Friday, September 20, 2024

Anyone Notice What Was Odd About the First Biden Cabinet Meeting in 11 Months?

 

With Joe Biden no longer running, another Trump assassination attempt, and Election Day within weeks, the Biden administration is preparing for their political funeral by holding its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. But there was something unusual about this gathering: First Lady Jill Biden at the head of the table. It reverts to an old question about this presidency: who’s in charge? 

And would it shock you that CNN would frame the meeting like this as if this were anything but normal? Of course, Jill being at this meeting is buried toward the end. What is likely accurate, and it’s not shocking, is that “President” Joe Biden wants his incompetent crew to go into hyperdrive in enacting his agenda as his presidency ends. Everyone does that:

President Joe Biden will instruct Cabinet members Friday to “sprint to the finish,” a White House official said, as he looks to burnish legacy items while ensuring as much of his agenda is implemented before a potential second Trump presidency. 

“He will direct his Cabinet to get as much work done as possible – whether that is moving funding out the door, announcing new programs or policies or delivering on programs and policies we have already announced,” the official said. 

[…] 

At Friday’s meeting, first lady Dr. Jill Biden will share an update on a White House women’s health research initiative, the first time she’s participated in a such a session. Previous first ladies have attended their husband’s Cabinet meetings. 

“The president will direct his Cabinet to get to work and make the next four months as productive as any other period in our administration,” the official said. “Much of the Cabinet has been with President Biden since Day One and this meeting will be an opportunity for all of them to assess the enormous progress they have made together and game out how they will continue to make history in the remaining months of the Biden-Harris administration.” 

Curtis Houck at Newsbusters summarized this meeting well: It was nice of the real president to hold a cabinet meeting with her husband.

There's nothing normal about this.

***

UPDATE: Also, what?

Advertisement
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

JD Vance Delivered Another Masterclass in Obliterating the Media

 

It got buried because Donald Trump was the victim of another attempted assassination on the same day. Still, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) took CNN’s Dana Bash to the cleaners about the situation in Springfield, Ohio. He took the liberal narrative about the town and ran it over with a tank. He knows the game—and executed another masterclass in outmaneuvering the establishment press. Bash was clearly irritated that she couldn’t land any punches, and it was becoming clear that Vance might be entering an area where his invitation to this network might be cut down significantly or outright rejected if he kept embarrassing the network’s hosts in this manner.

 Bash tried to suggest Vance and Donald Trump were responsible for the bomb threats against the town. We now know that these threats were hoaxes sent by unhinged jokers overseas, though the media was sure it was the fault of the 2024 Republican ticket. At the time and during this interview, Vance denounced the violence. Still, the Ohio Republican said, rightly, that we can do both things: reject the violence being directed at the town and talk about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ failed immigration policies, specifically the abuse in issuing temporary protected status.

The CNN host interrupted Vance, who took the combative interview in stride. You know that Bash was cornered when she pressed Vance, a US Senator from Ohio, on whether he visited Springfield. When Vance said yes, he’d been there more than 100 times and knew the community. Bash wondered if he had recently as if that mattered. We know one thing is true: Bash and CNN probably never set foot within 1000 miles of Springfield until they thought they could use it to attack the Republicans.

The fact that memes and now remixed songs are coming from Trump’s remarks about “eating the dogs” and “eating the cats” shows the media cannot control this story. They cannot weaponize it, and it drives them nuts. A lot of it has to do with the fact that everyone knows the media has no integrity. They lie—and we know CNN is unabashedly anti-Trump.

Cope and seethe, CNN.

All Vance did was bring up concerns from his constituents. He admitted that he'd ignore it if it were one or two people. It’s not that, though—and now it seems to be spreading to nearby Columbus and Dayton.

With the media taking buckshot to the face on that narrative, why should we discount the Springfield city manager who made the allegations about pets being eaten back in March or the numerous eyewitness accounts?

Advertisement
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Can Harris's Cynical, Run-Out-the Clock Campaign Succeed?

 

Cynically running out the clock has been the overarching principle of the entire abbreviated 105-day presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris -- ever since President Joe Biden, at the 11th hour, dropped out in July.

Harris seems unwilling or unable to answer any impromptu question that she has not been previously prepped for. Her answers at the debate were memorized and canned. They never addressed the questions asked.

Her single, 11-minute post-debate Philadelphia interview was a shipwreck of dodging and dissimulating -- even though the host was sympathetically left-wing.

Even socialist Bernie Sanders pointed out that for Harris to get elected, she must temporarily disown her lifelong leftist credentials.

As vice president, she must further deny co-ownership of the unpopular record of the Biden-Harris administration.

Left unstated is that whether she wins the presidency -- or loses it and continues as vice president for another three months -- nonetheless she will inevitably revert back to her hard-core, lifelong leftist beliefs.

In addition, Harris has reconstructed her privileged upbringing as a child of two PhDs, living in a posh Montreal neighborhood into a struggling, middle-class Oakland childhood.

How can she stage such a complete makeover -- and contemptuously count on the voting public to be so easily deceived?

She avoids all news conferences, one-on-one nationally broadcast interviews, and town halls. And like Biden, she will debate only on leftist venues with impartial pro-Harris moderators.

When asked to provide the details of her past responsibility for the open border, inflationary economy, spiraling crime, attacks on fossil fuels, and collapsing foreign policy, Harris smiles, makes hand gestures, and dodges. She changes the subject to her empathetic personality, her "joy" campaign, and her iconic profile as a supposedly dynamic black woman.

When pressed, Harris outsources the task of squaring her hypocrisies and subterfuges to the stonewalling campaign, Democratic surrogates -- and the media.

Harris is also certainly not running on her demonstrable experience, vision, or intelligence as much as she is not Trump (or, for that matter, her former partner, Biden).

To make that distinction stark, Harris must demonize and bait Trump nonstop and make the country fear him.

So, she paints Trump as a racist and violent insurrectionist, not a former president whose four-year term saw a superior foreign policy, economy, border, and security than during the Biden-Harris term.

Instead, Harris has repeatedly claimed Trump is a dictator and a threat to democracy -- as if he had politically weaponized the FBI, CIA, DOJ, or IRS as had former President Barack Obama and Biden.

Trump as Hitler has become a staple Democrat smear for the past decade.

That vicious caricature is so entrenched that major Democratic figures assume it's OK to joke about, or seriously call for, Trump's demise.

So, Harris's current prominent advisor David Plouffe years ago warned the nation that "it is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again."

Just last year, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-NY, claimed that Trump "is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be, he has to be eliminated."

