JD Vance’s Debate Performance Shows This Guy Is a Conservative Superstar

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

One thing is clear – after Tuesday, JD Vance is the Republican Taylor Swift, except he’s not mediocre, insufferable, or incapable of maintaining a long-term relationship. But does that matter for November? They say that vice presidential debates don’t mean anything and that’s usually true. Still, this one conclusively demonstrated that JD Vance is an outstanding speaker – calm, cool, capable, and in charge of the facts. Let’s be objective about his opponent. Tim Walz was not terrible. In some ways, he was effective. Vance did not totally destroy him, though he could have if he chose to. Walz was competent but overshadowed by a giant 20 years his junior.

Walz spewed Democrat talking points and did it while wearing his centrist suit. Except it is an ill-fitting suit. He’s no centrist. He’s a straight-up commie weirdo all on-board with the left’s bizarre, perverted agenda. He’s all in with the Democrat Party on everything from abortions up to puberty and trans idiocy to redistributing the wealth and confiscating the guns. But on Tuesday, he managed to present himself as innocuous, like an annoying neighbor you look out your door for before leaving to make sure he’s not in the yard so you don’t have to talk to him.

It’s now beyond any serious dispute that JD Vance was a terrific choice for vice president. He’s very smart and he’s adaptable. He knows how to connect with an audience. Sure, there were a hundred things I would’ve liked him to say to counter the arguments made by Walz and his two other opponents, the generic CBS crones who were moderating. They tried to get uppity, but their awkward fact checking failed. They behaved themselves after JD Vance cracked the whip and imposed his iron discipline upon them. Except for some passive aggressive catty comments, they pretty much behaved after that. It was a nice display of power. 

Clearly, JD Vance’s strategy was to be nice. He was gracious and friendly, and his barbs were only occasionally lacerating. It’s not that he couldn’t gut Walz. It’s that he chose not to, and it seems to me he did that to appeal to people who did not know him yet. You could tell because, at the beginning, he introduced himself to the audience, taking time out of his answer to a question to give a short bio. And he kept going back to his bio, maybe a little too often for our taste. Yes, we know you were born a poor hillbilly child. We got that; let’s move on. But he wasn’t talking to you and me. He was talking to people who didn’t know him very well. 

Walz was trying to do that, too. But with his folksy Midwestern vibe, Walz was trying to do something Vance wasn’t doing. Walz was trying to hide who he is. Vance was selling who he is.

There were a lot of important issues the goofy moderators failed to cover, including China. Besides being the preeminent foreign policy question of our age, the PRC is particularly significant because Tim Walz spent so much time there. What’s his connection to the Chi-Coms? Inquiring minds want to know. We damn well better find out before we end up nominating a literal Manchurian candidate. Yeah, there was a segue that mentioned it, but only in the context of Walz claiming to be right there at Tiananmen Square, apparently staring down a tank. His weird response was that he learned a lot about governance from watching the communist Chinese, which was hardly reassuring. So was his announcement that he is friends with a lot of school shooters. Well, he is into the whole trans thing, and a lot of his coalition is made up of lunatics, so it fits.

Nor did we hear anything about the Afghanistan debacle or the Houthis. We heard nothing about fracking and Kamala’s Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde act on the issue. His fake command sergeant major war record claims never came up. Vance made a decision not to pivot to those, which frustrated some of us supporters, though time will tell if that was a good strategy or not.

Instead, the obsessions of bitter cat women like the moderators took center stage. We went endlessly through the nonsense that is the climate change hoax – which inspired a snippy fact check at the end where one of the interchangeable harpies announced that it’s real because she’d been told so by Muh Experts. People don’t really care about the weather, except to the extent that perfectly normal weather phenomena just killed hundreds and rendered thousands homeless in Appalachia. The lame disaster response of the Harris–Biden administration got no play by the moderators, of course. It just doesn’t matter to rich blue people like the moderators.

Then there was the perilous peril to Our Democracy posed by Trump on J6. Walz once again reiterated how he either does not understand the First Amendment or hates it. He did the fire in a crowded theater thing, which is not a thing. Hack cliches do not constitute constitutional law.

What got the most attention was baby killing. Abortion, abortion, abortion. I don’t understand the obsession of these women with abortion. It’s baffling and gross. Vance handled the biased queries well. In contrast, Walz just flat-out lied when he wasn’t being outright crazy. Watch out, those evil Republicans are going to make a list of pregnant women and not let you have IVF, he insisted. I know there are people who believe that. They are idiots, and I know there are other people who merely pretend to believe that. They are Democrat politicians who understand that idiots are a key Democrat constituency. 

