10 Months Into Israel-Hamas War, Biden WH Doubts Terrorist Group Wants a Deal

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

Nearly one year after the initial attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists, the Biden White House questions whether the Iranian-backed group even wants to make a deal that would result in a ceasefire and the remaining hostages being released. 

According to U.S. officials, the Biden-Harris Administration has come to terms with the fact that Hamas may never want a deal as the terrorist group continues to hold back on accepting negotiation terms since its initial attack last October. The attack killed 1,200 people, in addition to the six hostages that were found murdered last weekend, including American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, by Hamas. 

Earlier this week, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met in the White House Situation Room with their national security team to discuss if a hostage-release and ceasefire deal is even possible— concerned that such an agreement is off the table. 

“We still think the deal is the only way to save the lives of the hostages and stop the war. But the executions not only increased our sense of urgency but also called into question Hamas' willingness to do a deal of any kind," a U.S. official told Axios. 

The administration also wondered whether Hamas would agree to a deal if the U.S. pressured Israel to remove its Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which are deployed along the Egypt-Gaza border. However, a U.S. official pointed out that such an offer would “become the foundation for future negotiations that would be more favorable to Hamas.” 

Biden is reportedly considering presenting a final proposal to Hamas for the release of the remaining hostages. However, the outlet noted that the president has shied away from that idea since. 

“The text is basically done except for two paragraphs and the annexes of the prisoner exchange and two maps of IDF deployment in Gaza during the first phase of the deal," a U.S. official said. “We all feel the urgency, but what happened last weekend changed the character of the discussion. But we do want to try and get something together.” 

U.S. officials also advised the Biden-Harris Administration not to push for a “proposal that gives Hamas additional concessions and instead focus on applying more pressure and accountability measures against Hamas.” 

During the meeting, the Department of Justice told the president its plans to release indictments against Hamas leaders, which have been sealed since February, as the terrorist groups continue to refuse to accept agreement proposals. 

Hamas’ list of demands for a ceasefire deal is a “very frustrating process,” a U.S. official told the outlet. “Hamas presented demands that were different from what was agreed on in the past.” 

X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 6

 

The 2024 Democrat Presidential Ticket that was Twenty Years in the Making

 The carnage Barack Obama left behind over the past 20 years put Donald Trump in the White House and created today's Harris-Walz debacle. It's a mystery as to why Democrats still worship the guy.

The Democrat Party has completely sabotaged itself by running the absolute worst ticket that could have been chosen against its rival. The vapid empty-pantsuit Kamala Harris teamed with military record fabricator and outright freak Tim Walz is a recipe for electoral disaster against the formidable Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

Why did Democrats nullify the choice of 14 million primary voters and install Kamala Harris as the presidential nominee instead of holding an open convention primary? Were there no other contenders aside from the one that is uniquely incapable of facing Donald Trump? Why are Democrats and the media trying so hard to hide the Harris-Walz policy platform by refusing unscripted interviews and press conferences?

We all know the answers to the above questions, yet it might be useful to look at how we got to this place. It was largely due to a single person who promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

When Junior Senator from Illinois Barack Obama was introduced to the nation at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was completely unknown to most Americans and, in fact, to most Democrats. His keynote address at the convention catapulted him into stardom among Democrats and began his upward rise within party ranks.

Having a decent senatorial record and no controversial baggage, Obama would eventually run for president as the “Hope and Change” candidate to appeal to voters exhausted from the two terms of George W. Bush, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 economic meltdown.

Running victoriously as the anti-Bush gave Obama a lot of media cover for his lifelong radical beliefs and real intentions to govern as a leftist. It didn’t hurt that the American electorate was tired of two endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats treated Obama not so much as a rock star but as an otherworldly being, the “Lightbringer.” (Remember his first inauguration?) His presence was given almost godlike attention, which aligned just fine with his high opinion of himself.

