Saturday, October 26, 2024

Who Will Harvest The Broccoli? The Modern American Plantation


Who will pick our apples, who will build our homes, and who will mow our lawns—if not for immigrants?

Variations of this question are asked by liberal politicians—and repeated by members of the mainstream media—to disarm anyone who questions the illegal immigration crisis at the Southern border.

We are supposed to disregard the elitist or racist tones and any long-term concerns about demographic, cultural, political, or social changes, all for the short-term benefit of cheap manual labor. The underlying message is that the jobs immigrants fill are beneath everyday American citizens.

Former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Rep Jerry Nadler have both publicly said the quiet part out loud recently, but the ideology trickles down to the Democrat voter block—to my once favorite journalism teacher sharing a meme stating “the immigrants ruining your life are Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Not the apple picker…” Even my mother—who moved to Houston from Cleveland—now has “Leo” mow her grass for $25.

“I could never mow your lawn for that here,” I say, with here being Ohio, where I own a landscaping company that includes employees on payroll and taxes.

My mother thinks having access to Leo is great. The cheap labor keeps her prices down. Our family wants my mother to move back to Ohio. I know she is contemplating it—she sends me links from Zillow of houses she looked at that might be more up my alley.

“I could never afford in Ohio the house I have here,” she says. “This house has granite countertops.”

Then she says something that makes me sad and makes me pause. “I couldn’t afford the house on Concord.” She’s referring to the house I grew up in and the one my parents, now divorced, sold for under $150,000 in the early 2000s. Houses on the same street now regularly sell for $300,000.

In the long term, my mother has less buying power than she did before, but Leo mows her lawn for dirt cheap.

Hiring was bad before COVID, and telling people to stay home and collect checks sent it into overdrive. In early Spring 2023, when I pulled up a list of past employees in our database we might rehire, I was stunned by the number who have died from the heroin and opiate epidemic in the 15-plus years we have been in business.

It seems as if someone should fix America and what ails us—and not in some superficial, temporary worker kind of way.

Maybe it is the drug epidemic, the destruction of the nuclear family, the nearly 1 million abortions America now conducts annually, the cost of living, or the constant messaging hammered into school children (especially girls) that babies are a burden and a nuisance, all of which have seen Americans stop having babies like they used to.

Then, Democrats tell us that Americans do not have enough babies to replace our current population, so we must have mass immigration to replace them and replenish the tax or voter base.

While campaigning for Kamala Harris, Former President Bill Clinton suggestedGeorgia college student Laken Riley might still be alive if her killer had been properly vetted—something that did not take place under the Biden and Harris term.

“Well, If they’d all been properly vetted, that probably wouldn’t have happened,” Clinton said regarding Riley’s murder before suggesting we still need immigration. “But, if they are properly vetted and that doesn’t happen…And America is not having enough babies to keep our population up so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work.”

Clinton’s recent campaigning sounds a lot like replacement theory—the native population needs to be replenished and replaced by foreigners—although Wikipedia assures me that this is a “far-right conspiracy theory.”

On October 12, Vice President nominee J.D. Vance sat down with New York Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro to discuss the immigration crisis. Garcia-Navarro seemed to bristle at the idea that American citizens could fill the jobs needed in the housing sector.

“You could absolutely reengage American workers,” Vance said while alluding to re-engaging those who have willingly checked out of the workplace or those struggling with mental health or addiction.

“To work in construction?” Garcia-Navarro replied.

“Of course, you could...This is one of the really deranged things that I think illegal immigration does to our society is that it gets us into the mindset of saying that we can only build houses with illegal immigrants—when we have 7 million, just men, who have completely dropped out of the labor force,” Vance responded. “People say, ‘Well Americans won’t do those jobs. Americans won’t do those jobs for below-the-table wages.’ They won’t do those jobs for non-living wages… We cannot have an entire business community that is giving up on American workers and then importing millions of illegal laborers. That is what we have thanks to Kamala Harris’ border policy.”

