Sunday, October 6, 2024

Ashli Babbitt: Scenes of a Heroic Life


When I wish to elude so-called reality, I watch scenes projected upon a vivid mental screen.  The last time the inescapable Pride and Prejudice made the rounds, my cerebral theater featured a rewritten novel, set in the 1980s in the penthouses of Manhattan and vibrant streets of Jackson Heights, with all characters the opposite sex.  Pride, a female billionaire gentrifying Queens, and Prejudice, a brilliant but angry immigrant, with background music by Cyndi Lauper.  When the youngest brother (Lydia character) is drawn to crime by an evil stepsister, Ed Koch appears in court for him, and the whole fantasy ends on a yacht at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Now the charming fantasies are vanishing.  The colors and music are draining away as scenes of recent America pursue my imagination — dark images, fires, angry drumming, and gunshots.  I don’t want to watch it.  These scenes trace the crescendo of pivotal events in the life and death of a heroic young woman named Ashli Babbitt.

In 2009, Barack Obama infamously disparaged the doctrine that says America is special among the nations: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”  Obama was raised, educated, and installed in the presidency from traditions of blame for America and could not experience the essence of American exceptionalism.  Throughout human history, loyalty to one’s land and people, and the willingness to defend homeland unto death, has been an extension of family, kinship, and religious loyalty.

Then America happened.  Our exceptionalism derives not from loyalty to a land or ruler, but from devotion to ideals.  The incomparable thoughtfulness and unique spiritual and philosophical intentionality of the American founding, with its extraordinary literature of inspiration, ideals, and methodology, remains the script for American exceptionalism.  Obama was partly right.  Greece is exceptional to Greeks, but they love their homeland for a fundamentally different reason from why Ashli Babbitt loved America.  Greeks love Greece because it’s home.  Americans who love America do so because they love the ideal of individual freedom and cherish their personal inspiration to preserve it.

That is why the term “Homeland Security” is creepy and degrading to America.  Homeland is a place where one is settled and comfortable.  Americans can never be comfortable because the responsibility to preserve freedom never ends.  The life and death of Ashli Babbitt exemplified the apolitical, sacred patrimony of sacrifice for individual freedom.

The Democrats are doing everything possible to kill love for America.  The American dream they tout has devolved into a goal of material consumerism.  When the Democrats call illegals “dreamers,” they are effectively saying you will not be expected to advance freedom, you will not swear an oath to the Constitution as legal immigrants do; we know you are here for what you can get, and that’s the way we like it.  Tragically, Ashli took that oath in an America where racialist protesters are protected by the government and constitutionalist protesters are harshly persecuted and may be shot through the neck and murdered.

The first scene I see is a 13-year-old California girl with a big blond ponytail, asking her mother, “Why are they talking about a blue dress?”  Ashli’s mom struggles to answer, as American popular culture became one big dirty joke.  A soul sickness has crept into America, emanating from a defiled White House.  The scene shows the ease with which the president lied, and the co-abusive first lady blamed a nonexistent vast right-wing conspiracy for her husband’s abuse of women.  Hillary is history’s greatest madam secretary of hate, a position she still holds today with her recent deplorables double-down.  The vast left-wing elitism vilifying ordinary Americans articulated by the first lady birthed the arrogance that led to the justification for murdering Ashli Babbitt.

The second scene I see is a 16-year-old Ashli standing before a television on September 11, 2001.  She is frozen in horror and anger as four airplanes hijacked by Islamic terrorists kill thousands of civilians.  They were murdered because of the exceptionalism of America, because of our freedom and prosperity.  Tragically, many Americans follow the media-government syndicate into deep slumber and watch as the Constitution is hogtied by the PATRIOT Act and used against Americans.  Ashli clutches with both hands her responsibility to preserve the Constitution.

