Tuesday, October 15, 2024

The Harris Campaign Is Getting Desperate


When I worked in retail, I was good at my job. I used to joke that I “could sell finger food to a proctologist during a latex shortage.” I never tested that theory because, well, gross, but with the right amount of marketing, a skilled marketer can sell just about anything to anyone. And depending on the return policy, customers can end up stuck with something they can’t use and didn’t really want. That’s kind of what Democrats are hoping will happen with Kamala Harris.

Once you mark your ballot and hand it in, it’s over. It’s like buying food, then eating it – trying to return it is an impossible, frankly crappy, proposition that is just not going to work out well for anyone involved.

Democrats are hoping to sell Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to the public based on vague promises and lies. They’re the empty calories of American politics – Twinkies and Ding Dongs that might taste good at the moment, but leave you feeling gross, wishing you hadn’t eaten them.

The left just hopes you don’t have that sugar hangover until November 6th. They don’t give a damn what you think of their ticket after the election, there’s a no return policy on that. They just want your vote, what happens next is irrelevant.

That may sound cynical, but having grown up in Detroit, then lived for more than a decade in Baltimore, most of my life has been spent in the wreckage of the empty promises of Democratic politicians. You’d think the people in those cities would recognize they’re being lied to at some point in their 60+ year decline, but they haven’t. 

They largely haven’t because for a couple of reasons: 1) the people who did notice got the hell out of there. The populations of both cities has collapsed over the last few decades, as people who could afford it ran as far away as possible. And 2) Democrats scare the hell out of people. You have to wonder what it would take to cause people to continually reelect people ruining their city and it’s fear of something else, in this case that is Republicans. 

Republicans cannot allow the fear of them Democrats instill in low information voters to go unchecked. These cities have been murder capitols of the country and couldn’t shake their Democrat leadership. The main reason they slipped from that title is sooner or later you run out of people to kill. How the hell would anyone living under those circumstances vote for the people who did that to them?

By being conned into believing the alternative is somehow worse.

Democrats don’t have to prove Republicans would be worse, which is helpful to them because they can’t, they just have to get people to think they would be. They can’t prove it, but they don’t have to because Republicans can’t disprove it. Actually, somewhere along the line they stopped trying.

Republicans wrote of Democrat-controlled cities once they realized they could win without them, just as Democrats wrote off suburbs once they were able to win without them. Those lines are so blurred now.

Wealthy, white suburbanite Chardonay swilling women vote for and fund Democrats to feel like they’re “making a difference” while living lives insulated from the destruction their votes cause, and black and Hispanic men are starting to lean to Republicans because they want to work, to thrive economically and they realize the largest obstacle to that is not the things Democrats lied to them about, but the policies those Democrats impose on them. 

Eyes are opening, which is causing Democrats to panic. 

It’s very telling that a political party would panic over the idea of their voters being better informed, but that’s the modern Democratic Party. And it’s why the Harris campaign is getting so desperate.

You can’t turn on the TV without seeing a campaign ad about abortion. Democrats can’t talk about the economy, the border or the rest of the world, all of which are a mess thanks to their actions. Abortion is all they have. While irresponsible single men across the country who don’t like condoms are grateful, everyone else is more concerned with feeding themselves and their families than getting a call from an ex-fling 9 months down the road. Unless you’re Doug Emhoff, then you’re terrified of hearing from a former employee you paid off, but that’s a different story.

The fact of the matter is if Democrats had anything worthwhile to offer the American people they not only would have offered it by now, they would have implemented it already. The mess we’re living in right now is the best they can offer, and the American people hate it. It’s why they’re panicking and why they should. 



X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 15


 

The Collapse of Kamala Harris Couldn't Come at a Better Time


The Kamala collapse is something to behold but also insanely predictable, given the woman's severe limitations as a candidate. She's been widely viewed as awkward and unqualified, but this was the Democrats' better option given the circumstances. That alone shows you the state of the party. Yet, back to Kamala, the latest NBC News poll confirms what we all knew about her, and now voters are starting to accept who this woman really is. 

