of the shake-up is due to Trump himself.  A blue-collar billionaire who was not part of the political in-crowd.  Brash.  Bold.  Creative.  Speaks his mind.  He knows how to sell and promote his ideas.  He has the gift of multi-tasking.  He dealt with real estate and construction in New York and did equally well as a television superstar.  He is simply impossible for his detractors to control.

This shaking is also caused by the leftist response to Trump.  He drives them to drink while he is sober (not necessarily a shot at Kamala).  Their reaction has been hysterical, going so far over-the-top in fighting him that they begin to self-destruct.  One extraordinary outcome of their singular focus to destroy Trump has been that they’ve failed.  I’m not sure anyone else could have lasted against this army of angry mutant leftists aiming to destroy them.  Their response to Trump has no equal historically.  The anger blinding them has rarely been seen.  Maybe never.  They must spend each day messaging one another thousands of new plans to rid themselves of this turbulent priest.

One interesting outcome we have seen in all this hubbub is the realignment of the political parties we once knew.  In a nutshell, the GOP has become the party of Trump, while the Democrats have become the party of the clinically insane.  Unfortunately, that’s not a joke.  Fortunately, the realignment mentioned is real.  There is genuine change concerning the major issues we face.

Since Reagan, the GOP had been the party that supported a strong military.  Reagan stood against the USSR, pushing up the cost of the arms race to defeat communism.  What’s known as the military-industrial complex benefited from this stance.  George Bush continued this policy, going to war with Iraq in the early 1990s.  W. picked up the mantle despite there being no more cold war to win.  His response to 9/11 was regrettable in hindsight.  The Bush family stamped the GOP as the party of war.

The Democrats, being carefully contrarian with Reagan, had an anti-war minority in their ranks.  Most Democrats took that view, but they saw Reagan’s policies as popular and held their fire.  It was during the Bush years they became fully anti-war again.  No matter the reason, they began protesting war, their voters coming against all things military.  This became their policy.

Look at the parties today.  The Democrats have now become the party of endless war.  Democrats support the military-industrial complex.  Their foreign policies reignited the Ukraine war, and they seem to want it perpetually.  They insist on giving this war billions upon billions.  They cannot stop wearing Ukraine lapel pins, nor giving Ukraine’s corrupt dictator his monthly fix.  Oddly there are no Democrat anti-war rallies about Ukraine.  Makeover complete.

Meanwhile, the GOP has turned from their old hawkish self.  Mostly through Trump.  He questioned the Iraq war during his first campaign, turning many… *raises hand*… against their former positions.  During his presidency, not one new war was started.  An achievement not accomplished since before WWII.  The party, including the rank and file, has switched to being a war-last party.  They have not gone full pacifist as the Democrats did.  Trump rebuilt the military during his tenure.  It was peace through strength at its best.

A major realignment has happened with economic policy for both parties.  Democrats once championed blue-collar America.  Now the blue-collar vote has been traded for the tech lords.  Blue-collar America is turning to Trump, and has done so more and more since his first campaign.  The GOP has changed as well, the new champions of blue-collar workers.  This is a sea-change, one I saw while reading “The Art of the Deal”.  Trump always loved visiting with and talking to the workers in his buildings.  He always knew how the project was going by conversing with them.

He knew that the Republican trade policy was wrong for the blue-collar class.  His fair-trade concept is one the Democrats used to favor.  True to form, Democrats now oppose what they used to believe in… because Trump.  What Trump wants is for the wages of blue-collar families to be strong enough to buy cars, homes, and all the necessities to make a good and full life in a nation that values them.  Democrats have brought the outsourcing of jobs, and inflation that hurts the blue-collar and poor the most—little job creation, and prosperity only for the government class and tech workers.  And of course, Democrats bring illegals to hurt wage growth, wasting enormous amounts of resources, all while gleaning their votes for perpetual Democrat power.  Their new alignment.  Americans should find that disgusting.

The “It’s the economy, stupid” was once their mantra.  It’s now stupid to believe they know how to make an economy that lifts the tide for most Americans.

Free speech was once important to both parties.  It used to be a cornerstone of the Democrat party.  Slowly but surely that too has realigned.  Republicans were far too often the ones wanting to temper speech, being somewhat self-censorious.  Democrats shifted their view with the introduction of “hate speech.”  It’s been a long and successful campaign.  One that ended with Democrats openly embracing censorship.   

Tim Walz:  “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”  This is their new position.  If you don’t like their position, it’s misinformation or hate speech.  Much like the Covid scam, it’s amazing that so many are lapping this up.  Censorship isn’t what Democrats once believed.  It’s unfortunate that Democrat voters aren’t rejecting this new position.

Yet… there is hope.  This past week has seen massive developments in party realignment.  RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have both endorsed Trump, and both citing the censorious nature of the Democrats.  It’s hard to understate what this means.  There is no doubt their influence is big amongst moderate Democrats and independents.  This is a powerful coalition to upend the stranglehold of the corrupt Democrat party.   Serious lifelong Democrats realigning against their party.  Not just for Trump, but for the American people.

Elon Musk was also once a proud Democrat.  He has realigned.  In his conversation with Trump he ended by saying:  “I call myself historically a moderate Democrat, but now I feel like we’re really at a critical juncture for the country. And I think a lot of people thought that the Biden administration would be a moderate administration, but it’s not.”  And “I’m just trying to point out that my track record historically has been moderate, if not moderate, slightly left. And so this is to people out there who are in the moderate camp to say, I think you should support Donald Trump for president.”  Now that’s realignment, a ten on the Richter scale.

I do think this is happening nation-wide.  I also think we all need to be more vocal about this.  Particularly to Democrat friends and neighbors about why so many moderate Democrats and independents are turning to Trump.  We need to be the agents of that realignment, because it’s massively important. An America we can unite behind, an America we can again be proud of.  Trump’s vision is that kind of realignment.  The time to get behind it fully is now.  Tomorrow, next week, next month may be too late.

🎭 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. 

CBS News Present Leftists As ‘Experts’ To Smear Opponents As Spreading ‘Disinformation’gas

But undermining and discrediting election-related information isn’t a new strategy for the propaganda press and its Democrat allies.

Brianna Lyman reporting for The Federalist

CBS News’ David Becker — who is falsely billed as a nonpartisan election expert — accused former President Donald Trump and X CEO Elon Musk of spreading “election disinformation.” While his allegations are unfounded, left-wing corporate media has a long-standing practice of trotting out so-called “experts” to discredit and undermine their political rivals on any topic they deem to be politically inconvenient for Democrats ahead of the election.

Becker accused Musk of “pushing some really inflammatory claims when it comes to voting” that are meant to make Americans “doubt our elections.”

“We’re seeing more election disinformation for sure. It’s coming from Donald Trump. It’s coming from Elon Musk. It’s coming from, we know, foreign adversaries like Russia, and Iran, and North Korea and China,” Becker said, claiming all the aforementioned parties were working to create doubt about election processes and outcomes.

“So when you see information on social media in particular, that triggers something within you, that seems to make you angry about the other side, all of us, as sophisticated media consumers, should pause and say, what is — maybe that anger is the product they’re trying to create. Maybe they’re getting paid, or they’re benefiting from creating that anger in us.”

Musk waded into the conversation, calling Becker “a liar through and through.”

“The very definition of disinformation,” Musk said in a post on X.

Becker didn’t explicitly clarify what so-called “misinformation” Musk has allegedly spread, though in the recent past Becker has criticized Musk for questioning whether our elections are secure from illegal immigrants voting. Republicans introduced the SAVE Act to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, which has been blocked by Democrats. Currently in order to register to vote in federal elections, prospective voters simply need to check a box affirming they are a citizen — yes, our “secure” elections hinge on the honor system.

It’s an inconvenient truth, one that Becker tried to dismiss by saying in a string of posts on X that “voting by non-citizens in federal elections is already illegal.”

(Drinking and driving is also illegal, but people die every year in car crashes caused by drunk drivers.)

Becker also recently maligned new rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board that are aimed at ensuring election results are accurate prior to certification. Becker’s commentary is part of the left-wing media’s push to discredit the three Republican board members who passed the rules and to silence legitimate concerns in Georgia about the state’s election procedures.

Becker suggested, while on CBS News, that the rules would allow single counties to refuse to certify election results, which would in turn delay the state from certifying the results before the deadline. Rule 183-1-12-.12 does not change the certification deadline and notes the 5:00 p.m. certification deadline on the Monday following the election.

But undermining and discrediting election-related information isn’t a new strategy for the propaganda press and its Democrat allies.

Ahead of the 2020 election, the New York Post dropped the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story, which implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in his son’s foreign business dealings. But the propaganda press trotted out 51 “former senior intelligence officials” claiming Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” an assertion first touted by Politico’s Natasha Bertrand.

With the stamp of approval from the 51 “intelligence officials,” the corporate press dismissed the story as Russian propaganda, with NPR’s managing editor Terence Samuels notoriously saying the outlet would not cover the story because it was a “waste” of time.

Yet it wasn’t just the culmination of political and media pressure that all but silenced the story.

Meta’s Facebook infamously throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 after treating it as “potentially misinformation.” The laptop and its contents were true and were recently entered into court evidence by federal prosecutors in their trial against the president’s son.

A report from the Media Research Center showed that “17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they had known about at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets,” my colleague Jordan Boyd reported.

But the corporate media’s efforts were successful: they were able to undermine and discredit politically inconvenient information that would have otherwise damaged their preferred candidate’s chances of winning. And now they’re back to employing the same strategy.

Kamala Harris Says We're Not Going Back... We Really Should, Though

posted by Brandon Morse at RedState 

"We're not going back!" 

I hate the Kamala Harris campaign slogan, and for a variety of reasons. It's not just stupid for logical reasons, it's cliché, and dismisses the context of the past three-and-a-half years. The brutal truth is that, in actuality, we should definitely go back. 

When I say that, I'm obviously speaking in a different context than Harris is. Harris is using this phrase in a nebulous way. What don't you want to go back to? Yeah, she means that. 

If you're a feminist, you're not going back to this country being "The Handmaid's Tale" — because it never was. If you're one of those people who believe Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler, then she means we're not going back to him — although he's not even the one supporting socialism or antisemitic behavior. If you're one of those people who think she means a time when racism was rampant and people were disadvantaged because their skin was darker, then that's what she means — even though we're the least racist country and voters elected a black man as president in 2008. 

But as many have pointed out, when Harris says, "we're not going back," she adds a "new way forward" — her other slogan, although she's not exactly clear on what forward looks like. Her economic positions are horrific, including a tax on unrealized gains and price controls on groceries, and... Well I'm sure she has others, but we have to elect her to find out what they are. Hint: It's likely a lot of the same nonsense we've seen over the past few years, but worse. 

She says she wants to close the border and build the wall Trump started, but does anyone truly believe her? She spent the last few years doing absolutely nothing with the border and even worked to oppose red state governors that tried to protect their borders, almost resulting in a stand-off between the Texas National Guard and Biden's border patrol.

If you think back to the post-pandemic era, Trump did have a highly secure border, a thriving economy, lower crime, and that was an across-the-board fact. The black community even saw massive gains for themselves under Trump, something they've recently noticed given how many have abandoned the Democrat Party and plan to endorse bad ol' orange man. 

I don't know about you, but I think the nation should head back there, and I'm not entirely sure a fat chunk of the country disagrees. I can't help but wonder how many people think "I'd like the pre-Biden/Harris" days of America" and whether this slogan is Harris's campaign shooting itself in the foot inadvertently. 

To quote (you guessed it) C.S. Lewis about resolving problems, the trick is to go back to where you started going wrong and rework it until you get the right answer. 

"We're not going back" she says.

I'll just leave this C.S. Lewis quote here.
“A sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.” pic.twitter.com/R6hJCfzgfa

— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) September 3, 2024

Continuing on with Harris will only compound the problem. It's not like she's going to fix anything she says she'll fix or keep any of her promises. She's under the same thumbs as Joe Biden, and the only thing new about this "new way forward" would be the Kamala-style mask they replace their Biden mask with. 

We absolutely need to go back. To quote Harris herself, we need to become unburdened by what has been... for the last three-and-a-half years. We need to secure our future by reworking the mistakes of the Biden-Harris administration. Once we set it right, then we can proceed forward.

Forward is no good if you're sliding forward into ruin.

The Now-Forgotten ‘Climate Crisis’ Was Just A Cynical Ploy For Democrats To Gain Power

Kamala Harris and the Democrats have gone strangely silent about the “climate crisis” they warned was an existential threat a few years ago.

Daniel Turner reporting for The Federalist

Don’t look now, but the “climate crisis” is officially over. No need to take my word for it. Just ask the Democratic Party’s new standard bearer, Vice President Kamala Harris, who mentioned the topic “just once” in her acceptance speech at the recent Democratic National Convention, according to The New York Times. The Times also noted that Harris “has not offered any new policies for addressing climate change.”

How far we have come in five short years. In 2019, before COVID and inflation and antisemitic demonstrations on college campuses were the big issues of the day, America was prospering amid political calmness. With a presidential campaign beginning, Democratic candidates and their allies in the corporate press needed to talk about something, so they chose climate change. CNN even dedicated seven hours to a “climate crisis town hall.” 

Every candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, including Harris, warned of the dangers posed by climate change. In fact, she dubbed the matter, “an existential threat to who we are as human beings” and announced she was, “prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” No ambiguity there.  

Fast forward to today, and the existential crisis is ignored. Wherever one lands on the climate change spectrum, the contradiction is hard to miss. What was once the biggest issue is now a non-issue, and there are three possible explanations.

The first is cynical: climate change was never a crisis but an opportunity. Gas prices were in the $2 dollar a gallon range nationwide. The inflation rate was 1.7 percent. There were no wars in Ukraine or Israel. President Donald Trump enjoyed both popularity and success.  

Democrats needed an issue they could own. They needed a crisis to convince voters they deserved power. Labeling climate change “existential” gave it gravity and academic loftiness: Climate change is an enormous threat and only we are smart enough to realize it. Trump is too brash, too troglodytic, to care about something as esoteric yet profoundly serious as climate change. This was their plan.

Inventing a crisis with solutions that would upend everyday life — no more combustible engines or red meat — just to win votes is very cynical, but it’s what Democrats did.

The second reason for ignoring the “climate crisis” this election cycle is not much better: climate change polls poorly. It ranks as the 19th most important topic with voters in a national poll. Harris’ DNC speech was crafted with polling in mind. “Free Palestine” polls well among their crowd, so it was given attention. Fear of the mysterious “Project 2025,” supposedly the playbook for Trump and his fellow right-wing extremists, must test well because it was mentioned several times.

This explanation is also concerning because it implies that Harris would rather conceal the truth of an “existential crisis” (her words, not mine) rather than risk losing power. The left tries to brand “Kamala” as “Momala,” but no mother would hide a health diagnosis of her child rather than risk upsetting him.  

If climate change is an existential threat, state it plainly. Past presidential candidates of both political parties did not shy away from the major challenges of their time. Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against the danger posed by Nazi Germany. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan all spoke of the Soviet threat, believing the American people needed truth, not coddling. The American people deserve the fullness of truth — if their existence is really at risk. 

The third reason Kalama Harris is giving climate change the back seat is because the problem has been solved. That of course is laughable. If the Biden-Harris Administration fixed climate change, America would have seen ticker tape parades and mass celebrations. It would be data point number one for Harris’ promotion to the presidency. 

No, the Biden-Harris Administration did not “fix” the climate, which leaves the previous two options: either Harris disingenuously uses climate change to scare voters into compliance or she ignores the greatest threat of our time because it imperils her political goals.  

Both are shameful and belittle the American people. Both represent real “threats to our democracy” for they leave the fullness of truth in the dark. Both are disqualifying.

Of course, Harris herself could tell us why she is suddenly ignoring the climate issue. But there’s no good answer. This is just another example of why she is avoiding the media and the public.  

Whether its cynicism or naked ambition, the climate issue is manipulated endlessly by people looking for power and money. This election cycle makes it clear that whatever climate change might be occurring, it certainly is not “existential.” Given her silence on the issue, Harris obviously agrees. 

Here's a 'Prime Example' of Election Interference From Amazon

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

Of course, Amazon now says this glitch has been fixed, but numerous videos were posted on social media showing how the tech and commerce giant was interfering in the 2024 election. When customers asked Alexa, the company’s virtual assistant, why they should vote for Trump, the device gave some absurd reasons for not wanting to be partisan.

“I cannot provide responses that endorse any political party or leader,” it replies. 

Yet, when you ask, ‘Why should I vote for Kamala Harris,’ there’s a much different answer: 

While there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris, the most significant maybe that she’s a female of color with a comprehensive plan to address racial injustice and inequality throughout the country. 

Are you kidding me? Congressional Republicans should hold hearings over this glitch, which, again, only impacts conservatives. Fox News noted this as a “prime example” of 2024 election interference. This issue has reportedly been addressed.