The third scene I see takes place in the desiccated alleys of Iraq.  Children are running up to Airman Ashli, hands outstretched for toys and candy.  Her patriotic heart ignited, Ashli enlisted in the Air Force when she was 18.  She serves for fourteen years, with eight deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ashli Babbitt risked her life standing up for Iraqi freedom, then lost her life standing up for American freedom.  The politicized Air Force denied her the military burial honors she deserved.

Time is speeding up, and I see three scenes in rapid succession, all set in 2020.  By that year, Ashli was a small business owner in the San Diego area.  Ashli’s mother said of her daughter, “She’s not radicalized; she’s activated.”  The fourth scene is set during the sledgehammer California government repressions of what Ashli called the “controla virus.”  Now she is not just watching; she is talking back to the loss of basic freedoms.  I’m reading the sign on the door of her pool supply business: “Mask free autonomous zone, better known as America.”

The fifth scene in the summer of 2020 is full of fire, smoke, and screaming.  Ashli, whose main job in the Air Force was police work, is watching institutionalized race fakery unleash the worst organized crime spree in American history, burning, looting, and destroying hundreds of small businesses like her own, and killing dozens of people, while vilified and paralyzed police watch their own stations torched.

In the sixth scene, Ashli stands before a text she sent her mom at 11:00 P.M., California time, on November 4, 2020.  It said, “They are going to steal it.”  She watches vote-counting shut down in numerous key states late at night so the cheaters can calculate and supply enough votes to “elect” a severely demented man as the 46th president.  That takes millions of votes to accomplish, but they have been preparing for four years to get it done.

In the seventh scene, we see the barrel of a gun being aimed at Ashli Babbitt’s head.  No warning by verbal order, no harmless warning shot, no bullhorn, no non-lethal means, just sudden death.  Ashli’s family said she died on the happiest day of her life, wrapped in the flag, protecting her nation, the Constitution, and other people even as she died.

Since the Boston Tea Party of 1773, there has been an American faith, enshrined in the Constitution, that unarmed political protesters shall not be summarily murdered by their government.  That faith was betrayed before, recently at the Kent State massacre of May 1970.  In time, history will record the name Ashli Babbitt in the roll of patriotic American protesters who were killed in a just cause by the government.

The final scene I see is very different.  The bright color and radiant light have returned in my imagination.  It is more beautiful than any romantic novel could ever be.  Ashli walks toward the goldening ridge of a hill upon which stand many people.  They are the patriots who have fought America’s wars and who have kept us safe and free.  They wave joyfully to Ashli, calling their comrade to join them.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- Oct 6

 




Kamala Harris Is Playing 'Pretend President' Already And She’s Horrible At It


I’m not sure there was anyone who ever spoke from the podium in the press briefing room at the White House during the Trump administration who didn’t have someone complain about them violating the Hatch Act – the prohibition on federal employees engaging in political activity while on the job or using federal resources to do so. Even the press complained about administration officials “getting political” while answering questions back when we had an administration that would answer questions. Now we have an entire White House being mobilized for the electoral benefit of the sitting Vice President, and no one cares. And the saddest and funniest part of it all is, with everything laid out to her advantage, Kamala Harris is already terrible at pretending to do the job. 

I bet you’ve never seen a video of a Vice President getting on and off a plane, have you? Probably not, but if you have, I bet it’s only been once or twice in your whole life – you’ve seen lots of footage of a President “deplaning,” as they say, but local news crews aren’t really dispatched to watch a Vice President walk down some stairs, even for b-roll purposes. Kamala Harris is the exception. 

Since the Democratic Party establishment shoved Grandpa Joe Biden down the proverbial flight of stairs, Kamala Harris has played the President in public more frequently. With that came footage of her walking up and down the stairs for Air Force Two. 

Something struck me as odd the other day while watching her pretending to be on a phone call as she ran away from the press: She’s saluting and being saluted by the military members at the bottom of the stairs. She’s not President. Whoever the President is at any given moment is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, but a vice president has no military rank whatsoever; they’re not in the chain of command. 

I don’t know if former VPs were routinely saluted or not, as there isn’t a trove of footage of them leaving planes, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the military has been ordered to salute Harris as part of the campaign to make her come off as presidential? 