Advertisement

Even after an assassin sought to kill Trump last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared, "Extreme MAGA Republicans are the party of a national abortion ban and Trump's Project 2025. We must stop them."

Harris's dehumanizing of Trump, outsourcing the campaign to the media, avoiding all public dialogue, and temporarily reinventing one's politics and biography have taken a toll on the country.

Harris was coronated the Democratic candidate without ever entering a primary or winning a single delegate by vote. Some 14 million Democrat primary voters were reduced to irrelevancy.

Like the 2020 Biden campaign, Harris has nationalized a new kind of cynical campaign in which leftist candidates seek for a few months to deceive the public into thinking they are centrist and moderate -- until elected.

Avoiding all cross-examination and outsourcing the campaign to the obsequious media is now the new norm.

Most news stories deemed unhelpful to Harris -- the left-wing, pro-Harris politics of the recent would-be Trump assassin, the distortion that dozens of bomb threats were called in against Springfield schools by Trump supporters when most, if not all, were perpetrated by foreign actors, or prominent Democrats before and after the recent assassination attempt blaming Trump for being the target of an assassin -- are suppressed by the media.

The recent two foiled assassination attempts on Trump logically follow a near-decade pattern of trying to destroy rather than outvote him.

The Russian collusion hoax, the laptop disinformation con, the two impeachments, the effort to remove Trump from some 16 state ballots, and the attempt to jail and bankrupt Trump through five criminal and civil "lawfare" indictments and suits also led to the current hateful climate of Trump assassination attempts.

Harris thinks her delays, deceptions, and vilifications for the next 47 days will ensure her victory.

But if so, it will be because she, her stealth campaign, and her self-proclaimed guardians of democracy have been willing to systematically destroy it.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

How do you celebrate holidays?


This is my first writing prompt. In the 1980s and 1990s, holidays were reunions with 4 nuclear families with cousins and aunts / uncles and grandparents. My grandma would invite me to her house or my uncle would invite our family over to their house with 3 or 4 other nuclear families. The men watched national football league(Greenbay Packers with Bret Farve) and drank Coors or Pabet Blue Ribbon beer. They would tell stories about their health. Then I had a birthday party for halloween where mom’s friends were nurses or the Hartmons (David hartmon, age 39, Brian Hartmon age 37) would spend the night and play Nintendo 64, Saturn, Dreamcast, or Gamecube with me. I would watch Halloween (1979), The Horror of Dracula (1958), The Devil’s Bride (1963), Sleepy Hollow (1999), Taste the Blood of Dracula, The thing (1950), Curse of the Demon (1950) or Dracula Prince of Darkness. (1962) We would decorate the house with pumpkins and department 56 halloween houses and german nutcrackers.

At Christmas, I would open presents under a Christmas tree and some years with a Christmas train. In my childhood, I went to a old Redeemer Lutheran church in Burkhardt, Wisconsin to celebrate with mom’s pastor. Later I would open presents under a christmas tree, and watch youtube or movies like Ben Hur, A Christmas Carol (1984), A Christmas carol (1938), A Christmas Carol (1951) . Shop Around the Corner, White Christmas, Holiday Inn. There is also german santa clause nutcrackers and wreaths.

During Easter, I would find the basket with a gift inside and watch Ben Hur (1959) or The Ten Commandments, and always Easter Parade (1944). All these movies were on Turner Classic Movies, but over time I bought DVDs and Blurays. There is also Easter bunny nutcrackers.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Share a lesson you wish you had learned earlier in life.


I went to a trade school earlier in my life in 2004 after high school up until 2007 at WITC New Richmond and Chippewa Valley Technical College I tried Electrician associate degree, but after the Algebra and flunking Electrician in 2nd quarter, I went into Industrial Networking with the multimeters and soldiering motherboards and making Cat 3e RJ-45 cable and typing source code C++ into Visual Basic/Visual Studio. some students were taking mechanics or learning business administration. I knew I would fail, because I was failing at Electrician so I needed a Management information systems Business administration like industrial networking administrations. I couldn’t see myself getting though college. I went to Rasmussen University after i flunked Chippewa Valley Technical college in River Falls Wisconsin and then WITC New Richmond. I wasn’t good socially or with women. Women are just to crazy even then in 2004! I had no girlfriend for 40 years. ,Unless I had a stroke in my mid-20s. so point is I was at two trade schools. Then I got my BS in project management in business administration after 11 years driving to school, getting tutoring from college or spending most of the week on the school’s online message board and typing 10-12 pages a week in Microsoft Word. Its so easy to get Fs in college if you slack just a little. To get that BS i had to be serious for 11 years.

I was on okcupid and eharmory and plentyoffish since 2005 and no woman were interested in me so I dated once in 2005 at a Hudson Wisconsin coffee shop with Nikki. Nikki was in college taking chemistry to become a scientist and didn’t like my jPEG slideshow off my Playstation Portable of my house and hobbies. In 2012, PlentyofFish just banned me for messaging several women. The women wanted rich $100000 salary, tall, intelligent white men, and banned me. In the 2000s, those dating services were free. I have desktop screenshots of those 2000s dating sites logged in, but i have yet to upload them. The good guys were marrying from 2008-2014 my age. Since I’m 40, I know some divorced boy scouts already.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 16, 2024

The GOP Could Sweep the Senate…If We Don’t Screw It Up

 

We Republicans have to not just win the Senate but win the Senate beyond the margin of Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. If we have less than 53 Republicans in our coalition, it’s these two who are going to be running things and Mitch McConnell won’t be there to crack the whip and impose his iron discipline. But can we do it? We currently have 49 seats out of 100, but we have a pretty good map this year. That would normally mean that we’re well-positioned to win. Yet, we Republicans have a disadvantage. We’re Republicans, and far too often, we blow it.

Except this time, that doesn’t seem to be true. Things look good. There are some real fights going on, and we shouldn’t take any of them for granted. But the fundamentals are with us, the presidential election seems to be going our way despite the regime media orgasm over her marginal debate performance the other night, and we’ve got some good people running. We need to take the Senate, and we need, as a practical matter, about 53 seats to be able to support Donald Trump in making America great again.

We have a good shot at doing it, but it’s not a given. It’s not going to be easy. We could very easily not achieve it, especially if we don’t focus and work. But things are looking good in recent elections. The vast majority of contested Senate races went away from the presidential winner, and Trump’s looking pretty good. 

But then, when I start feeling good, I start wondering if it’s confirmation bias. I want to win. I want to hear we are doing well. So, I reached out to my sources deep in the fight, folks who are actually working with the candidates or candidates themselves. They are telling me things are looking better overall. Said one deep insider: “Not overhyping our odds, but if the environment is good, lightning could strike and build a durable majority.”