I have heard different versions of the question of who will perform the work elitist Leftists deem unclean or undesirable repeated often to defend mass migration and the hiring of illegal migrant workers. It is often coupled with the implication that Americans will not do the jobs they cannot perform from the comfort of their home office and Zoom—farming, construction, or landscaping.

“Every MAGA I’ve ever seen complain about immigrants taking American jobs would never do this,” a viral tweet reads as the workers in the video harvest what appears to be broccoli.

It is somewhat laughable when I hear it—largely because I would put preparing and planting a new lawn from start to finish or building a paver patio (something we have done in the last few weeks with American employees) right up there with roofing, concrete, and indeed farming broccoli as extremely difficult and physically taxing jobs.

There is fundamental dignity in work. In all work.

A strong argument could be made that there is more dignity in the work done with your bare hands than, say, that of selling insurance or pharmaceuticals, lawyering, brokering mortgages, or working in permanent Washington.

And yet you will hear various demeaning, overtly racist or elitist iterations from leftists to the question of who will pick our produce, build our homes, or mow our lawns if we do not allow for illegal immigration? Americans, they imply, are too good for that kind of work.

And who will do that cheaply?

In January, U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler provided one the most transparent examples --saying American produce would rot in the fields if it were not for illegal immigrants.

“We need immigrants in this country—forget the fact that our vegetables would rot in the ground if they weren’t being picked by many immigrants, many illegal immigrants,” Nadler said. “The fact is that the birth rate in this country is way below replacement level, which means our population is going to start shrinking. And the ratio of people on social security and Medicare is going to increase relative to the number of people supporting them.”

I have wondered what it would look like if I ran my business like that?

Many of my peers or friends in the industry have done just what Nadler insists is the only way to manage a business. Hiring foreign workers is essentially the business model throughout the “Green Industry” and is commonplace at nurseries or with landscaping contractors.

On a cold and rainy March morning in Ohio this Spring, I called a friend who also owns a landscaping company to see how he was handling the start of the busy season.

“I am dropping off a load of plants,” he said.

I was shocked because, at the time, I was wondering if the rain coming down might turn into snow.

“Our guys would quit,” I said, half joking, half not.

His guys were the eight Hondurans he was dropping off plants to.

They are all here—legally—through what is known as the H-2B program for temporary workers.

He houses them on his property—he is required to provide them with housing—and charges them rent. There was a season when he rented them a camper. This year, he bought them a house.

If you zoom out—or took a drone image—of the modern business with a staff comprised of foreign workers, toiling in the fields, doing the jobs deemed unworthy—while living in a camper or a house out back—it must in some ways resemble a reimagining of the Southern plantation.

Maybe we should not live like that, and that business model should not be the goal. Maybe we should fix what ails us here.




X22, On the Fringe, and more- Oct 26

 




It’s Still the Economy, Stupid Globalists!


A paradigm shift occurs when there is a radical change in thinking from an accepted point of view to a new one.  Changes in social consciousness are not easy.  Institutions defend orthodoxy with all their assorted powers, while new ideas receive support only from iconoclasts who are often dismissed as kooks or disparaged as domestic enemies.  

Prevailing opinion is like a heavy boulder sitting in the valley between several steep hills.  For a novel idea to succeed, its proponents must push that boulder up the slope until it reaches the top of a neighboring peak.  Two observations follow from this analogy: (1) when moving the heavy boulder of conventional wisdom in a new direction, the gravity of traditional consensus works to roll it right back into the valley where it originally rested, and (2) once the boulder is finally pushed up a hill with the force of sufficient evidence and popular support, it will quickly roll down the other side and rest in a new valley of conventional wisdom.  Changing human minds, in other words, is a punishing exercise until you reach a tipping point, when social change occurs rapidly.

We are right now in the midst of one of these phenomenal paradigm shifts.  Americans are “awakening” to the idea that the federal government does not have their best interests at heart.  They are pushing back against mass illegal immigration.  They are resisting government surveillance and censorship.  They are questioning economic regulations that have weakened private property rights while giving a small number of corporations and financial elites almost total control over commerce, the food supply, and the monetary system.  

