Sunday, September 22, 2024

The Great Walz of China: An Innocent Abroad Or…?


It is imperative for Americans to get answers as to how much of a role communist China played—and may continue to play—in building up “The Great Walz of China.”


If you blinked, you might have missed it—which is just what the collusion media and the left wanted.

Earlier this month, the Empire State had a spy scandal. The alleged perpetrator Linda Sun is a now-former aide to both New York Governors Andrew Cuomo and his successor Kathy Hochul. She was arrested and indicted for being an unregistered agent for the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Also arrested was her husband, Christopher Hu.

Ms. Sun is alleged to have used her government position to advance the interests of communist China by deepening ties between the regime and the New York state government; and revising official statements to portray the PRC in a more favorable light. On his part, Mr. Hu is alleged to have used his PRC-based to abet the “transfer of millions of dollars in kickbacks for personal gain.”

As Michael Cunningham, a research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, observed in the Daily Signal:

Hochul reportedly terminated Sun and alerted law enforcement immediately after learning of her misconduct but a CCP [Chinese Communist Party] agent should never have gained access to New York’s Executive Chamber in the first place… And the problem isn’t unique to New York. Most state governments are likely unaware of how aggressively Beijing targets them… This is partly because Beijing sees state and local governments as potential backdoors into a U.S. political system that is harder to infiltrate directly.

Indeed, they are not unique to the Empire State; and the means the PRC utilizes to acquire “assets” who will knowingly and/or unwittingly promote their interests are time-tested, in every sense of the term. Per Mr. Cunningham: “Beijing’s agents seek to cultivate assets at all levels, and they start targeting people early in their careers when they have little reason to suspect they are on a foreign adversary’s radar.”

Why would the collusion media desperately want to shove the New York-PRC spy scandal down the memory hole? Isn’t this the same media that in league with the Democrats and the administrative state spent years spreading the abject Russia-gate lie that Donald Trump “colluded” with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election?

The question is rhetorical, of course, because one obvious candidate for a closer examination of their ties to communist China is Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz, who also happens to be the Democrat candidate for Vice President of the United States.

As outlets like the Washington Free Beacon and Breitbart report, Walz makes no bones about his coziness with the genocidal communist regime that has declared unrestricted warfare upon the United States.

Be it his recently discovered (in the Nebraska Alliance Times-Herald) 1991 teaching lesson that in communist China “everyone is the same and everyone shares” to his more recent remark how “one person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness,” Walz possesses a self-professed “fascination” for the regime.

It began during the (then) 25-year-old National Guardsman’s first trip to the PRC for a year-long teaching fellowship. It was a heady year for Walz. As reported by the Free Beacon (via the original 1994 article in the Nebraska Star-Herald), Walz “said he was paid more than other teachers, given a nicer apartment, and spoiled with presents. ‘They gave me more gifts than I could bring home. It was an excellent experience.’”

Little wonder Walz said the PRC treated him “like a king;” and, as he gushed to the Times-Herald upon his return to the U.S., that “no matter how long I live, I’ll never be treated that well again.”

Why any American would admire communist China can usually be boiled down to a matter of ideology, greed, or both. The far more intriguing query is why the Chinese Communist Party targeted Walz for such regal treatment.

Peering into the PRC’s blood-soaked history, we glean a possible reason. Borrowing from the Bolshevik-Soviet example, even before attaining power the CCP understood the need for “united front work” both inside and outside the PRC. The goal was to have ideologically and otherwise “friendly” individuals and organizations serve to advance CCP narratives, interests, and influence. While these individuals and organizations would have varying degrees of association with the CCP and, later, the PRC, in no instance did the party want them to be seen as being directed by the regime. Importantly, this does not necessarily mean the individuals were or are spies for the CCP. They may merely be useful idiots unwittingly serving as assets to and advancing the interests of the regime. Nonetheless, in any event, and to differing extents, communist China has compromised these individuals.

Despicably but not surprisingly, in the wake of the murderous communist regimes of students in Tiananmen Square, the CCP sought to intensify its “united front work” both internally and internationally.

Walz first trekked to the PRC mere months after the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Walz and wife Gwen married on the fifth commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre. His wife, Gwen, opines how Walz “wanted to have a date he’ll always remember.” The couple honeymooned in the PRC.