 Oh, it’s not going to be a walkover. It’s going to be a battle, and a Trump victory will be key. So, let’s see where everything is at from my perspective and from some of the candidates…

Let’s start with the gimmes. In West Virginia, Joe Manchin is sending himself off into retirement. There goes a Democrat seat in the reddest of America’s states. He will be replaced by their current governor, Jim Justice, who looks like he should be chasing Bo and Luke and the General Lee through the backroads in a sheriff’s cruiser. He’s a politician from another time, arguably a better time than this gender, confused communist nightmare era. He’s going to win, and the most important thing besides him providing the GOP’s 50th vote is that he will bring his awesome puppy, Ladydog, with him to Washington, DC. 

Another done deal is Jim Banks in Indiana, where he’ll be replacing another, softer Republican. Banks is a Navy veteran and hardcore, and it looks like the Democrats are giving up even their faint hopes of success there. I asked him about the state of the race, and he told me that his “opponent had $15,000 cash on hand as of the last FEC report, and Democrats appear to be completely conceding Indiana to Republicans.” You love to hear it!

For some reason, the Democrats think they can beat Deb Fischer in Nebraska, and I want to encourage this delusion because I want them to spend money there. Spoiler alert: The Democrats are not going to win Nebraska.

The Democrats say they’re going to beat Rick Scott in Florida, which tells me that they aren’t waiting for the voters to pass the marijuana legalization initiative before getting high.

And, of course, the Democrats are imagining that they are going to turn Texas blue somehow and beat Ted Cruz with some liberal hack. It’s always fun to watch them Lucy and the football his Texas Senate races. Ted’s going to beat this dude like he beat the furry.

Montana is not a done deal, but it’s getting close. 

The GOP voters in Montana did the smart thing and nominated Tim Sheehy to replace fake country guy John Tester. Sheehy’s campaign points out that “Tester claims to fight for Montanans, but he votes with Biden-Harris 95% of the time.” That seems to be a suboptimal argument for reelection. Tester is a professional politician who acts like a character from “Yellowstone” when he visits Montana and drives his Prius to Whole Foods to get tofu when he’s back home in Washington, D.C. Sheehy was a Navy SEAL, and the polls have him ahead. He’s likely to be seat 51. 

Now things get more challenging. Ohio and Pennsylvania are the big targets, and I happen to know the nominees in both races. Bernie Moreno, who immigrated legally and made himself rich, is running in Ohio. He built himself a huge business, and, by coincidence, before he even got into politics, one of his companies happened to have an issue out in California, and I was the lawyer For his company. I remember noting that this CEO took a personal interest in that substantial, but not incredibly huge, case. I respect hands-on leadership. Bernie is a great guy and exactly what we need in The Swamp. The only thing I didn’t like about him was that he spoke Spanish with my wife, and I think they were talking smack about me!

Advertisement

I asked him about the state of the race in my home state: “We just got numbers out of the field and are tied – despite Sherrod spending $25 million over eight months. We just started our advertising and have Sherrod at the lowest point of his career.  Voters are very smart and aren’t sending Sherrod Brown back to the Senate to stop President Trump’s agenda when he wins on November 5th!”

The Schlichters come from Pennsylvania, and Dave McCormick lived as a child in both towns where my parents grew up. Dave is a soldier – finally, somebody from the Army! – and I won’t hold him being a West Pointer against him. He went on to build a huge business, create jobs, and get rich, which real Americans understand to be a good thing. Dave is a genuine and down-to-earth guy, and I am particularly glad that he is a fellow Gulf War veteran because it’ll be nice to have somebody who was part of America’s last unequivocal victory helping to rebuild our military.

Some of the other races may be tougher, but they are winnable. I’ve gotten to know Kari Lake,  and the fake regime media image of her is complete baloney. She’s down-to-earth, funny, and a smart and dedicated patriot. I think she is particularly wise for reaching out to moderate Republicans this time, trying to rebuild a state party that was shattered by internal division. But can she win? She told me: “The Arizona Senate race is a dead heat — AARP bipartisan polling shows it statistically tied. Club For Growth Polling shows the race tied. NRSC shows me leading by 1 point. President Trump is beating Harris by 4 points in recent New York Times polls.” Kari knows her state – she spent years talking to the people of Arizona as a newscaster, and only a fool would underestimate her potential against the outright Marxist lunatic she’s running against.

Sam Brown has a tough race in Nevada against a faceless Democrat hack. Another Army vet, Brown has a shot of riding Trump’s coattails to a surprise victory.

In Virginia, we have another Navy guy, Hung Cao. He’s got a tough but doable race. My fellow O6 told me that “the Virginia Senate race is one that will surprise everyone. President Trump knows this and that’s why he made Virginia a battleground state. Virginia wants change, and change can’t come from the same person that got us into high inflation, higher grocery and gas prices and higher interest rates.” I think he will be greatly helped if the Trump campaign puts some effort into Virginia, which may happen if Kamala completely melts down, something I believe is possible.

And then there is deep blue Maryland. Unlike New Hampshire, where a popular blue state governor wussed out, Larry Hogan stepped up. Look, I know he’s soft. But like Susan Collins, we’re never doing better than him in that pinko hellhole.

We’ve got good candidates: Mike Rogers in Michigan, Eric Hovde in Wisconsin, and Nella Domenici in New Mexico. But let’s face it, fax. If it isn’t a Trump landslide, it will be really hard to win these. That said, if you want to guarantee they lose, do nothing and don’t get out there and help.

So, we’re well positioned to get a majority, but a functioning and practical majority is more than just one seat. We need at least four turnovers, and right now, that is within reach. But in the end, it really depends on you. Pony up and get out and help. And if you aren’t in one of those states, pick a candidate and help him or her out. Make it happen, folks, we have to win this one and win it big if we are going to help Donald Trump make America great again.


Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Jennings Has a Message for Those Complaining About ‘Both Sides’ After Trump Assassination Attempt

 

On Sunday, a second assassination attempt took place against former and potentially future President Donald Trump. It was rhetoric from Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media that incited such an attempt on the Republican nominee’s life, as the Trump-Vance campaign highlighted in a long list of examples sent out on Monday. Also on Monday, CNN commentator Scott Jennings shared his thoughts to counteract the narrative from Democrats and the media, which is that it’s supposedly a “both sides” issue.

As he made clear we’re living in “unprecedented” and “crazy” times, Jennings pointed out “I know everybody is talking today about all the rhetoric in this country, and what are we going to do to fix it going forward.” 