Walz tried to run away from the bill he signed that lets babies die on the table after botched abortions. He tap-danced around the fact that you can pretty much get an abortion until the time the kid is born under his state’s gross laws. Further, his stories of women dying allegedly from abortion laws were just outright baloney. If you take an abortion pill and have complications because they are dangerous pills and get sepsis, that’s not because the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. Of course, these facts were never checked. Fact checking only goes one way, to the right.

It was a civil debate with lots of agreement, no harsh words, and remarkably little rancor. It started out with JD walking over to shake Walz’s hand, even though that wasn’t part of the script, and JD was just as kind and solicitous as he could be. Maybe he was hoping for more conflict and that Walz would get mad. But Walz didn’t get mad, though he did get flustered. Still, Walz did fine. Not great, just good enough to appeal to some people. You know, dummies.

But JD Vance just blew off the doors. You can’t look at JD Vance objectively and think he’s a dumb guy. And you can’t look at JD Vance objectively and think he’s a nasty or obnoxious guy. If you hate him because he’s a Republican, you’re going to hate him regardless. But for normal people, he was a calm, reassuring presence, and demonstrating that was probably his goal.

It would have been nice for him to gut Walz like a bass, but that might have generated undeserved sympathy. Remember, Vance’s target was not you and me. We’re already all in. We like him, and we like what he stands for. His target was the people who haven’t decided yet, though it’s still hard for me to imagine that someone has not decided yet. And, in the hour or so after the debate as I write this, it seems like he accomplished that.

Of course, verdicts on debates change. We saw that with the last debate, where afterwards the consensus about who won did a total 180. It initially appeared that Harris had done well. Only over the next couple of days did it become clear that the people watching preferred Trump. The poll numbers, which currently slightly favor Trump, reaffirmed that.

What will happen now? Frankly, probably not that much. Vice-presidential debates usually don’t mean a lot, at least in terms of the upcoming election. Vance probably accomplished his goal of making himself acceptable to most undecided viewers. That helps. But what this vice-presidential debate really did was announce the coming of a second huge contender, alongside Governor Ron DeSantis, for the Republican nomination in 2028.

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 3rd

 

How To Blow Up the Middle East War in Five Easy Steps by Victor Davis Hanson

 The Biden administration's approach to Iran destabilized the Middle East and led to the October 7 Hamas attack and subsequent regional chaos. 

(Initiated by Obama!)

When Joe Biden became president, the Middle East was calm. Now it is in the midst of a multifront war.

So quiet was the inheritance from the prior Trump administration that nearly three years later, on September 29, 2023—and just eight days before the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis—Biden’s national security advisor Jack Sullivan could still brag that “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

So, what exactly happened to the inherited calm that led to the current nonstop chaos of the present?

In a word, theocratic Iran—the nexus of almost all current Middle East terrorism and conflict—was unleashed by Team Biden after having been neutered by the Trump administration.

The Biden-Harris administration adopted a 5-step revisionist protocol that appeased and encouraged Iran and its terrorist surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The result was a near guarantee that something akin to the October 7 massacres would inevitably follow—along with a subsequent year of violence that has now engulfed the Middle East.

First, on the 2020 campaign trail, Biden damned long-time American ally Saudi Arabia as a “pariah.”

He overturned the policies of both the previous Obama and Trump administrations by siding with the Iranian-supplied terrorist Houthis in their war on Saudi Arabia.

Biden accused the kingdom of war crimes, warning it would “be held accountable” for its actions in Yemen. Biden-Harris took the murderous Houthis off the U.S. terrorist list.

Almost immediately followed continuous Houthi attacks on international shipping, Israel, and U.S. warships—rendering the Red Sea, the entryway to the Suez Canal, de facto closed to international maritime transit.

Worse still, by the time of the 2022 midterms, when spiraling gas prices threatened Democratic congressional majorities, Biden opportunistically flipped and implored Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to lower world prices before the November election. Appearing obnoxious and then obsequious to an old Middle East ally is a prescription for regional chaos.

Second, Biden-Harris nihilistically killed off the Trump administration’s “Abraham Accords.” That diplomatic breakthrough had proven a successful blueprint for moderate Arab nations to seek détente with Israel, ending decades of hostilities to unite against the common Middle East threat of Iran.