Walz nor his wife did not say whether they were treated like royalty; but the communist regime did facilitate their starting “a travel company, Educational Travel Adventures Inc., which specialized in trips to China,” per the Free Beacon. “He began bringing students over to China with him in 1993, using his ties to CCP diplomats to secure funding from the Chinese government to do so.” [Per Breitbart.]

Walz’s love affair with the PRC continues unabated to this day.

Thus, at the very time the CCP spy scandal in the New York Governor’s office erupted; and mere months after Director Christopher Ray testified to Congressthat the FBI opens a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours, a trio of fundamental questions arise for both our intelligence community and Vice President Harris, specifically:

First, is Gov. Walz’s relationship with the PRC news to you?

Two: If you knew, did you do your due diligence regarding Gov. Walz’s ties to the PRC?

Three: If so, will the Harris campaign release its non-classified findings to the public?

This is not partisan sniping. For, much as is the case with our intelligence community’s competence, it bears directly upon Vice President Harris’s ability to protect our national security as commander-in-chief. She chose Walz to potentially be “a heartbeat away” from the presidency. She did so despite all the information about ties between Walz and the PRC which are now publicly emerging. The American people deserve to know why.

As Mr. Cunningham cautions in his conclusion: “Continued failure to increase scrutiny of key personnel doesn’t only pose risks for the states and their leadership, it also threatens national security.” In consequence, it is imperative for Americans to get answers as to how much of a role communist China played—and may continue to play—in building up “The Great Walz of China.”



X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 22

 




Trump Assassins: Off-the-Books Assets?


Prior to their respective assassination attempts targeting Trump, Ryan Routh and Thomas Crooks had extraordinary proximity to U.S. Intelligence, demonstrated foreknowledge of Trump’s schedule and security, and acquired skills that intelligence agencies have a history of sharing with assets. 

Routh and Crooks had forehand knowledge of security, other federal intelligence

Routh staked out Trump’s golf club for twelve hours, lying in wait behind bushes to ambush him during an unscheduled game of golf.  Unfamiliar with the locale, Routh managed to give security the slip, bringing an AK-47-style rifle onto Trump’s golf course.  Routh managed to give a U.S. Secret Service agent the slip again after being fired upon, losing his pursuer despite initially being only ten feet away from the agent (whose gunfire somehow missed Routh), escaping in his vehicle only to be caught later thanks to a witness who snapped a picture of his license plate.  For the second time, it was not the Secret Service, but locals who caught the gunman.

Crooks’s plan also suggests that he was tipped off, specifically regarding the AGR building he would make his sniper nest.  Cell phone data put Crooks near the Butler fairgrounds on July 7 for 20 minutes — likely recon on AGR.  Crooks scoped out AGR for 70 minutes on July 13 at 11 A.M.  He went home to buy a ladder and ammunition and to retrieve his gun.  Crooks returned at 3:45 to the AGR building, carrying the ladder receipt in his pocket but lacking the ladder.  Crooks clearly planned to scale the roof with the ladder, but the fact that he left it suggests that he had learned the local snipers’ positions at AGR and would have no trouble secretly scaling the roof using an unguarded roof access point. 

Another slice of security Swiss cheese serendipitously set up for Crooks was surveillance.  After returning to AGR, Crooks flew a surveillance drone at 3:51 P.M., overlapping the USSS scheduled deployment of a “counter unmanned aerial system operator” at 3 P.M.  Crooks would have been immediately caught, but the system did not go operational until 5:20 P.M. due to “cellular bandwidth problems” — problems not experienced by Crooks. 

USSS was told that local officials were leaving their posts to look for Crooks, but it is unclear if they specifically knew when Butler ESU left AGR 6 overwatchfrom their second-story window.  Crooks timed his move to rooftop AGR 6 perfectly to avoid Butler ESU.  It is still unknown if anyone ordered Butler ESU to leave their post to look for Crooks.  Was this information passed to Crooks?

Crooks knew from the start where to position himself, but how?  He was on the eastern side of AGR 6, lying prone and out of view from Hercules 1 and 2 thanks to a tree and the sloped roof.  Had local officers not flushed him westward from behind a tree, Hercules 1 would not have had a shot.

Crooks’s plan depended on a flawed USSS threat protocol, which failed to designate him as an active threat until seen with a weapon.  Carrying an unassembled weapon hidden in a large backpack, Crooks openly traversed rooftops on AGR 6 and 7, traveling west to east in full view of Hercules snipers, President Trump, and even audience members.  He ran to his position out of sight and assembled the gun from his backpack.  How did Crooks learn and take advantage of this threat protocol?