During the half-century Cold War, Americans often turned a blind eye toward questionable military strategies, Intelligence Community actions, and economic policies because a pervasive “us vs. them” attitude kept the country united against common communist enemies.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, and the expansion of Western business interests into communist China, this us/them dynamic began to fade away.  As companies in the United States replaced domestic workers with foreign workers — and eventually Chinese slave labor — Americans realized that the distinctions between so-called “authoritarian” States and so-called “democratic” States were not as stark as they had once seemed.  

The offshoring of good manufacturing and industrial jobs in the United States to countries that had been considered competitors, adversaries, or even enemies softened the ground for the paradigm shift we see today.  In the ’92 presidential contest, independent candidate Ross Perot warned that the North American Free Trade Agreement would move jobs and money to Mexico and leave Americans worse off.  George Bush and Bill Clinton disagreed, and Republicans and Democrats argued that NAFTA would both discourage illegal immigration (by providing jobs south of the American border) and increase household wealth (by decreasing the cost of consumer goods).  

Prices for many products did go down, because that’s what happens when the cost of labor goes from $13/hour (when made in America) to $1/hour (when made in Mexico or Central America).  However beneficial such price decreases in essential household items might have been, there was a tremendous cost — the destruction of blue-collar towns across the United States.  Ross Perot’s entirely rational prediction came true, and the “giant sucking sound” of jobs and money going south ultimately made Americans poorer.  As a cherry on top of the toxic NAFTA sundae, rampant illegal immigration continued unabated largely because the U.S. welfare system remains an attractive nuisance that draws foreign nationals who prefer America’s generous handouts to the blue-collar jobs in their own countries.

This hollowing out of the American middle class continued every time Republicans and Democrats inked another “free trade deal” that made it easier for American companies to invest in slave labor overseas.  As the cost of such deals became more widely apparent, the “ruling class” in D.C. became more inventive with its justifications.  Bill Clinton opened up trade with communist China not because American companies could make a bundle from a workforce willing to work for subsistence wages, but rather because the introduction of Western commerce to China would be the camel’s nose under the communist tent.  

Globalization, in other words, was sold as a peaceful foreign policy that would make our adversaries more like us while avoiding military conflict and nuclear bluster.  If blue jeans and the Beatles could collapse the Iron Curtain, then McDonald’s “Golden Arches” diplomacy would democratize communist China.  At least that’s the hogwash Americans heard, as they watched their jobs move to the other side of the world.  The costs for such foreign policy pipe dreams have been immense.  Over three decades of “free trade deals,” Americans have lost millions of jobs, household savings have disappeared, the wealth gap between the top 1% and everyone else has significantly widened, drug- and alcohol-related deaths have skyrocketed, property theft and violent crime rates have steadily risen, and towns across the country have become rusted monuments to apathy and neglect.  

What did American workers get in exchange for so many lost jobs sent overseas?  Nothing good.  Once-important domestic companies have become multinational behemoths devoid of any sense of national allegiance.  Moreover, as these companies have exponentially increased their wealth and global reach, they have also exponentially increased their influence over the foreign and domestic policy decisions of the U.S. government.  (BlackRock, for example, set up shop in the Biden White House, and the corporate press mostly hid this inconvenient truth from the public.)  

China, a third-world nation three decades ago that could not feed its own citizens and seemed near collapse, has become a regional powerhouse with global reach.  America, on the other hand, has crippled its own industrial and manufacturing self-sufficiency.  In fact, it depends on China for critical pharmaceuticals, electronics components, metals, and finished products.  “Golden Arches” diplomacy failed to democratize communist China.  Instead, the U.S. government embraced the mass surveillance and censorship of its totalitarian adversary.  

Finally, a combination of catastrophically expensive “green energy” policies, profligate government spending, and economically unsound central bank money printing has set the United States down an untenable path toward runaway inflation, dollar destabilization, and financial ruin.  Globalization, in other words, has left Americans poorer, more miserable, less optimistic about the future, and dangerously disconnected from their government.  At the same time, their geopolitical enemies have never been more emboldened.  That’s a gargantuan price tag for no reward.