Third, Biden begged Iran to reenter the appeasing, so-called Iran Deal that virtually had ensured that Iran would eventually get the bomb.

Worse yet, it dropped oil sanctions against the theocracy, allowing a near-destitute Iran to recoup $100 billion in profits. And it greenlighted $6 billion in hostage ransoms to Tehran.

An enriched Tehran immediately sent billions of dollars in support and weapons to the anti-Western terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to attack Israel, Americans, and international shipping. Iran soon began partnering with China and Russia to form a new anti-American axis.

Biden-Harris also fled abruptly from Afghanistan, abandoning billions in weapons and American contractors. The humiliation thus virtually destroyed American deterrence in the Middle East, inciting enemies and endangering friends.

Fourth, Biden-Harris restored hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the West Bank and Gaza, but without any guarantees that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas would desist from their past serial terrorist acts.

In the case of Hamas, U.S. and Western “humanitarian aid” simply freed up more fungible dollars in Gaza to arm Hamas and to expand its subterranean tunnel complex essential to its October 7 massacres and hostage-taking.

Fifth, from the outset of the ensuing increased tensions, Biden-Harris began pressuring the Israelis to act “proportionally” in responding to the massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and nearly 20,000 missiles, rockets, and drones launched at their homeland from Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Such straitjacketing of our closest Middle East friend further signaled the Iranian-backed terrorists that there was now “daylight” between the U.S. and its closest regional ally. That opportunity provided still further incentives for Iran to test just how far it could safely go in attacking Israel.

But why did Biden-Harris so foolishly ignite the Middle East?

In part, the administration naively tried to resurrect the old, discredited Obama administration notion of ‘creative tension’—of empowering a rogue Iran and its terrorists to play off Israel and the moderate Arab regimes, as a new sort of balance of power in the region.

In part, Biden-Harris was caving to increased anti-Semitism at home and the rise of powerful, pro-Palestinian groups on U.S. campuses and in critical swing Electoral College states.

In part, Biden-Harris was naïve and gullible. The two bought into the anti-Americanism and anti-Israel boilerplate of our enemies. So, they thought to make amends by seeing Iran and its terrorists as the moral equivalent of democratic, pro-American Israel.

Their malignant legacy is the current Middle East disaster.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/03/how-to-blow-up-the-middle-east-war-in-five-easy-steps/

Tim Walz Endorsed Censorship In Front Of Millions Of Americans And No One Cares

The Democrat vice presidential candidate doesn’t understand the First Amendment and clearly disdains free speech.

The most important exchange in Tuesday’s vice presidential debate has been almost entirely ignored by the corporate media. Not surprisingly, that’s because it makes Walz look like an authoritarian and a fool in one fell swoop:

J.D. Vance: The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use …

Tim Walz: …[inaudible] threatening or hate speech …

J.D. Vance: … the power of government and Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas, and then let’s come together afterwards.

Tim Walz: You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.

J.D. Vance: Tim. Fire in a crowded theater? You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks.

CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell: Senator, the governor does have the floor.

Tim Walz: Sorry.

Ok, let’s unpack what happened here. Walz challenged Vance on Trump’s questioning of the 2020 election results and Jan. 6, and Vance countered by saying that if Walz and his running mate, Kamala Harris, were so concerned about the fate of democracy they wouldn’t be so adamantly pro-censorship. Specifically, Walz has previously said, quite incorrectly from any legal or moral standpoint, that there’s no First Amendment right to “misinformation.”

Walz interjects to, near as I can tell, try and clarify that he was also talking about limiting “threatening” words or “hate speech.” Interestingly, I looked at multiple debate transcriptions, and none of them had this quite audible interjection included — though the first word or two is hard to discern, the part about “threatening or hate speech” is quite clear. In any event, to the extent that Walz is trying to defend himself he’s doing an awful job.

The legal standards for “threatening” speech or incitement might be clearer, but it’s still a fraught issue. As for “hate speech,” he has no idea what he’s talking about. You may not like it, but “hate speech” is absolutely protected speech. The First Amendment is absolutely a right to offend people without legal sanction, even gratuitously. Otherwise, policing speech is just a tool for government oppression. After all, who defines what constitutes “hate speech?” Walz seems to be suggesting he wants to throw people in jail for not using preferred pronouns and the like.