The vice president did a media blitz starting with her shambolic "60 Minutes" interview on CBS, which was busted for editing her answers to make her sound less of a simpleton, along with other interviews with self-professed Kamala supporters. She was on friendly territory for these hits and lost five points. NBC revealed this on Sunday, sending the media into a tailspin. 

Additionally, her campaign is engaged in a low-intensity war with the Biden White House, with her staffers accusing Biden officials of sabotaging them. There are also reports of younger and older campaign aides and advisers for the vice president going at each other about Kamala being unable to get ahead of Donald Trump in any meaningful way. This woman raised $1 billion just to be tied with a man that the media claims is the most unpopular person ever to walk the Earth. It's embarrassing. 

.@JoeConchaTV: "This was Kamala Harris’s worst week of her campaign ... She sat down with 60 Minutes & bombed on that interview to the point where they had to edit some of her answers ... And then she became the first Democratic candidate in the history of politics to screw up an… pic.twitter.com/mszrYnhla3

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 13, 2024

What also doesn't help is that she also picked the Queen of the Weirdos in Tim Walz, who would've been rejected as a running mate option by any sane person given his baggage—lying about his military rank, deployments to combat zones, Chamber of Commerce awards he never won, and being in China during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. His failure to load a shotgun without looking like a dolt was peak entertainment this weekend. I'd never thought the Democrats would ever trot out someone with a gun and an orange vest in a pathetic and transparent attempt to appeal to male voters. In this demographic, Democrats are dangerously underwater. John Kerry did that in 2004, so look what happened. But the collapse was coming because Kamala was never made of presidential timber. Even Democratic voters made that determination in 2020, with her dropping out before the Iowa Caucuses. 

Donald Trump leads Kamala Harris among Catholic voters in swing states: Poll https://t.co/Qz3gPKXUps

— The Hill (@thehill) October 14, 2024

When Donald Trump nuked Joe Biden in the June debate, Democrats were left with no good options. They wanted to dump Joe but couldn’t transfer his sizable, though increasingly dormant, war chest to anyone else. It had to be Kamala, who wasn't ready for primetime. They went ahead with the coup regardless. Losing a close race is a moral victory as opposed to a 1980-style blowout, which was where Biden was heading. 

When she assumed the top slot on the ticket, she held out on media interviews for as long as she could. You must blitz the media a month away from Election Day—it's required as your last chance to speak with voters, energize the base, and assist in get-out-the-vote operations. Even here, Kamala is in trouble because she always delivers a masterclass in serving up word salad. 

We still have three weeks until Election Day. She can't stop doing media interviews, or maybe she will since she could drop another five points. It shows you what a waste she is; voters aren't that stupid. As we've said before, the only thing she has going for her is that she's not Donald Trump. You must have more—the "anti" candidates always fall short.

We’re entering the acceptance stage. Attaboy! pic.twitter.com/utQ35H7SCB

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) October 13, 2024


🎭 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. 


Democrats Enter Panic Mode as Harris’s Faltering Candidacy Threatens To Bring Down the Obama-Biden Era - Conrad Black

 The most fecund arsenal of dirty tricks in the history of the country has failed to derail President Trump’s campaign for a second term.

How refreshing it is to see the Democratic Party in full panic mode. Nothing is working and as a result, the entire and profoundly unsuccessful Obama-Biden interlude is stricken and faltering. In fairness to the voters, the country could not have voted Republican in 2008 after the disaster of President George W. Bush — the Iraqi war topped out by the financial collapse and panic traceable to President Clinton’s requirement that the financial markets be flooded with commercially unsustainable mortgages. 

There had to be a change, as there usually is after two terms of the same party, and Senator McCain was not a skilled national campaigner. Barack Obama was, and it was certainly time for a non-white president. The country would have done better with General Colin Powell filling that role, but he was not possessed by the mad egotism that propels many people to seek the presidency.