But the Democrats were blinded by their mindless adoration of Obama. They rationalized his lack of interaction with most members of Congress. They tolerated the luxury vacations the Obamas took two or three times per year and kept silent as Barack got in a round of golf three or four times per week. They allowed for Obama’s repeated racist rants and demonization of most white Americans as “bitter clingers” to their guns and God. He succeeded where Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” failed miserably in 2016 and cost her the election (and by not campaigning in critical swing states, thank God).

Obama was put on a pedestal by Democrats, who showered him with praise as a “political genius” and “master strategist” who outmaneuvered the Republicans at every turn. But this was just a coping mechanism to hide the truth: Obama was decimating the Democrat Party one issue, one deal, and one election at a time. Even the far-left elites saw this all the way back in 2017, as reported at the time by The Atlantic.

Obama’s first order of business as president was to nationalize America’s health care system. Why would Obama put so much political capital into crafting an unpopular, dangerous nuclear deal with Iran? Why would Obama so publicly obsess with left-wing celebrities, particularly those who would show up by the dozen at high-profile, taxpayer-funded state dinners?

Throughout his presidency, Obama took every important matter before the nation and internalized it, taking an approach that appealed not to Americans or even Democrats but to himself and his left-wing ideologies.

Possessing absolutely no self-awareness and having no understanding of his intellectual shortcomings, he proceeded with complete confidence in his wisdom. As a lawyer, he could argue his case to those who disagreed, even when it made no sense. Or he could simply call his challengers racist and the argument is instantly won.

Obama’s mellifluous voice and refined appearance appealed to those who would ignore his lightweight demeanor and shallow understanding of the issues. The entire Washington, D.C., apparatus was taken in by the very thought of Obama, the avatar on which any and all progressive thought and belief could be projected.

Democrats gave Obama and his Chicago handlers control of the party and wound up having to portray a radical policy agenda as “moderate.” Under Obama, center-left policymaking was shelved for “woke” radicalness that catered to fringe activist groups, alienating much of the population that customarily voted “D” out of tribal routine.

(Putting things in historical context, Obama’s rise coincided with the emergence of social media—Twitter and Facebook especially—in their infancy during his 2008 run, mobilizing young voters as well as Democrats who felt disenfranchised. By 2012, in his reelection bid against Mitt Romney (who should have won based on being on the correct side of most issues), Obama won a race he should have lost. In retrospect, we can’t minimize the impact of social media on every race since 2012.)

Democrats running for office were subjected to purity tests to see if they were sufficiently supportive of radical far-left orthodoxy. These leftist concepts were not new by any stretch, but they were repackaged and forced onto the public by Obama and his Chicago handlers with sometimes grudging cooperation by Democrat moderates.

Obama’s fascination with billionaires led to an emerging oligarchy, especially in the tech sector, tightening its grip on the government at large. His penchant for “settling scores” resulted in the weaponization of nearly every government agency against American citizens. Race relations were set back to the 1950’s. Inequality skyrocketed. The Tea Party emerged. Donald Trump was elected. Russiagate was birthed. And it all happened with Obama in the White House.

The Obama years didn’t end well for Democrats. When Obama took office in 2008, there were 55 Senate seats and 256 House seats held by Democrats. After Obama’s second term ended in 2016, Democrats had lost 9 seats in the Senate and 62 seats in the House. There were twelve fewer Democrat governors, with Democrats overall holding fewer elected offices nationwide at any time since the 1920s.

By handing over control of their party to Obama, Democrats destroyed the goodwill held by most of their center-left base. Americans rejected far-left policies and voted accordingly. Obama, for some reason, is still revered as a brilliant politician even when his record of destruction within his own party is plainly evident.

For all the platitudes of his political intellect and savvy manner of operation, Obama has been a down-ballot disaster for Democrats. But it has been a goldmine for Obama, who is now on his fourth mansion. While we don’t bemoan anyone from acquiring wealth, we have to wonder how anyone in the Democrat Party thinks they got their money’s worth with Obama.