“Folks, it’s too late. It’s too late, in my opinion, because all the rhetoric about Donald Trump over the last several years that he is a threat to democracy that the country will come to an end if he gets elected president again,” Jennings continued, as he mentioned how the media blamed Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) for bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio. The governor made clear that such threats were hoaxes. “Well, if you have believed that over the weekend, then how can you not believe that the rhetoric leading up to today is not somehow responsible for the fact that this man has now survived two assassination attempts,” Jennings asked.

As Jennings pointed out he is “extremely concerned for [Trump’s] safety,” he also noted he has “no level of confidence and anybody is prepared to do it” when it comes to the need for the nation to “calm down.” 

That was when host Rahel Solomon tried to cut in, claiming “but the rhetoric is on both sides,” prompting  Jennings to became even more passionate in his remarks. 

“They have tried to kill this man twice. Okay? He got shot in the ear, and this guy was sitting up sharp outside of a golf course to try to kill him this weekend. And I know, after something like this happens, it’s very fashionable to talk about rhetoric on both sides. Donald Trump is the target. Okay? He is the current target. And it’s happening and it’s happened again,” Jennings reminded. 

He also called on a discussion about losing elections, especially how Democrats and their rhetoric about Trump. “What I want Democrats to do, honestly, is to say, it’s okay. Like, if Donald Trump wins, democracy will not end. The Constitution will not end. We’re not going to live in a dictatorship. There will not be a bloodbath. All the things they say that are totally fabricated, to me, it would be a good day to stop doing that,” Jennings offered.

It was an argument he stressed again later in the segment, after speaking about how “we have a culture of fear in politics.” Thus, Jennings added, “the most important thing that could possibly happen, in my opinion, is for everybody to agree, especially Democrats that the country is not going to be irreparably damaged if Democrats lose that where Constitution is not going to go away, democracy is not going to come to an end.”

Jennings also once more reminded viewers of the false claims that Democrats have made, should Trump be elected again. “There will be no bloodbath. There will be no dictatorship on day one, which they all say all day long on this network and others. If everyone could just agree that that kind of hyperbolic statement will not take place anymore and that it’s not been true every time it’s been said, that would be a step in the right direction.” 

Towards the end of the segment, Jennings also focused on worries for Trump, as he noted that he’s “very concerned about Trump’s safety. I mean, he– obviously, if he goes outside, he is in danger, and I don’t know what to do about it.”

I’m not interested in “the rhetoric on both sides” today. Trump is the target. He’s survived two assassination attempts. He’s in danger and it’s probably too late to de-radicalize everyone who thinks the country will end if he wins. My latest for @cnn pic.twitter.com/4xD2NXGWT4— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) September 16, 2024

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

NAACP Poll Is Brutal for Kamala

 

The tweet from The Hill sounded ominous: an NAACP poll showed that black voters are more enthused to vote in 2024 than in 2008. However, it only takes about three seconds to know that’s facially untrue. Kamala Harris isn’t Barack Obama. Harris isn’t leading in the battleground polls since we know the Trump vote is underestimated—she’s nowhere near where she needs to be to offset that polling conundrum. Obama had political skills and could efficiently deliver a message; it resonated. Harris is a cackling idiot who never answers the question. Obama was excellent in interviews, while Harris is a trainwreck from East Palestine, Ohio.

One could argue that the framing done by liberal outlets on this poll is insulting to voters, especially nonwhite voters, as it’s an unnecessary ‘what they meant to say’ sort of spin to counter the heinous polling Harris is generating right now. Here’s how the Hill framed this poll: 

Black voters, buoyed by Kamala Harris, more excited to vote in 2024 than in 2008: Poll https://t.co/3COY4X60Hl— The Hill (@thehill) September 15, 2024

A majority of Black voters are just as excited or more this year as in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) became the first Black president, according to new polling. 

A survey from the NAACP, in partnership with HIT Strategies and Hart Research, found that 78 percent of Black voters feel the same sense of excitement as when Obama first ran, with 56 percent being more excited now than in 2008. 

[…]

Fifty-one percent of Black voters said they would cast their ballots for Harris if the election were held today. Only 27 percent said the same of former President Trump.   

But gender and generational disparities persist among Black voters. 

While 79 percent of women over the age of 50 said they would vote for Harris, 66 percent of men over 50 said the same. Only 56 percent of voters aged 18-49 said the same. 

And then, Ryan Girdusky decided to go to the source, and it’s a disaster for Harris:

So I read this poll and it’s actually a disaster for Kamala Harris.

Obama won over 95% of the black vote.

The NAACP has Kamala winning 63% of the black vote, including only 49% of black men under 50. https://t.co/KO145tLeWs pic.twitter.com/W20a6gX2zj— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) September 15, 2024

Newsweek did mention how the NAACP doesn’t bode well, though it wasn’t as specific as Girdusky. It only noted many lines down that Harris is polling behind past Democratic candidates.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

MSNBC Host Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About the ABC News Debate

 

Donald Trump missed his chance to deliver a knockout blow to Kamala Harris. It was sloppier than his first debate. She got under his skin, which led to some nonsensical tangents, something Harris wanted to do. Anything that can be done to get her out of talking about policy is a win for that camp. Yet, despite my disappointment in Trump’s performance, where he had multiple opportunities to turn Harris inside out as a total clown who is unqualified and unprepared to be president, the vice president was assisted mightily by ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. It was the Democrat media complex at work, and they arguably were debating with Trump during this circus last night. MSNBC's Nicole Wallace and Tim Walz both said the quiet part out loud: the moderators rigged the debate. 

Advertisement

They live-fact-checked Trump five times to Harris’ zero. The microphones were not muted; they made sure to sneak in ridiculous questions, like asking about Kamala Harris’ race. It was election interference, and when MSNBC hosts and Bill Kristol are saying ABC News’ moderators are doing a good job, you know it’s trash. From the war in Ukraine, which happened under Biden-Harris, to the spike in crime, ABC News was hell on wheels to fact-check the former president, even bizarrely getting whether Trump was being sarcastic or not. When even Trump-skeptic writers from right-leaning publications are noticing that this set-up is rigged, you know it’s bad. Megyn Kelly suggested that this would backfire.

Advertisement

In the end, Harris’ trust numbers on the economy, which were already at an appalling 37 percent in a CNN poll, dropped two points post-debate. And one wonders why the race question was hurled in there, right? Also, why has it not caught on; is it because even Don Lemon had questions about Kamala’s racial identity?

Some were also wondering if the vice president knew about the questions beforehand. It wouldn't be the first time; just ask Donna Brazile.  

***

Last Note: Was Muir worse than Candy Crowley?