Mr. Obama was a somewhat popular president, as a fluent and attractive personality, but he was not a good president. The hallmarks of his regime were Obamacare, which was dishonestly presented and had a great many imperfections, though it may, on balance, have constituted progress; the insane green crusade, which was a terrible albatross around the neck of American industry and was based on a lot of unproved premises, and the catastrophic nuclear agreement with Iran. 

That pact permitted Tehran to arm itself with nuclear weapons next year, precisely on schedule to what it will achieve if neither the government of Israel nor a re-elected Trump administration intervenes to prevent that. It is a flimsy and unimpressive record and in assessing Mr. Obama’s presidency, it should also be remembered that Mr. Obama refocused American political discourse on race, social atomization, and the promotion of minority grievances at excessive expense to the reputation of the United States as a fundamentally decent country.

Mr. Obama apologized for the manner in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Churchill had conducted the Western Allies to victory in World War II, though they are justly renowned as two of the greatest leaders in the history of democratic countries. He apologized for President Truman’s use of the atomic bomb in 1945 and for President Eisenhower’s role in the overthrow of radical Iranian leader Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953, though both activities were justifiable and all four of these men were immensely more distinguished statesmen than Mr. Obama. 

Mr. Obama claimed to wish to reform America, but gave many millions of people the impression that he wished to punish the country that had raised him up to its highest office. He was also fully aware of the shameful attempt to manipulate the 2016 election result by the politicization of the intelligence agencies and the FBI in promoting the scurrilous defamation that President Trump had colluded with the Russian government to win the election.                    

Mr. Obama cautioned Joe Biden about running for president in 2020 and cautioned everyone within earshot about how inept a president he might prove to be. By 2020 the Democratic party had largely been captured by the socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, and after Mayor Bloomberg spent $937 million to win the votes of five delegates from American Samoa, Mr. Obama gave his blessing to the ethically and practically bankrupt formula of nominating Mr. Biden for president on Mr. Sanders’ far left platform. 

Despite substantially outspending Trump in the campaign and having the support of 95 percent of the national political press, the Democrats’ victory raised concerns about the potential harvesting of millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots and the use of unsupervised drop boxes, under rules to facilitate voting in the pandemic, to pull out the victory. 

The Biden administration has been a disaster in every major policy area: more than 10 million illegal immigrants including scores of thousands of violent criminals, the worst military debacle in American history in Afghanistan, an average inflation rate more than three times what Trump had while converting Trump’s 8.2 percent gain in real median income for Americans compared with just 1.3 percent growth under Mr. Biden, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal. The revived green terror has been an even greater fiasco than Mr. Obama’s introductory version of the same mistaken policy.         

Mr. Obama appears to have been instrumental in pulling the rug from under Mr. Biden’s attempted reelection, once he was clearly headed for defeat, but was unable to get a last-minute open convention to seek the best candidate. He and Mr. Biden between them anointed Vice President Harris, as the hapless defender against an avenging Trump, and she is now likely to bring America safely to the end of the whole benighted, sinister, and misbegotten Obama-Biden interlude in American history. 

The most fecund arsenal of dirty tricks in the history of the country has failed. Trying to represent Trump is an insurrectionist, on no evidence, showering him with spurious criminal indictments suitably amplified by the chronically partisan and morally bankrupt national political press, the completely false claim that the advocacy of American greatness is synonymous with fascist dictatorship: None of it has worked.

In what must be close to the Democrats’ last reserves of skullduggery, CBS News has simply allowed Ms. Harris to substitute rehearsed answers for the one she actually gave in what purported to be an accurate interview, so her usual incomprehensible word salad about the Middle East was replaced with false professions of purposeful and useful activity by the administration, which is in fact promoting a cease-fire that would assure the survival of the most odious terrorist organizations in the world, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Mr. Obama himself has set out on the campaign trail and accused his fellow African-American men of misogyny in not flocking with greater enthusiasm to Ms. Harris. Her own blitz of fawning and groveling interviews has been an unimaginable shambles, and in the Democrats’ desperation they have canceled Mr. Biden’s brilliantly conceived trip to Angola three weeks before the election and are sending out the political relic, President Clinton, out on the campaign trail.