But the coup de grace for sinister ignorance is Walz saying, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.” Now if you know anything about First Amendment issues, the “fire in a crowded theater” line makes civil libertarians break out in hives. Somewhat surprisingly, The Atlantic had a very good article a few years back about the origin of the phrase:

In reality, though, shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is not a broad First Amendment loophole permitting the regulation of speech. The phrase originated in a case that did not involve yelling or fires or crowds or theaters. Charles T. Schenck, the general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party, was convicted in a Philadelphia federal court for violating the Espionage Act by printing leaflets that criticized the military draft as unconstitutional.

In a six-paragraph opinion issued on March 3, 1919, Justice Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that Schenck’s conviction was justified because the leaflets advocated for obstructing military recruiting and therefore constituted a “clear and present danger” during a time of war. “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights,” Holmes wrote. “But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

The rest of the article is worth reading for the full history, but in short, arresting people for handing out anti-war literature was justified by comparing it to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which is unconscionable. Holmes himself later did an about-face on his own reasoning a year later, and the Supreme Court decision above was overturned by the court quite definitively by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. “Fire in a crowded theater” was never a reliable “Supreme Court test” as Walz put it, and it’s been totally inoperable as a matter of law since Walz was in kindergarten.

This is not some small matter here. I have no interest in defending what happened on Jan. 6 (though I do think a great many people have been subject to grossly unfair legal penalties for their participation in the riot, and that this has been done out of partisan spite). But Vance is absolutely correct when he says the Democrat Party’s embrace of censorship is far more threatening than anything on Jan. 6.

How do I know this? Well, to start, unlike Jan. 6, censorship has affected far more people and is an ongoing concern. This publication is involved in a lawsuit with The Daily Wire and the state of Texas against the State Department for promoting Big Tech censorship tools. The State Department justifies what they’re doing as part of a frightening attempt to police “misinformation” — which is routinely defined as any news that liberal academics and federal bureaucrats don’t think is politically expedient.

Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Schiff, who knowingly spread lies about President Trump treasonously colluding with Russia to undermine a fairly elected president, sent a letter to tech companies telling them to censor “false, hateful, and violent content” because it is a “threat” to the upcoming election. But who decides what content is false, hateful, or violent here? Adam Schiff is an especially unworthy judge of these matters, but then again, there’s no elected official that should be deciding who gets to say what. And sending letters that attempt to intimidate private companies into preventing Americans from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right … well, perhaps we live in more civil times, but I have an idea of how the Sons of Liberty would have responded to such a politician.

And it’s not just politicians, the First Amendment is also being actively undermined by the people who, in theory, have the biggest stake in protecting it. Our corporate media’s silence is further proof they quietly agree that the censorship of unruly citizens is necessary. After all, if they continue to do things like refuse a vaccine that doesn’t actually prevent transmission of the disease, stubbornly point out the octogenarian the White House has dementia, and won’t vote for who they’re told to — how exactly do they expect journalism’s current business model to succeed?

The fact remains that fewer people are going to read this very article because it’s being actively suppressed by Big Tech right now. Even if I didn’t have the receipts to show that this publication was being intentionally and unconstitutionally singled out for suppression by the feds, just the fact I typed “vaccine” in the preceding paragraph was probably enough to alert The Algorithms such that this article will forever show up on page six of any relevant search results. The writer in me wants to note the twisted irony of an article warning about the obliteration of the First Amendment being actively censored; the citizen in me just understands this as simple tyranny.

Unlike so many of my peers — alas, I think my parents have taken to telling their friends I sell used cars to spare themselves the shame of admitting I’m a journalist — I’m not going to tell you how to vote. But it is entirely fair to say that Tim Walz and his ilk do not understand the First Amendment, and they sure as hell don’t respect it.

And when people like that get in power, we all lose.

 https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/03/tim-walz-endorsed-censorship-in-front-of-millions-of-americans-and-no-one-cares/

Komrade Kamala’s Marxism

 

Kamala Harris is without doubt the most radical presidential candidate ever proposed, and her Marxism would make the America of the Founders, of historic Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, unrecognizable.

Kamala Harris is a proven and self-admitted democratic socialist with strong ties to communistic Marxism.

This is her own stated “system of values,” the one bequeathed to her by her birth father, a Jamaican professor of economics at Stanford University who proudly acclaimed his Marxist ideology.

American voters should take her at her word and ask if we want this deviant economic and political ideology to come to power in our country. Practical common-sense Donald Trump has made his choice clear, now all voters need to ponder the consequences and do the same, before it is too late. This is particularly true for those voters in the critical swing battleground states: Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The United States has never in its long electoral history had a candidate as leftist as Kamala Harris. She was named the most liberal Senator– beyond even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

That is because she is not a liberal. She is a Marxist. What exactly are the tenets of Marxism and how does Kamala Harris subscribe to them, you might rightly ask.