The more that the U.S. government struggles to maintain its status as a global superpower with a witches’ brew of money-printing, welfare spending, and mass illegal immigration (the last ingredient being used as both a deflationary pressure on wages as well as a cynical tactic to distract Americans with cultural conflict and political strife), the more it resembles a Potemkin village incapable of withstanding scrutiny.  Americans look at all they have lost over the last thirty years, and they wonder how the people running the federal government could be both spectacularly incompetent and magnificently malicious.  Imaginary pronouns, forcing men into women’s sports, and hyperventilating about COVID and “climate change” can distract the American people for only so long.

Eventually, a vocal leader comes along and finds America’s globalist boulder stuck in a deep ravine.  No doubt that boulder has many notes attached from sage voices such as Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan all saying, “Tried to move this up the hill, but it kept falling back down.”  But if enough Americans join together, President Trump might have just enough strength to heave the boulder to the other side.  “Make America Great Again” is a rallying cry for Americans to lift the country up despite the weight of Deep State opposition.  The hilltop lies ahead.  Keep pushing with all your might.



Obama’s Big Gamble


In mid-June, former President Barack Obama held a Biden campaign fundraiser with Hollywood star and political activist George Clooney in Los Angeles. It was two weeks before President Joe Biden’s first debate with Donald Trump and two months from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where delegates planned to officially nominate Biden as the candidate to take on Trump for a second time. During the event, Obama escorted a lost, wandering and frozen Biden off of the stage. The video went viral.

The spectacle took place against the backdrop of a bomb dropped by Special Counsel Robert Hur in February. 

"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," Hur wrote in a lengthy report, explaining why Biden wasn’t being charged for mishandling classified information. "Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

Hur’s statements were strongly refuted by the White House, with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisting Biden “runs circles” around his staff and categorized questions about his mental fitness as “cheap fakes” conspiracy theories. 

Then in late June, Biden took the debate stage with former President Donald Trump. The veil was off and the entire country could see what the White House had been hiding: the Emperor had no clothes. Biden was cooked and the fallout was immediate.

Behind the scenes, Obama started making moves and handed out the knives for placement in Biden’s back. It was a gamble he, and his circle of influence, hoped would pay off. 

On July 10, Clooney published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for Biden to drop out. 

“It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe 'big F-ing deal' Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate,” Clooney wrote. “As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, whom we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question…Is it fair to point these things out? It has to be. This is about age. Nothing more. But also nothing that can be reversed. We are not going to win in November with this president.”

The pressure kept building, with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats on Capitol Hill piling on. 

On July 21, after nearly two weeks of insisting he could beat Trump and that he was staying in the race, Biden left the campaign through a letter posted on X. Vice President Kamala Harris, a woman who had to drop out of the 2020 race for the White House before a single primary vote was cast, quickly became the new nominee. 

After a few days of consideration and debate among Democrats over holding an open convention to find a suitable candidate to beat Trump, Obama endorsed her candidacy. Former First Lady Michelle Obama joined him. 

But with just 11 days to go until Election Day 2024, Harris keeps falling behind and she’s losing ground. Not just in the swing states, but in the national popular vote. The more the campaign puts her out for interviews and conversations with voters, her popularity decreases. 

In recent days, Biden and Obama were caught speaking about the state of the race at the funeral for Ethel Kennedy. They lamented about a weak Harris candidacy, with Biden appearing to say, “I’m stronger than her.” 

He's not the only one making that statement. 

“What if Joe Biden was the better candidate all along?” The Hill asks.  

Obama made a big bet by pushing out Biden. With Election Day approaching and as Trump surges, the gamble may not pay off. 



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Kamala: I Oppose Political Violence but *Wink Wink* Trump ‘IS a Threat to America’


Rusty Weiss reporting for RedState 

Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking before a campaign rally in Texas on Thursday, spoke out against violent rhetoric but immediately reminded supporters that her opponent, former President Donald Trump, is a "danger" and a "threat" to this nation.

A reporter asked Harris about a statement put out by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in which they vociferously decried the current rhetoric coming from the Democrat nominee equating Trump to Hitler.