The carnage left behind by Barack Obama has put Democrats in the electoral situation they find themselves in today. After all, it was Obama who convinced his vice president to drop out of the 2016 election because it was Hillary’s turn, allowing for a Trump victory.

We don’t think that Biden ever forgot that snub by his so-called “friend,” proven by his quick endorsement of Harris when he stepped down in July. This circumvented any opportunity by Democrat elites from the donor class to its operatives within the halls of Congress: Pelosi, (still the real House Minority Leader yielding immense power), Hakim Jeffries, and the ultimate Democrat simp, Chuck Schumer.

The presence of Tim Walz as the Democrat vice president nominee can also be attributed to Obama and his long-standing disdain for Israel. Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro was by far and away the best choice for VP, representing an essential swing state that Democrats need to have any chance of winning in November. Now Democrat power brokers are still trying to repair the damage.

But Shapiro is Jewish, and years of bubbling Democrat anti-Semitism were exacerbated by Obama’s bitter relations with Israeli leadership during his presidency. Add to this Obama’s longstanding fascination with Islam, which dates back to his youth, and it becomes clear that Shapiro’s qualifications were overshadowed simply because he is Jewish.

So America is stuck with a Harris-Walz Democratic presidential ticket. The Giggler and The Snitch, in true Batman ultra-villain style. And it’s all because the Democrats love Barack Obama more than he loves himself, which is saying something.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/06/the-2024-democrat-presidential-ticket-that-was-twenty-years-in-the-making/

Like any good tyrant, Kamala wants the government to ban speech she dislikes

Andrea Widburg reporting for American Thinker 

As a modern tyrant attains power, he won’t just push back against opposing ideas; he’ll say they shouldn’t be voiced at all. Once he holds some power, he’ll work with friends in the government, the media, and corporations to silence opposing ideas. Finally, once he gains complete power, as his ideas invariably fail when put into practice, he must use the government’s police power to silence those who challenge him lest he be toppled. That trajectory is why it’s noteworthy (in a scary way) that, once in 2019 and again today, Kamala has stated explicitly that she believes that if she controls the government, she has the right to use its vast power to silence critics.  

In 2019—that is, even before the great silencing of 2020, when speech challenging COVID policies or raising the Hunter laptop was stifled—Kamala was already mourning the fact that social media companies weren’t silencing ideas with which she disagreed:

Five years later, Kamala is singing the same song, which is that the government and social media companies must determine what is right think and what is wrong think—and then use the state’s police power to end all “wrong think”:

The fact is that we already have several mechanisms that operate within constitutional parameters to limit factual lies or other narrow categories of speech:

The government can prosecute criminal speech, such as direct incitements to imminent unlawful activity, true and imminent threats, and certain types of fighting words. However, it should not be prosecuting so-called “hate” speech because that falls into the category of the government deciding what is good speech and what is bad speech. In a free country, no government should ever make those calls.

The government can prosecute speech that amounts to theft, which is the case with stealing intellectual property that’s been patented or copyrighted.

Private citizens can sue for defamatory speech.

Lastly, assuming a true free speech environment, those who disagree with speech can push back against it with their own speech. This free speech environment, incidentally, is impaired when the authorities allow a heckler’s veto. Thus, on a state-funded college campus, when the authorities allow mobs to silence conservative or pro-Israel speakers, this means that the government itself is engaging in censorship.

What Kamala wants to do is have the government decide what thoughts are allowed and what are not, a clear First Amendment violation. We’ve seen and are seeing this in other countries but we don’t have to look that far. This is what happened in 2020-2021 in America.

Across the country, federal, state, and local entities, as well as professional organizations (especially in the medical professions), silenced people who dared speak out against the COVID regime of masks, lockdowns, and vaccines. The greatest irony, of course, is that these silenced people were correct: None of the regime-approved COVID responses made a significant difference. Instead, COVID did what new viruses do: It mowed down the elderly and immune-compromised and made everyone else varying degrees of sick.