Advertisement
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Good Guys with Guns

 

Do you carry a gun?

Bad idea, says Hollywood. Civilians with guns are fools. You are more likely to hurt yourself than the bad guy.

"Leave it to a good guy with a gun to really screw things up," says a cop on ABC's "The Rookie."

Liberal politicians agree.

"A good guy with a gun will stop bad guys with a gun?! It doesn't hold up," smiles New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

"An adolescent rescue fantasy," adds an "expert" on CBS.

Now, I'm not a gun person. I was raised among lefty gun haters. I assumed Hollywood and "experts" were right.

When I saw economist John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," I rolled my eyes. But now I understand that Lott makes a good point.

"A couple million times a year, people use guns defensively," he says in my new video. "When a civilian tries to stop one of these instances, they're overwhelmingly successful."

But FBI reports say self-defense with guns is rare.

"They're simply missing a huge number of cases," says Lott. He's posted a list of cases the FBI ignored, where civilians stopped shooters.

The FBI lists the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Forty-nine people were killed.

"One week afterwards," says Lott, "there was a similar attack at a nightclub in South Carolina."

But there, a civilian shot the attacker.

"Still had 125 rounds of ammunition on him when he was stopped!" says Lott.

Somehow, the FBI missed that case, along with so many others.

When 17 people were killed at Parkland, Florida, that got lots of news coverage.


Few people know that "just a few months later in Titusville, Florida, (at) an elementary school," says Lott, "a man came up, started firing his gun. Fortunately, a hot dog vendor (with a) concealed handgun was able to wound the attacker and stop him before he was able to kill."

"Stepped in and saved a lot of people's lives," said a local police officer.

But the FBI somehow missed that, too ...

Lott's list of ignored cases includes the story of Raul Mendez, who was at a party when a guest opened fire.

"Bullet enters right by my ear, goes straight through my face and out my left eye ... Blind from one eye and covered in blood, I unloaded four rounds and finished him off."

Mendez probably saved the lives of a dozen people at that party.

I tell him, "The FBI records instances like this, but somehow they have no record of your case."

"They're not recording the true numbers," Mendez replies.

I ask Lott why.

"There's a lot of political views that infect their data," he says. "I had interactions with the people in the FBI ... I had people tell me, 'Well, I'm a Democrat.'"

I push back. "The FBI, who carry guns, are anti-gun? It's not believable."

"They think that it would go against the narrative that they want to push," answered Lott.

Advertisement

Stossel TV asked the FBI why they don't include self-defense cases like Mendez'. They replied that their data is: "not intended to explore all facets of active shooter incidents."

Too bad politicians and the media don't realize that.

"It'd be great if we could just make all guns disappear," says Lott. "But when you ban guns, it's basically the most law-abiding good citizens who obey. Every place in the world that's banned all guns or all handguns has seen murder rates go up."

So-called experts like a psychiatrist featured on Detroit's CBS station confidently say, "There haven't been good guys with a gun who stop mass shootings. It's the kind of thing you learn reading comic books!"

Mendez replies: "I was prepared, and it saved lives. There's no comic book story about that. Those are facts. That's what happened. I was there. I'm sure there's many more out there that go unheard."

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Voter Reactions to the ABC News Debate Were Not Good...for Kamala

 

Donald Trump didn’t clinch a decisive win last night, though he had his chances. That’s what’s so frustrating. Kamala Harris wasn’t good, but also not a total disaster like Joe Biden was in June. She got under Trump’s skin, with the former president taking the bait on rally size and the 2020 election. Trump sounded and looked flustered over these topics, plus January 6 and the weaponization of the Justice Department. The more he spoke less about policy, the more comfortable Kamala became—that’s not good. There were chances to land a haymaker to knock her out, and Trump failed. Instead of demoralizing Democrats, we will now hear about how Kamala shifted the race. 

The ABC News debate was a disaster from a moderator standpoint, with David Muir and Linsey Davis exhibiting gross bias, also laying traps for Trump like the question about Kamala Harris' racial identity. Trump was facing Harris, Muir, and Davis last night. If you want to say it was a draw, that’s fair, but the fact Trump could bury Harris on policy is what irks me. It was there. Yet, as I noted earlier this morning, it might not matter. The CNN snap poll on who won showed Harris running away with it. Yet, on the crucial issue of the economy, she lost ground. It was already at a paltry 37 percent; It dropped to 35. 

We had voters saying how Trump, by default essentially, is more trusted on immigration. ABC News even admitted post-debate that Harris didn’t answer the questions. One voter in a CNN focus group said that when it comes down to brass tacks, her life was better under Trump—this was an undecided voter:

This poll is the one the media will focus on:

And yet:

We’re in Rorschach territory on this one: those who thought Kamala dominated will see that while other voters will think Trump bested her. Let’s revisit this once the latest wave of polls are released. No, I don’t think Trump lost, but he didn’t win either.

Advertisement

Harris’ campaign wants a second debate, though Trump was left in the spin room to answer that question since the Harris camp absconded to a fundraiser instead.

Regardless, because Harris 'won' the CNN debate poll, despite losing ground on handling the economy, expect a lot of funny takes from the media on how Harris made Trump meet his Waterloo when that's not the case.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Sunday, September 08, 2024

Pure Fire: Gov. Sarah Sanders Hits the Big Issue With the Cheneys, Other 'Republicans' Endorsing Harris

Liz Cheney's fifteen minutes were up several years ago, to borrow the famous phrase from the late, pop artist/filmmaking genius Andy Warhol. Yet she persists, seemingly only fixated on one goal in life: Demonizing former President Donald Trump and doing whatever she possibly can to prevent voters from returning him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in November.

RedState has written many stories on her and her family's (among others') recent endorsement of the radical leftist Dem nominee, Kamala Harris (find more here).

In loving support of that group's efforts, loyal Democrat soldiers in arms ABC News featured the disgraced, former Wyoming Republican congresswoman as its opening guest on the "This Week" program Sunday. I'm not going to give a full run-down on all of the dishonest statements Cheney made during her sit-down with host Jon Karl, but one detail really stuck out to me. 

The way this segment of the questioning started, with Karl asking her whether she still considers herself a Republican, because she said she would leave the GOP if Trump were the nominee, says so much. 

She flatly stated that she's "a conservative...[I've] been a lifelong Republican....I’m certainly not a Trump Republican."

Take a listen to this, though, something so conniving, I wouldn't have believed she said it unless I saw it with my own eyes. It was in reply to the host asking Cheney to react to Republicans "who are absolutely adamant they're not supporting Donald Trump but they're not taking the next step, they're going to write somebody in."