The Democrats can be counted on to try to stuff the voting boxes with harvested ballots, but the Republicans have mounted a serious and professional effort to prevent this. Overconfidence is never justified in politics but with three weeks to go, it appears that God will again bless America by allowing the great Obama-Biden fraud to stumble, slowly, sadly, and foolishly, to an end.


https://www.nysun.com/article/democrats-enter-panic-mode-as-harriss-faltering-candidacy-threatens-to-bring-down-the-obama-biden-era

J.D. Vance Has An Even Stronger Case For A Rigged 2020 Election In The Number Of Illegal Ballots


Vance highlighted all the things that went wrong with the 2020 election without taking the Democrats’ bait.



The legacy media continues to push Sen. J.D. Vance to say Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, with Martha Raddatz on Sunday’s “This Week” being the latest in a string of interviewers pressing the vice-presidential candidate on that question. While Vance responded as before, that “of course Donald Trump and I believe there were problems in 2020,” the full exchange revealed that the fundamental flaw is in the question — not Vance’s answer.

For a full two minutes during yesterday’s interview, Raddatz demanded Vance say Trump lost the 2020 election. “Why won’t you say that?” she asked, to which Vance replied: “Because, Martha, I believe that in 2020, when Big Tech were censoring American citizens, that created very serious problems.” 

“I don’t understand why you won’t just say that you believe it?” Raddatz retorted. “Did Donald Trump lose? That’s the question, and you know that’s the question.” 

It was here that an exasperated Vance made his point clear: “Martha, I’ve said repeatedly I think the 2020 election had problems, you want to say ‘rigged,’ you want to say, ‘he won,’ use whatever vocabulary term you want.” What happened, Vance stressed, was the “censoring of fellow citizens in a way that ‘violated our fundamental rights,’” and that was a bigger problem, Vance explained, than what words he used to frame the issue.

This exchange proves key to understanding why Vance refuses to say, “Donald Trump lost the 2020 election,” and why the liberal press continues to demand an answer to that question. 

The query includes an undefined term — “lost” — which holds a different meaning to Trump supporters and to the anti-Trump inquisitors.

If “lost” merely meant Biden is the president of the United States, then that’s an easy answer: Yes, of course, Trump lost, as Biden was inaugurated and has spent the last 3.5 years in the Oval Office.

But that’s not what those demanding Vance say Trump lost mean by “lost.” Every person posing this question injects within the concept of “lost” a concession that Trump’s 2020 challenges were frivolous, unfounded, or wrong. That’s why they pose the question and why Vance won’t provide a “yes” — because that is not what Vance and many other American’s believe.

If asked whether Trump “lost” the 2020 election, meaning that if all legal votes were counted and all illegal counts discarded — and the counting was done legally pursuant to controlling election law — the answer by Trump supporters would be a resounding “I don’t know.”  

No one can possibly know the answer to that question because in 2020 there were too many election laws violated or ignored, and too many illegal votes counted. But the lawsuits challenging the elections outcomes were tossed as moot once the votes were certified, so there was never a determination on the validity of the tallies, leaving uncertain the accuracy of the election results.

But “lost” can also have a third meaning in this context: Did Trump lose a free and fair election to Joe Biden? 

Yesterday Vance answered that question, telling Raddatz, “you want to say ‘rigged’” “you want to say, ‘he won,’ use whatever vocabulary term you want.” The vice-presidential candidate’s closer then cemented the point, stressing that the “censoring of fellow citizens” was such that it “violated our fundamental rights.” In other words, no, Trump didn’t lose a free and fair election to Joe Biden.