The statement accused her of having "fanned the flames beneath a boiling cauldron of political animus" with her recent actions. Actions amplifying specious reports out of The Atlantic and The New York Times accusing the GOP nominee of expressing admiration for Hitler and his generals.

Several high-ranking officials have disputed the allegations, and it seems unlikely that former Gen. John Kelly, a key player in the smear campaign, just suddenly remembered something that was allegedly said five years ago.

The reporter requested her reaction to the statement from McConnell and Johnson. And bear in mind this is against the backdrop of two recent assassination attempts against her opponent, one that came within millimeters of succeeding and plunging the country into chaos.

"Well, listen, we all must speak out against any form of political violence and I'm very clear about that," Harris said before becoming very murky on the matter.

"No one should be the subject of violence, much less political violence," she added. "But, the American people deserve to be presented with facts and the truth."

"And the fact and the truth is that some of the people closest to Donald Trump when he was president — generals, including most recently John Kelly, a four-star Marine General — have been very clear about the danger and the threat that Donald Trump poses to America."

It is the kind of reprehensible wink-and-a-nod rhetoric that leads to actionable violence against aggrieved people and their political adversaries. You can't, within seconds of each other, say "no to political violence" while adding a disclaimer of "but this guy is a threat to our nation."

There's no way to sugarcoat this, folks. Kamala's statements are practically a dog whistle to her supporters to take another shot at Trump. Literally, another shot.

But then, we've grown accustomed to this kind of behavior. Harris, following the first attempt on Trump's life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, stood alongside President Biden after he publicly responded by suggesting Americans need to “lower the temperature in our politics."

“We cannot, we must not, go down this road in America,” Biden said at the time. “There is no place in America for this kind of violence, for any violence, ever. Period."

He would later offer his "deepest condolences" to the family of Corey Comperatore, the man killed at the Butler rally, while flanked by Harris and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

A Politico report within 72 hours of that statement revealed Harris was struggling to find ways to denounce the violence while continuing to argue "why he’s unfit to be president."

“There must be unity around the idea that while our nation’s history has been scarred by political violence, violence is never acceptable. There can be no equivocation about that,” she said before equivocating it. “At the same time, the hallmark of American democracy, the hallmark of any democracy, is a strong competition of ideas, policies, and a vision for the future.”

Harris then indicated the American people needed to be aware of what is "at stake in this election."

You know, the end of democracy and such.

That was bad enough at the time, but now, according to Kamala's last press conference, what is at stake is the possibility that a man the likes of Hitler could be put into the White House.

“Trump said he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler had,” Harris claimed without evidence. “He wants a military that is not loyal to the Constitution, but loyal to him.”

“This is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best.”

Hillary Clinton backed up those statements by letting her own unhinged followers know that Trump's rally this Sunday featuring Tucker Carlson at Madison Square Garden is practically a Nazi rally.

“One other thing that you’ll see next week, (CNN host) Kaitlan (Collins), is Trump actually reenacting the Madison Square Garden rally in 1939. I write about this in my book,” Clinton said. “President Franklin Roosevelt was appalled that neo-Nazis, fascists in America were lining up to essentially pledge their support for the kind of government that they were seeing in Germany.”

“So I don’t think we can ignore it.”

Clinton also went on to suggest Trump is a “clear and present” danger to the nation.

The media spreads the lie, Harris amplifies it, and Clinton confirms it. Again, it's the "We're totally against political violence, we swear ... but it'd be a shame if something were to happen to Hitler 2.0" nonsense. *Wink wink nudge nudge*

The Trump campaign responded to Harris's latest comments on X, saying they are "abhorrent, shameful, and completely disqualifying."

My colleague Teri Christoph recently points out that this negative turn in messaging, this pivot away from "joy" and headlong into darkness, is evidence that Democrats are "successfully telegraphing to their foot soldiers that the 'orange man' isn't just bad, he's a 'threat to democracy.'"

What do they think is going to happen in the days leading up to the election when they state over and over again that he is a threat to the very foundation of this nation, a clear and present danger, a fan of Hitler holding a Nazi rally with all of his Nazi supporters?