If it were me, I’d go in another direction entirely (as I explained in 2019) when it comes to social media companies. The last thing we want is for the government to dictate to social media companies what users can or cannot say. Instead, the more appropriate way to view the government’s role is to recognize that social media companies have become the modern public square. Thus, they are a form of public accommodation.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they should be barred by law from imposing on their users any form of viewpoint discrimination. Rather than the government pressuring them to censor content, the government should be suing them for civil rights violations when they do censor content.

What She’s Really Like—The Harris Mystery Solved

posted by Sheldon Bart at American Thinker 

Something just doesn’t add up in the ascension of Kamala Harris to the Democrat party’s presidential nomination. A key link is missing in the chain of events.

Consider the facts of the case:

(1) By no means was Harris the first draft choice to grab the nomination, having failed to distinguish herself as a presidential candidate in 2020 or subsequently as Vice President.

(2) Within minutes of Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race, she received his endorsement and was anointed as the putative nominee.

(3) Quotations attributed to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have appeared in the press expressing, in retrospect, a preference for having had an open convention, or, in Pelosi’s reputed words, “a mini-primary.”

How do we square (1) and (2), especially in light of (3)?

Here’s my theory:

The first phase of the replacement intrigue is practically indisputable. Pelosi and Obama, in concert perhaps with Hillary Clinton and major party donors, arranged for intermediaries within the White House to goad Biden into debating his Republican opponent, Donald Trump, in July.

As expected, the incumbent’s performance was dismal. Biden, however, would not quit, believing that he would do better in the next debate.

His stubborn refusal led to phase two, the threatened use of the 25th Amendment. What does the amendment say?

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The process requires the Vice President’s active participation.

One of the party honchos, let’s say Pelosi for argument’s sake, consequently got in touch with Harris. “We need you,” she said, “on the phone call or in the room with Biden. All you have to do is say you’re prepared to initiate the removal process if he doesn’t back out of the election.”

“What happens next?” Kamala asked.

“Well, we’ll hold an open convention, a mini-primary.”

“No,” Harris said.

“What do you mean no?”

“I mean either I get the nomination or no 25th amendment.”

“But Kamala, you can compete in the open convention with Whitmer, Gavin, Pritzker, or anyone else.”

“Nothing doing.”

The ghost of Joe Biden could hardly withstand the scrutiny of the campaign, much less function as chief executive for the next four years. But only a plausible threat of removal would persuade him to withdraw. Harris was indispensable to that threat. She knew it and held out for what she wanted.

Do you see the implications of this? If my analysis is correct, then the woman who would be commander-in-chief is so selfish a creature as to have allowed her party to enter the election with a discredited, incapacitated nominee had she not gotten her way.

That’s what she’s really like.

Can I prove any of this in a court of law? No, not without taped conversations or witness testimony. But I predict that should Harris lose, you will hear rumblings from Pelosi and Obama more or less corroborating what I’ve just written.

Meanwhile, take another look at the three facts posited above and review my theory of the case. As my favorite fictional detective, Nick Charles of “Thin Man” renown, would say, “It’s the only way any of this makes sense.”

🎭 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. 

Harris And Walz Avoiding The Press Isn’t A Savvy Campaign Strategy — They’re Just Cowards

 Even The New York Times thinks Kamala Harris’ answers are ‘vague’ and ‘vacuous’ — why is someone this scared of opening her mouth running for president?

The New Republic, a publication I can vaguely recall from my youth (when people last cared about it), is saying the quiet part out loud:

 “Kamala Harris Doesn’t Need Policy to Win.”

This might be a true statement, but coming from the media, Kamala’s policy, or lack thereof, ought to be examined as a matter of public interest. Which is to say that the question they should be asking is not whether Kamala can win an election without talking about policy but whether she should.

Kamala Harris still doesn’t have a single policy position listed on her website. Even Mark Penn, a former top adviser to Hillary Clinton, is appalled:

One interview. One debate. Some rah rah stump speech you read over and over. And voila you have a 50 per cent chance of being president.

Good gig if you can get it. No 3 debates. No 2 years of primaries, coalition building, no detailed policy development, and no daily press briefings. Or tests of leadership.

