Monday, September 16, 2024

Slaying Leviathan


Ned Ryun has written a new bookAmerican Leviathan, and I was fortunate to get my hands on an advance copy.

If you don’t know Ned, he’s the founder of American Majority and Voter Gravity, grassroots organizations that specialize in fighting the culture war at the local level and electing America First conservatives.  On cable news channels and in his writing, he’s an eloquent defender of the Constitution, limited government, and the American Republic as the Founding Fathers intended.  I highly recommend that you read American Leviathan and share it with friends — especially friends who struggle to see clearly the stakes of the ideological war now raging.

How did we get to this point in time, when American leaders broadly repudiate the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and an unaccountable, unconstitutional bureaucracy rules over the American people?  How is it that both major political parties routinely ignore the will of voters and seem beholden to the administrative state?  Why do prominent politicians — from Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney to Kamala Harris and Barack Obama — express an almost religious devotion to expansive government when our country was founded upon an inherent distrust of government power and a commitment to see such power forever chained?  Why have the most prestigious news organs rejected free speech, embraced censorship, and become little more than propagandistic parrots for the State?  It’s a long story, but it’s a story that must be understood in order for the American people to see with clear eyes what they’re actually fighting.

In American Leviathan, Ryun succeeds by making what is complicated quite comprehensible.  He takes a century and a half of mostly forgotten history and political debate and boils down all the sordidness into a digestible, if unpleasant, meal.  He traces the origin of the administrative state to a group of American intellectuals who were fascinated with Hegel’s philosophical defense of authoritarianism and the absolute power of the Prussian king.  He pinpoints the rise of the Uniparty in the overlapping policy preferences of leading Republicans, Democrats, and socialists at the beginning of the twentieth century.  He recounts how progressive Republicans, such as Robert La Follette and Teddy Roosevelt, advocated for radical expansion of government and rejection of long-respected constitutional constraints that mirrored many of the wishes of progressive Democrats, such as Woodrow Wilson and The New Republic founder Herbert Croly.  Together, these various thought leaders (at times hostile to one another as they advanced similar goals) initiated what Ryun calls a “Progressive Statist movement” demanding a fundamental transformation of the American system of government and the elevation of the State at the expense of Americans’ individual liberties.

Ryun defines the administrative state, the national security state, and the Deep State as distinct entities reflecting varying degrees of power, privilege, secretiveness, and incompetence, but he recognizes all of these unelected factions as parts of the same beast: the Leviathan.  With that appellation, he refers to the political treatise Leviathan, from seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, whose inclination toward a strong, centralized government emerged during the chaos of the English Civil Wars.  In the Old Testament, Leviathan is a sea serpent and demon associated with the sin of envy.  The monster eats the souls of those who are damned because they remain too attached to the material world to reach God’s realm and receive His grace.  Although the biblical Leviathan epitomizes chaos, Hobbes used the idea of a terrifying creature composed of myriad souls as a metaphor for an all-powerful State constantly shaping citizens and feeding from their individual energies.  The frontispiece to Hobbes’s Leviathan shows a monarch clutching the symbols of earthly power in one hand and spiritual power in the other.  The monarch’s body is formed from hundreds of faceless individuals who, through their actions to support the king, embody the State.  At the top of the illustration is a Latin quote describing Leviathan from the Book of Job: “There is no power on earth to be compared to him.”  It is in this sense that Ryun describes the American Leviathan.

Although Hobbes saw the Leviathan as a necessary force for taming violent chaos, Ryun recognizes it for what it actually is: an uncontrollable, ever-growing, and ravenous beast that devours any prospect for representative democracy or individual liberty.  Interestingly, just as Hobbes saw the Leviathan State as the union of the secular and spiritual worlds, Ryun sees the American Leviathan as a usurper claiming dominion over both worlds, too.  He takes great pains to show how Progressive Statists depend upon a rejection of God, so that they can claim His powers as their own.  In the same way that the theological Leviathan represents the deadly sin of envy, the American Leviathan is envious of all forms of power outside its own.  Ultimately, to choose the unelected administrative state over the constitutional republic and the protection of Americans’ natural rights is to worship government above all else.  The American Leviathan is an obscene and false god.

In his deftly written and often moving defense of the American Republic as founded, Ryun makes a compelling case for why Americans must slay the Leviathan that has co-opted their form of government and stolen so many of their individual liberties.  He describes Woodrow Wilson’s disdain for popular sovereignty as the unofficial credo of this un-American and unelected “blob,” in which bureaucrats operate with scant oversight.  He excoriates Progressive Statists’ naïve belief in the perfectibility of human nature and their dangerous faith in a ruling class entrusted with limitless power.  He explains why the Leviathan’s attacks on natural rights can succeed only by rewriting both the Constitution and the story of America’s founding.  He diagrams how the rise of an all-powerful bureaucracy is meant to replace private property and personal freedoms with concerns for “social justice” while turning the State into a quasi-divine entity capable of offering spiritual salvation.  He proves that today’s “ruling elites” see representative democracy as “not just an inconvenience, but even more so an enemy and danger to the state.”  He shows through countless examples that the vast bureaucracy is antithetical to the Constitution’s separation of powers.  And he warns that those who have an “unshakeable faith” in the State’s “non-negotiable standards of right and wrong” will not hesitate to eliminate those Americans who oppose it.

America First Republicans, Ryun argues, must reject the legitimacy of the administrative state: “This is The Thing. Nothing else matters.”  After a century of concentrated power “in the hands of a credentialed idiocracy who believe they are the final arbiters for government and society,” this is what we know: “The entire premise of the administrative state has been proven a farce.”  He concludes that “it is time to declare political war” on the American Leviathan, “to tear it apart piece by piece, and to restore the Republic.”  In a final chapter entitled “Slay Leviathan,” Ryun implores: “Break the State.”  In that chapter, he describes exactly how President Trump should do so.

I have an expansive collection of writings from the earliest days of the American Republic.  I hold them dear because they are a window into some of the greatest minds in human history.  I will admit, though, that there is a wary voice in the back of my own mind whispering that there may come a day when the words of the Founders are more important as practical how-to guides than as intellectual heirlooms passed through history.  In defending our country from those who wish to destroy it, Ned Ryun’s new book is one of those sources I want within reach.  It’s a life-saving axe for those “in case of emergency, break glass” moments.  And, I think Ned would agree, it’s time to break the glass.



X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 16

 




Lying Hacks And Morons


However much you hate these leftist so-called “journalists” is not enough; you need to double it. Then double it again, and you might get close to where they deserve to be thought of, but doubt it.

I force myself to watch these people and their shows occasionally. I woke up this morning and watched “This Week,” which is still called “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” even though George doesn’t host it very often (egos and contracts). These people reinforced every bit of hatred I had for them.

Martha Raddatz, who, along with fellow left-wing hack Jonathan Karl, actually hosts the show, needs rotten fruits and vegetables thrown at her in public. She is awful. 

Raddatz declared anything happening in Springfield, Ohio, to be a lie and racist because Haitians are better than Americans. ABC News, the rest of the media, and the idiot Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, still haven’t gone there to see anything for themselves because that’s too much like work, so they’re all declaring something not to be brd on the word of a local Democrat elected official who stands to benefit from that lie. Why would anyone trust that?

Smart people shouldn’t, and normal people shouldn’t. Neither group appears to have any representation in the media.

It’s amazing what you won’t find when you refuse to look for it. Are Haitians eating pets? I don’t know. But I do know I won’t simply take the word for it from the person who would be most politically damaged by it being true on the local level, as the leftist media and some dumb Republicans have. 

Is it beyond the pale that people who come from a country where people eat literal dirt cookies wouldn’t have a problem eating a dog? How about grabbing a goose out of a park? Of course not. Yet, they pretend like it is and, naturally, declare admitting as much to be racist.

It’s not racist to acknowledge reality. Of course, it’s a reality that not a single person on that show, or even in that industry, is directly impacted by it. They’re rich; they live in rich areas regularly patrolled by police, gated communities, doorman buildings, etc.; what the hell do they care about? What’s happening somewhere, people they look down their noses at live?

They don’t. 

Susan Glasser, unoriginal blogger for the New Yorker, wrote what you’d expect from someone so inside the bubble that they’ve suffered oxygen deprivation. Naturally, the Democrat declared the Democrat the winner – she’s not about to risk her job with an original thought. Then she wrote, “I’ve watched every Presidential debate for the past two decades, and I can’t think of anything that ranks higher in pure stupidity than Trump ranting and raving to a national audience about immigrants supposedly eating people’s cats and dogs. His line about how the vice president ‘wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison’ was pretty memorable, too. What the hell was he talking about? No one knows, which was, of course, exactly Harris’s point. Trump was so unprepared for the debate that even he did not seem to know what he was saying at times.”

First, is having watched debates, which is part of her job, something people are supposed to be impressed by? Naturally, she also dismissed the possible happenings in Ohio because no good drone would dare question a narrative.

Then she shows her ignorance of the news, which is presumably another part of her job to follow, by showing how confused she is by the trans in prison issue.

She was sitting at a computer when she wrote that but could not be bothered to search for and read the CNN story about how Kamala Harris said exactly that to the ACLU in 2019. Glasser simply declared it to be false. 

Susan then tweeted it, getting hammered by Community Notes, and then, like a good liberal, ignored everything and let the lie stand. Her New Yorker piece reads the same to this moment, with no one at the magazine having any problem with one of their bloggers lying to their readers long after they’ve been proven so.

These are bad people, all of them. Not one of them gives a single damn about what’s happening in your life unless they can exploit it for ratings, money, or both. Otherwise, they lie to advance the cause of the Democratic Party. However much you hate them, it is not nearly enough.



The Weaponization of Hostages to do Hamas’s Dirty Work for It

 Although the article is over a week old, there are still valid points to be thought on. 



The Oslo Effect: 

The Weaponization of Hostages to do Hamas's Dirty Work for It




by Melanie Phillips September 8, 2024 for Gatestone institute.org


  • The demonstrators [in Israel] are backed by assorted military and intelligence types in a treasonous attempt to lever Netanyahu out of office by creating division and demoralization while Israel is fighting for its life. Their core claim is that Netanyahu is prolonging the war and condemning the hostages to death solely to appease extremists in his coalition and thus remain in power.
  • Of course, everyone desperately wants the hostages brought back home. But the idea that the ceasefire deal would achieve this is sheer fantasy.
  • Only a few of the hostages would be released in the first phase. Hamas would then use the ceasefire to regroup and rearm, spinning out the continuing negotiation farce to keep the rest of the hostages trapped and thus retain control of the Gaza Strip.
  • It would only ever release all the hostages (if at all) with Israel's total surrender. That's what those calling for an immediate ceasefire deal are actually promoting.
  • The only way to save the hostages is through military pressure. That's one reason why it's imperative for Israel to retain control of the Philadelphi corridor, the area of Gaza that borders Egypt.
  • The importance of this corridor cannot be exaggerated. Israel's capture of it has uncovered deep below its surface an extensive infrastructure of giant tunnels into Egypt — thus revealing the principal route through which Hamas imported its rockets, weapons and ammunition. [Emphasis added]
  • Hamas needs to control the Philadelphi corridor in order to resupply itself. Without that, it will be finished. That's why it's insisting that there will be no deal while Israel remains in control.
  • The vast majority of the military and security officials who belong to the authoritative Israel Defense and Security Forum are adamant that Israel must not cede control of the corridor. The forum's chairman, Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, said last week that tens of thousands of rockets and thousands of Hamas Nukhbah terrorists were waiting inside the Egyptian Sinai to go into Gaza through Philadelphi.
  • Even if Israel made only a short retreat, these troops and equipment could be brought in within a week. Egypt had made billions of dollars from the smuggling trade into Gaza and wants to continue.
  • Moreover, said Avivi, only 30 out of more than 100 hostages were slated to be released in the first phase of the deal — and Hamas reportedly planned to take the rest of them through the Philadelphi tunnels to Sinai and then to Iran.
  • In a security cabinet row, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly called Philadelphi "an unnecessary constraint that we've placed on ourselves." Gadi Eizenkot, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said it wasn't strategically important. Former Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Israel could return to the corridor if it deemed it necessary once the hostages were home.
  • Other arguments have included getting Egypt to safeguard Philadelphi against Hamas and using electronic sensors to monitor it.
  • This is all utterly delusional. For two decades, Egypt was complicit in the construction and use of the Philadelphi tunnels; entrusting it with Israel's security would be to put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Israeli reliance on electronic sensors was one of the reasons the October 7 pogrom happened.
  • Despite the thousands of people in the streets, most Israelis get this. In one opinion poll, 79% agreed that Israel needed to control Philadelphi permanently to prevent weapons smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. When asked more emotively whether Israel should control Philadelphi "even at the expense of a hostage deal," more respondents said it should than those who balked at preventing a hostage deal.
  • Gantz, Eizenkot and Gallant are part of a military and security establishment whose morally and intellectually bankrupt "conception" brought about the Oct. 7 catastrophe in the first place.
  • ...America itself bears a significant measure of responsibility for the hostages' fate.
  • The Biden administration forced Israel to proceed in Gaza far more slowly than the IDF judged necessary to defeat Hamas and thus save the hostages. Worse, for three months, the administration stopped Israel from entering Rafah — below which the six hostages were murdered this month. If Israel had been free to proceed at its own pace, those six captives and many others might have been saved.
  • Whatever happens to Netanyahu, the left will almost certainly discover that, for the second time, it has made a terrible strategic error.
  • The first such error was the 1993 Oslo Accord, which gave the Palestinians political power and status — with the Americans even training their security forces — on the assumption that they intended to live in peace alongside Israel.
  • [T]hese same types of people have been doing the work of Hamas for it by promoting Israel's surrender....






5149.jpg

Pictured: Anti-government protesters set a fire and use smoke torches on September 7, 2024 in Tel Aviv, Israel. (Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)


The enormous demonstrations in Israel against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, might be giving people outside the country the impression that the Israeli public is generally against him because of his conduct of the war and that his days in office are therefore numbered.


What's more likely is that the Israeli left is in the process of destroying itself once and for all.


Israelis are being increasingly maddened by grief and horror over the unconscionable fate of the hostages trapped in the hellholes of Gaza. This month's cold-blooded murder of six of these captives by Hamas savages has tipped many Israelis over the edge.


The demonstrators' demand for an immediate ceasefire deal to release the hostages is not only ludicrous to the point of near derangement, but also poses a direct threat to Israel's security and indeed existence — precisely the outcome that Hamas intends through its diabolical manipulation of the hostages' plight.


The demonstrators are backed by assorted military and intelligence types in a treasonous attempt to lever Netanyahu out of office by creating division and demoralization while Israel is fighting for its life. Their core claim is that Netanyahu is prolonging the war and condemning the hostages to death solely to appease extremists in his coalition and thus remain in power.


What Netanyahu's opponents fail to grasp is that, even if the prime minister is as opportunist as he is portrayed, his conduct of the war has overwhelming public backing.


The majority of Israelis insist that Hamas be defeated once and for all. After the October 7 terrorist attacks and atrocities in southern Jewish communities, they demanded that Israel should never again be content with repeatedly inflicting "serious blows" on Hamas only for it to resume its murder offensives within a few months.


Of course, everyone desperately wants the hostages brought back home. But the idea that the ceasefire deal would achieve this is sheer fantasy.


Only a few of the hostages would be released in the first phase. Hamas would then use the ceasefire to regroup and rearm, spinning out the continuing negotiation farce to keep the rest of the hostages trapped and thus retain control of the Gaza Strip.


It would only ever release all the hostages (if at all) with Israel's total surrender. That's what those calling for an immediate ceasefire deal are actually promoting.


The only way to save the hostages is through military pressure. That's one reason why it's imperative for Israel to retain control of the Philadelphi corridor, the area of Gaza that borders Egypt.


The importance of this corridor cannot be exaggerated. Israel's capture of it has uncovered deep below its surface an extensive infrastructure of giant tunnels into Egypt — thus revealing the principal route through which Hamas imported its rockets, weapons and ammunition.


Hamas needs to control the Philadelphi corridor in order to resupply itself. Without that, it will be finished. That's why it's insisting that there will be no deal while Israel remains in control.


The vast majority of the military and security officials who belong to the authoritative Israel Defense and Security Forum are adamant that Israel must not cede control of the corridor. The forum's chairman, Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, said last week that tens of thousands of rockets and thousands of Hamas Nukhbah terrorists were waiting inside the Egyptian Sinai to go into Gaza through Philadelphi.


Even if Israel made only a short retreat, these troops and equipment could be brought in within a week. Egypt had made billions of dollars from the smuggling trade into Gaza and wants to continue.


Moreover, said Avivi, only 30 out of more than 100 hostages were slated to be released in the first phase of the deal — and Hamas reportedly planned to take the rest of them through the Philadelphi tunnels to Sinai and then to Iran.


Yet the corridor has suddenly become a weapon to be used against Netanyahu, who is accused of inflating its importance in order to scupper a ceasefire deal and hostage return.


In a security cabinet row, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly called Philadelphi "an unnecessary constraint that we've placed on ourselves." Gadi Eizenkot, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said it wasn't strategically important. Former Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Israel could return to the corridor if it deemed it necessary once the hostages were home.


Other arguments have included getting Egypt to safeguard Philadelphi against Hamas and using electronic sensors to monitor it.


This is all utterly delusional. For two decades, Egypt was complicit in the construction and use of the Philadelphi tunnels; entrusting it with Israel's security would be to put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Israeli reliance on electronic sensors was one of the reasons the October 7 pogrom happened.


As for the IDF returning to the corridor after it pulled out, the same argument was used by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the 2005 disengagement from Gaza when he pulled Israel out of Philadelphi — the issue over which Netanyahu resigned from that government. Just as international pressure meant the IDF never went back in despite the subsequent rocket barrages from Gaza, so a future return to the Philadelphi corridor after a withdrawal now would be a total non-starter.


Despite the thousands of people in the streets, most Israelis get this. In one opinion poll, 79% agreed that Israel needed to control Philadelphi permanently to prevent weapons smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. When asked more emotively whether Israel should control Philadelphi "even at the expense of a hostage deal," more respondents said it should than those who balked at preventing a hostage deal.


Gantz, Eizenkot and Gallant are part of a military and security establishment whose morally and intellectually bankrupt "conception" brought about the Oct. 7 catastrophe in the first place.


Netanyahu, too, was part of that same establishment and in due course must be held to account for the heavy responsibility he bears.


However, those who aren't blinded by a pathological hatred of Netanyahu can see that he is holding off intense American pressure to pull out of Philadelphi, just as they can also see that America itself bears a significant measure of responsibility for the hostages' fate.


The Biden administration forced Israel to proceed in Gaza far more slowly than the IDF judged necessary to defeat Hamas and thus save the hostages. Worse, for three months, the administration stopped Israel from entering Rafah — below which the six hostages were murdered this month. If Israel had been free to proceed at its own pace, those six captives and many others might have been saved.


Whatever happens to Netanyahu, the left will almost certainly discover that, for the second time, it has made a terrible strategic error.


The first such error was the 1993 Oslo Accord, which gave the Palestinians political power and status — with the Americans even training their security forces — on the assumption that they intended to live in peace alongside Israel.


This was a victory of fantasy over reality. The eventual result was more than 1,000 Israelis murdered in the five-year intifada from 2000 to 2005, and an enduring culture of indoctrination and incitement that today has turned Judea and Samaria into another genocidal front for Iran.


The catastrophic Oslo "conception" caused the Israeli elites to ignore the clear evidence of Islamic holy war by the Palestinians and to believe that Israel could keep a lid on potential trouble. They believed that their enemy was not genocidal Palestinianism. It was Netanyahu.


That's also why they spent most of last year fighting judicial reform. And the same people are now sickeningly weaponizing the hostages for the same goal — to remove Netanyahu from power. You don't have to be a Netanyahu fan to be revolted, frightened and enraged.


The effect of the Oslo nightmare was to wipe out the Israeli left's chances of gaining political power. The public's revulsion and anger that these same types of people have been doing the work of Hamas for it by promoting Israel's surrender means that this terrible betrayal won't be forgotten or forgiven. It will be the Oslo effect on steroids.



Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her personal and political memoir,Guardian Angel, has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel,The Legacy, in 2018. To access her work, go to: melaniephillips.substack.com.

Reprinted by kind permission of JNS.

An Anatomy of the Post-Debate Detritus

 While Harris initially appeared to win the September 2024 presidential debate by sticking to prepped strategy and benefiting from biased moderation, she's failed to gain a lasting boost in the polls.

After the September 10, 2024, presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the Harris campaign became giddy.

And why not?

Pre-debate conventional wisdom had assured the country that underdog Harris would shock the nation with her endless wash/rinse/spin word salads of repeated phrases and memorized sound bites.

She supposedly would prove as shaky as Trump—the veteran of several presidential debates—would prove merciless in eviscerating her.

That did not happen. Post-debate polls of the first 24 hours showed clearly that the public felt Harris had won.

Why?

She stuck religiously to her pre-debate prep. It was not difficult to anticipate what her tripartite script would be. Joe Biden’s failed debate with Trump offered a model, along with the need to avoid Harris’s own known linguistic and cognitive liabilities:

One, Harris was told to bait the touchy Trump with smears and slights about his failed rallies, his racism, and his shaky businesses. That way she could trigger him to lose his cool, go off-topic, rant, and turn off viewers.

And he did just that and often. Trump clearly did not prepare detailed answers, was not ready to be insulted, and was not reminded to relax—and smile, joke, and in Reaganesque fashion sluff off her certain slurs.

Two, she was not supposed to try thinking on her feet, no matter what the question asked.

Instead, Harris was always ordered to plug in her prepped and canned anecdotes, banalities, and bio-stories regardless of the topic or question. And she followed that off-topic boilerplate to spec.

Three, the campaign apparently knew they could rely on the moderators for four givens:

a) they were to fact-check Trump but never Harris. And they did that at least five times;

b) they were to demand follow-up answers from Trump to make him specifically answer the question addressed. And they did that numerous times, but not on a single occasion to Harris;

c) they were to ask Trump provocative questions to force him to deny that he was a racist, an insurrectionist, and an election denialist. But they were never to do so with Harris, whose many past outlandish statements, prevarications, flip-flops, and padded bio would have given the moderators similar rich fodder for cross-examination;

d) they would interrupt Trump to get him off tempo, but never Harris.

The result was that a cool, if not smug, Harris mostly smiled while an irate Trump scowled and raged.

Thus, to the millions who watched the slugfest, Harris seemed more “presidential” and therefore “won” the debate.

When the size of the huge television audience—some 67 million watched the debate—was announced, team Harris naturally assumed her win might bounce her even higher than did her initial July surge after the forced abdication of President Biden from the ticket.

But then strange post-debate developments followed.

Either a Tiny or No Bounce?

Harris did not receive the anticipated large bounce.

In fact, the polls still remain mostly even. She may have arrested Trump’s pre-debate surge a bit, but otherwise, a debate that polled so heavily in her favor oddly still seems to have made little difference in the still up-for-grabs race.

Stranger still, Harris, the supposedly clear winner, almost immediately asked for another debate. Her handlers suggested that this demand displayed newfound confidence from her win—as if an assured, second knockout debate would ensure her permanent pull away.

But Trump and others countered that it might have instead indicated the very opposite: that her pre-debate internal polls had shown the race was even or even had Trump leading and thus she still needed a second shot at derailing him, given her own team was not sure her single and transitory debate favorability would translate into any real lead.

The Debate Reset

Then in a day or two, other and far more significant realities emerged, resetting the debate—like a first date’s favorable first impression beginning to sour a day later upon further reflection.

As the debate clips were endlessly replayed on television, radio, and the blogosphere over the ensuing week, few, if any, favorable Harris soundbites popped up.

Harris, remember, was a veritable political unknown who was running a stealth campaign of media avoidance and running out the clock.

She had never really answered any questions addressed to her in the campaign. And in the debate, she presented her nothingness in confident fashion. But she ignored and snubbed both the toadish moderators and Trump at every turn.

Yet the public had tuned in only to receive just three answers from her that she had never previously offered them since her July anointment:

1) Why are you flipping—temporarily or permanently?—on almost every issue from your past positions?

2) If you are the candidate of change, why did you and President Biden as incumbents not make these changes the last three years—or at least promise now to make them in the next four months of your remaining tenures?

3) And what exactly will be your policies as president and the details of their proposed implementation?

Every time these questions in the debate were either stumbled upon by the moderators or demanded by Trump, Harris evaded by plugging in her memorized, smiley, and stonewalling non-answers.

Even leftist media outlets could not find video clips that would show a dominant Harris mastering any of these questions.

Furthermore, in the recycled visuals of the campaign, when Trump blustered and ranted, viewers now noticed that Harris had deliberately turned to him in scripted posturing. She pantomimed as if she were prepped by Hollywood actors—not just on memorizing canned trivialities but also giving fake moves and poses.

At times, Harris was a Rodin-like “Thinker,” looking contemplative with a strutting chin and propping it up with a closed hand. At times, with a wink-and-nod, she privately communicated to the audience their supposedly shared exasperation at her outrageous opponent. And at times she rolled her eyes, batted her eyelids, raised her eyebrows, and lip-synched her cynical disdain to 67 million viewers.

The net result?

The longer the debate was discussed, the more the far larger audience who had not watched the debate heard about it from friends or saw regurgitated media takes, so all the more the public came away thinking Harris was certainly slick and smooth, but otherwise empty, shallow, and smug.

And the more they saw clips of the scowling, snarling, and raving Trump, all the more they heard him blast an unresponsive Harris for the border, crime, the economy, and foreign policy—precisely the issues about which she was now failing to offer any of studied expertise.

The result was Trump, albeit in sometimes obnoxious fashion, reassured the country he could repeat what he did in 2017-21, while Harris confidently and professionally offered them little but sugary bios and platitudes.

Post Debate Meltdowns

After the debate, a now cocky Harris forgot her directions and thus only confirmed her pre-debate no-no’s. So, at a post-debate rally, the recidivist Harris reverted to what her handlers had told her was taboo: cackling and word salads.

In her first solo media interview in over 50 days with a preselected, left-wing local Philadelphia TV anchorman, Brian Taff, Harris actually plugged in her exact memorized debate riffs from a few nights earlier—even when they had nothing to do with the questions Taff asked.

When Harris realized that she could not answer a single one of his questions in the brief 10-minute softball interview, then, in deer-in-the-headlights fashion, she simply smiled, hand gestured, giggled, and sought refuge in her accustomed platitudes and circularities.

The net result was again reminding viewers of her debate inanity a few days earlier.

Yes, Harris has a good memory to recite prepped banalities and to bait and smear opponents while keeping cool with the help of moderators.

But otherwise, she shows no ability to think or speak on her feet—and zero knowledge of the key challenges facing any president.

The Immoderators

It was bad enough that the moderators intervened in the debate—and only on one side—to fact-check. But their fact-checks on at least three of their five occasions themselves needed to be fact-checked for mistakes, especially as the post-debate furor rose.

Moderator Linsey Davis went after Trump for his accurate claim that partial-birth abortions and the killing of a baby as it leaves the birth canal were legal.

Or as Ms. Fact-Checker arrogantly put it, “There is no state where it is legal in this country to kill a baby after it’s born.” That was not true.

At least six states make no restrictions of any kind on abortion, and thus, admittedly, on rare occasions, infants can be terminated who leave the birth canal.

Protection to ensure that such deaths never happen was vetoed by Democrats in Congress. Worse still, Harris’s own running mate Tim Walz as governor stopped Minnesota state legislation that would have outlawed the killing of an infant delivered viable and alive during or after an abortion procedure.

The moderators also fact-checked Trump’s assertion that crime was higher under Biden Harris than during his tenure and his allegation that many large cities do not fully or timely report crime statistics to federal tabulators.

Yet Trump was right on both counts. And only days later, the nation was reminded of just that when the Biden-Harris Department of Justice released recent crime statistics showing crime is still elevated—and still quite higher than when Biden-Harris took office.

The post-debate outrage further increased. It was further remembered that the two fact-checkers sat mum while Harris spun her own whoppers: that no military personnel were posted abroad in combat zones (just ask those often attacked in bases in Syria and Iraq, in Africa, or on patrol in the Red Sea).

And the two partisans kept silent when Harris repeated the long-ago fact-checked lies about Charlotteville, “bloodbath,” Project 2025, and Trump’s supposed support for a federal abortion ban.

Journalists after the debate tried to rescue Harris by jumping on Trump for other supposed lies, such as alleging Harris had supported government-provided transgendered conversion treatments for illegal aliens and prisoners. But then, post-debate, Harris’s own prior written endorsements for just that appeared.

While Harris’s campaign and liberal influencers were claiming that the moderators were not fact-checkers, one of the two, Linsey Davis, admitted she was not only a proud fact-checker, but along with her co-moderator David Muir had become one.

The reason was because of ABC’s desire to not let Trump supposedly promulgate falsehoods as he had in Joe Biden’s disastrous and career-ending June debate.

ABC apparently felt the earlier CNN moderators on that occasion were seen as too neutral and that being disinterested was a bad thing. Instead, in the Muir/Davis warped view, Biden lost that debate not because of his visible dementia but supposedly due to Trump’s exaggerations (which Biden himself matched if not exceeded).

In other words, Davis inadvertently admitted that after Democratic nominee Biden had crashed his career in a debate with Trump, ABC would now correct CNN’s supposed laxity in being too disinterested.

So, ABC’s moderators would become actively involved in the debate—and did so as the debate postmortem showed in clear partisan fashion.

Translated? One could take the Davis confession to mean the Democratic-Media fusion lost one debate by playing by traditional debate rules of moderator non-interference—and learned from that loss never to be so fair again.

Debate Incest?

The post-debate detritus mounted.

Senior Disney executive Dana Walden—who helps oversee ABC—is known as one of Harris’s “extraordinary friends” and, as reported, has been for at least 30 years. Their respective husbands have been close pals for even longer. Walden has been a steady contributor to Harris’s state and federal campaigns for over twenty years.

And it was disclosed that Harris and moderator Davis were national sorority sisters, a connection that sounded terrible, but after a fair debate, no one would have known what to make of it.

So, in normal times, no one would have noticed these conflicts of interest. After all, in the incestuous corporate/politics/media ecosystem of the bicoastal left, everyone either went to school, knows, does business with and profits from, dates, or is married to everyone else.

But given the clear bias of ABC in the post-debate environment, these relationships only further tainted the debate’s credibility.

Prairie-fire Madness

As the embarrassments of Harris’s debate and her post-debate evasions became better known, the moderators’ bias more fully exposed, the incest of ABC aired, and the lack of a debate “victory” bounce acknowledged, the irate right-wing blogosphere struck back.

On the rationale that if the left-wing network had “rigged” the debate and the moderators tipped the scales, then it too would reply in like kind. The result was a barrage of post-debate rumors, conspiracies, and false revelations—the discredited fact-checkers be damned.

Within days, fables floated by bloggers and often Trump himself that Harris was wearing high-tech receiver-earrings to facilitate stealthy prompts and directions from her off-stage handlers. Other rumors spread that her calmness was only a symptom that she had been given the debate questions in advance, or so an anonymous source claimed. Trump and his supporters then insisted that he was widely recognized by the public as the “winner” of the debate.

No evidence has yet emerged to prove any of these allegations.

Harris was likely wearing earrings that only remotely looked like a brand that doubles as a receiver.

There is no proof, at least yet from ABC or the Harris campaign, that Harris, in Donna Brazile/Hillary Clinton/CNN fashion of old, had received either the topics or the general outlines of the debate questions in advance.

And the polls uniformly really did show that Trump was felt by the public to have lost the debate—even though Harris had not really profited much from it.

But what was missed by the left’s outrage over the swirling rumors of conspiracies was that its own behavior had seeded such hysterias.

When moderators are not just biased but proudly explain why they are biased, and when such favoritism does demonstrably warp a presidential debate, then those on their receiving end naturally fire back with conspiracies of their own.

An interesting question arises over which is worse: the founded and proven conspiracy of the moderators in undisclosed but preplanned determination to hammer only Trump, or the frenzied reaction to believe fables consistent with the demonstrable bias of ABC and its moderators’ intention to warp the debate?

The Way Not Forward?

What is the result of this debate mess?

No sane conservative will or should ever do another national debate on any ABC venue.

If they were wise, Republicans should never agree to any televised debate moderated by ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR, or CNN again, given the history of liberal moderator bias. The names of Donna Brazile, Candy Crowley, David Muir, and Linsey Davis should serve as sufficient warnings.

If the presidential candidates still insist on debating their opponents, they then should agree only to the classical rules of debating—and with only mute timekeepers present instead of loud-mouth, egocentricmoderators in the following fashion:

An opening 5-minute statement;

A 3-minute rebuttal of opponent’s similar statement;

A 2-minute rebuttal of the rebuttal;

All to be repeated over eight or nine topics in a 90-minute debate, with mouth-shut timekeepers keeping each candidate within his time limits.

So, no more of these televised travesties, even when, as in this case, they boomerang on their fixers.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/16/an-anatomy-of-the-post-debate-detritus/