Vance in his Sunday interview with Raddatz, as well as in earlier interviews, highlighted as an example of the censorship, the squelching of the Hunter Biden laptop story. The government’s complicity in that censorship, coupled with strong evidence indicating Trump would have won in 2020 had Americans learned the truth about the laptop, confirms Vance’s view that the election was “rigged.”

The censorship of the laptop story, however, was but one aspect of the rigging that took place in 2020, as I previously detailed. A few examples: The 2020 election was also rigged by the “systemic violations of election law” which “disparately favor[ed] one candidate” and “allow[ed] for tens of thousands of illegal votes to be counted.” “And the election was rigged with every illegal drop box placed in Democrat-heavy precincts,” and by the unconstitutional authorization of no-excuse absentee voting and the illegal collection of ballots in nursing homes.

There’s still more: “The election was rigged with every dollar of Zuck Bucks designed to get out the Democrat vote, and with every leftist activist embedded in county clerks’ offices to push such efforts while accumulating untold voter data to the benefit of the Biden campaign.” The election was also “rigged when Georgia rendered the election code’s mandate of signature verifications inoperable and the state court delayed a hearing on Trump’s challenge to the Georgia outcome until after the vote certification, thereby ignoring evidence that more than 35,000 illegal votes were included in the state’s tally — more than enough to require a court to throw out the election.”

So, if by “lost” Raddatz and other members of the legacy press mean Trump lost a free and fair election to Joe Biden, then, the answer is no.

Or, as Vance said, use whatever vocabulary you want: “you want to say ‘rigged’” “you want to say, ‘he won.’”

Vance is right, but Trump’s running mate is also wise to not waste time in debating what “lost” means because the public doesn’t care: What Americans care about is the disaster they are living under the Biden-Harris Administration.



We Are in Need of Renaissance People - Victor Davis Hanson

 We have created a society of professionals who are experts within their narrow specialties. Those are not the people who get great things done.

The songwriter, actor, country-western singer, musician, U.S. Army veteran, helicopter pilot, accomplished rugby player and boxer, Rhodes Scholar, Pomona College- and University of Oxford-degreed, and summa cum laude literature graduate Kris Kristofferson died last month at 88.

Americans may have known him best for writing smash hits like “Me and Bobby McGee” and “For the Good Times,” his wide-ranging, star acting roles in A Star Is Born (1976) and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973), his numerous solo albums, especially with then-spouse and singer Rita Coolidge, and the country group super-quartet The Highwaymen he formed with Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, and Willie Nelson.

In other words, Kristofferson was a rare Renaissance man who could do it all in an age of increasingly narrow specialization and expertise.

At certain times throughout history at particular locales, we have seen such singular people from all walks of life.

Classical Athens produced polymaths like Aristotle—tutor to Alexander the Great, logician, student of music, art, and literature, educator, think-tank founder, biologist, philosopher, and scientist. Later Greeks like Archimedes and Ptolemy, as men of action, mastered six or seven disciplines and applied their abstract knowledge in ways that made life easier for those around them.

The late Roman Republic was another cauldron of multitalented geniuses. It produced the brilliant stylist, historian, politician, and consummate general Julius Caesar as well as his republican archrival Cicero—politician, philosopher, orator, master stylist, lawyer, and provincial governor.

Turn-of-the-century Victorian Great Britain produced giants like Winston Churchill—prime minister, statesman, essayist, historian, orator, strategist, and wartime veteran. As Britain’s war leader, between May 10, 1940, and June 22, 1941, he, almost alone, resisted the Axis powers and prevented Adolf Hitler from winning World War II.

But we associate the idea of a Renaissance man mostly with Florence, Italy, between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In that brief 100 years, the Florentine Republic hosted multitalented geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci—master painter, sculptor, architect, scientist, engineer, and inventor—best known for the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper.

The multifaceted talents of his younger contemporary Michelangelo were as astounding, whether defined by his iconic sculptures David and PietΓ , his stunning painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or as the master architect of the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Basilica.