Marxism is the ideology and theory of communism developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the nineteenth century. It explains class struggle, alienation, and historical change in capitalist society and proposes a revolutionary path to world socialism. The basics of the ideology of the left are best summed up in the Communist Manifesto (1848).

Here is the detail. There are ten basic points of Marxism and Harris’s policies and preferences substantiate all of them, if you study her words and actions over her political career.

The campaign and the mainstream media are hiding these facts from the larger public and trying to fool us. Yet the very slogan of her campaign comes directly from communism. “We are not going back…Forward Together” has been the slogan of the Communist Party forever.

• Abolition of private property and application of rents of land to public purposes.

KAMALA HARRIS PROMISES TO SCRAP THE FILIBUSTER TO PASS THE GREEN NEW DEAL

KAMALA HARRIS WOULD BAN FRACKING ON PUBLIC LANDS

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS WORKERS IN FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY NEED TO TRANSITION KAMALA HARRIS INTRODUCED A BILL WITH AOC ON CLIMATE EQUITY TO FORCE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AFFECTING LOW INCOME COUNTRIES 

• A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

KAMALA HARRIS: WE NEED TO SUBSTANTIALLY RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH AND MIDDLE CLASS

KAMALA HARRIS SEEKS TO SIGNIFICANTLY RAISE TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND ALL CORPORATIONS

KAMALA HARRIS FAVORS REPARATIONS FOR SLVERY FOR ALL BLACKS

• Abolition of all right of inheritance.

KAMALA HARRIS SEEKS TO STOP INHERITANCE AND TAX IT AT CONFISCATORY RATES

• Confiscation of the property of all rebels and enemies of the state.

KAMALA HARRIS DEFENDS HER RECORD AS A PROSECUTOR REGARDING NOT INVESTIGATING FATAL SHOOTINGS INVOLVING POLICE

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT FELONS LIKE BOSTON BOMBER BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE

KAMALA HARRIS WANTS TO JAIL MAGA SUPPORTERS AND ANYONE INVOLVED IN J6

• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly over policing and guns.

KAMALA HARRIS ASKS ACTING ICE DIRECTOR IF HE’S AWARE THAT SOME PERCEIVE ICE TO BE LIKE THE KKK

KAMALA HARRIS WANTS TO DEFUND POLICE AND REIMAGE PUBLIC SAFETY IN AMERICA

KAMALA HARRIS: ASSAULT WEAPONS SHOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE

KAMALA HARRIS: MANDATORY BUYBACK OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IS A GOOD IDEA

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS THE FORCEABLE CONFISCATION OF UP TO 10 MILLION GUNS

• Extension of the revolution beyond any one nation in an internation/global struggle.

KAMALA HARRIS STATES HER GLOBALISM AND THE EROSION OF AMERICAN POWER

KAMALA HARRIS AS BORDER CZAR DECLARES FOR OPEN BORDERS AND DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

KAMALA HARRIS PLEDGED SUPPORT FOR A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

• Centralization of the means of communication in the hands of the state and its’ agents.

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS THE MOVE TO SLASH POLICE FUNDING

KAMALA HARRIS THREATENS EXECUTIVE ACTION ON GUN CONTROL IF ELECTED

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF MEDIA AND INFORMATION

• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned or controlled by the state under a common plan.

KAMALA HARRIS ENDORSES GREEN NEW DEAL

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS SHE WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BORDER WALL

KAMALA HARRIS SEEKS LEGISLATION FOR ALL DRUGS EVEN HEROIN< COCAINE AND FENTANYL< INCLUDING STATE BASED DISPESATION CENTERS

• Equality of all labor and an end to all borders.

KAMALA HARRIS: MY MEDICARE FOR ALL PLAN WILL COVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS DECRIMINALIZING ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS WE NEED MEDICARE FOR ALL

• Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. All power in the hands of the elite vanguard of the proletariat.

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS I WOULD CHANGE DIETARY GUIDELINES TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RED MEAT YOU CAN EAT

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS BLM PROTESTS SHOULDN’T STOP

KAMALA HARRIS VOICES SUPPORT FOR HAMAS PROTESTS

KAMALA HARRIS’ SUPPORT FOR PROGRESSIVE PROSECUTORS

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS GREEN NEW DEAL PRINCIPLES ARE SOUND AND IMPORTANT

•  Free health care and education and political indoctrination for all children in public state schools.