He name-checks Mitt Romney, former vice president, Mike Pence, and former Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD).

Watch: 

Well, I would say, you know, given the closeness of this election, particularly if you're going to find yourself voting in a swing state, you've got to take the extra step. If you really do recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses, then -- then it's not enough to simply say, I’m not going to vote for him.

So I would prefer to have as many people as possible out publicly making the case. But at the end of the day, you just have to wrestle with your own conscience when you're there in the voting booth.

...

But this November, casting a vote for Donald Trump or writing someone in means that you've made the decision in too many instances that so many elected Republicans have made which is -- is to abandon the Constitution, to tell yourself that this is just simply, you know, a partisan choice. (emphasis mine)

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-AR), who was press secretary during the Trump administration, then had the unenviable task of reacting to Cheney. She didn't just give a perfunctory response, which would have been good enough. More on that in a minute.

Sanders let viewers in on an insider analysis/preview for the debate Tuesday, and why she thinks we aren't really hearing about Trump but pages and pages of stories on Harris' debate prep:

Advertisement

I think that's why you're hearing so much about the preparation for Vice President Harris because this isn't something she does very often, and I think she has a lot to get ready for, and I don't think that she's up to the challenge, in large part not just because I don't know that she's a great debater, but she's so wrong on the issues that Americans care about, and she has a terrible track record to talk about.

She said the contrast couldn't be clearer: "Donald Trump has a good story to tell. He shows up at this debate from a position of strength."

Here was the best part. She spoke for so many of us in the conservative movement, on exactly what these endorsements of a progressive Democrat say about Cheney and other Never Trump "Republicans."

Watch:

I do think she actually is significantly in the minority. Here, you look across the board, prominent Republicans are supporting President Trump, but ultimately, I think she’s a nonfactor. I’m not trying to be rude, but you don’t get to call yourself a conservative or Republican when you support the most radical nominee that the Democrats have ever put up.

That doesn’t make you a conservative, it certainly doesn’t make you a Republican. I think it makes you somebody who wants to protect the establishment.

She continued, saying it isn't a "shock" or "news" that Cheney doesn't support Trump, "[b]ut what should come as a shock is that she is trying to call herself a conservative Republican or either one of those two words while supporting somebody who so clearly does not represent conservative principles."

Did that line about the establishment give you goosebumps? Because it did for me. This--right here--is exactly the way it should be done. We need more on our side speaking about all of the opposing forces we must fight to get the country turned around.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Gavin Newsom Vetoes Outrageous Bill That Would Have Given Housing Loans to Illegal Immigrants

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) had a moment of sanity on Friday when he vetoed an outrageous bill that would have provided loans of up to $150,000 to illegal immigrants who were first time homeowners. As Sarah covered last week, the bill known as AB 1840 passed the state legislature and made it to Newsom's desk. 

Although Newsom had until September 30 to sign the bill, he returned it without his signature weeks before the deadline, on September 6. 

"This bill seeks to prohibit the disqualification of applicants from one of California Housing Finance Agency's (CalHFA) home purchase assistance programs based solely on their immigration status," Newsom wrote. 

Newsom's veto does not appear raise issue with rewarding illegal immigration, but rather speaks to another issue: the state budget. "Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively," he continued in his veto letter. "For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill."

As Sarah also pointed out, California faces a budget deficit of $68 billion. The veto is currently a trending topic over X, with many users highlighting how Newsom focused on the cost involved.

A Fox News report from Friday about the veto included some rather outrageous but also particularly telling comments from Democrats in support of the bill and how they look to reward illegal immigrants:

However, Democratic lawmakers in the state have defended the legislation, arguing that it is simply designed to give illegal immigrants the same benefits afforded to everyone else in the state.

"It isn’t given out willy nilly to just anybody," Democratic Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes said during a June hearing on the bill.

By giving illegal immigrants "the same benefits afforded to everyone else," when they shouldn't be in the country in the first place, is very much incentivizing illegal immigration though. If someone who lacks legal status is receiving such a loan, that seems to be the very definition of those loans being "given out willy nilly."

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

The Media Lies Add Up

 

The public is exhausted after a decade of chronic untruth from the left-wing and its media.

The 2016 presidential campaign will be long remembered for the false allegation that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the election.

Citing the bogus “Steele dossier,” loser Hillary Clinton and other Democrat grandees claimed that the victorious Trump was an “illegitimate” president.

Almost immediately, the left and media then pushed for the appointment of special prosecutor Robert Mueller. He assembled a “dream team” of partisan prosecutors to prove Trump-Russian collusion.

Some 22 months later, Mueller found no evidence that Trump improperly won the 2016 election with help from any colluding Russians.

More hysteria followed when Trump was impeached in December 2019.

The left claimed he had pressured the Ukrainian government to look into the family of Joe Biden (then a potential 2020 election opponent) for its corruption with Ukrainian oligarchs — as a condition for releasing military aid designated to Kyiv.

Yet Hunter Biden was paid nearly $1 million a year by a Ukrainian energy company to enlist his father, Vice President Joe Biden, for quid pro quo services.

In turn, Joe Biden later bragged that he had pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor, Victor Shokin, who happened to be looking too closely into the various shady schemes of the Biden family.

The deceptions and lies continued.

On the eve of the first 2020 debate, Biden aide and now Secretary of State Antony Blinken helped to round up “51 former intelligence authorities” to claim falsely that Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop — full of incriminating evidence of felonious Biden family behavior — was fabricated by the Russians.

Yet the FBI already had the laptop and had authenticated it as genuine.

The FBI was also actively enlisting Silicon Valley social media companies to suppress accurate news accounts of the laptop’s embarrassing contents — ostensibly to aid the Biden campaign.

The signees of the false letter included former intelligence kingpins such as Leon Panetta, James Clapper, and John Brennan. None has ever apologized for deliberating lying to the country in a (successful) attempt to help alter an election.

During the summer of 2021, top military officials, at least publicly, parroted the Biden administration’s lie that it was safe to abruptly withdraw all troops from Afghanistan.

The Biden plan was to take political credit for ending the two-decade-long war on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and the American invasion of Afghanistan.

Yet many intelligence officials in and outside the Pentagon had warned both Biden and the Pentagon top brass that any such reckless and total withdrawal would collapse Afghanistan.

They rightly advised that sudden flight would give terrorists a windfall of equipment and infrastructure.

But they were ignored, and during the subsequent Biden misadventure, 13 American Marines were needlessly killed.

After the greatest military humiliation in a half-century, Biden and many in the media lied that the mission was nevertheless a successful withdrawal.

But that was not all. For the first time in history, a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, was subjected to numerous criminal and civil suits in an election year.