 The American Revolution was a similar cradle of Renaissance men. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most famous example of unchecked abstract and pragmatic genius displayed in almost every facet of late eighteenth– and early nineteenth-century life—main author of the Declaration of Independence, third U.S. president, founder of the University of Virginia, inventor, agronomist, architect, and diplomat.

 

But Benjamin Franklin may best approximate the model of the Florentine Renaissance holistic brilliance—journalist, publisher, printer, author, politician, diplomat, inventor, scientist, and philosopher.

 Franklin’s life was one of perpetual motion and achievement. In one lifetime, he helped to draft the Constitution, invented the lightning rod and bifocals, founded the American postal service, and successfully won over European countries to the nascent American cause. Theodore Roosevelt—president, historian, essayist, conservationist, naturalist, combat veteran, battle leader, explorer, and cowboy—exemplified the idea of an American president as the master at almost everything else.

 The history of our own contemporary Renaissance people often suggests that they are not fully appreciated until after their deaths—especially in the post–World War II era.

Why?


https://www.thefp.com/p/renaissance-people-ben-franklin-elon-musk?r=4crwli

The Miracle of the Flying Skyscraper- Tim Urban, Katherine Boyle, and Victor Davis Hanson on SpaceX’s triumph.

 Tim Urban, Katherine Boyle, and Victor Davis Hanson on SpaceX’s triumph.

Every once in a while—but especially in the middle of election season—it’s important to look up and focus on what really matters. Today, we mean that literally. 

In fifty years’ time, I doubt we will talk about the strength of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’s respective ground games, or California’s attempts to “Trump-proof” their climate policies, or Trump’s rants about Republican donors. (All of these stories were on page one of yesterday’s New York Times.) There is, however, a chance that, come 2074, people will tell their grandchildren about something that wasn’t on the front page of the Times, and that’s what SpaceX’s engineers pulled off a day earlier in Boca Chica, Texas, when they launched the largest rocket in human history to the edge of space and then steered it back to Earth where, somehow, this skyscraper-size hunk of metal was caught in the “chopstick” arms of a giant tower. 

The sheer improbability of what SpaceX achieved was best captured not by footage from the company’s own slick video feed—but on an iPhone in the crowd a few miles away (included here with thanks to Shaun Maguire):

It’s a surreal sight, even on video. And Boca Chica is a surreal place. When I traveled there in late 2020, I made it to the end of a quiet road so close to Mexico I had to pass through border patrol checkpoints, and found a once-sleepy collection of small ranch homes in the process of conversion into a spaceport for interplanetary travel. Back then, the fanciful plans I heard about sounded like a far-off fantasy. But in just four years, many of them have become reality. (That fact should give pause to anyone who dismisses the other plans of SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk—like a manned flight to Mars—as the stuff of science fiction.)

You don’t need to be a space obsessive to be excited by this. Amid what sometimes feels like a relentless barrage of cynicism and doomsaying—including, ironically, from Elon Musk himself—the most ambitious project of the most ambitious private company on the planet is working, and pushing the boundaries of what humankind can do. 

The author of the first of three pieces from The Free Press on the man-made miracle in South Texas is someone who has always been fascinated by space—and SpaceX. So when he heard that the rocket company would be attempting to launch and then catch its gargantuan Starship booster on Sunday, he knew one thing: “I sure as shit wasn’t going to miss this.”

But Tim Urban, author of the incredible blog Wait But Why, didn’t make the journey on his own. He took his 19-month-old daughter with him. Why? Because in a world filled with pessimism and pettiness he wanted to expose her to some “rocket launch emotion.” 

Read Tim’s full account: “Why I Brought My Toddler to Watch SpaceX’s Flying Skyscraper.” 

Our second piece on the Starship success is by Free Press columnist Katherine Boyle. What she memorably describes as “the fall of the century” was, according to Katherine, a victory for America. 