KAMALA HARRIS SAYS YOU DON’T GET TO KEEP YOUR INSURANCE

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS MEDICARE FOR ALL, END TO EMPLOYER INSURANCE

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS ONLY STATE RUN SCHOOLS AND OPPOSES VOUCHERS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.

Take Komrade Kamala at her word.

She’s a no-good commie, a ruby red radical, a voluntary comfort woman for lefty officials – a freedom-hating, gun-confiscating, America last climate changer with all the worst policies for everyone except the champagne socialists she intends to sell us all out to. Hating America and all she stands for should be disqualifying, but in the upside-down world of “fundamentally transforming” the greatest country the world’s ever seen – no amount of sabotage directed at the pillars that built the nation’s internal strength is too low.

*NOTE: All the words in all caps above are her actual comments.

She cannot and must not be elected.

Source: 

Theodore R. Malloch

Why They Hate Trump

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker 

If you’re old enough to vote in the United States, then you’re old enough to remember a time when Americans of all political stripes liked Donald Trump.  A public figure for most of his adult life, a businessman with a taste for luxury, and a showman who embodied the “American dream,” Trump appeared in television shows and movies because people enjoyed seeing him.  For decades, he was an American icon with universal name recognition, a global brand, and even a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 

Then he moved into the political arena, and everything changed.  Actors, musicians, and politicians who had once jumped at the chance to be photographed with him pretended they had never met.  Writers and entertainers who had always praised him for his generosity began calling him filthy names.  Television networks that had made boatloads of money from his goodwill with the public started slandering him as a “wannabe dictator,” a “Nazi,” and a “threat to democracy.”

What happened?  Donald Trump dared to challenge the political status quo.  By publicly questioning the economic and foreign policy decisions of the Establishment Class in Washington, D.C., he became an existential threat to a system that has long worked against the interests of the American people.  As David Plouffe, one of Barack Obama’s closest advisers, inveighed before the 2016 presidential election: “It is not enough to beat Trump.  He must be destroyed thoroughly.  His kind must not be allowed to rise again.”  Plouffe had harsher words for the guy with a wholesome cameo in Home Alone 2 than he ever had for the leaders of China, Hamas, or Iran.

Why is this one American’s voice so threatening to the old guard?  It’s simple: President Trump is (1) a political outsider who (2) rejects the supremacy of the administrative state and (3) prioritizes Americans over foreign nationals.  

It might seem strange to call Donald Trump an “outsider.”  He’s a billionaire.  He’s famous.  He’s served as president of the United States.  But for all his success, wealth, and celebrity, he is not a member of the ruling political class.  If that were not obvious when the Intelligence Community conspired with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to frame him as a Russian spy, it should have become glaringly so over the last eight years as the FBI, DOJ, and Democrat prosecutors have dragged him through an endless spectacle of malicious investigations and corruptly predicated criminal trials.  Trump lived a long life without any criminal record.  Because he beat the Clinton, Obama, and Establishment Republican political machines, unethical prosecutors want him behind bars until he dies.

Americans can be forgiven for naïvely believing that any child can grow up to be president — or at least enjoy a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment in the halls of the nation’s capitol.  We have been told from an early age that America’s system of government is of, by, and for the people.  We are ostensibly a constitutional republic that protects individual rights, free speech, and representative democracy.  Everyone is supposed to have a voice and an opportunity to influence the way our government runs.  

The reality is much less inspiring.  An unelected and unconstitutional administrative state does most of the actual “governing.”  Corporate lobbyists and other special interests write the legislative bills that eventually become law.  Agencies issue rules and regulations with far-reaching consequences yet few checks and balances.  Most members of Congress do not grasp the significance of their votes or understand how American tax dollars are really spent.  The permanent bureaucracy is so large that even veteran lawmakers would struggle to draw an organizational chart that accurately reflects the various committees and sub-groups of the Department of Transportation — let alone something as complex and saturated with “black budget” appropriations as the Department of Defense.  

The American people could never hope to control a Leviathan with so many tentacles, and such an autonomous, unruly beast would never deign to consult the public before it acts.  There can be no Mr. Smith because there is no representative democracy.  The federal government works for itself, enriches itself, and empowers itself.  To the vast administrative state, the people are a nuisance to be deceived, mocked, and ignored.  The Washington Post’s self-flattering slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” is a cruel taunt reminding Americans that D.C. has been dark for more than one hundred years.

One of the chief ways that the U.S. government clings to the darkness is by controlling who is allowed inside its ranks.  Big Government socialists are good for regulatory expansion.  War hawks are handy for feeding the Pentagon and sustaining the military machine.  Empire-builders keep the State Department and Intelligence Community busy with world conquest.  Marxists are useful because government is their god, and it’s always helpful to have people worshiping a thing that wishes to act with impunity.  What’s not helpful is an independently wealthy and independently minded businessman with his own ideas for how the U.S. government can best assist the American people.  

Contrary to its advertising jingles, the federal government does not work for Americans.  If it did, it would protect Americans from the 650,000 migrant criminals (including roughly 15,000 murderers and 20,000 rapists) who have been shuffled through our open borders and resettled throughout the United States.  But multinational corporations, hostile foreign governments, human-traffickers, and drug-smuggling cartels pay top dollar (through campaign contributions, mail-in ballots, kickbacks, and other fringe benefits) to keep America’s borders open.  It’s an ongoing criminal conspiracy that should land large numbers of the federal bureaucracy in prison.  Instead, politicians and human-smugglers posing as human aid workers give each other humanitarian awards while facilitating rape, overdose deaths, murder, and endless suffering.  Then they turn around and call Donald Trump a racist bigot who deserves life in prison.  It takes a certain degree of willful blindness and abject stupidity to find nothing sinister in this ongoing tragedy.

Unfortunately for us, the American government prides itself on hiring stupid people.  Anyone who listens to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris knows instantly that two morons currently hold the highest offices in the land.  This reality is so obvious that it should embarrass anyone who self-identifies as part of the intelligentsia.  Instead, academics, journalists, and other “thinking” professionals almost universally support the imbeciles putatively in charge at the White House.  The reason is simple: when mediocre minds occupy the Oval Office, the unelected and unaccountable administrative state operates without anyone getting in its way.

Sadly, a tour of Congress proves that stupid is winning.  Most of our “representatives” are either empty vessels who can be filled full of Deep State sludge or venal creatures who will gladly drink the sludge for the right price.  That’s why so many of them continue to ignore the mountains of evidence that Joe Biden spent the last half-century selling his office to the highest foreign bidders.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle either are guilty of engaging in similar corruption or have brains running on such low wattage that John Fetterman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seem like savants.  Being dumb or crooked is a selling point in Washington.  Those possessing both attributes, such as Joe and Kamala, rise to the top.

Meanwhile, President Trump recently told Michigan autoworkers that he wants to “reclaim America’s manufacturing power” while preventing illegal immigrants from taking Americans’ jobs.  “I want German car companies to be American car companies,” Trump argued.  “I want Asian electronics companies to become Michigan electronics companies. ... I want every manufacturer that has left us to be filled with regret.”  

The administrative state is a criminal enterprise that harms Americans and enriches itself.  President Trump wants to imprison the criminals and enrich Americans.  That’s why the Establishment hates Trump and wants him destroyed.

Fatherland: Nazi Germany in Biden’s America

posted by John Leonard at American Thinker 

There is a hot new play currently running off-Broadway in New York.

From the website: “Fatherland is the true story of an 18-year-old son who turned in his father to the FBI for his militant role in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Fast-paced and powerful, Fatherland has landed off-Broadway following a sold-out Los Angeles run which the LA Times hails "will leave you shaken." This compelling tale is told verbatim from public statements, case evidence, and official court transcripts from the explosive trial that ignited a media frenzy and grabbed headlines nationwide.”

Or, as Brett T. asks at Twitchy, “So now we have January 6, the play?”

Just in time for the November election, this “true story” play running in New York tells the story of young Jackson Reffitt and his father, Guy, who is currently serving 7.5 years in prison for wearing a firearm during the protests following the 2020 election. According to reports, Guy Reffitt never drew his weapon, never assaulted a police officer, and never entered the Capitol building. Yet he’s locked in prison for 7.5 years and spending 23 hours per day locked down in solitary confinement for being in the Capitol while wearing a holstered pistol as part of the crowd supporting Donald Trump.

Exactly why is Jackson’s father in prison? Well, he’s currently rotting away behind bars because Jackson called the FBI and reported his father for participating in the January 6 “insurrection,” while giving federal authorities all the evidence they would need to convict him. If I could ask Jackson one question (he’s currently much too busy studying political science when he isn’t making appearances on MSNBC or CNN or doing interviews with the Washington Post to respond to someone like me), it would be this: have you seen any of the coverage of what happened after Donald Trump was elected in 2016 and if so, how can you sleep at night after betraying your own father?

Apparently, he manages somehow. On Morning Joe, young Reffitt complained, “It was the hardest decision I’ve ever made, and it continues to haunt me to this day. But I don’t regret it.”

Perhaps you don’t regret it today, but you will regret it eventually. You didn’t just betray your father by reporting his conversations with your mother to the FBI. You’ve also destroyed your family. You’ve got a fat GoFundMe account for college tuition, but what about your younger sister, Peyton? How does she pay for school?

Three years ago, Jackson magnanimously posted on X (Twitter), “Yes I’m the kid on cnn [SIC] I’m sorry I probably won’t get around to responding to everyone. My mom and my sisters are absolutely ruined about the news from what I did. This is the first they are hearing about my involvement in my dad’s arrest. Please send them love in any form.”

I do send them all the love and sympathy I have, but that won’t get your father out of prison, will it? A little over a year later Jackson posted, “My father could have possibly been home by now getting mental help if he took a plea deal.”

Wow. Are you kidding me? Would this mental help be taking place in a “reeducation camp,” by any chance? There is supreme irony in naming a play Fatherland that is about a boy betraying his father for the sake of the nation/state. The playwrights obviously intended the make the connection between Donald Trump and Hitler, but the far more real connection is between Jackson Reffitt and the Hitler Youth, the Hitler Jugend. That’s exactly what the Nazi did -- turn families against each other.

Jackson supports Bernie Sanders. In July 2021 he tweeted, “literally how is Bernie not president?” I could explain that to you, Jackson, if you’d like. The Democrat Party didn’t want Bernie to be the nominee because the party hierarchy knows that socialism won’t win a fair national election in a free republic. The only way to win is by cheating. Bernie was going to win the nomination but lose the election to Trump, or so the people behind the scenes who really run things for the Democrats believed. They want to hold power more than anything, so they’ll do anything or say anything to win. The modern Democrat Party didn’t allow Bernie to win even though he consistently outpolled Hillary in 2016. Again, he was comfortably ahead of Biden in 2020 when Bernie withdrew from the race after James Clyburn turned South Carolina for Joe Biden. So, why did Bernie drop out when he was still a strong contender for the nomination? I can’t think of a good reason except that (third) vacation home he bought on the lake for $600k might have had something to do with it. For a socialist who has never worked a day in the private sector, Bernie lives rather “high on the hog,” as we say down South. “Millionaire socialist” sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it?

Jackson is also extremely pro-union. He participated in a union strike on Lake Highlands Alamo draft house. In 2023 he was fired from his job for wearing an IWW button (Industrial Workers of the World, a socialist/anarchist labor movement). I’m not sure how hard he needs to work, having a GoFundMe set up to pay for his college education with $200k.

It’s too bad that he’s been using that money to pursue a degree in political science. That should give Jackson at least four options to consider: law school, teaching, politics, or working at McDonalds. He’s going to need to make lots of money because he’s burned the people closest to him. I may not be Carnac the Magnificent, but I see the title “fry cook” in his not-too-distant future.

Jackson loves Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posting numerous photos of and comments by her. It is sad to witness the degree to which his mind has been poisoned by Democrat propaganda. Apparently, he believes everything he’s told by those who appeal to his confirmation bias. 

Jackson also loves violent video games and posts about them frequently. On August 2022 he tweeted this: “If my dad played mgs (Metal Gear Solid) I doubt he would have done what he did.” So… is Jackson saying if his dad lived in a fantasy world like he does, he wouldn’t have had to turn Guy in to the feds?

Before he was thrown into prison, Jackson’s father supported the family well, earning a six-figure salary from the oil industry. The family had been able to travel around the world and lived a very comfortable lifestyle. Jackson’s sister Sarah said, “No family is perfect, and I wouldn’t want to be. But we were super, super close.”

I almost feel sorry for Jackson, because he really has no idea what he’s done. Why does he support the people doing the exact same things Hitler was doing to his opposition to Trump, while ironically calling Trump “Hitler”? The damage Jackson has done to his family is irreparable. Perhaps it can be forgiven, but he’ll have to humble himself to visit the prison and ask his father for forgiveness. The problem is, Jackson still doesn’t realize he’s done anything wrong. He thinks he’s the good guy, the righteous one, and has no reason to repent. Just like a Gutes Deutsch.

I have only one final thing to say: Free Guy!