Can you imagine what one of Harris's unhinged followers, wholeheartedly believing these hysterical smears, might do?

They can. They know exactly what they're doing.



Kamala Harris Explains to CNN Audience Why She Doesn’t Have Policy Answers



Speaking to a CNN Townhall, Kamala Harris was asked to describe her weakness.  She replied:

“I may not have the answer as soon as you ask it about a specific policy sometimes because I’m gonna wanna research it; I’m going to wanna study it, I’m kind of a nerd sometimes ha ha ha ha ha! I confess!”

WATCH:


One very upset person responded via social media with an extremely salty explosion.

~ Very Bad Language Alert ~


DC Stunned – The Washington Post Refuses to Endorse Kamala Harris


There is a transparent irony in the stenography operation of the Deep State, the people who sell the Dis-Mis-Malinformation narratives of the IC, saying, “The decision to cease endorsements is a “statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”  Thus, the Washington Post chooses not to endorse Kamala Harris, and the professional political left is absolutely going bananas.  [WaPo Announcement Here]

Writing an editorial to explain the decision, publisher Will Lewis said, “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable.”  There’s no word on how Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos feels about the decision.

When you accept that the Washington Post is the PR firm for the comprehensive Intelligence Community, one way to look at this surprising non-endorsement is to see the IC as playing possum.  This is the second major new publication to refuse a Harris endorsement.  The Los Angeles Times also did not endorse their Democrat candidate.  It appears Kamala Harris really is that toxically bad.

The team who operates the Obama network must be exceptionally upset at being rebuked by both the LA Times and the Washington Post.  This is a seismic ideological shift indicating their view the election needle is heavily favoring President Trump.  This shift also follows the refusal of several labor unions to endorse Kamala.

[…] “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.

Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.

And that is what we are and will be.” (read full announcement)

There are fear tremors everywhere in the DC dark forces.


Following Non-Endorsement, Victoria Nuland’s Husband Resigns as ‘Editor at Large’ from Washington Post

Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, has resigned as the Editor at Large from the Washington Post.

WASHINGTON – […] The Post’s newsroom and editorial team erupted in outrage. Robert Kagan, a neoconservative columnist and editor at large at the Post, resigned in response, he confirmed in a statement to POLITICO. A spokesperson for the Post declined to comment on Kagan’s resignation. (more)

Allow me to take you back two-years, to November of 2023 for a reminder.

CTH ARCHIVES – Everyone in/around U.S. politics knows the Washington Post, owned by Big Tech Amazon, is effectively the PR firm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). No one inside the DC beltway does not understand this basic truth.

Therefore, when the husband of State Dept official Victoria Nuland, a man named Robert Kagan, writes an op-ed in the CIA newsletter, effectively calling for President Trump to receive the Julius Caesar treatment, the non-subtle message is for the CIA to repeat their Kennedy performance and kill President Trump.

As alarming as this acceptance might sound, there are no intellectually honest people who would deny it.

WaPo/CIA – Let’s stop the wishful thinking and face the stark reality: There is a clear path to dictatorship in the United States, and it is getting shorter every day. In 13 weeks, Donald Trump will have locked up the Republican nomination. In the RealClearPolitics poll average (for the period from Nov. 9 to 20), Trump leads his nearest competitor by 47 points and leads the rest of the field combined by 27 points. The idea that he is unelectable in the general election is nonsense — he is tied or ahead of President Biden in all the latest polls — stripping other Republican challengers of their own stated reasons for existence.

[…] Are we going to do anything about it? To shift metaphors, if we thought there was a 50 percent chance of an asteroid crashing into North America a year from now, would we be content to hope that it wouldn’t? Or would we be taking every conceivable measure to try to stop it, including many things that might not work but that, given the magnitude of the crisis, must be tried anyway?

Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family? (more)

Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, the Editor at Large for the Washington Post and the man who called for the assassination of President Trump, has now resigned because the CIA newsletter would not endorse Kamala Harris!

Think about that for a little while.