“While America faces swifter competition from China in a host of manufacturing domains, space is now an American empire—as long as U.S. government regulators  allow SpaceX to continue to thrive,” she writes. “If this sounds too hyperbolic, let me repeat myself: There is no space or defense mission that is not reliant on SpaceX.” 

Read Katherine’s full essay: “The Fall of the Century.” 

Last but not least, we bring you an essay by the historian Victor Davis Hanson on why we need more Renaissance people. For Victor, there’s no better example of a contemporary Renaissance figure than Elon Musk. And not in spite of, but in part because of, all the controversy that surrounds him. 

“Renaissance people often live controversial lives and receive 360-degree incoming criticism,” Victor writes. He argues that because such a figure is “not perfect in every discipline he masters, we damn him for too much breadth and not enough depth—a dabbler rather than an expert—failing to realize that his successes in most genres he masters and redefines is precisely because he brings a vast corpus of unique insights and experience to his work that narrower specialists lack.” In other words: You can’t have Musk the genius rocket man without Musk the inveterate social media user. They are one and the same. (That’s what I’ll tell myself the next time I waste half an hour on X.) 

 VIDEO OF LANDING T LINK BELOW!

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-miracle-of-the-flying-skyscraper?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-e7b86871-7297-4354-9e88-148a0380dce0

Trump Throttles Fox News As ‘Weak and Soft on Democrats’ Following News of Kamala Harris Interview


Rusty Weiss reporting for RedState 

Donald Trump reacted to an announcement that Fox News anchor Bret Baier scored an interview with Kamala Harris by blasting him and the network as "soft" on Democrats.

The Harris camp, as RedState reported earlier today, has agreed to an interview with Baier to be aired Wednesday in which she will field questions for a brief 25-30 minutes.

The "Special Report" anchor has long been viewed as a more straight news-based host for Fox. Trump, though, doesn't see it that way. He suggests Baier's selection as the interviewee is purposeful, an attempt to give Harris the easiest foil.

"Lyin’ Kamala Harris has wisely chosen Bret Baier, of FoxNews, to do a much-needed interview, because he is considered to be 'Fair & Balanced,' though often very soft to those on the 'cocktail circuit' Left," Trump wrote on his Truth Social media platform.

He then dug into the network as a whole.

"I would have preferred seeing a more hard-hitting journalist, but Fox has grown so weak and soft on the Democrats, constantly polluting the airwaves with unopposed Kamala Representatives, that it all doesn’t matter anymore," he added.

Baier also popped up on social media to push back against assertions that Fox News must have made concessions in order to get Harris on board with the interview.

"Not true. No concessions," he said on X.

As further evidence of Trump's disdain for moderate journalists on Fox News, he blasted Neil Cavuto for hosting Ian Sams, Senior Spokesman for the Harris campaign, on his show earlier today.

"How much time does Ian Sams, Senior Advisor to Lyin’ Kamala Harris, spend on FoxNews?" he openly wondered while accusing Cavuto of having him on the show "unopposed."

Sams' appearance saw him try to divert attention from tensions between President Biden and Kamala Harris by discussing the protests on January 6th.

Sams also reiterated a false claim that Trump hasn't had a mainstream media interview in over a month, part of the Harris camp's attempts to portray him as "hiding" from the public.

The GOP nominee just appeared for an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the same network as Baier and Cavuto on Sunday.

"Neil Cavuto has one of the worst shows on Television—and the worst rated on FoxNews," said Trump. "The people on Fake News CNN are better!"

While we wouldn't go that far, very few left-leaning networks are willing to give Trump or people in his orbit air time to push their policies and platforms the way Fox does with Democrats. When they are given air time, Trump supporters are typically browbeaten by a panel of three or four opposing viewpoints.

Baier has previously raised the ire of Team Trump after the network decided to call Arizona extremely early for Biden during the 2020 presidential election.

Fox, you may recall, put Arizona in the win column for Biden well before other mainstream networks were willing to concede.

