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: ,

Bill Maher: You Should Have the Right to Say That the Election Was Stolen

 

Let’s not kid ourselves here: Bill Maher has, more or less, called people who think the 2020 election was stolen are nuts. He’s undoubtedly pressed those who have advocated such a position on his show. The HBO host has repeatedly espoused his most profound worry that Donald Trump would never concede power, all of which has never come to fruition. It’s liberal psychobabble, but it’s also an opinion. And he’s not for censoring that being a free speech supporter. He might not agree with you about the reported funny business during the 2020 election, but he also doesn’t want to see anyone censored for having that view.

The comedian said that claiming the 2020 election as stolen, or any election for that matter, shouldn’t be censored. It’s protected free speech.

He mentioned the arrest of Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov in France, who founded Telegram, a Twitter-like social media platform, to segue into this deeper discussion about censorship, though the circumstances surrounding Durov’s arrest stem from his refusal to clean up some aspects of his site, like assisting in investigations into child sexual abuse, drug trafficking, and terrorism. Guest Peter Hamby noted that the ISIS terrorists who carried out the 2015 Bataclan attacks organized on Telegram.

 That’s a fair point, but in this discussion, Maher used Durov since he’s like Elon Musk on free speech issues. I like the example the HBO host used to describe these two men’s positions regarding such matters: it’s a bathroom wall, and it’s not my job to clean it. Donald Trump was banned from Twitter until Elon took it over, which was another point made in this discussion: Brazil is blocking Twitter.

Maher also discussed Facebook admitting that the Biden administration pressured them to censor material on COVID:

 

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz Hate You

 

Imagine running for President of the United States and not speaking with anyone. Not “to,” you have to do lots of “speaking to” people, but “with,” as in having a conversation, an exchange. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have been trying that for the past month and a half but finally caved to the reality that they would have to speak with someone and choose the softest target they could find that the public would accept. And the whole thing went about as well as you’d expect when the candidates hold the public in complete contempt.

Yes, that’s right: Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, and the entire left-wing establishment hold you, the American people, in contempt. They treat you with a twist on the old saying about children – you are to be preached to, not heard. You don’t treat people you respect like they are unworthy of addressing you, having their questions answered, or talking at them like a condescending kindergarten teacher. 

Yet, that’s what these people do.

When they finally sat down for an interview, it was with CNN because going to MSNBC would have been dismissed as the partisan hackery it clearly would have been. Since NBC News has literally no one who could pass for a journalist, the campaign chose Dana Bash because she’s on the team but can still ask a semi-serious question. However, questions to politicians are only as good as the willingness of the person asking them to follow up and insist on an actual answer. The person asking them has to know or have a rough approximation of the answer to hold them to account. 

But for any of that to happen, you must be interested in getting an answer, not simply getting through it. Bash was not.

Her time was limited—just 20 minutes was allotted. Imagine a campaign holding the American public in such contempt that they would only allow 2 minutes shy of a sit-com, which is 22 minutes long, for anyone to question their candidates. Bash ended up getting 27 because no campaign in their right mind would stop the tongue bath Harris and Walz were receiving, but if it had been serious, staff would have stepped in.

They went as far as they felt comfortable – dumb people and frauds can only hold it together for so long, even during a massage session where the interviewer asks leading softball questions without threat of follow-up.

What did we get? Not much. Kamala still couldn’t articulate a single priority for “day one,” even though that question was so obvious Stevie Wonder could’ve seen it coming. There is no pressing on any of her egregious flip-flops on fracking, the border wall, socialized medicine, etc. Bach simply lumped them all together into a question that any strip mall lawyer would have objected to as “leading the witness.” 

Bash asked, “Generally speaking, how should voters look at some of the changes you've made that you explain in your policy? Is it because you have more experience and have learned more about the information? Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you're saying now will be your policy moving forward?”

Pathetic, but not surprising.

The whole thing went like that with Kamala. She still offers up meaningless word salads like, “I am so proud to have served as vice president to Joe Biden and to I'm so proud to be running with Tim Walz for president of the United States and to bring America what I believe the American people deserve, which is a new way forward, and turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been, contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies.”

Advertisement

Considering Democrats controlled the White House for 6 of the last 10 years, that’s quite a slam on what Barack Obama clearly started, isn’t it? 