It’s only the most important job in the world with a $6 trillion budget and thousands of nuclear weapons.

The right thing would be 3 debates, real detailed policy briefings, and full availability to answer questions so the electorate could vote on an informed basis. That’s what real democracy demands.

Then again, it seems obvious that there’s a clear reason why Kamala Harris isn’t being subjected to debates, primaries, detailed policy explanations, daily press briefings, etc. She’s famously terrible at all those things. Maybe it’s more accurate to say Harris is bad at explaining herself in almost any public forum in a way that doesn’t make her sound completely vapid, but it turns out that all these tests of leadership hinge on that.

And the lengths to which they are going to ensure she doesn’t have to answer questions are officially comical — see her recent bizarre boarding of a plane where she had her headphones plugged into her phone, while still holding her phone up to her ear. 

Either she really wanted to send a strong visual signal that she was on the phone and therefore unable to take questions or she’s an idiot who doesn’t know how phones work. 

Come to think of it, these explanations are not mutally exclusive.

Indeed, explaining yourself is the bare minium of what stewarding democracy, nuclear weapons, and trillions of dollars demands, but Harris’ handlers have decided that even doing that much is too risky. And what’s the word for people who refuse to take risks for selfish reasons, even when the welfare of others depends on it? It would be fair to say that everyone involved in this campaign, starting with Harris herself, is a total coward.

Penn is also being generous when he says that she’s done “one interview,” in that she still had Walz along for the ride, was given absurdly favorable treatment by CNN’s Dana Bash, and still The New York Times had no choice but to conclude that “A Vague, Vacuous TV Interview Didn’t Help Kamala Harris.” 

(This video contrasting Bash’s hostile treatment of J.D. Vance and her hand-holding in the Harris interview ought to end Bash’s career, but CNN is clearly back in the business of encouraging unethical media double standards.) Last month, even CNN acknowledged your basic media interview was a forum where she was “historically vulnerable.” But doesn’t democracy demand she be able to acquit herself in a room with hostile foreign leaders, let alone cheerleaders like Bash?

Any defense of Harris not opening her mouth for the next two months basically starts and ends with the fact that there’s almost nothing she can say to help herself. To the minor extent that her campaign has talked about policy, it’s to oppose unpopular policies supported by … Kamala Harris. The Harris campaign recently sent out an email noting she “does not support an electric vehicle mandate.” When Axios’ Alex Thompson “asked if that meant she would veto or sign the bill she co-sponsored in 2019 [with] such a mandate for manufacturers,” Harris declined to comment.

At least regarding EVs, Harris said something about a policy. In the past, Harris has supported legislation for reparations, and now her campaign is refusing to say whether she supports them or not. (Aside from the obvious controversy surrounding the policy, it’s an interesting question — because guess who’s the only living president, let alone presidential candidate in this election, who has no ancestors who were slaveholders?)

Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, who has lied about being in combat and specifically left the military after he found out he would deploy in a war zone, is about the most classic embodiment of a coward one could imagine. In fact, “coward” is exactly what the soldiers who served with him in the National Guard are calling him.

Suffice to say, he hasn’t suddenly found a spine running for vice president, either, given this recent exchange at the Minnesota State Fair:

“What’s your reaction to the six hostages being found dead in Gaza?” an unnamed reporter is heard asking Walz while he greeted supporters.

“All right,” he said without answering and then turned around to leave. “Thanks, everybody!” he said as he waved his hand goodbye to the crowd while walking away.

You don’t even have to stake out a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — but you absolutely should — to at least say you’re upset by the tragedy that occurred and express concern for the families! Then again, forget peace in the Middle East; all you have to do is ask Walz if he’ll take any substantive questions and he goes ghost.

The electoral contrast here is pretty stark. On the question of Trump’s courage, besting Harris may be a low bar, but it would have been a more complex answer a few months ago. Now? Res ipsa loquitur. On the policy front, just yesterday Trump “outlined a suite of economic proposals in a speech” that involved his corporate tax rates, plans to reduce regulation, and “a government efficiency commission to be headed by Elon Musk.” At least one of Trump’s economic proposals has been so politically potent — no taxes on tips — that Kamala Harris outright stole it to keep the powerful casino unions in Nevada on the Democrat Party reservation.

J.D. Vance, aside from fearlessly doing hostile media interviews and acquitting himself very well, is about as fluent in discussing policy as politicians come. As Zaid Jilani notes, “It’s hilarious how JD Vance dropped a whole policy manifesto in a Twitter reply and Kamala Harris can’t describe one policy in this level of detail in a televised interview.”

Of course, you might ask yourself, “What choice does Kamala Harris have?” Well, say what you want about Barack Obama, he wasn’t afraid to go out on the campaign trail and convince people he was a pragmatist who had disavowed his association with a menagerie of anti-American radicals. He made real arguments to convince voters, whether or not we’re all worse off because he brazenly lied about major policies and ultimately acted on his radical tendencies once in office. But Harris is no Obama, and she has neither the guts nor the skill to even try to convince people she’s something she’s not.

If Harris is this fearful of even talking about herself, let alone what she will do if we entrust her with an awesome amount of power, obviously she shouldn’t be president. And yet the press and the entire Washington establishment are still championing her. After all, someone who lacks courage isn’t about to change the way Washington works, and it’s working out pretty well for a bunch of rich partisan elites. The people in the rest of the country may be struggling, but who cares about what democracy demands?

https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/06/harris-and-walz-avoiding-the-press-isnt-a-savvy-campaign-strategy-theyre-just-cowards/

Flip-Flopping Kamala Harris Using Trump Border Wall in Campaign Ads, Even CNN Shreds Her Hypocrisy

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

“Hypocrisy” is a word that quickly comes to mind when speaking about Kamala Harris. Lately, since she became the Democrat presidential nominee, she’s been flipping and flopping like a goldfish who accidentally jumped out of its bowl on issues ranging from taxes to economic measures to just about everything else.

Nowhere has this been more evident than on the border crisis, where the vice president has taken to releasing tough-talking campaign ads about what a strong leader she’d be in stopping the flow of illegal immigration—despite the fact that under the Biden-Harris administration, illegal aliens have snuck in at historically unprecedented rates as Joe and Kamala seem to have issued them an open invitation.

It’s all too much for even the leftist network CNN and anchor Erin Burnett, who can usually be relied on to faithfully cheerlead for the Democrat party and attack Republicans over the flimsiest of allegations. But there she was Wednesday, exposing Kamala’s utter shamelessness in using photos of Donald Trump’s border wall in campaign advertisements—despite the fact that she was a fierce critic of those same walls and savaged the former president over them at the time.

A CNN segment reported Wednesday on how Vice President Kamala Harris is using imagery of former President Trump’s border wall after condemning it for years as "useless" and un-American.

During CNN’s "Erin Burnett OutFront," host Erin Burnett spoke to CNN’s KFile senior editor Andrew Kaczynski about how Harris' past comments about Trump's border wall are coming back to "haunt" her. 

Kaczynski found 50 instances of Harris slamming Trump's border wall, but now her campaign is featuring the border wall in ads.

Watch:

What's so odd about this story is that it's CNN of all networks reporting on the hypocrisy. Normally they'd do everything in their power to sweep it under the rug. 

---

New Kamala Harris Ad Painting Her As Some Sort of immigration and Border Hawk Is Downright Ludicrous

---

Here are some of Harris' remarks on the wall made during her ill-fated campaign 2019 campaign:

An incredulous Burnett asked about her newest ads, "She’s using his wall that he built to say, ‘Look at what I did’?"

Harris is proving daily that she's a principle-free wannabe dictator who will say virtually anything—and then reverse herself on it later if her team believes it enhances her chances. When you're a Democrat politician and even the biased Erin Burnett is calling you out, you know you're doing badly.