Routh and Crooks were previously known to federal officials

Illegally in possession of a firearm as a felon, Routh was reported to the FBI in 2019, but he skated after the FBI failed to follow up on the lead.  Following a failed business venture in Hawaii, a penniless Routh went to Ukraine to recruit for the foreign legion, cutting a swath of infamy through the war zone.  He was reported to the State Department for human-trafficking.  He was reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for threatening violence.  He was banned from various aid groups, who reported him to the FBI and Interpol for trying to recruit Syrian refugees.  He even gave an interview to the NYT in 2023 detailing trafficking Afghan fighters to the Ukraine.  Veteran FBI agent Jeff Danik, an expert in counter-terrorism, told reporters Routh’s devices were likely compromised by U.S. Intelligence. 

Routh and Crooks both had intricate knowledge of identical bomb-making processes.  Although FBI director Christopher Wray denies having Crooks in the FBI’s databases, Crooks managed to make three homemade bombs within a week of the Butler rally being announced.  Bomb construction, specifically “pipe bombs,” is a ring-fenced subject in America whose research will instantly put one on federal radar.  According to a stealth edited article from CNN, officials say Crooks had searches going back to 2019 on bomb construction, specifically “blasting cap” and “detonating cord.”  In 2002, Routh was arrested for possessing a weapon of mass destruction: a “binary explosive with a 10-in[ch] detonation cord and a blasting cap.”

Crooks’s bombs, essentially pipe bombs, were capable of remote-control detonation using parts bought from China, but there is no evidence that the parts were ordered by Crooks.  Investigators and reporters have contacted the supplier, and Crooks was not a customer

Were these remote-control pipe bombs really made by Crooks?  Did he have help?  Did he really make these searches, or were they artificially added to answer why he had them?  Readers may recall the Governor Whitmer kidnapping hoax, where a phony militia group was infiltrated by federal officials and taught how to make pipe bombs by an FBI explosives expert.  Readers may also recall the January 6, 2020 story where suspicious “pipe bombs” were found and blamed on Trump-supporters.  Video later showed the USSS being notified of the “bombs,” leisurely standing within feet of the “bombs,” and even leading a group of children across the street toward and within feet of the “bombs.”

Routh and Crooks recruited by Intelligence?

Given Routh’s Ukrainian activities and money troubles, he would have been an easy recruit as an informant for U.S. Intelligence.  Intelligence assets such as informants rarely face justice for illegal activities ancillary to their order, which explains Routh’s cavalier behavior overseas.  Is there anyone else who could admit to human-trafficking to the NYT and be reported so many times, with nothing being done about it?  How likely is it that a man with no combat experience or resources slipped through security to nearly assassinate Trump?

There is evidence that Crooks may have been an off-the-books asset as well.  Crooks intensely prepared for the assassination attempt at the Clairton Gun Club, first joining in August 2023.  He visited the range 43 times, including on Christmas, Valentine’s Day, and Halloween.  He went to the range three to six times each month in 2024, almost exclusively training with rifles.  These are not activities of a hobbyist who didn’t hunt or join his school’s rifle club.  DHS officials frequently trained at Clairton, rubbing elbows with him.  Two months before the assassination attempt, Crooks was at the range within 24 hours of a DHS training session. 

Does the reader find U.S. Intelligence wetworks operations unbelievable?  The 2015 Garland, Texas shooting was triggered after an FBI agent told a terror cell to “Tear up Texas.” 



Privatize Federal Lands

Privatize Federal Lands

blm

Land in its natural state is not owned by anyone, argued John Locke in Two Treatises of Government, but after land is transformed by an individual’s labor, that person earns a right to own the land and any improvements. In the mid-1800s, the U.S. government put Locke’s property-rights theory into practice with the Homestead Act. Russia replicated the act in recent years. Today, America needs a modern version to create new opportunities. Encouragingly, both major political parties call for opening more federal land for housing construction.

