Kamala Is Giving Stranger Danger Vibes

posted by Katie Pavlich at Townhall 

Well, America, we made it through the first and potentially only presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. 

Going into the contest, which took place Tuesday night on ABC News, Harris had a higher bar to clear. She is still an unknown to many voters while Trump has a record as president and 100 percent name identification. 

She failed. 

The first question of the night, which was one of the few economic or substantive inquiries from highly biased “moderators,” was directed at Harris. She was simply asked, are we better off economically than we were four years ago? Less than five minutes into the contest, with 67 million people watching, she immediately dodged.

“So, I was raised as a middle-class kid,” Harris said. “I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy.”

Meaningless. 

Since being anointed the next Democratic nominee in August, replacing a beleaguered President Joe Biden, Team Harris has desperately tried to walk back the far-left positions Harris openly held during the 2020 presidential election cycle — these are the same positions that tanked her campaign, forcing her out of the race before the first votes were cast in Iowa.

Despite saying there is “no question” she’s for completely banning fracking, she now says she wouldn’t “ban it as president.” She’s flip-flopped on her electric vehicle mandate, a promise to make private health insurance illegal and much more. It’s still unclear whether she still believes in taxpayer funded sex change operations for illegal immigrants or decriminalizing all drugs — including fentanyl — as she openly confirmed on a 2019 candidate questionnaire from the ACLU. Those positions are so wild and out of touch, her people are treating the questionnaire like Hunter Biden’s laptop and pretending it doesn’t exist. 

After 90-minutes of a 3-1 debate contest against former President Trump, Harris’ positions on key issues — most importantly the economy — still aren’t clear, and undecided voters aren’t convinced. 

Kamala Harris has become the perfect example of “Stranger Danger.” She’s attempted to wipe her political slate clean, but won’t give details about what will replace the emptiness everyone can glaringly see. It’s a dark abyss, and people are skeptical about jumping into her new “pragmatic” stance. 

“I don’t think she’s abandoning her [leftists] ideals,” Socialist Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders said during a recent interview with NBC News. "I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” 

Harris wants voters to trust that her vague economic plans will be better than the concrete, tangible and lived experience Americans had during the Trump administration. That’s a lot to ask. Or, she’s still married to the policy positions that even Democrats found so extreme just four years ago they prevented her from entering the Oval Office as commander-in-chief. These are all bad, dishonest options. Kamala Harris has turned herself into a stranger, and strangers can be very dangerous. 

Harvard to Train 'Planetary Healers' to Save World From 'Climate Change' and 'Structural Racism'

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

In this episode of "The No-Longer-Hallowed Halls of Academia"...

As the left tells us, climate change — AKA "the existential threat to mankind" — is upon us. The planet as we know it could be destroyed at any minute, to hear the likes of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris talk. 

But hope remains.

Harvard University now plans to train students to heal the planet; while the Ivy League school is at it, it also plans to cure "structural racism." 

The university's Climate Change and Planetary Health concentration (a snooty word for "major"), launching this fall, will help students understand the "consequences of the current planetary health crisis, including the effects on food, water, air, extreme weather events, heat, migration, and political stability and their subsequent impacts on infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, nutrition, and mental health."

Emphasis, mine:

Students in this concentration will also learn about the health inequityborn out of environmental degradation. Structural racism and international economic policy have exacerbated the climate crisis, with communities of color, poor communities, and the Global South being disproportionately impacted. You will be equipped to use research, leadership, advocacy, and policy to implement solutions that better serve these populations.  

Professor Christopher Golden told The Harvard Crimson:

The idea is that we move from an understanding of planetary health to training planetary healers. We see climate change as one of the most important existential threats that is affecting public health.

Of course they do. 

Like other climate fanatics, Golden's "existential threat" reference is a hyperbolic statement in search of facts. Speaking of which, the Biden-Harris administration in August warned kindergarteners, through NASA's "Climate Change for Kids" website, about the "inescapable death spiral of climate change."

The major's learning objectives thusly (emphasis, mine) include:

Interpret foundational science related to climate and environmental change. 

1. Explain the impact of anthropogenic [human caused] greenhouse gas emissions on global climate (greenhouse effect). 
2. Describe historical trends and current sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. 
3. Understand how human activities impact ecological stability, land use changes, biodiversity, water pollution, deforestation and food systems.

And...

Analyze the historical and structural causes of climate change and ecological degradation and describe the ways in which it creates/exacerbates health inequity.

1. Explain how climate change and ecological degradation intersects with structural racism and health equity in the U.S. (e.g. redlining, heat islands, the disproportionate impact on certain populations, intersecting health challenges, access to adaptive and protective measures). 
2. Define environmental justice and recognize its importance to climate and planetary health solutions. 
3. Describe impacts of climate change and planetary health on global health inequities (e.g. natural disasters/extreme weather events, forced migration, social instability, political conflict, food security, water scarcity, and sea level rise), including inequitable resource allocation for adaptive responses. 
4. Identify the ways in which Black and Indigenous people, and people from the Global South contribute to climate and planetary solutions.

Finally:

This is a ten-unit concentration for all degree programs at Harvard Chan School. Students in this concentration will be required to choose one of two tracks (research methodologies or research translation) and take 5 units of core curriculum courses, 2.5 units of track courses, and 2.5 units of elective courses at Harvard Chan School and across Harvard University.

Incidentally, NPR in early September told us about a "new type of chaplain" who is working with people to overcome "climate grief." No, really.

When Diane Ware’s home state of Oregon proposed a natural gas pipeline that threatened local waterways, she sprang into action — leading workshops on lobbying state lawmakers, mentoring student activists and organizing lectures at her church.

But when plans for the pipeline were canceled, Ware, 78, found little pleasure in the victory. The retired elementary school teacher couldn’t shake the feeling that it may be too late to save a planet in deep peril — a prospect tinged with grief, anger and depression. Ware realized she had a case of "climate grief” — and needed help.

Ware is one of a growing number of people using the services of an eco-chaplain, a new kind of spiritual adviser rising among clergy trained in handling grief and other difficult emotions.

Ware told NPR she was "fried."

I just thought how on Earth are we ever going to get this problem solved if we can’t even talk about it and get good information from the newspapers that we think are the guardians of truth? And then I just thought, ‘Wow, I am fried.'

No word if Ms. Ware's adventure into "eco-chaplaincy," which, of course, is not universally recognized, has "un-fried" her or not.

---

'Global Warming' Alarmist Al Gore All in for 'Climate Champion' Kamala Harris Because of Course He Is

ABC 'Climate Change' Alarmists Pathetically Push 'Eco Anxiety' as

Life-Threatening Mental Illness

NBC Can't Understand Why 'Average Person' Doesn't Fear 'Climate Crisis'

– Should We Tell 'Em?

---

Meanwhile, Harvard, via indoctrinated students, is determined to save the world from "all of the above."

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Sept 14

 

EPA ignores the reality of America’s electricity demands

EPA ignores the reality of America’s electricity demands

Shutting down US coal plants would hand a strategic advantage to our rivals.

Michelle BloodworthSeptember 12, 2024

Electricity demand has surged after more than a decade of slow growth, when it increased by just 1%. New technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are driving much of this rise, with data centers expected to consume 8% of the nation’s electricity by 2030. The domestic production of semiconductors is also contributing to this trend, prompting utilities to nearly double their demand growth projections by 2028.

This surge is good news. Advancements in artificial intelligence and other technologies boost productivity, drive economic growth, and position the U.S. to win the technology race against its rivals. However, there is one major challenge: We need enough reliable electricity to meet this growing demand.

We should not shut down dependable power sources until equally reliable replacements have been built.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimates that winter electricity demand will increase by 91,000 megawatts over the next 10 years — more power than California’s entire existing supply. In just the next two years, we will need to build the equivalent of 28 nuclear reactors to keep up. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is advancing regulations that will force coal power plants to close, reducing our electricity supply when we need to increase it.

This approach marks a massive step backward at a critical time for our country. Existing EPA regulations, costly tax breaks, and federal subsidies have already led to plans to retire more than 130 coal plants in 31 states over the next five years, just as electricity demand is set to surge. In response, utilities in 14 states have reversed plans to retire coal plants to meet the rising electricity demand.