Baier discussed the call made by Fox in leaked text messages between him and former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Carlson was irate over the network's call.

“See if there’s any way I could help calm viewers down,” Carlson pressed. “When Trump loses, he’s going to blame us. That’s going to be very bad.”

Baier replied that he would urge election night executives to slow their calls going forward. But after Arizona, the damage was already done.

“We have been pushing for answers,” Baier said. “I have pressed them to slow. And I think they will slow walk Nevada. The votes don’t come in until tomorrow.”

Trump declined an invitation to debate on Fox News later this month, with Baier and Martha MacCallum as moderators.

"There will be no rematch!" he insisted.



Is China Making a Move? China Conducts Large-Scale Naval Exercises Near Taiwan, Taipei Defiant


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Are things in the western Pacific about to get very interesting indeed? On Monday, China conducted a naval warfare exercise of unprecedented scale, and those exercises were uncomfortably close to Taiwan.

China employed a record 125 aircraft, as well as its Liaoning aircraft carrier and ships, in large-scale military exercises surrounding Taiwan and its outlying islands Monday, simulating the sealing off of key ports in a move that underscores the tense situation in the Taiwan Strait, officials said. 

China made clear it was to punish Taiwan’s president for rejecting Beijing’s claim of sovereignty over the self-governed island. 

The drills came four days after Taiwan celebrated the founding of its government on its National Day, when Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te said in a speech that China has no right to represent Taiwan and declared his commitment to “resist annexation or encroachment.”

This will, of course, fuel some inevitable speculation about China's intent in this exercise. Primary among those concerns: Is China considering making some move against Taiwan now, while befuddled old Joe Biden is still in the White House (or, more likely, on a beach in Rehoboth, but you get the idea.) The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is doubtlessly thinking ahead to a possible second term of Donald Trump in the White House, and among China's leadership - Chairman Xi and his cadres of yes-men - there has to be a little trepidation about that possibility, and the Chinese military has to be war-gaming the possibility of a more aggressive American stance vis-Γ -vis support for Taiwan in the face of any Chinese attempt to reclaim that island.

Some skepticism is in order here. Communist China has been making aggressive statements and moves against Taiwan since 1949. With only three weeks to go to a major American election, it seems unlikely that the CCP would suddenly engage in an attack now if a second Trump administration is their worry.

Taipei, in any case, is openly defiant.

Taiwan remained defiant. “Our military will definitely deal with the threat from China appropriately,” Joseph Wu, secretary-general of Taiwan’s security council, said at a forum in Taipei, Taiwan’s capital. “Threatening other countries with force violates the basic spirit of the United Nations Charter to resolve disputes through peaceful means.”

Taiwan’s Presidential Office also called on China to “cease military provocations that undermine regional peace and stability and stop threatening Taiwan’s democracy and freedom.”

Odds are this is another exercise in saber-rattling by the CCP.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan isn't something the CCP is going to take lightly or undergo capriciously. Amphibious landings are some of the most difficult exercises to pull off successfully, and an invasion of Taiwan has been estimated to cost China as much as $10 trillionThat number seems on the high side, but the cost would be considerable, and China's economy is built on a house of cards.

We should remember that this has happened before, and recently:

China also held massive military exercises around Taiwan and simulated a blockade in 2022 after a visit to the island by Nancy Pelosi, who was then speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. China routinely states that Taiwan independence is a “dead end” and that annexation by Beijing is a historical inevitability. China’s military has increased its encircling of Taiwan’s skies and waters in the past few years, holding joint drills with its warships and fighter jets on a near-daily basis near the island.

They didn't invade Taiwan then, and it's unlikely they will invade Taiwan before any possible second Trump inauguration. If China ever does make a move on Taiwan, it will be on their schedule, not ours, and even then, the CCP has to know that it would be ruinously expensive. The saber-rattling will certainly continue but for now, it's a safe bet that this is all they'll do.