The U.S. Homestead Act of 1862

The Homestead Act of 1862, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, offered American citizens the opportunity to settle undeveloped, surveyed federal land. If a homesteader settled, improved, cultivated, and lived on a plot of land (of up to 160 acres) for five years continuously, the land became theirs, with payment of nominal government fees. A homesteader had to be the head of a household or at least 21 years of age. The Act incentivized westward expansion and development, ultimately transferring 270 million acres, or 27 percent of public land, to 1.6 million homesteaders, a land area about the size of California and Texas combined.

Westward expansion, however, came with a cost. Life on the frontier was often difficult, involving disease, pests, droughts, wildfires, isolation, lack of machinery, supplies, markets, and land poorly suited for farming. Malnutrition, suffering, starvation, and death were the fate of many. Historian Fred Shannon reported that two-thirds of homesteaders before 1890 never acquired title to the land, so “for them, the suffering was for naught.”

The Act also fueled conflicts and violence between Native American tribes (especially the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho) and settlers, sometimes assisted by the U.S. Army. “To settlers, immigrants, and homesteaders, the West was empty land. To Native Americans, it was home,” noted the National Park Service. Rival settlers, bandits, and, occasionally, cattlemen also presented threats.

The race for property rights under the Homestead Act incentivized individuals to migrate to land before it was economically viable in order to claim property before others. Instead of paying for land outright in cash, settlers paid in the “expenditure of effort, capital, and hardship on premature homesteading,” argued economist Richard Stroup. The more optimistic the settler, the more resources that were dissipated through misery and premature settlement.

The Homestead Act had several defects, including the requirement that homesteaders cultivate their land, which limited alternative uses of human capital, financial capital, and land that might have yielded superior returns. Also, in most cases, homesteaders had to toil five years to acquire title to their land, which prevented (1) the immediate bundling of land into optimal-sized tracts for specific activities, such as grazing; (2) the immediate resale of land to those who could use it most productively; and (3) immediately claiming title but waiting to settle the land until farming was profitable in the area.

While imperfect, the Homestead Act embodied the ideal that unimproved land belongs to those who first use it productively. People should be allowed to “make a go of it” on undeveloped land, even if they ultimately fail. On the House floor in 1851, land reformer and Indiana congressman George W. Julian said that homesteading is “the natural right of man, as man, to a home upon the soil, and of course to the fruits of his own labor.”

The Homestead Act continued until 1976, except in Alaska where homesteading existed until 1986. Most transfers of public land to private citizens, however, occurred before the 1940s. In 2016, Russia enacted its own homesteading law and experienced similar hardships.

The Russia Homestead Act of 2016

In 2016, Russia President Vladimir Putin signed the Far Eastern Hectare Law, which gives Russians and foreigners who are naturalized citizens the opportunity to receive 1 hectare (2.5 acres) of land in the Far East if they settle on and develop land currently controlled by the Russian federal government.

The Russian government allocated more than 500 million acres of land to the program. Participants are free to choose the location of their plot from within this area, but they must apply for, and receive, a permit after identifying their preferred location. To acquire title, homesteaders must live on and work the land for five years, just like the American 1862 Act.

Russia’s homestead law aims to encourage population growth and economic development in the Far East. By fall 2023, more than 87,000 families had made initial claims to land, and 23,000 people had become landowners. Assuming that all 23,000 people received 2.5 acres each, then ownership of nearly 58,000 acres of land was transferred from the Russian government to private citizens, or about double the size of San Francisco.

Since the passage of the Far East homesteading law, similar programs have been adopted elsewhere in Russia. Progress in the Far East has been slow, with few people taking advantage of homesteading. The remoteness and lack of infrastructure were cited as key challenges at the 2021 Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

Moreover, the vast majority of Russia’s population lives in the western portion of the country. It is unlikely that people from Moscow or Saint Petersburg want to relocate to the Far East and adopt an agrarian lifestyle. Also, the New York Times reported in 2020 that many Russian “homesteaders” are actually people who want to build vacation homes.

Despite early challenges and limited uptake, homesteading in Russia offers people the opportunity to pursue their dreams and achieve greater independence through transferring underutilized government land to private individuals. Similarly, America has an abundance of land controlled by the federal government that should be transferred to private citizens, which would help ease the housing crisis, encourage business startups, and improve land management including wildfire prevention, among other benefits.