Tim Walz, the coked-out college mascot, wasn’t any better. He was, in fact, worse. Fraudie Murphy got one question tangentially related to his decades of stolen valor, but it was couched in the friendliest terms possible, of course. 

He asked about his “weapons of war I carried on war” lie, and he brushed it off as bad grammar. Is it bad grammar that only one of the people he served with in the National Guard for over 24 years came forward to speak favorably about his character? ONE! Dozens have gone the other way, and the silence of the rest speaks volumes. 

But Bash didn’t bring it up. She just let him adopt the cowardly Hamas tactic of hiding behind children. Fraudie said, “I said we were talking about, in this case, this was after school shooting, the idea of carrying these weapons of war. My wife, the English teacher who taught me grammar, is not always correct. But again, if it's not this, it's an attack on my children for showing love for me, or it's an attack on my dog. I'm not going to do that. And the one thing I'll never do is I'll never demean another member's service in any way. I never have, and I never will.”

He can’t demean another person’s service because, unless they abandoned their men right before a deployment, lied about their rank for 20 years, and pretended to be a combat veteran, there’s no way they are even as bad as, let alone worse than Tim Walz is. 

Advertisement

What do his kids have to do with anything? Like all sewer water, he seeks the path of least resistance and kids offer that. No one attacked his kids, they simply pointed out how his son appeared to have lost control of his entire body at the convention, screaming, “That’s my dad!” I’ve heard his son is autistic and non-verbal, which seems odd since he was screaming that, but whatever – he’s not the awful candidate; his father is, so I don’t care either way. But that’s hardly an “attack on his children.” 

They’re both frauds; they’re both awful. The idea that Kamala is simply rushed in her candidacy is undercut by the fact that she’s plotted for this moment most of her adult life, and definitely the last 5 years. And she’s been Vice-President – “ready on day one” to be president, just not ready on day 39 to answer questions about, apparently.

Walz is just a liar about everything. He tries to “awe-shucks” his way through his public appearances, bouncing around the stage like a coked-out college mascot for a team that sucks – prancing and dancing, pointing and clapping, desperate to get the wave started in a stadium out 20 percent full. You almost feel badly for him until you realize he’s a bad person. 

The final question – and imagine having what may well be the only chance to ask someone running for president questions, and you waste time on something like this (have you ever heard a softball question remotely close to this asked of Trump or Vance? No.) – was, “And last question, Madam Vice President, the photograph that has gone viral, you were speaking one of your grand nieces that you were just talking about was watching you accept the nomination. You didn't explicitly talk about gender or race in your speech, but it obviously means a lot to a lot of people. And that viral picture really says it. What does it mean to you?”

First, there’s no such thing as “grand nieces.” There are nieces and great-nieces. Kamala is not a grandmother, nor is she a mother. She is childless by choice (you can decide if you think she’s had abortions or how many, but you can’t deny she sure loves them) and only became a stepmother when her husband’s kids were in their late teens. How much time do you think California's Attorney General spent “mothering” teenagers who mostly lived with their real mothers? None? Less than none?

Second, what a stupid question. What should the audience get from any answer that could be offered in response to it? Is some pointless rambling about “historic” or whatever doing to serve as a 25 percent off coupon at the grocery store or gas station? Do you get a discount on your rent, mortgage, or electric bill if you sit through it? No. Are you even remotely more informed about what Kamala Harris would do as president? You are not. 

It was just a final example of how to waste an opportunity. The whole “interview” seemed to be conducted to get more future access by being nice to them. Journalists should conduct every interview with a politician like it’s the last time they will ever be allowed to speak with them, so they’d better ask tough questions.

I know the mentality; I’ve dealt with many people who do it on both sides. They suck up to the people they like hoping to get them back later. They all insist they’re tough, that they’re not friends with these people, but love telling their audience how close they are to them. And you come away with nothing as an audience except the inflated sense of self-importance from the questioner.

Dana Bash didn’t give her audience anything of use Thursday night, but she also didn’t allow Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to hurt themselves, which was more important to the left. The public knows nothing more about either of them or what they’d do in office other than they want to make things better. If the truth were on the side of Democrats, they’d be eager to tell it to anyone willing to listen. That they hide tells you all you need to know. 

Democrats view the public as a feckless mass of humanity in desperate need of leadership in every aspect of your life. They hold you in contempt. Return the favor.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

The Electoral College is So [not] Stupid

 

There can be many different ways of choosing a country’s chief executive.  America’s Founders created a historically unique one called the “Electoral College.”  It is debatable whether it is the best system, but it has worked well enough in American history.  The Left hates it because it elected Donald Trump in 2016, even though Hillary Clinton received the most “popular votes.”  However, if the situation had been reversed—Clinton won the EC and Trump the popular vote—I doubt you would hear a peep out of the Left about it.

As noted in several previous articles, our Founding Fathers were not believers in democracy.  “Democracy is the vile form of government,” wrote James Madison, the man given most credit for producing our Constitution.  Yet, a legitimate government must come from “the consent of the governed” because “all men are created equal.”  That doesn’t imply democracy is the best form of government, but it does indicate the people should have some say in how they are governed.  The Founders gave a share of government to democracy at the local, state, and national levels.

Political theorists in Western Civilization have largely recognized three “forms” of government—monarchy (from the Greek “rule by one”), aristocracy (“rule by the few”), and democracy (“rule by the many,” or people).  There are offshoots of those forms (e.g., oligarchy, timocracy), but the basic structure of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy exists.  In America, the Presidency represents the “monarchical” form of government; the House represents “democracy,” and the Senate the “aristocracy.”  Don’t give any one form of government total power, or tyranny will result.  A monarchy will degenerate into a dictatorship, an aristocracy will become an oligarchy (ruled by the rich), and democracy will devolve into cruel, uncontrollable mob rule, the worst of all.  Thus, the Founders set up a system with all three forms of government included as part of the “checks and balances” they created.

Since it was designed to select the President (the “monarch”), the Electoral College has elements of the other two forms—democracy (the people vote) and aristocracy (the state representation numbers limit pure mob rule).  In American history, the “majority” of the people have usually voted for the man who won the Presidency. Still, there have been cases when the candidate who received the most popular votes (“democracy”) didn’t win the Electoral College majority.  That happened, as noted, in 2016, and the Left is scared to death it will happen this year.  And it might.  But that was the Founders’ idea—protect against democracy, the “form” of government they despised the most.

It’s not that “democracy,” as an ideal, is any worse than monarchy or aristocracy.  The problem is that the more um stupid, decadent people who are allowed to vote, the greater the possibility they will create chaos.  “We may appeal to every page of history...for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous, and cruel as any king or senate possessed by an uncontrollable power.  The majority has eternally, and without any one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority” (John Adams).  Mr. Adams further wrote:  “The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true.  They are the worst conceivable, not keepers at all:  they can neither judge, act, think, or will as a political body.  Individuals have conquered themselves; nations and large bodies never.”  It is, historically, impossible to refute what he said.

“Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%” (Thomas Jefferson).  This, of course, has happened frequently in American history, nationally and on the state level.  But it is also why the Founders delegated most government power into the hands of the states.  If a state becomes tyrannical (California), you have 49 other states to choose from—which many Californians are now doing.  If the national government becomes tyrannical, where do you go?  Thailand?  

What is fascinating is that one of the major goals of the Constitution, in the eyes of the Founders, was to protect against democracy:  “the purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority's [democracy’s] ability to harm a minority” (Madison).  The Electoral College was a major part of that plan.  

“Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant” (Madison).  “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Madison). “Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide” (John Adams).  Do you get the point?  Our Founders did not establish a democracy, and it was deliberate.  

But, besides checks and balances, what can be done?  I talked about their solution in a couple of recent articles (here and here):  “The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate” (Jefferson).  “A well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny” (Jefferson).  “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty” (Madison).  People must be educated in virtue and self-government.  The more people who aren’t—and democracy runs the greatest risk of this—the more probable bad government and tyranny will arise. Patriotic Americans must retake the educational system if the country is going to survive itself.

Our Founding Fathers would agree 100% with the following assessment and, indeed, say, “we warned you”:  “In the U.S., [just over a century] of full-blown democracy has resulted in steadily increasing moral degeneration, family and social disintegration, and cultural decay in the form of continually rising rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and crime.” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe).  Chaos leads to tyranny—exactly what the Left wants.

Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

New Rules for Radicals—How to Reinvent Kamala Harris

 

How do accomplished radicals elect a mediocre far-left presidential candidate?

The task might at first seem impossible.

Kamala Harris is currently a radical incumbent vice president. For more than three years, she was second in command to an unprecedentedly unliked Democrat president, his failed policies, and his unpopular record.

Harris herself had compiled a hard-left trail over her own entire career while loudly boasting indiscreetly to leftist audiences of being proudly “woke” and “radical.”

Most challenging for a Harris candidacy makeover was the long, entrenched Democratic Party’s reluctance to remove a debilitated President Joe Biden from the Democratic ticket.

Why?

Because Harris was deemed such a liability that she had become a Spiro Agnew-like insurance policy for a failing Biden.

Until just recently, Democrats had considered an unpopular and enfeebled Biden nonetheless far preferable to an incoherent, lightweight, and widely ridiculed potential replacement Vice President Harris.

After all, she had never before entered a presidential primary. She never won a single delegate by voting. She failed miserably as a candidate in 2020.

And she co-owns the unpopular record of an even more unpopular president.

The complete Harris makeover requires 15 radical rules followed to the letter:

1. Remake Harris as an entirely fresh happy face. She’s about joy and vibe—which trumps position papers and policy statements. Banish all thoughts that she is an incumbent vice president and co-owns the last four years of the Biden administration.

2. Ignore/deny that Harris as vice president could have long ago enacted her new makeover proposal—or could do so right now in the remaining five months of her administration’s tenure. She was the last person out of the room when Biden made those awful decisions.

3. For the next 70 days, reinvent Harris as a moderate. Xerox much of Donald Trump’s current more popular agenda. Have Harris claim it as her own. Reboot her as a border hawk, a China hawk, a defense hawk, a budget hawk, and a law-and-order hawk.

4. The word-salad Harris must not do a single unscripted media interview, live town hall, extemporaneous chat, ambush hot mic, or lecture without a teleprompter.

5. Harris must not offer any policy proposals such as her harebrained price controls that deviate from her 70-day new centrist image and teleprompted scripts.

6. Do not mention Biden at all. Harris is not to be seen with him in photos or at events. Create a vaguely joyful but completely imaginary, “Harris record.” Separate it from the miserable Biden-Harris administration. Leak that she was unhappy with Biden.

7. Call Trump a mobster, criminal, insurrectionist, and dictator nonstop. Never provide any evidence to support such charges. When challenged, double down and let loose with worse invective.

8. Talk about abortion nonstop. But never dare mention the word. Relabel abortion “reproductive rights.” Falsely reinvent Trump as a radical anti-abortionist who wants a federal ban.

9. Follow the 2020 successful Biden “basement” strategy: keep out of the public eye, silent on the issues, reliant on 70 percent of the ballots not being cast on Election Day, and outsourcing the campaign to the fusion media and billionaire class.

10. Harangue about race and gender nonstop. Define the election as a stark binary between a “young” oppressed but dynamic black woman and an old oppressor racist white guy.

11. Reinvent the “journey” and life “story” of Harris—the child of two PhDs—into a hardscrabble, lifelong struggle against poverty, systemic racism, and greedy “billionaires” like Trump. She is always to be from Oakland—never Berkeley.

12. Talk about transparency nonstop. Feign a willingness to have three or four debates. But agree to hold only one—and only on a left-wing network. Promise interviews and town halls endlessly. Enter into discussions about them. But always delay, stonewall, and evade for the next 10 weeks.

13. Meet privately and endlessly with the megarich donor class that helped to remove Biden. Assure Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley grandees that banter about wealth taxes, taxes on unearned income, and higher corporate taxes are mere campaign posturing. Then outraise Trump again 3-1.

14. Privately assure leftist activists and Democrat politicos that any backslidings from supporting lifelong left-wing advocacies are temporary and necessary 70-day pretexts. Instead look at what Harris actually does after Nov. 5, not anything she must say before then.

15. Control and modulate the street. Anti-Trump protests are a legitimate “movement” that are “not going to let up. And they should not.” Any violent anti-Trump demonstrator should be bailed out immediately.

All anti-Democrat, anti-Harris demonstrations should be deterred. A large police presence must be proactive with as many arrests as possible, with barriers, and plenty of backup. Protest leaders should be given private concessions and incentives to tone down their people.

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