Yet the federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, met with Biden officials. A high-ranking Biden Justice federal attorney joined the New York municipal prosecution. The Georgia prosecutor met stealthily with Biden’s legal counsel. And a major Biden donor funded the civil suit.

The once collusion-hungry media ignored all such lawfare and rank collusion.

During the 2020 Democratic primaries, the general election, and throughout the first three years of the Biden administration, it was evident that Joe Biden was physically and mentally incapable of serving as president.

Yet his aides and the media all misled the American people. They insisted that Biden was vigorous and sharp.

Then, suddenly, in June 2024, within a 24-hour period, these same insiders declared Biden unfit to continue as the Democratic nominee.

Their new problem with Biden was not just his long-standing embarrassing dementia. Rather bad polls increasingly warned that voters no longer believed their lies and thus would likely not reelect Biden but would instead punish most Democrats in the upcoming 2024 election.

So, a new media narrative arose: the once-hale Biden was forced to resign as the Democratic nominee. His once widely caricatured vice president, Kamala Harris, was coronated as his replacement candidate just as abruptly as his replacement candidate by an equally suddenly gushing and colluding media.

In sum, for some nine years, the media and the left have successfully fed the country a succession of rank deceptions and conspiracies.

They did so because they proclaimed Trump too dangerous to be president, and therefore, any means they employed to stop him were to be justified. And they are doing so for a third time in 2024.

As they continue, they have all but destroyed democracy, ruined the reputation of the media, alienated the public — and embarrassed their country before the world.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

This Is Why Democrats Won’t Let Harris Or Walz Do Any Real Interviews

 

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz can’t avoid the debates without looking like they’re deliberately avoiding them – which means Kamala will be there Tuesday – but they can avoid being asked any serious questions, and they will. You’d think that would be political suicide, and it certainly won’t help them in the election. Still, the old saying about being silent and leaving people to think you might be an idiot or opening your mouth and confirming their suspicions is doubly true with this ticket. 

The heavy lifting the Democratic Party media did in 2020 was unprecedented, but it’s also nothing compared to what will be needed this year. Not because Donald Trump is so wildly popular, neither ticket has a majority favorability rating, but because Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are uniquely awful candidates and, honestly, people.

There’s a reason they speak in platitudes and fortune cookie slogans, and it’s not because they are desperate to find new ways to convey to voters their policy ideas. They are the equivalent of used car salesmen who are just shy of their boat payment in commissions this month, and they see you walk on their lot. You’re the mark.

The limited interviews they’ve given thus far have been devoid of substance or follow-ups, the two things that make interviews have any value whatsoever. CNN simply plowed through topics, limited by time to the point of worthlessness, which was the purpose of making it so short.

Kamala interviewed with someone called “Angel Baby,” which I doubt is the name on the birth certificate. The middle-aged Spanish language radio host in Arizona was tough enough to make CNN’s Dana Bash a grand inquisitor. To say it was worth less than zero would be an insult to the book.

Then there is Tim Walz. The stolen valor college mascot who dances around a stage like a coked-out Muppet seems incapable of having a serious conversation. More importantly, the unvetted Fraudie Murphy not only can’t act like a normal human being for a few consecutive seconds, he can’t string together a coherent thought. 

Part of it is that Kamala Harris has, at one point in the last 4 years, been on every side of all the issues. It must be hard to keep up and articulate a vision for someone how has none, but listening to Walz talk makes you realize he wants to hide him own opinions too.

He gave an interview to an NPR station in central Michigan in which he said exactly nothing. At least nothing coherent. 

To show what kind of pandering, lying frauds Democrats are, Walz kept claiming he and Harris would do things to lower property taxes. The federal government has no say over property taxes, but he claimed that building more houses and more federal spending on education would lower them, and just their general state of the economy in their fantasy land would too. 

Never, in all of property tax history, have any of those things happened, but Timmy just casually dropped that they would throughout the interview. It being conducted by a public radio station meant there was exactly zero engagement or asks for clarity. The “journalist” had their list of 6 questions on 6 different topics and literally nothing said was going to prevent him from asking all 6. It really was one of the most awful examples of an interview I’ve ever heard, check it out, it’s only 8 minutes long.

On each topic, Walz used a lot of words to say nothing. Listening to it and you might be confused into thinking he has some idea of what he’s saying, but when you read it you realize he’s simply that kid writing every buzzword he can think of in answer to an essay question hoping to get at least partial credit. 

Here’s his answer on the idea that a Harris/Walz administration could build 3 million houses –  2055 per day – over 4 years. See if anything he says in there makes sense.

Walz said:

“Yeah. And I think when we talk about this one, and I know this for a fact that that my home, my first home I bought, the only home I bought, was using the GI Bill. And what the GI Bill does on that was is it gives you…you don’t have to have a down payment on it. And what we know is that housing is foundational to everything. It’s foundational to a family stability, it’s foundational school achievement and we know that it’s the path to generational wealth, and we know that the supplies are too short right now.”

“We know that it’s a little too difficult to build in some areas and those are things that of course state and local regulations are going to have to work with. But this idea of giving a tax credit on the front end, the same thing with like small businesses, you start people out with this, it gives them the foundation to get in. That foundation allows them to build on it, and what we end up seeing is we see wealthier communities with more money invested back into them. We see a broader tax base, which means lower property taxes for everybody. And so that dream of owning a home. We can do this. What we don’t need is, we don’t need large venture capitalists buying up large stocks of homes and then jacking the prices up on them. That is not what we need and that’s what we’ve seen in many areas.”

“So, I think this plan gets more at that ability to get people in, and look, folks will pay their own way. You’re still going to have to pay your mortgage. You’re still going to have to make your way, but that coupled with an opportunity economy with a middle class is making a living wage, making a housing wage, has healthcare, and now has a home. We see all kinds of positive things happen when we do that.”

Forget the lies; assume it’s all true. Does it make sense? Does it sound like someone who knows what they’re talking about?

The Left-Wing Industrial Complex can’t allow these people near anyone who might know what they’re talking about or demand a coherent answer. They can only appeal to dumb people who are ready to believe the idea that there is some quick and easy fix for every problem. Still, these Democrats – who are currently in power and could implement them right now – will only clearly articulate them if they win in November. Otherwise, they’ll take their “solutions” to the grave. 

Let’s send them to their political grave so they can take their ideas with them. That way, we don’t have to suffer through the horror of what would inevitably be a deeper hole than we’re already in as Kamala cackles and Tim flails around while insisting we can dig our way out of it if we just dig harder.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

House Committee Subpoenas Walz in COVID Fraud Scheme Investigation

 

The GOP-led Committee on Education & The Workforce issued a subpoena to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Wednesday for records related to the largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.