I only had that thought because Kamala Harris has often played President in public lately. She sat at the table in place of President Biden at FEMA after Hurricane Helene, which, were it not political, would be humiliating for an egomaniac like Biden. After fundraising and before campaigning in Wisconsin, she even went to North Carolina for a photo-op and to announce a $750 “grant” for people who have no stores left standing to spend it.

Playing President, hoping that the public gets used to the idea, is a good strategy, but only for someone up to the job. Kamala Harris is not up to the job. Very few people in politics are as uniquely horrible off-script as she is.

This week, her teleprompter malfunctioned, and she couldn’t remember enough of her stump speech, one she’s likely delivered a dozen times, to say anything other than repeating the number of days until the election. 

In another interview with local media in the Pittsburgh area, she was asked a basic question about US Steel being sold to Nippon Steel, a Japanese company, and her answer was singularly awful. It’s THE issue in the area, as the livelihoods of thousands of families hang in the balance. Even though she’s weighed in on it in the past, her answer sounded like a kid writing everything they can remember on a topic hoping to get partial credit on an essay test they didn’t study for.  

Asked about how she’d keep the jobs in Pittsburgh, something the company says is unlikely to happen without the influx of cash from the sale, Kamala said, “I feel very strongly that U.S. Steel needs to remain a U.S. company and that the people working there need to be American workers. I think that is also why I'm proud, and I do have the support of the Steelworkers Union. Because, I just think when you think about it in term of a historic American industry, not to mention what it means to the workforce and the economy of Pittsburgh, of Pennsylvania, but also from a national security perspective, it is important that we have US manufacturing of US steel. And, listen, I’ve been Vice President now for four years, I’ve traveled around the world, and I start my day every day being briefed on hotspots worldwide and threats to our national security. When I think about the importance of supporting US workers and US steel, it is through the lens of not only what we should do to protect that workforce, but what we should do to protect the US and American interests.”

I hope you were hungry for a salad because Kamala just tossed you a big one made out of words.

The reporter wasn’t hungry, apparently, and asked more specifically how she could guarantee protecting the jobs without the infusion of cash Nippon was offering. Her response to that was even more empty calories than the first go-round. “It is my priority to keep the jobs in Pittsburgh, understanding again that the folks doing that work are doing hard work, good work,” she said. “It is part of not only a tradition of American industry to do that work but also part of what we need to invest in the future.” 

What does that even mean? How could she be so unprepared for what is an obvious question? The possible closing or collapse of US Steel is THE ISSUE in the Pittsburgh area, and the “acting” President can’t give a coherent answer to a softball question in a softball interview. The choice is pretty simple: allow the sale to a company from an ally country – where, by the way, the physical production facilities will remain where they are (Japan isn’t going to dismantle them and move them to the other side of the planet) and functioning, or risk them closing and decaying because there are no other viable suitors. You go to the prom with the only person who asked you, or you don’t.

Maybe there’s something in the water Democrats drink in Pennsylvania that causes them to become feckless blobs unable to offer anything other than non-answer platitudes on essential issues, as hopefully-soon-to-lose Senator Bob Casey did when he fired off a letter to a Pennsylvania glass-making company that just announced 300 job cuts. Many of those jobs just so happened to be represented by the United Steel Workers Union, the same union that opposes the Nippon sale (which is why Kamala opposes it) and does not seem to care about the 3,000 jobs lost if that sale is blocked. It is always a little shocking just how oblivious politicians and unions are when their anti-capitalist policies end up hurting businesses and, ultimately, the very people they claim to care about most. 

To add to the absolute absurdity of the entire Democratic presidential campaign, while running from serious interviews where someone might ask her an important question, and as millions upon millions of Americans are suffering without water, electricity, and homes, Acting President Harris carved out time to sit down with the “Call Her Daddy” podcast. This sexually explicit show is basically what a drunken 19-year-old boy would come up with if they’d been tasked with putting together what they hoped hot twenty-something women talked about and like when they weren’t around, only dumber.

Kamala Harris is not ready for prime time. Even when everything is laid out for her and choreographed more meticulously than the Lee Harvey Oswald prison transfer (apologies to Dennis Miller for butchering his joke), she can’t even convincingly play Pretend President. God help us if she actually gets the job.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


Trump's America-First Populism Has Changed the GOP Forever, and That's a Good Thing


posted by Ward Clark at RedState 

The general election is exactly one month away, and it's still a nail-biter if we are to believe the polling. This race is likely to remain a nail-biter, although why is a bit of a mystery, given the many and varied weaknesses of the Democratic ticket; but for many decades now, the hardcore party faithful have been pretty consistent in making up, each, about a third of the electorate. About a third of the voters will vote Democratic if the candidate is a stuffed armadillo, and about a third will vote Republican if the candidate is a dead woodchuck. That's the political reality we deal with. Interestingly, this ratio has stayed pretty constant, even though the political parties themselves have changed. My Dad described himself as a Truman Democrat, but Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman wouldn't recognize today's Democratic Party.

The GOP has likewise changed, and in the last eight years, there has been a considerable transformation, due in large part to one person: Donald John Trump. Whether he wins or loses the 2024 election, of course, sooner or later the Age of Trump will end. Which brings up an interesting question: What will a post-Trump Republican party look like? In a Saturday article, the Washington Examiner's Sarah Bedford has some interesting speculations about that:

As the 2024 election rapidly approaches, a familiar debate is on the horizon: the future of a post-Trump GOP.

Whether that point remains a blurry dot more than four years in the future or an imminent battle to be waged just months from now depends on one’s confidence in a Trump victory next month.

But the reality is that the party will eventually have to face a future without the man who has been its center of gravity for nearly a decade, as well as the question of what to do with the movement he created.

“There will be a sort of concerted push from GOP elites to try to reestablish a Republican establishment that’s conducive to their interests,” Duncan Braid, coalitions director at American Compass, told the Washington Examiner. “I don’t think that they will be successful, largely because the voters have changed so much.”

There's an interesting point there; political parties rarely, if ever, return to an earlier state. The America-first populism that Trump, for better or for worse, has championed has changed the GOP forever. Populism and America-first are now animating principles of the Grand Old Party, and the young Turks of the party have largely embraced these ideas. But the Examiner piece names a couple of interesting specifics.

Social issues: The fight over same-sex marriage is essentially over, thanks in no small part to a Supreme Court decision. Abortion still is and will remain a hot issue on both sides. But the Republican party is now focused on reacting to a couple of particular strains of lunacy:

“In 2028, I think the most likely situation is that the culture war will look very similar to where it’s at now,” (Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project) said. “I think that the Republicans will still be supporting the protection of children and their innocence, and that goes for women’s sports, sexual procedures, and getting this junk out of schools.”

This is likely to be the social issue fight for the next decade or so. But the biggest thing Trump's movement has done is to change what makes up the base of the Republican Party:

Trump accelerated a political realignment that saw the GOP become more multicultural, blue collar, and male dominated than it had been in years. The Democratic Party became decidedly more elite over the same period, aligning itself with corporate America and highly educated, highly credentialed voters.

Despite its leftward lurch on identity politics, the Democratic Party has become whiter and more concentrated in cities and the affluent suburbs that surround them. Trump’s GOP, by contrast, has made gains with black and Hispanic voters not seen in decades.

“Mr. Trump’s tallies today — 14 percent support among Black voters and 41 percent among Hispanic voters — would still represent the highest level of backing a Republican presidential candidate has received in pre-election polls since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964,” New York Times analyst Nate Cohn noted last month.

This, of course, wasn't all Trump. This realignment started with Ronald Reagan and continued through a couple of false starts, like "compassionate conservatism" and a few other flashes in the pan. The GOP has, as someone once said, gone from the "country club Republican party" to the "Sam's Club Republican party." And that's where the parties are now; the Republicans are the party of blue-collar workers, of small businessmen, of the rural and small-town cohorts; the Democrats are and will remain the party of wealthy coastal elites, Marxist activists, academics, and the dependency class. Trump didn't make things this way; he did recognize what was happening and attempted to address it.

And that's liable to be where things stay for the next few election cycles. But the one premise missed in this piece is the cause-effect chain; it's near-certain that Donald Trump did not start this process, this evolution of the GOP to a more populist, America-first party. As noted, the seeds of it were planted by Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump grabbed this bull by the horns and has been largely controlling it, but sooner or later the Republicans will face a Trump-free future. The immediate future will see current trends continue, and unless I miss my guess, the GOP will continue to make inroads into some non-traditional constituencies - Hispanics, in particular, many of whom are blue-collar workers and who tend to be rather socially conservative.

Donald Trump has been and will continue to be a huge figure in American politics for some time to come. The movement he challenged and rode into the White House once and, with a bit of luck, will again, that America-first populism, will continue to drive Republicans to the polls. For now.

A decade from now? A century from now? That's anyone's guess. Let's just hope there will still be an American republic around to witness whatever comes next.



Complaints Ask FEC, FCC To Investigate ABC For Breaking Broadcast And Donation Rules In Debate


Broadcasters must present debates in the public interest, and corporations can’t donate to campaigns.



Remember that brazenly biased presidential debate on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC television? The one where ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis “fact-checked” former President Donald Trump five times and Vice President Kamala Harris, not at all?  The one advertised as a legitimate debate that felt more like a 90-minute campaign commercial for Harris?

The Center for American Rights has filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), asking these agencies to hold ABC and its local affiliate accountable on two matters: an alleged campaign donation violation, and a concern about its television broadcast license.  

Unlike print media, broadcast airwaves belong to the public. While anyone can find some paper, start their own newsletter, and say whatever they want, there is a finite number of airwaves across the broadcast spectrum, so they belong to everyone. That is why the FCC licenses segments of the airwaves to broadcasters with the condition that they must use a certain amount of their broadcast time to serve the public.

“One of the obligations of stewarding the airwaves in the public interest is that debates must be fair and impartial, and when you fail at that, there must be accountability from the regulator,” Daniel Suhr, attorney at the Center for America Rights, told The Federalist in a phone interview. “The media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously.”

Public Reprimand

The Center for American Rights filed a complaint with the FCC, naming WPVI-TV Philadelphia, which produced the debate in conjunction with ABC. WPVI holds the broadcast license.

The complaint notes that the public has a right to be “honestly informed” and the FCC has promised to “investigate when presented with ‘evidence of a broadcaster’s intent to advance a particular candidacy,’” the complaint to the FCC reads. “Over and over again, the [FCC] has warned against debate programming and format decisions that ‘serv[e] the political interest of one of the candidates.’”

The moderators’ “obvious bias comes from the questions they did not ask, the topics they did not raise,” the complaint said. There were no questions about abruptly swapping the Democratic candidate from President Joe Biden to Harris, or about Biden’s apparent cognitive decline, or about why Biden is still the sitting president if he is not fit to run for office.   

The attempted assassination of Trump was also ignored. Harris was not asked about the effectiveness of the Secret Service, who was responsible, or what security measures should be taken to prevent future threats.

The Center for American Rights tells the FCC the debate failed the “public interest standard” for broadcasters which prohibits “news distortion … and news suppression.”

The complaint asks for a public reprimand of WPVI “for carrying programming contrary to its public interest obligations.”  

Neither WPVI nor ABC responded to a request for comment for this report.

“Media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously,” Suhr said. He noticed a similar problem in the recent vice-presidential debate. “The vice-presidential debate is just further evidence we need to enforce the rules. It goes against the core of what a debate should be and what the law provides.”

The FCC has informed WPVI of the complaint, Suhr said. The television station has 30-60 days to respond. It will not be resolved before the election. 

In-Kind Donation

The complaint directed at the Federal Election Commission notes that while the FEC allows broadcasters to stage candidate debates, this was not a true debate. That makes it a 90-minute prime-time television in-kind campaign contribution, Suhr said. That is, a service given to a candidate instead of money. It is a problem because it is illegal for a corporation to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any presidential election.

“ABC News did not provide fair and impartial treatment of candidates; in doing so, they misled rather than informed voters,” the FEC complaint reads. It points to the critical fact-checking of Trump, live on the air, and the allowance of untrue statements by Harris to pass without notice. For example, Harris said “There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, [for] the first time this century.” This was a shock to deployed military troops who were watching from around the world.

Harris also criticized Project 2025, written by the Heritage Foundation, as something Trump supports. Her campaign ads continue to present this fabrication. “Trump has repeatedly said he wasn’t involved in its writing, does not believe in its policies, and won’t implement it,” the complaint notes.

“If Donald Trump were to be reelected, he will sign a national abortion ban,” Harris lied without interruption. Trump has repeatedly said he opposes a national abortion ban and supports leaving the issue to the states.

If ABC had charged advertising rates for what seemed like a 90-minute infomercial for Harris, it would be valued at tens of millions of dollars. That could be considered an undocumented, illegal donation, and could result in fines for ABC.    

The FEC and FCC will investigate these complaints and issue decisions, Suhr said.



Did She Really Just Say That?: Hillary Clinton Lets the Cat Out of Bag on Dems and Controlling Speech


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

One of the things that Elon Musk just warned about at former President Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was the danger that the Democrats posed to free speech and how important it was to vote for Trump to preserve our Constitutional rights. 

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag during an interview with CNN on Saturday, where she spoke about the need to control social media. She said it should be "at the top" of every legislative agenda:

We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.

"We lose total control." That's the real problem to them right there, that's why Democrats are so upset. Yes, that's the point of the First Amendment -- the government is not supposed to be in "control" of the speech of the people. Sounds pretty fascistic to me. 

People can now see and hear the truth without having it be filtered through liberal media organs. We can now know when the media is lying to us. We may all have -- gasp -- freedom of thought and not agree with the liberal media narrative that is being pushed at us constantly. We can now see reality. When we see reality, we can see what the Democrats really are about. And it should frighten all of us. 

The current Democratic candidates for president and VP have showed they have the same kinds of thoughts as Hillary Clinton. 

Tim Walz -- a former member of Congress and the governor of a state -- revealed he has no idea what the First Amendment is about during the vice presidential debate with Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): 

He thinks "hate speech" or misinformation is forbidden -- wrong on both. He thinks "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." Joe Biden keeps saying this too and they're both wrong. 

Here's what I've previously written on that: 

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.

From The Atlantic:

As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

The First Amendment was specifically created to protect incendiary speech, speech people may not have liked or might find wrong. That’s the very purpose of the Amendment.

Here's George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley talking about how these are dangerous times for free speech with these thoughts. 

Governor Walz has been out there saying that misinformation and hate speech are not protected under the Constitution. And there's a crushing irony there. I mean, in calling for the censorship of other citizens accused of disinformation, the governor is spreading disinformation. He's been told repeatedly by many of us that he's wrong, that that's just completely and demonstrably wrong. The Constitution does protect those forms of speech."

That's also incredibly ironic for someone like Clinton as well, who was a purveyor of misinformation. 

Turley also called out Hillary Clinton for pushing censorship. 

But this disturbing CNN comment on Saturday from Hillary Clinton is actually a good sign, on a couple of levels. 

She's revealing where they want to go, so we can fight it. And she's doing it because it means they know they are losing control. And that's why we must defeat them: 


Obama’s Message Could Be ‘Difficult To Sell’ as He Embarks on Battleground State Tour Campaigning for Kamala Harris

 This is not an October surprise, but rather an October ‘shrug,’ one observer tells the Sun.

As President Obama prepares to kick off a battleground state sprint for Vice President Harris, some observers say the trip opens up an opportunity for President Trump to brand Ms. Harris and her allies as politicians of the past and a party of “yesterdays.”

Mr. Obama is “a popular figure, certainly in the Democratic Party, there is excitement around him, and then that also comes with quite a bit of fundraising power as well. But he’s also the past,” a Republican strategist, Matthew Bartlett, tells the Sun. “This is a candidate that was first elected almost two decades ago.”

As voters are looking towards who the “change candidate is,” Ms. Harris is pulling campaign support and approval from the likes of not only the Obamas but former Representative Liz Cheney and former Vice President Dick Cheney, he adds. 

“Right now, people are looking towards the future of the country. This is talk of yesterdays when this election is going to be about tomorrows,” Mr. Bartlett says. “So I think Donald Trump has some power, some energy, by saying that he is going against the grain. He is not the establishment, he continues to be outside Washington. And when all these endorsements pile up for Kamala Harris, he has a way of making political jujitsu and turning it to his own favor.”

Mr. Obama’s campaigning for Ms. Harris will kick off in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 10, in what will be the start of a 27-day blitz through swing states before Election Day, a senior Harris campaign official, reported by multiple news outlets, said. Mr. Obama, who gave a speech earlier this year at the Democratic National Convention, is popular with Americans: recent YouGov polling suggests that 57 percent of American adults have a favorable opinion of him, and 53 percent would likely vote for him if he was running for president this year. Fundraising efforts featuring Mr. Obama have raised $76 million in the presidential campaign, Axios reported

Asked if the upcoming campaign blitz could be an “October surprise,” like some of Mr. Obama’s supporters are suggesting, Mr. Bartlett says “This is an October shrug of the shoulders.” 

“Barack Obama campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton, campaigned for Joe Biden,” he says. “This is nothing new. He and his wife were stars of the Democratic convention after being the invisible hand that helped push Joe Biden out of the campaign.” Although it’s “mixed or unclear” if this will pull new voters, he adds “I don’t think that there’s a single American in this country that has been waiting on their decision between Harris or Trump and now that Barack Obama has weighed in, that they will follow.”

Other observers agree that the trip won’t necessarily affect swing voters, given that Mr. Obama’s party is the party in office. 

“I don’t think it will move the needle with undecideds, because they tried this in 2016 when he was still the sitting president, it wasn’t successful,” a former communications director for President Trump’s campaign, Marc Lotter, said in a CNN interview.  One critical difference, he says, is that now “nearly two-thirds of the American people still think our country’s headed down the wrong track. So going out there and saying that Kamala’s the new way forward? Well she’s the way of right now — difficult to sell.” 

Ms. Harris and Trump are within less than 2 percentage points of each other in all seven battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia — RealClearPolitics polling averages indicate. 

Asked what type of messaging he’d expect from Mr. Obama on the campaign trail, Mr. Bartlett says he will likely go back to “hope and change, ‘08, to try to reignite that dream.”

“Now, with a new candidate, Kamala Harris, there absolutely is some energy and power to that,” he says, “but it is still a challenge, because she is the incumbent, because Democrats have been in power for the better part of 20 years here. So, it’s very hard to say that you are the change candidate when you are currently holding office.” 

A senior advisor to Mr. Obama was not immediately reachable by the Sun for comment, nor was a representative of the Harris campaign.



https://www.nysun.com/article/obamas-message-could-be-difficult-to-sell-as-he-embarks-on-battleground-state-tour-campaigning-for-kamala-harris

There Was an Attempted Self-Immolation Incident at the White House. Man Is Allegedly a Reporter.

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

 We’re approaching the anniversary of the ghastly and barbaric October 7 attacks in Israel, and we have this incident where a man tried to self-immolate himself in front of the White House earlier today. This individual was able to set his arm on fire before bystanders acted, dousing him with water and using articles of clothing to smother the fire. Police quickly moved in to detain the individual [WARNING: Some graphic images]: 

The man is reportedly a journalist.