Federal Land in the United States

The federal government “owns” 640 million acres of land, or 28 percent of the nation’s 2.27 billion acres, according to a 2020 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The federal government owns 80 percent of Nevada, the highest percentage of any state. Alaska has the most federally owned land by total acres at 365 million acres or 57 percent of the federal government’s total holdings.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 244 million acres of federal land used primarily for livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and resource extraction. The U.S. Forest Service (FS) owns 193 million acres of national forests. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has 89 million acres for the conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife protection.

The National Park Service (NPS) manages 80 million acres of national parks, monuments, historic sites, and recreation areas. The Department of Defense (DOD) has 9 million acres used primarily for military bases and testing sites. The remaining acreage is spread across various federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service. (The CRS report contains two helpful maps that show federal land holdings.)

While it is unlikely that the federal government will offer NPS, DOD, or most FWS land for private ownership, vast portions of BLM and FS land are unpopulated and undeveloped, except for ranchers who use about 35 percent of public land for grazing. BLM and FS lands, therefore, are prime candidates for potential transfers to private owners—437 million acres or 68 percent of federal holdings.

Economists have proposed various methods for transferring federal land to private citizens. President Joe Biden’s approach is perhaps the worst.

Transferring U.S. Federal Land to Private Citizens: Different Approaches

In July 2024, Biden called on federal agencies to “assess surplus federal land that can be repurposed to build more affordable housing across the country,” but he did not name any specific projects. The BLM has announced plans to sell 20 acres of public land to Clark County, Nevada, to build about 150 affordable homes. The agency will also sell 18 acres to the City of Henderson, Nevada, to build 300 rental housing units. The BLM is considering another 563 acres to build 15,000 units of affordable housing in the Las Vegas Valley, but again no specifics have been announced.

Biden correctly recognizes the need to sell federal land, but his sales are a drop in the bucket compared to what would be needed to lower housing prices. Restricting sales to “affordable housing” projects is unnecessary. And the sweetheart sales to local governments raise doubts about Biden’s commitment to greater land and home ownership among private citizens.

Another approach to transferring federal land to private citizens could involve adopting a “modernized” version of the 1862 Homestead Act. Now, however, it would apply to large swaths of BLM and FS land across the entire country, not just in the West. The cultivation requirement and the five-year period before receiving title would be eliminated, as bothcaused wasteful distortions. Entrepreneurs who want to start businesses could participate. And, the socially wasteful mad-dash model would be replaced with an orderly online system.

Thanks to infrastructure investments and technological advancements, locations that were nearly impossible to homestead in the 1800s might now offer better opportunities for success. Companies such as Amazon, Zipline, and Starlink now bring goods and services, along with online work opportunities, to remote locations. Zipline is the world’s largest drone delivery company, and Starlink provides satellite-based internet service to 80 countries with plans to also provide global mobile broadband. And despite the conventional wisdom that all federal land is in “the boonies,” today much of it is near thriving towns, and even some cities, with supportive infrastructure.

Finally, land transfers could involve auctioning plots of BLM and FS land to private individuals. Land titles could be resold and/or bundled immediately, or at any future time, to achieve optimal scale for certain operations. Nobel laureate economist Vernon Smith has also proposed a random allocation, or a universal allocation, of tradable “share certificates.” Either way, a title market (especially without a five-year waiting period) would eliminate the worst of the socially wasteful “rent dissipation” that occurred under the 1862 Act. Taking a cue from President Andrew Jackson, government revenue from land sales should be used to pay down the national debt.

Only individuals with the skillsets needed to productively work a specific plot of land would bid real money for plots or certificates. Either the modernized model or the auction/trade model is preferable to Biden’s paltry, exclusionary approach.

Land values account for about half of the market price of homes, up from 32 percent in 1984. Thus, the opportunity to settle new places, even locations that many people view as unattractive, should not be denied to tenacious and creative people in search of land for a home. Since local opposition has been the biggest obstacle to new home construction, transferring unused federal land in less populated areas to private citizens at a large scale could help jumpstart housing development across the country.


🎭 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. 


The MSM Will Beat You to Your Knees, and Keep You There, Permanently, If You Let It


posted by Adam Turner at RedState 

Let’s talk about my friend, Cameron. Cameron isn’t his real name. I call him Cameron, after the character from "Ferris Bueller’s Day Off." You know, this guy. Cameron is a good, conservative Republican. However, he is quite convinced that Donald Trump is DOOMED, DOOMED. And the rest of the GOP? They are DOOMED as well. Why? Because the MSM constantly and relentlessly tells him this is so.  

All of us know Republicans like Cameron.

Cameron does not care for my optimism, however grounded in fact it is. As all 10 of my regular readers know, I believe that Donald Trump has the inside track to winning the 2024 election. I believe this, not because I am a constant Republican booster, or a believer that Trump is some sort of a perfect, godlike candidate. Instead, I know this because I understand politics, have both experience and education on the topic, know lots of (sometimes semi-useful) political historical facts, and have been trying to objectively assess Presidential races since 1988.  

To sum up my case, first, l look at the RCP average – today, it has Kamala Harris up 1.9 percentage points. Second, I look at President Joe Biden’s job approval rating – still stuck in the low 40’s. Third, I pay attention to the state of the nation. As I have said, again and again, the economy is bad, especially inflation; the border is open and it has led to increasing crime; and the weakness of the Biden administration in foreign policy has resulted in chaos throughout the world, and has also led to antisemitic rioting in the U.S. None of this is a positive for the sitting vice president’s campaign. 

Fourth, I recognize that Kamala Harris, like Donald Trump, is a flawed candidate. She is very left-wing on the issues, and sort of an empty suit.  (Her ties to Biden, her left-wing record, and her status as an empty suit are why I suggested the Democrats choose Governor Newsom or another Democrat instead of her.)  And we can see that her response to her left-wing record and lack of gravitas has been to (supposedly) repudiate her prior record, and to avoid interviews, where she might be confronted about that record. (This has been noticed by the public.)

Fifth, I remember recent political history about Trump, and I account for it, in my calculations. In 2016, and 2020, Donald Trump ran for President. Trump won the first race, but lost the second. But both times, the polling heavily underestimated him. Here is a handy chart, I created from this document:


Actual Results – Democrat Edge

Final Democrat average polling edge – Nate Silver 

Miss

Final Democrat average polling edge - RCP

Miss

2016 Race

2.1%

3.9%

1.8%

3.2%

1.1%

2020 Race

4.5%

8.4%

3.9%

7.2%

2.7%


Based on what happened twice before, I assume a) that the RCP average is far more useful than Nate Silver’s average (so, can people stop obsessing about this hairless wonder?); and b) that in 2024, Trump will still be underestimated by some amount in the RCP.  

Now, some observers claim that the pollsters have taken into account their error from the two earlier races, and are now producing polling results error-free. But there is no real evidence of this, and it is also strongly against human nature for us to believe that they have done so. After all, how credible is it that Democrat-leaning pollsters, who in most cases, absolutely hate Donald Trump – they believe their Party’s propaganda – would ever do anything that might not assist their own party, and ever give the Trump Devil any bragging rights?

In fact, I believe the polling itself demonstrates this bias. There are essentially two groupings of polls in the RCP.  On the one hand is Atlas, Marist, Rasmussen, and Siena, etc., which show the race in a statistical dead heat. On the other hand, there are ABC News, Data for Progress, Morning Consult, etc., which show Harris ahead by quite a bit. These two groupings can’t both be right. Luckily, RCP offers the ability to compare track records, which shows that the former group has a better polling record. And which means the race is very close in the national polling.

This also makes more sense, logically, since the economy and other issues are so bad, and Trump does have an excellent record to run on in comparison to Harris’. So, I believe it is very likely that by including the latter group in its polling average, the RCP average will again produce some underestimation of Trump’s support.   

Sixth, I remember that in both 2016 and 2020, Trump had a large electoral advantage, because he ran stronger in the battleground states than he did in the nation at large. In 2020, he lost the popular vote by a 51 percent to 47 percent (4-point) margin, but only barely lost the states in the electoral college. Specifically, Trump very narrowly lost AZ, GA, MI, PA, and WI. For this reason, I frequently state that Harris needs to be at least 3 percentage points up in the RCP average to have a good chance to win the electoral college. And indeed, when we look at the RCP averages for the states, we find that Trump does perform better in the battleground states than he does in the nation as a whole.  

All this means that I strongly believe that Donald Trump has the heavy edge in the 2024 presidential race.

Cameron doesn’t like my logic, or my argument. He complains that Trump is undisciplined. (Very true, but priced in at this point.) He thought that the constant lawfare against Trump would greatly harm him. (It didn’t.) He thinks that the Trump campaign advertisements are not effective. (There is very little evidence of that. I have seen the Pennsylvania ads, and they attack Harris by tying her to Biden’s record, and bash her for her left-wing positions and embarrassing public statements.) He thinks Trump lost the (likely) sole debate. (I disagree – see my column.)  

But when we debate, it quickly becomes clear that Cameron’s depression, leading to panic, is largely because he is too focused on listening to the conventional wisdom (CW) that is propounded by the mainstream media (MSM). This CW is always Democrat-favoring. For example, the MSM pushes certain polls over others. Rasmussen and Trafalgar are often discredited as “Republican biased,” while ABC News, Morning Consult, and Quinnipiac are depicted as totally objective. Meanwhile, Quinnipiac has Harris up 5 in Pennsylvania, a result simply not credible based on other polling, and based on statements made by the political professionals in both parties.  

The MSM always wants the CW to reflect the idea that the Democrats are ahead, or – at the very least – extremely competitive, regardless of the truth of the matter. So, they provide people with plenty of “fake news” that might inspire hope with many Democrats and despair with many Republicans. And if a Republican is not knowledgeable about the true facts, and the MSM propaganda disguised as CW, they might begin to despair, or even panic. And if they panic, this could cause that Republican to counsel quick changes to the Trump campaign strategy and tactics, which could lead to strategic and tactical mistakes.

Like Cameron counsels now.  

I think it is important to objectively focus on the real facts, and be cognizant of the biased “fake news” coming from the other side. In other words, don’t be like Cameron. 



Alinsky and Lawfare in 2024 Election


Andrew Breitbart was well known in the grassroots Tea Party movement for his ability to turn Alinsky psychological weapons against those who deployed them. In fact, the gift that Breitbart carried was not Andrew’s snarky counter approach toward the Obama teams tactics, but rather his ability to understand the purpose of their approach. This naturally gifted insight always made Andrew a threat.

Well before the Obama Marxists fully activated their weaponized government, Breitbart saw the Alinsky “methods” for what they were, the same tactics deployed by professional abusers. He knew we were headed into an era where “We the People” were in an abusive relationship with government.

In essence, Andrew Breitbart understood that if this tribe of Chicago Marxists were successful in the constructs of the government they envisioned, they would manipulate American politics in much the same manner that an abuser would intimidate, threaten and eventually control their victims. Better yet, Breitbart inherently knew how to defeat them and their predictable gaslighting.

The abuser punches you in the face, intending total control and manifest domination. If you stand up against the abuse, your injuries are then positioned as your fault. When we hit back, our abuser immediately takes the victim role; and with the media spectators on the side of the abuser, the victim never stands a chance. Wash, rinse and repeat.

Breitbart took his counter-offensive skills into the field and when the community activists surfaced to promote their abusive agenda, Andrew immediately began calling attention to their intent. He used their own methods against them, ridiculing them, making them live up to their own message, making them uncomfortably small, speaking big truth to their lies in a very matter-of-fact deconstruction of their psychological nonsense. He was incredibly effective.

What we have witnessed in the past 18 years is exactly this rise of Chicago Marxists into positions of power. They spread throughout government embedding into every institution thanks to the open doors provided by Barack Obama, Eric Holder and a host of like-minded fellow travelers.

We are now fully emersed in an abusive relationship with the system of government institutions demanding and enforcing victim compliance. When an individual member of the people rise in opposition, the weaponized agencies of government use their power to target them quickly. The institutions now perpetuate the abusive process. Victims start feeling entirely powerless against the full weight of the abusers.

The Rise in opposition to a transparently sketchy 2020 election resulted in the January 6th protesters being quickly targeted, framed, prosecuted and used as a lesson to stop further uprisings. The power of the abuser is intended to control the fearfully abused, both physically and more importantly, psychologically.

In the Lawfare side, with full control of the DOJ and FBI the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” an 1871 federal law that bans political violence and intimidation, and the voting rights act of 1965, are now used as weapons to keep the abused American people in line. A current legal effort at a “consent decree” against both the RNC and Trump campaign is working its way through the courts:

CNN – […] First brought in the days following the 2020 election, the lawsuit has moved slowly through the federal courts in Washington, DC, as Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from civil lawsuits were being litigated. It coincidently has landed before US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge handling the federal election subversion charges against Trump.

But now, the case is beginning to show signs of movement.

The case could have enormous implications for this election and future ones: The voters are asking a federal judge to put Trump, his campaign and the Republican National Committee under court supervision that would require them to seek pre-approval before “engaging in any activities related to recounts, certifications, or similar post-election activities,” and to bar the defendants from intimidating voters, poll workers and other election officials.

If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, their victory could provide them with a significant deterrence against potential intimidation and harassment of election workers and voters from Republicans as Trump and his allies signal that they will again try to undermine the results of the election.

At the heart of the lawsuit are claims by Black voters in Michigan that the defendants worked together in 2020 to unlawfully disenfranchise them and other voters in “major metropolitan areas with large Black voter populations” through “disrupting vote counting efforts, lodging groundless challenges during recounts, and attempting to block certification of election results through intimidation and coercion of election officials and volunteers.” (read more)

The Klu Klux Klan act is also being used in a civil case in Texas against several defendants accused of threatening Kamala Harris and her campaign bus.   The jury is currently deliberating whether to award compensation to the plaintiffs.

DNC lawyer Marc Elias has been a key player in the use of weaponized lawfare practices to stop election integrity efforts.  Both wings of the professional political UniParty in DC support maintaining the status quo where election outcomes can easily be manipulated.  You do not see much opposition from Republicans in congress toward any election fraud, simply because they benefit from it.

In 1980 a generally unapproved candidate, Ronald Reagan, won the election.  In response, an apoplectic democrat apparatus feared institutional changes that would disrupt a longer-term plan.  The result was a legal challenge by the DNC and an eventual consent decree against the RNC forbidding them from challenging any election result.  Those limitations against the republican party lasted from 1982 until 2017.

Again, in 2016 a generally unapproved candidate, Donald Trump, wins the election.  The response, yet another legal challenge by activist democrats seeking yet another consent decree against the RNC and Trump campaign.  If successful, any challenge to the 2024 election would have to be approved by left-wing federal courts in Washington DC.

Seeding the proactive narrative, the New York Times recently said the results from the 2024 election could be delayed for days or weeks.  “For the second straight presidential election, it is becoming increasingly likely that there will be no clear and immediate winner on election night and that early returns could give a false impression of who will ultimately prevail.”  [link] If that sounds like a predictive position to assist fraud, it is.

This brings me to a point that many do not quite understand.  When you consider the potential for yet another consent decree limiting election challenges and contests, there is a benefit to various election integrity efforts NOT being connected directly to the RNC or Trump campaign.

Regardless of what happens in DC courts, all independent groups and election security efforts would not be covered by a consent decree against the Trump campaign and/or RNC.  There is a purpose and benefit to being independent and focused on precinct level integrity issues.  However, that approach does make organization difficult from the position of efficiency, tactical administration and cost.

We are hearing about a lot of ballot challenge success in advance of the 2024 election as various grassroots organizations work diligently through a process of reviewing voter rolls and challenging discoveries based on duplicate registrations, expired registrations and more significantly, fraudulent addresses.

It is very difficult, nearly impossible, to challenge a voter roll based on a name or identity of the voter.  But 1,000 registrations to an empty parking lot, vacant office building, Wal Mart or post office box are easier to identify, challenge and subsequently remove.   Voters just need to understand and accept the removal process is generally (depending on area) against the interests of the people responsible for maintaining fraudulent ballot printing opportunities on the voter rolls.

Intercepting fraudulently attributed ballots in advance of the opportunity for them to be printed, mailed and retrieved is a big way to stop ballot harvesting and scanning fraud.  Thousands of those ballots are being intercepted and eliminated daily, this is what is currently creating much of the anxiety amid the various Kamala Harris camps.  They are extremely dependent on these fraudulent voter rolls and ballots.

Do not let your heart be troubled with dark imaginings.  There are really good people, grassroots earnest people unaffiliated with the RNC or Trump campaign directly, working through a process to remove fraudulent ballot opportunities.   We are starting to hear a few ancillary stories about this effort, but there are many simultaneous challenges happening in a multitude of important regions – literally precinct by precinct, and within county offices for local supervisors of elections.

One of the biggest surprises to Satan this election cycle, has to be the unaffiliated organization and scale of this ballot integrity effort.  The leftists are facing an army of mosquitos draining their fraudulent ballot supply.  The radicals are now left swinging sledgehammer lawfare tools against quick moving mosquitos, and the Marxists are very unhappy about it.

Be of good cheer.

Resolve!