Even if we pretend that replacement wind farms and solar panels could be built quickly enough to replace all coal plants (which they cannot), they would still need to be connected to the electricity grid with new transmission lines that could take years, if not decades, to construct. Even then, the resulting electricity supply would depend on sun and wind, which cannot produce electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Battery storage is not a solution, either, because batteries provide only a few hours of electricity.

Ignoring the practical limitations of renewables and their required infrastructure could lead to more frequent blackouts, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. It would also undermine critical industries and our energy security, which, as Europe learned from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are vital sources of geopolitical strength.

Meanwhile, China, our other rival, consumes half the world’s coal and continues to build more coal plants to power advanced technologies and expand its military influence. China’s new coal plants alone will generate more electricity than all existing U.S. coal plants combined. Shutting down U.S. coal plants would hand a strategic advantage to our rivals.

With electricity demand skyrocketing, the U.S. is still years away from replacing dependable power sources without risking blackouts, hindering economic growth, and jeopardizing national security. While there are many proposals to address this challenge, some are good and many are unrealistic.

We have two simple suggestions.

First, we must scale back or overturn EPA regulations that threaten our ability to meet future electricity demand. This can be achieved through the courts, a new president, or Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked the EPA from implementing its Good Neighbor Plan, which could have forced coal plant retirements.

The court’s stay indicates it believes there is a good chance the rule will eventually be overturned. Even more recently, 27 states asked the Supreme Court to stay the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0, which likely would force the entire U.S. coal fleet into premature retirement.

Second, we should not shut down dependable power sources until equally reliable replacements have been built.

Both ideas will take political will and a sense of urgency. If we wait until the lights go out, it will be too late.

Shutting down US coal plants would hand a strategic advantage to our rivals.

Michelle BloodworthSeptember 12, 2024

Electricity demand has surged after more than a decade of slow growth, when it increased by just 1%. New technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are driving much of this rise, with data centers expected to consume 8% of the nation’s electricity by 2030. The domestic production of semiconductors is also contributing to this trend, prompting utilities to nearly double their demand growth projections by 2028.

This surge is good news. Advancements in artificial intelligence and other technologies boost productivity, drive economic growth, and position the U.S. to win the technology race against its rivals. However, there is one major challenge: We need enough reliable electricity to meet this growing demand.

We should not shut down dependable power sources until equally reliable replacements have been built.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimates that winter electricity demand will increase by 91,000 megawatts over the next 10 years — more power than California’s entire existing supply. In just the next two years, we will need to build the equivalent of 28 nuclear reactors to keep up. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is advancing regulations that will force coal power plants to close, reducing our electricity supply when we need to increase it.

This approach marks a massive step backward at a critical time for our country. Existing EPA regulations, costly tax breaks, and federal subsidies have already led to plans to retire more than 130 coal plants in 31 states over the next five years, just as electricity demand is set to surge. In response, utilities in 14 states have reversed plans to retire coal plants to meet the rising electricity demand.

Even if we pretend that replacement wind farms and solar panels could be built quickly enough to replace all coal plants (which they cannot), they would still need to be connected to the electricity grid with new transmission lines that could take years, if not decades, to construct. Even then, the resulting electricity supply would depend on sun and wind, which cannot produce electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Battery storage is not a solution, either, because batteries provide only a few hours of electricity.

Ignoring the practical limitations of renewables and their required infrastructure could lead to more frequent blackouts, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. It would also undermine critical industries and our energy security, which, as Europe learned from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are vital sources of geopolitical strength.

Meanwhile, China, our other rival, consumes half the world’s coal and continues to build more coal plants to power advanced technologies and expand its military influence. China’s new coal plants alone will generate more electricity than all existing U.S. coal plants combined. Shutting down U.S. coal plants would hand a strategic advantage to our rivals.

With electricity demand skyrocketing, the U.S. is still years away from replacing dependable power sources without risking blackouts, hindering economic growth, and jeopardizing national security. While there are many proposals to address this challenge, some are good and many are unrealistic.

We have two simple suggestions.

First, we must scale back or overturn EPA regulations that threaten our ability to meet future electricity demand. This can be achieved through the courts, a new president, or Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked the EPA from implementing its Good Neighbor Plan, which could have forced coal plant retirements.

The court’s stay indicates it believes there is a good chance the rule will eventually be overturned. Even more recently, 27 states asked the Supreme Court to stay the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0, which likely would force the entire U.S. coal fleet into premature retirement.

Second, we should not shut down dependable power sources until equally reliable replacements have been built.

Both ideas will take political will and a sense of urgency. If we wait until the lights go out, it will 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. 

You Hate Trump? - We're dealing with destructive narcissism.

 A great many Americans claim that they cannot vote for former President Donald Trump because they loathe him.

That was also their argument in 2016 and 2020.

That argument was childish in 2016 and 2020, and it remains childish in 2024.

I say “childish” because mature people don’t vote on the basis of whom they like. They vote on the basis of which candidate is best for their country. As I asked both eight years ago and four years ago, other than friends and a spouse, whom do you choose based on how much you like a person? Do you choose your surgeon on that basis? If you or a loved one had cancer and were presented with a choice of two surgeons, one known to be an honorable man and loyal husband, the other known for his abrasive personality and for being a womanizer but also known as one of the best cancer surgeons in the country, which would you choose?

We all know the answer. So, why would you choose a president based on marital fidelity or personality traits?

Though they always mention Trump “the liar” (as far as truth-telling is concerned, Trump is Abe Lincoln compared to President Joe Biden), Trump “the adulterer,” Trump “the mean,” and now Trump “the felon” (although no one can tell you what he was charged with), Trump haters would respond that those are not the only reasons why they would never vote for Trump. He is, they constantly tell us, a threat to democracy.

Trump haters have to say that — because they know that merely listing his alleged and actual obnoxious personal traits makes them look foolish. The problem, however, is that the claim that Trump would end democracy in America is baseless. He was already president for four years, and he in no way threatened democracy. Of course, Trump haters will point to Jan. 6 — and only to Jan. 6, because they have no other example from all four years of the Trump presidency of Trump allegedly threatening democracy.

But Jan. 6 is a phony example. That day, Trump explicitly told his supporters to go peacefully to the Capitol. And it was Trump who, on Jan. 4, explicitly requested and authorized 10,000 National Guard troops to guard the capital and the Capitol. It was Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C., who refused his request.

Then there are Trump’s repeated claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” That claim, according to Trump haters, constitutes a “threat to democracy.” But Hillary Clinton repeatedly said that she was “robbed” of a victory, that the 2016 election was “stolen.” But not one Trump hater ever characterized her claim as “a threat to democracy.” Nor, for that matter, did any Republicans. Because that claim doesn’t constitute a threat to democracy.

The charge is made solely because Trump haters … hate Trump.

Furthermore, and most important, there has been, and is, a real threat to democracy. But it is coming entirely from the Democrats.

For the first time in American history, under Joseph Biden, the Department of Justice has been weaponized against political opponents.

For the first time in American history, this country has political prisoners. Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro are just two examples. Jan. 6 prisoners have been wildly overcharged and placed in solitary confinement over minor infractions.

For the first time in American history, a former president and the nominee of one of the two major political parties has been arrested and put on trial — on nonsensical charges, moreover.

For the first time in American history, an administration has colluded with Big Tech to suppress political speech they consider unfriendly.

For the first time in American history, one major party has attempted to remove the presidential nominee of the other major party from multiple state ballots.

And the intelligence agencies have been likewise politicized. Fifty-one current and former heads of intelligence agencies lied on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee when they signed a statement right before the 2020 election declaring that the Hunter Biden laptop story was the product of Russian disinformation.

This country has a deep state that is dedicated to serving the Democratic Party.

Compared to all that, Trump’s alleged one-night stand with a porn star and his hush-money payment to her is of no consequence. Indeed, when it comes to marital fidelity, compared to three of the Democrats’ heroes — President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and President Bill Clinton — Donald Trump is a holy man.

And things will get much worse if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected. Government censorship of political opponents will increase. Arrests of political opponents will increase. And government control of industries — like setting food prices — has already been promised.

We know how bad things will get because we know what the Biden-Harris administration has already done to the country. Because we know what Harris and her fellow California Democrats have done to California. And because we know what Gov. Tim Walz has done to Minnesota.

To vote for the Democrats because one hates Trump is not merely childish. When how one feels about Donald Trump is more important than the future of the country, we are dealing with something far more serious than childishness.

We are dealing with destructive narcissism.

The Real Tim Walz

Jay Tucker reporting for American Thinker 

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are currently presenting themselves to American voters as qualified to assume the responsibilities of the positions of commander-in-chief and next-in-line commander-in-chief.  What leads them to that conclusion eludes those who examine the evidence.  Let’s take a look at the evidence, particularly as to whether Harris and Walz will provide protection against violence and terrorism.

Violence and terrorism reared their ugly heads in the May 2020 riots in Minneapolis and other cities, precipitated by the circumstances surrounding the death of George Floyd.  The protests were characterized by many (including Kamala Harris) as protests which should be perpetuated and even encouraged.  Minnesota governor Tim Walz has confirmed that the resulting property damage in Minnesota exceeded $500 million. It is helpful when attempting to understand the scope of those dollar losses to also understand the equivalent real physical damage.  Minnesota did not lose the World Trade Center Towers as did New York, but Minnesota did lose the equivalent of three of the tallest building in Minneapolis (the renowned 57-story IDS Center), based on current assessed value. Unfortunately, the riots spread across the country.  One report concludes that the riots have caused insurance losses which make the George Floyd riots the most expensive in U.S. history. That report provides an estimate that total related insured losses across the country may reach or exceed $2 Billion.

Since the nomination of Walz as a candidate for Vice President, many are examining in detail whether he failed to perform his duties as governor to protect the property and lives of Minnesotans by his delayed action in the face of serious and obvious threats and risk.  Many have concluded that Walz failed to plan for, and in fact, delayed the deployment and mobilization of the Minnesota National Guard which failure and delay caused much of the property loss, including the loss of the MPD 3rd Precinct building.

Notwithstanding Walz’ nomination acceptance speech statement that leaders “don’t spend all day... blaming others,” Walz has said that Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey did not initially provide the specific information necessary for deployment, so he (Walz) did not activate until city officials submitted a formal written request and a more detailed plan.  Actually, investigators determined Walz had the authority to activate the Guard without any request from Mayor Frey or any other local authorities and as commander of the Minnesota National Guard had the ability by law to use force and law enforcement to stop criminal violence, but he did not.

The enormous losses and the outrage of concerned citizens motivated legislators to take action to investigate and determine what had allowed the damage to occur. The MN Senate convened several joint committee hearings consisting of members of various committees (the Joint Committee).  The purpose of the Joint Committee was to compile the facts and reach conclusions.  The Report of the Joint Committee was issued on October 8, 2020.  The following are a portion of the Report findings relevant to the action and inaction of Walz:

1. Governor Tim Walz and elected local leaders identified with the causes promoted by the demonstrators, causing them to lose sight of their responsibility to protect the public from criminal acts committed during the riots.  (p.1)
2. Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey initially chose to negotiate with and appease the rioters rather than give law enforcement the authority to confront criminal acts with enough force to restore law and order. A primary responsibility of the Office of the Governor of the State of Minnesota and local elected officials is to protect the public. Inaction on the part of state and local officials led to an increase in violence.  (p.1)
3. Both Governor Walz and Mayor Frey failed to act in a timely manner to confront rioters with necessary force due to an ill-conceived philosophical belief that such an action would exacerbate the rioting.  (p.3)
4. Governor Walz and Mayor Frey initially chose to negotiate with and appease the rioters rather than give law enforcement the authority to confront criminal acts with enough force to restore law and order.  (p.5)
5. Governor Walz was more concerned about his popularity and tweeting than he was about stopping the riots.  (p.18)
6. Governor Walz and his administration decided to plan for “frontal battles,” refuse aviation support, hold the Minnesota National Guard in reserve, and blame rather than support the cities.  (p.22)
7. Governor Walz had the ability and duty to use force and law enforcement to stop criminal violence, but he did not. Governor Walz was not willing to do what was necessary to stop the rioting right away because he was having a philosophical debate about whether the use of force should be used to stop violence.  (p.22)
8. But he then stated he was trying to strike a balance between more law enforcement and appeasing the rioters.  (p.23)
9. When asked by a reporter if the Minnesota National Guard should have been present physically during the rioting that occurred on Thursday, May 28, Governor Walz blamed the mayors and said it was their decisions to not have the Minnesota National Guard out.  (p.24)
10. Governor Walz and his administration were more concerned with the “current environment,” the “climate they were under,” “community and cultural concerns,” and “diversity and inclusion training” than they were about stopping the riots that were destroying Minnesota.  (p.27)
11. Protesting is a First Amendment right; rioting is a criminal act. The first is protected while the second needs to be stopped.  (p.27)
12. Governor Walz stated he was to wait for cities to request troops before preparing the Minnesota National Guard.   There is no state statute or law requiring the governor to wait for cities to request troops before authorizing the use of the Minnesota National Guard. (p.29)
13. The request was sent for at least 600 guardsmen at 9:11 p.m. Wednesday, May 27. Governor Walz eventually produced 100 guardsmen for the City of Minneapolis late in the evening on Thursday, May 28. (p.30)
14. According to police, if the Minnesota National Guard was called in to assist, then the Third Precinct and many of the businesses on Lake Street could have been saved. (p.34)
15. Only Governor Walz had the legal authority to mobilize the Minnesota National Guard as he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Minnesota National Guard. Governor Walz chose not to fully mobilize the Minnesota National Guard while rioting overtook the state on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.  (p.35)
16. Governor Walz did not lead, thereby failing the cities, the state, and citizens when they needed him most.  (p.35)
17. Governor Walz believes it is not his job to protect citizens of Minnesota. (p.35)
18. While stating arrests were an important part of controlling the riots, Governor Walz and his administration also chose to only arrest and prosecute 2% of those caught rioting.  (p.40)

The incompetence and inaction of Walz in his duty to protect the public is obvious.  The incompetence, action, and inaction of Kamala Harris was equally culpable.  Referencing the protests and protestors in Minnesota, Harris announced that “they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”  She claims she intended only to refer to peaceful protests, but she did not wisely and competently limit her support of the protestors, as did President Trump by limiting his encouragement of J6 rally attenders to the words: "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  Harris also provided additional encouragement to violent protestors by encouraging contributions to help post bond for those arrested for violence.

Harris and Walz should not be considered by voters as qualified or competent for appointment, election, or re-election to any office having the responsibility to protect America and the American people, especially to the offices of commander-in-chief and next-in-line commander-in-chief.

WATCH: Josh Hawley Drops Disturbing Details on Secret Service Agent in Charge During Trump Assassination Attempt and Reveals Biden Regime is Ordering Agency Not to Comply with Congress

 The scandal regarding the attempt on former President Trump’s life continues to grow despite the corporate media’s desperate attempts to make the story disappear.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) warned that the American public would be ‘shocked, astonished, and appalled’ by the level of incompetence and failure within the Secret Service surrounding the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on President Donald Trump.

Trump almost got killed during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, by an armed Democrat donor named Thomas Crooks. The would-be assassin infiltrated the rally, climbed onto rooftops, and fired off multiple shots thanks to Secret Service negligence.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) appeared on Jesse Watters’s show Thursday night and dropped some more shocking details, this time focused on the lead Secret Service agent during the assassination attempt. Hawley stated that not only did the agent FAIL at least one of her training exams, but she was also known not to be a quality agent.

Despite this, disgraced former Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle, a close friend of the Biden Crime Family, promoted her anyway.

Hawley described the pattern that had emerged during his conversations with whistleblowers as the Trump rally being “undermanned, understaffed, and lacking people who had experience on it.” He then slammed acting director Ronald Rowe for refusing to tell the truth and disclose all relevant details regarding what happened that fateful day.

“The fact that the director will not level with the American people about what’s going here is just totally unacceptable and unbelievable,” said Hawley.

WATCH:

Hawley then revealed to Watters that the Department of Homeland Security is ordering the agency to refrain from complying with document requests to Congress. Yes, the Biden regime does not want the truth regarding what happened on July 13 to be unveiled.

Upon hearing this, Watters said this confirms that a major cover-up is going on.

One can only hope that Blumenthal is telling the truth and that Congress is serious about fully exposing the Secret Service. Otherwise, the attack on a former president will likely be swept away altogether.

If this happens, no one should ever fully trust words from the federal government again, especially one controlled by Democrats.

China able to spy on US with intelligence-gathering devices on seaport cranes, ..

China able to spy on US with intelligence-gathering devices on seaport cranes, House report finds

By Caitlin Doornbos  for New York Post 

WASHINGTON – A Chinese company installed intelligence gathering equipment on cranes used at seaports across the US that could allow Beijing to spy on Americans and cripple key infrastructure, according to a new congressional report.

The Republican majorities on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and House Homeland Security Committee found that the Shanghai-based, state-owned ZPMC engineering company had pressured American port authorities to allow remote access to its cranes, “with a particular focus on those located on the West Coast.”

“If granted, this access could potentially be extended to other [People’s Republican of China] government entities, posing a significant risk due to the PRC’s national security laws that mandate cooperation with state intelligence agencies,” adds the report, the outcome of a yearlong investigation.

5

ZPMC installed these intelligence gathering devices on cranes used at US seaports, according to the House report. Committee on Homeland Security

The devices found attached to the cranes include cellular modems that were “not requested by US ports or included in contracts … [and] constitute a significant backdoor security vulnerability that undermines the integrity of port operations,” the report said.

“These unknown modems were believed to be installed under the auspices of collecting usage data for the equipment,” the report said, citing contract documents and statements from port operators. “These modems – although not necessary for the operation of the cranes – created an obscure method to collect information, and bypass firewalls in a manner that could potentially disrupt port operations.”

Now, both committees want the Department of Homeland Security to “immediately issue guidance to all US ports to disassemble any connections of ZPMC cranes to cellular modems or any other method of connection to ZPMC,” the report said, adding that though those with existing contractional obligations to keep them in place would be exempt from any requirement.

ZPMC owns roughly 80% of cargo cranes at American ports – leaving the US maritime sector “dangerously reliant on equipment and technology produced, manufactured, assembled, or installed in the PRC” including “ship-to-shore cranes, container handling equipment, and various other critical maritime infrastructure components,” the committees added.

The use of Chinese-built infrastructure has long been a concern in the national security community, but has only made national headlines in recent years. 

5

ZPMC owns roughly 80% of cargo cranes at American ports, according to the report. Kerri – stock.adobe.com

5

The report found that the Chinese state-owned ZPMC engineering company has pressured American ports to give it remote access to its cranes. harshavardhan – stock.adobe.com

“This [ZPMC] dominance has been achieved through a complex system of state support, including financing from state banks, direct subsidies, preferential borrowing rates, state- backed fundraising, and other nonmarket advantages,” the report said – noting that there are “no domestic manufacturing alternatives” for cranes in the US.

To fix the problem, the Harris-Biden administration in February pledged to provide $20 billion to “strengthen maritime infrastructure cybersecurity, specifically with the goal of addressing software and hardware vulnerabilities in ZPMC cranes,” according to the report.

The White House also announced plans to “phase out Chinese-made port equipment and fully return crane making to the United States to deal with 200 Chinese-made cranes at U.S. ports and facilities,” it added.

5

A graphic from the congressional report shows US ports that are owned by China. Committee on Homeland Security

5

With access to source code, there is a high risk that the Chinese government could manipulate these systems disrupt US critical infrastructure or conduct espionage, the report found. Committee on Homeland Security

“This bipartisan chorus of concern regarding PRC economic influence — especially regarding transportation infrastructure — highlights the level of concern that this issue has reached within the American policymaking community, ” the report said.

But the reports’ Republican authors called for more to be done to cull the American reliance on Beijing’s seaport technology, calling on the Department of Commerce to commission a study on “building a US crane manufacturing base” complete with plans to develop “the necessary expertise and market consumption.

They also pushed the department to analyze the US’ “manufacturing competitiveness globally – including port construction and shipbuilding” to help build the American industry and peel away at international reliance on the Chinese maritime infrastructure.

In the meantime, the committees pitched passing legislation that would allow US ports to receive waivers exempting them from “Buy America requirements for purchasing cranes from non-adversarial countries, using federal grant dollars” until the US can build up its port-crane industry.