“As the chief executive and the highest ranking official in the state of Minnesota, you are responsible for the MDE [Minnesota Department of Education] and its administration of FCNPs [Federal Child Nutrition Programs],” Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said to Walz in a cover letter accompanying the subpoena. “Statements in the press by you and your representatives indicate that you and other executive officers were involved, or had knowledge of, MDE’s administration of the FCNP and responsibilities and actions regarding the massive fraud.”

In 2022, a U.S. attorney charged 70 individuals associated with Minnesota-based Feeding Our Future (FOF) for their alleged roles in defrauding the USDA of over $250 million in taxpayer funds—money intended to feed hungry children. To date, five individuals have been convicted of fraud that the assistant U.S. attorney on the case called “not just criminal, [but] depraved and brazen.” Charges include federal programs bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. While dozens are still awaiting trial, questions remain regarding the role of the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) administration of the Federal Child Nutrition Programs and its oversight of FOF. 
 
After MDE, under Governor Walz, failed to respond to previous attempts by the Committee to garner information necessary to uncover how the Governor and the USDA allowed such fraud to occur, the Committee today is proceeding with a subpoena to compel responses. (Committee on Education and the Workforce)

The Committee said subpoenas were also sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Office of Inspector General.

🚨 Tim Walz’s admin. subpoenaed by @virginiafoxx related to the “largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the nation.”

How much did the governor know about the criminal activity that stole $250 million in taxpayer funds intended to feed children in need?

More⬇️https://t.co/rTJ9NbwKd8 pic.twitter.com/Ebrpe4dZMV— House Committee on Education & the Workforce (@EdWorkforceCmte) September 4, 2024

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Biden Reveals What the Woefully Misnamed Inflation Reduction Act Is Really About

 

With his term ending in a matter of months, President Joe Biden is still trotted out on occasion to give remarks. As he continues to be less and less with it, Biden has also made some curious admissions, including when it comes to the woefully misnamed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), over two years after he signed it into law.

Speaking in Westby, Wisconsin on Thursday, Biden made quite the declaration. “I’m proud to announce that my–my investments–that through my investments, the most significant climate change law ever,” accurately pointing out how the IRA is more so about climate alarmism. He also reminded that the bill came with a $369 billion price tag.

“It’s called the–we–we should have named it what it was, but it–but any rate,” Biden trailed off to laughter from the audience. 

Joe Biden just STRAIGHT UP ADMITTED that the Inflation Reduction Act was a TOTAL SCAM that had NOTHING to do with reducing inflation!

Does Kamala Harris agree with this?

“We should’ve named it what it was!” pic.twitter.com/2WL7N1exN2— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 5, 2024

It’s not only telling that Biden said the quiet part out loud about the IRA, which is that it didn’t even have the proper name, but that he couldn’t bring himself to say the actual name of the bill. He started to do so, but was ultimately unable to complete the thought. Is it because the president doesn’t even know the name of a supposedly signature piece of legislation? Even if he did, it’s still concerning that he couldn’t get the words out. 

Vice President Kamala Harris, in her interview from CNN last Thursday, spoke about the IRA in terms of prioritizing climate change, as Monica Crawley reminded when sharing a clip of Biden’s remarks from this week. 

Kamala admitted in her CNN interview that the “Inflation Reduction Act” was a scam to force through climate communism, aka the Green New Deal.

Here’s Biden today admitting the same.

Trillions spent, setting off massive inflation, all on a lie.

pic.twitter.com/K2ktEHBypc— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) September 5, 2024

CNN’s Dana Bash presses Harris on why she flip-flopped on fracking: pic.twitter.com/jhjQGqIQaQ— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) August 30, 2024

Prices have certainly gone up during the Biden-Harris administration, which Harris is currently a part of as the sitting vice president, yet she still talks about how she’ll handle inflation if she’s elected president. Inflation rates are particularly high compared not only to the Trump administration, but the past several presidential administrations going back to Lyndon B. Johnson.

As Harris herself acknowledged in that CNN interview, she also cast the tiebreaking vote for the IRA back in August 2022, making her pledge to combat inflation even more nonsensical. 

Harris is still trying to gaslight voters into thinking Bidenomics is working and blames Trump’s “mismanagement” of the pandemic for Americans’ current struggles.

CNN’s Dana Bash: “One of your campaign themes is ‘We’re not going back.’ But I wonder what you say to voters who do… pic.twitter.com/ydd1541ops— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) August 30, 2024

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Sunday, September 01, 2024

Kamala Harris Throws a Fit Over Debate Rules

 arlier this week, as we covered at the time, former and potentially future President Donald Trump announced that they had reached an agreement on the upcoming September 10 debate with ABC News. For his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, the same rules will be in place as the debate Trump did with President Joe Biden did on June 27 with CNN. 

 a list of rules to the Trump campaign on Tuesday. Those rules include muted microphones for when the other candidate is speaking.

Harris, however, is trying to put out another narrative, as she continues to drag her feet about the debates. 

On Saturday morning, she put out a lengthy post complaining about the rules, in a quoted repost of The Washington Post's Josh Dawsey who noted on Friday that the Harris campaign has still not accepted the rules. They want the microphones to be unmuted.  

While trying to make Trump look bad if he interrupts Harris might have something to do with it, Harris' gaslighting post claims otherwise.

"Donald Trump is surrendering to his advisors who won't allow him to debate with a live microphone. If his own team doesn't have confidence in him, the American people definitely can’t," her post claimed.

It's worth reminding that it was the Biden-Harris campaign who insisted on the rules in place for the June 27 debate, which Trump agreed to. Even after getting what he wanted, the president still performed so poorly that he was forced to withdraw from the race less than a month later. 

"We are running for President of the United States. Let’s debate in a transparent way—with the microphones on the whole time," Harris also claimed.

It's especially laughable that Harris would speak about doing something "in a transparent way," given that she only just recently gave her first interview upon Biden withdrawing from the race and endorsing her as his replacement. Harris couldn't even do a solo interview, as she was joined by her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). It was also taped ahead of time. She's also refused to hold press conferences.

In the few hours it's been up, Harris' post already has approximately 15,000 replies and close to 2,000 quoted reposts, many of them taking issue with her narrative. 

Amy Curtis and Doug P put together some of the best replies, with many noting that it sounds like Harris may be trying to get out of the debate, something Democrats previously accused Trump of. It's worth reminding, however, that the issue for the Trump campaign was that the Democrats did not have an official nominee at the time. 

Advertisement
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )