Trump supporters keep using reason, logic and facts to persuade people to vote for Trump. It’s rational to do so; but reason is not working. Minds are made up — have been for years — and are not budging. Many voting Democratic are already Communists or socialists, and view any Republican as a monster. By definition, they’re outside the realm of reason. The independents and Republicans voting for the Democrat (Biden, Kamala, anyone) have just one reason: IT’S NOT TRUMP. Not voting for Trump is all that matters to them. Nothing whatsoever can or ever will change their minds. WHY do they hate Trump so much? They cannot give a reason. Asking them for a reason seems to make them angrier. Aside from election fraud and a ridiculous propaganda machine media, this is the biggest problem. What happens when reason and facts no longer matter to huge numbers of people? Civil breakdown or even civil war. It’s sad, but it’s where we seem to be. Because if Trump wins, there will be massive hysteria in the media and the government, followed by a tyrannical crackdown. It’s going to happen whether Trump wins or loses. I urge you to be ready. How? FIGURE IT OUT. You are not children. And life is not a child’s game. The government is not your friend. Like it or not, we are now on our own. Actually, we always were. It’s just now the illusion is over. I am stunned by the idea (advanced by even some patriots/Trump supporters) that, “What you’re saying is true, but it’s not positive, so we should just pretend what you’re saying ISN’T true because it’s all a matter of faith anyway.” To think that there are people who oppose the bad guys, but think that rather than fighting, it’s better to lie down and take everything–now THAT’S depressing. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT means accepting facts. The fact is that we’re up against sociopaths who cheat in elections and use the media to manipulate ignorant millions. These are FACTS. Evading all of them and pretending those facts don’t exist is NOT FIGHTING.    

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial  

One of the sharpest political columnists and media commentators, in my judgment, is Joe Concha. Unlike many political analysts who monopolize the airwaves, Concha is well-versed in America’s political history, can think outside the box, and doesn’t rely on talking points or cue cards.

And unlike the dour, doom and gloom commentators, Concha possesses a sense of humor. He’s naturally funny and has a keen sense of the absurd.

Concha’s new book Progressive Worse: Why Today’s Democrats Ain’t Your Daddy’s Donkeys, confirms my impressions of him. The work is a treasure trove of observations and anecdotes on the nation’s body politic.

Concha’s thesis: “Over the past few decades, Democrats have swung so far left that they have little in common with past generations of progressives.”

Yes, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy has become the party of leftist lightweights — Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Congresswoman AOC, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Pete Buttigieg, to name a few.

A recent Rasmussen poll reveals the mindset of today’s radical Democrats: “Fifty-seven percent of Democratic voters agree [the Constitution] ‘is a document rooted in racism’ and 64% think the Constitution ‘is a sexist document that gives men advantages over women.’ Nearly half (49%) of Democrats believed the Constitution ‘should be mostly or completely rewritten.’”

These beliefs, among others, help explain why Democrats in recent years have been expelling longtime party heroes.

First Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, founders of the Democratic Party, were booted out because they owned slaves. Then the name of Woodrow Wilson was stripped from institutions because, as New York Times columnist Bret Stephens pointed out, “he sinned against the more recent commandments of progressive dogma.”

I will not be surprised if the next one to be excised from the party rolls will be John F. Kennedy — the hero for many in my generation. (I’m 71.)

Concha contends that JFK, one of the most popular presidents in the history of polling, is the original MAGA president.

And I agree.

As a young congressman from Boston in the post- World War II era, Kennedy’s congressional voting record reflected the anti-communist, socially-conservative views of his blue-collar street-smart constituents.

Believing that the U.N. was a paper tiger, Kennedy publicly complained: “We should never have yielded to Russia and allowed the U.N. charter to embody the principle that a single veto by one of the big powers can stop actions by the United Nations.”

In a speech he gave in 1950 at Notre Dame University, Kennedy cautioned the graduates about “the absorbing hands of the great Leviathan,” and warned against the “ever expanding power of the federal government.” He even made a lucid statement on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity when he said that “control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.”

JFK also opposed affirmative action. On one occasion he said: “I don’t think quotas are a good idea.” He added, “We are too mixed to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color.”

Unlike Biden and Harris, JFK argued for tax cuts. “It is a paradoxical truth” he said, “that taxes are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the sound way to raise revenue in the long run is to cut tax rates now.”

The cut in the marginal personal income tax rates from 91% to 70%, that were implemented shortly after Kennedy’s death by a Democratic controlled Congress, were hugely successful. By 1965, “the federal deficit began to shrink. Annual GDP growth went from just 2.6% to 6.6%. Unemployment dipped from 6.7% in 1961 to 3.8% in 1966.”

When JFK was struck down by an assassin’s bullet on November 22, 1963, Concha notes, he “was just getting started with the original American first agenda — low taxes to grow the U.S. economy, an expanded and stronger military, opposition to racial quotas…”

If views similar to Kennedy’s were to be voiced by a Democrat today, the party would cancel that person in a heartbeat.

Joe Concha gets it right; the Democrats are no longer the party of my parents and relatives — Catholic union workers — but a party of privileged Ivy Leaguers, Davos elites, antisemites, and people with purple hair.

George J. Marlin, a former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is the author of “The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact,” and “Christian Persecutions in the Middle East: A 21st Century Tragedy.” Read George J. Marlin’s Reports — More Here.

Newsmax Blogs:

• : Musk, Rowling Named in Olympic Boxer’s Lawsuit
• : Texas Sues Biden Over Nursing Home Staffing Mandate
• View More Newsmax Blogs

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis – sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)Sign Me Up

Privacy: We never share your email address.

Special Links:

• Biden’s Digital Dollar May Threaten Your Financial Freedom
• Patriot Mobile Promotes Patriotism in Youth Education
• Dream Singles Unites Thousands of Singles Monthly
• Drink This 1 Mineral to Help Restore Your Hearing
• Trump ‘Save America’ Tumblers Red Edition Claim Yours Here

C

The Trump-Elon Musk conversation was less enlightening than interesting. Definitely worth a listen. Two of the world’s wealthiest movers and shakers who are NOT Communists, talking about our future … largely, it seems, with accuracy and sincerity. It leaves you kind of hopeful, but still without an idea of how to topple these monsters in power, especially with so much of the country frozen and stuck.

Elon Musk says caring about the environment need not lead to suffering. Not true. Outlawing fossil fuels — before technology and business have created viable alternatives — will cause suffering, despair and even death for millions. The connected and the wealthy (who support the Party) will not suffer. The rest of us will have to contend with a world that is unsustainable for human life as we’ve known it, since the industrial revolutions of the 1800s.

Environmentalism is a depopulation movement. As of now, it’s winning everywhere, including in America.

Musk and Trump also discussed the need for deregulation. Deregulation does not work. The Reagan and Trump administrations tried deregulation, but when they left office regulations grew exponentially. Regulatory agencies will not curb their own power. The only solution is to DEFUND the agencies.

A recent, insightful opinion piece reveals the magnitude of the absurdity merged with toxicity we’re now facing in what used to be the free world:

The Republican nominee, a former president, was almost murdered in front of children. The sitting president, ill for the second time just days apart, was browbeaten by his own party into abandoning his campaign only three months before Election Day. His vice president was anointed the party’s new nominee without having earned a single vote. Now she’s campaigning like she’s not currently in the White House and like the past three years of her shockingly poor performance didn’t happen.

And just like that, we’re told Kamala Harris is wildly popular and Donald Trump’s clear electoral advantage has evaporated. Politico on Tuesday even ran the headline “Could Harris’ Momentum Put Florida In Play?”

A news media interested in thoroughly explaining, contextualizing, and documenting current events would be running headlines to the effect of “WTF, THIS ISN’T NORMAL!”

That’s unfortunately not the news media we have. Instead, our news media have offered no indication that there’s anything at all to be alarmed about. Well, except any remaining possibility that Trump could win the election.

No, this is all apparently just fine and the way things run per usual. Kamala has done no legitimate interviews or press conferences, has not articulated a single policy proposal — though she did just steal the no-tax-on-tips idea from Trump — and her Democrat peers are admitting there’s no need for any of that anyway. They’ve got the media to reliably, steadfastly attack Trump and his running mate while calling every provable claim against Harris a lie (or just racist).

Up until Biden officially dropped out, Democrats were dreading the possibility that Harris could end up as their nominee. It was virtually out of the question. Not anymore! Didn’t you hear about the enthusiasm? Everybody loves her. America can’t get enough of Kamala. She’s got nothing to worry about. The media will take care of everything.

from The Federalist 8/13/24

With Kamala Harris becoming a rock star by inviting rock stars to open her act, it’s clear she’s focused on generating excitement through pure fluff.  But whereas Harris captures headlines with showmanship, Donald Trump has an opportunity to resonate deeply with a far more substantial and often overlooked voting bloc: those who have paid into the Social Security system.  If Trump zeroes in on this group, he can unlock a political goldmine that could propel him back into the White House.

In what even the New York Times admits could be a game-changer, Trump has proposed ending income taxes on Social Security benefits.  This proposal speaks directly to millions of Americans who feel the sting of being taxed twice on the money they’ve worked their entire lives to earn.  It’s a commonsense policy that cuts through the noise of partisan bickering and addresses a core issue that affects a massive segment of the population.

The Democrats now find themselves in somewhat of a pickle, wrapped in a conundrum in the midst of a riddle.  They can’t win for losing on this.  If they oppose Trump’s proposal, they risk alienating retirees — a group that’s already feeling the pinch of inflation and looking for relief.  Moreover, they would have to explain why a tax break for Social Security was acceptable when proposed by Democrats in the past but suddenly becomes unpalatable when Trump suggests it.

Critics argue that eliminating the tax could reduce government revenues by $1.8 trillion over the next decade.  But this perspective ignores the fundamental unfairness of taxing Social Security benefits in the first place.  This money isn’t new income; it’s a return on years of hard work and contributions.  For the government to tax it again is not only unjust, but also counterproductive, as it erodes trust in the Social Security system itself — and since the government stole the money in the first place, it shouldn’t tax it in the second place, regardless of if it’s decades later.

By focusing on this issue with the intensity and drive that have characterized much of his political career, Trump can differentiate himself from his opponents and appeal to a broad coalition of voters who are eager for a leader who prioritizes their economic well-being.  The idea is simple, the impact profound, and the political payoff potentially enormous.

If Trump pursues this strategy with vigor, he may find that the road back to the White House is paved with the support of millions of Americans who just want what they’ve rightfully earned — without Uncle Sam dipping into their pockets yet again.

Hat tip to Mike Huckabee, who opined on this topic before me.

Gerald McGlothiln

St. Petersburg, Florida — Larry Gesick, a 77-year-old electrician by trade, leaves his home at 5:30 a.m. and heads for his part-time job unloading trailers at a local supermarket in St. Petersburg, Florida, for $14.75 an hour. This was certainly not part of his retirement plan.

His wife, 66-year-old Joyce, prepares for her workday, making $14 an hour as a full-time legal administrator.

“It’s not really a retirement,” Joyce told CBS News. “…It’s working every day.”

The Gesicks came out of retirement, not because they wanted to, but because they had to. About one in five people over age 65, or approximately 11 million Americans, are still working, according to the Pew Research Center. 

Labor economist Teresa Ghilarducci says work is the new retirement.

“So, I call it the work, retire, repeat syndrome,” Ghilarducci said. “…More than half of the people who are retired right now do not have enough money to be retired.”

Ghilarducci says she blames “policymakers who experimented with our retirement system 40 years ago, and they are not saying the experiment failed.”

That experiment is what is known today as the 401K, named after part of a 1978 law that offered companies an alternative to the traditional pension plan.

“The thought was that Americans just need a little bit of financial literacy and they can just save on their own,” Ghilarducci said.

But in fact, many of today’s older workers were never taught enough about saving and investing for retirement.

“I grew up on a farm,” Larry said. “Nobody there instructed any of us to put money aside and make your own way later on down the road.”

Whether you’re over 65, like the Gesicks, or nearing that age, there are a few rules of the road to keep in mind. Everyone needs a plan. First, calculate when it’s best to claim Social Security. Next, fund an emergency reserve. If you’re still working, set aside six-to-12 months’ worth of living expenses. If you’re already retired, make it one to two years’ worth of living expenses. And keep that reserve in a safe, easily accessible, interest-bearing account. 

Like many working Americans, the Gesicks were more doers than savers, and they drained their 401ks.

“I think to us it felt more like a savings account than to focus on, ‘I need to have this piled up to actually live on,'” Joyce said.

Now, they have a mortgage, a car loan and they are paying down about $12,000 in other debt. But even with Social Security, some old pension funds and their paychecks, money is tight.

After all their expenses and debt is paid down every month, they say they are left with just $50. And had the Gessicks waited till age 70 to collect Social Security, they would be collecting more.

“Yeah, it’s stressful now,” Joyce said. “But I think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.” 

America’s dad” and would-be vice president has no problem associating with terror-linked groups.

Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is being skillfully marketed as an all-American average guy. That’s one thing he isn’t, and in reality, he is just about the diametric opposite of that. Most Americans are not even aware, and never will be, of how sinister he really is.

To hear the Democrat party’s propaganda machine, that is, the establishment media, tell it, Walz is your neighbor across the fence who has surprisingly sensible solutions to the nation’s problems, a homespun small-town high school teacher, a football coach, someone you can trust with your kids and a good-hearted man to whom you can trust our nation’s future.

This is, of course, a massive load of baloney, and it’s already falling apart, even as the establishment media continues to inundate the nation with nonsense about how everyone suddenly loves Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Walz’s stolen valor scandal isn’t going away anytime soon, and another one looms in its wake: Walz has repeatedly associated with Muslim leaders with known ties to Hamas and other jihad groups.

It is nearly twenty-three years since 9/11, and that means that for almost twenty-three years, Americans have been relentlessly and comprehensively indoctrinated with the dogma that Islam is a religion of peace that was hijacked on that fateful day by a tiny minority of extremists, but hey, every religion has them, and any concern about Islamic jihad violence or Sharia oppression of women is racist, bigoted, and “Islamophobic.” In that atmosphere, Walz’s hobnobbing with associates and supporters of jihadis is unlikely to raise many eyebrows, but as Islamic jihadis continue to grow more assertive and emboldened in the West, America’s dad may come to wish he had chosen his friends more carefully.

The Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday that Walz “spoke at an event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2019, where he rubbed shoulders with an anti-Semitic scholar behind much of the Hamas propaganda on college campuses in the wake of Oct. 7, according to photos from the event.” It is important to recall that CAIR top dog Nihad Awad cheered Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre, leading even the Biden White House to drop his organization from an antisemitism task force, on which it had no business being in the first place.

Even worse, CAIR officials have refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.)

Walz appeared at CAIR-Minnesota’s 2019 “Challenging Islamophobia” conference. “Islamophobia” is a smear propaganda term designed to intimidate people into thinking it is wrong and “bigoted” to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Also there was “Islamophobia” professor Hatem Bazian. Discover the Networks notes that Bazian

founded American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), “a major supporter of the pro-Hamas campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Several of AMP’s recent board members and key officials were previously members of, and worked closely with, now-defunct Islamic extremist groups that funded terrorist activities.” These included the Islamic Association for Palestine “which, until its dissolution in 2004, served as the chief U.S. propaganda arm of Hamas”; the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, “which from 1995-2001 contributed approximately $12.4 million in money, goods, and services to Hamas”; and KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, “whose assets were frozen in 2006 by the U.S. Treasury Department because of its fundraising activities on behalf of Hamas.”

Then on Friday, the Washington Examiner reported that Walz, “on at least five occasions as governor of Minnesota, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack last year on Israel and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis that glorifies Adolf Hitler.” The imam in question was Asad Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, who “said on Oct. 7 of last year that he ‘stands in solidarity with Palestinians against Israeli attacks.’” He has also “used his Facebook page over the years to share official Hamas press releases, blog posts on antisemitic websites slamming Jews, and, in one 2015 instance, a link to a piece on a website for a pro-Hitler film called The Greatest Story Never Told.”

Now imagine if JD Vance appeared at an event with someone who spoke honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism, instead of repeating the familiar lies about Islam being peaceful, benign and cuddly. He would likely already have been made to step down at this point. But Walz hanging around with pro-Hamas Muslims? Why, it would be “Islamophobic” to object!

Frontpagemagazine, Robert Spencer

But it’s obvious which way Kamala leans.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat Party’s nominee for president, is trying to walk a political tightrope on the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. On the one hand, to court as many moderate Jewish voters as possible, she repeats her canned statement of support for Israel’s right to defend itself, even going so far just recently to brand Hamas as “terrorists.” But at the same time, she is also currently entertaining the idea of an arms embargo against the Jewish state, according to pro-Palestinian advocates who spoke with her just before her campaign rally last week in Detroit, Michigan.

In which direction will Harris go if she is elected president? Her pattern of past actions and statements point to her leaning into the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party.

For example, Harris has expressed support for the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic protestors on college campuses, declaring that they are “showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza.” She chose to snub Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress, rather than attend in her capacity as president of the Senate.

In her first consequential decision as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Harris pleased the Democrat Party’s left-wing, progressive base by skipping over Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro to be her running mate. Instead, she selected left-wing radical Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. Pro-Hamas agitators had conducted a “No Genocide Josh” campaign against Shapiro, a Jew who supports Israel. Not wanting to risk losing the votes of Arab and Muslim Americans, concentrated in such battleground states as Michigan, Harris gave the Jew-Hating “No Genocide Josh” crowd what they wanted.

“A man is known by the company he keeps,” as the saying goes, and Walz kept company with radical Muslim cleric Asad Zaman, who expressed solidarity with Palestinians on the very same day Hamas led the savage genocidal attack inside Israel. The Washington Examiner reported that as governor, Walz hosted Imam Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota at least five times. “Imam Zaman has a troubling history of playing into classic anti-Jewish themes and justifying violence against Israel,” an Anti-Defamation League spokesperson told the Examiner.

U.S. prosecutors pointed out in a court brief that the Muslim American Society “was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Hamas too was founded as an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a violent history of supporting terrorism against “infidels” in the name of jihad. Nevertheless, according to state records reviewed by the Washington Examiner, Governor Walz’s administration awarded over $100,000 in funding to the Muslim American Society’s Minnesota branch.

On top of all that, Walz, the candidate of “joy,” revealed what makes him so happy at times: thinking about House “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), who has a history of making anti-Semitic comments. “When I’m having a tough day …. and I’m feeling kinda down and the world is pressing on me, I think, ‘Ilhan Omar is a congresswoman,’ and it just brightens you up,” Walz said.

Picking the host of a Jew-hating Muslim cleric and a fan of Ilhan Omar as her running mate, rather than a Jew who supports Israel, Kamala clearly excited pro-Hamas activists, whose support she needs to win a close election. And that is only a fraction of her efforts to reach out to anti-Semites.

Before her campaign rally in Detroit on August 7^th, Harris took time out to speak with Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed, who were waiting in an exclusive invitee line to take a photo with her. Alawieh and Elabed are the co-founders of the Uncommitted National Movement, which encouraged supporters to vote “uncommitted” in the Democrat Party presidential primaries but is very committed to advancing Hamas’ agenda. They demand a U.S. arms embargo against Israel and a so-called permanent “ceasefire,” which would enable the terrorists to rebuild in preparation for launching more October 7-style massacres, rapes, torture, and kidnappings of civilians within Israel.

Instead of immediately moving on to greet the other hundred or so people waiting in line at the Detroit rally for a photo, Harris paid special attention to what Alawieh and Elabed had to say. They told Harris that they wanted to support her candidacy in key battleground states that she needed to win, but in return they wanted her to consider their demand for the 

The Democrats’ standard bearer in the 2024 presidential election did not miss a beat when Alawieh and Elabed asked for a sit-down meeting with Harris regarding their demand. Harris indicated she was open to having such a meeting and introduced them to members of her staff, according to a statement issued on behalf of the two Uncommitted National Movement leaders.

When pro-Hamas protesters later tried to interrupt her speech at the rally by chanting “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide, we won’t vote for genocide” and demanding that she support an arms embargo, Harris responded by focusing on the importance of defeating her opponent: “If you want Donald Trump to win, say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”

Kamala did not state her position one way or the other on the arms embargo when given an opportunity to do so during her speech at the Detroit rally. The next day, her security adviser tried to do damage control by posting on social media that Harris “will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups” and that she “does not support an arms embargo on Israel.”

The Harris-Walz campaign puts out statements like this in Harris’s name to garner the support of as many Jewish voters and others who support Israel as possible. However, Harris remains mum herself on where she stands on the arms embargo issue to avoid offending Arab American and Muslim American voters who support the Palestinians’ so-called “resistance” (i.e., terrorist campaign) against Israel.

In her first press encounter of her presidential campaign on August 8^th, Harris had a chance to clarify her stance on the arms embargo issue when she spoke with reporters briefly on an airport tarmac. She chose not to do so.

At a rally in Arizona on August 9^th, Harris told Israel-hating agitators who were disrupting her campaign speech that “I respect your voices.” Her “respect” for their voices is reminiscent of the empathy she expressed towards the pro-Hamas mobs intimidating Jews on college campuses, whom she said were “showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza.”

In another brief exchange with reporters on August 10^th, Harris tried to have it both ways. She was asked to comment on an Israeli airstrike earlier that day aimed at terrorists operating in a Hamas command and control center, which was embedded inside a mosque in a school compound. According to the Hamas-controlled health authorities in Gaza, “more than 80” Gazans were killed.

Accepting these figures at face value, which do not distinguish between civilian and terrorist deaths, Harris said that “there are far too many civilians who have been killed” in Gaza. “I mean, Israel has a right to go after the terrorists that are Hamas. But as I have said many, many times, they also have, I believe, an important responsibility to avoid civilian casualties.”

When given another opportunity to state her position on the demand for an arms embargo against Israel, Harris avoided answering.

Kamala has also failed to acknowledge that Hamas is fully responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza since the war started, not Israel. Israel is doing its best to minimize civilian casualties despite fighting a terrorist enemy who uses civilians as human shields and hides fighters, command centers, and weapons within or under mosques, schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities.

As Mark Penn, a past adviser to Hillary Clinton and to former President Bill Clinton, put it:

Hamas makes wild claims and Harris immediately responds to them as facts. Any serious presidential candidate would have said they were getting the facts on the Israeli strike (which Israel is providing) and then condemned Iran for the attack on US troops in Syria and possibly even mentioned the mass drone attack by Hezbollah.

Kamala Harris is trying to play both ends against the middle, placating her left-wing radical base while also trying to keep moderate Jewish voters and other supporters of Israel in her camp by making empty promises to support Israel’s right of self-defense. But based on Harris’ troubling record, it is disturbingly evident that the Jewish state will get the short end of the stick if she becomes president.

Frontpagemagazine, Joseph Klein

And he might be the next attorney general.

When the new administration was looking for an attorney general, Ben Crump, the ultimate BLM lawyer who represented the families of George Floyd, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and nearly every BLM case, recommended Tony West. Al Sharpton also mentioned West.

West, Crump argued, had been the third-highest ranking official in the Obama DOJ, “led various efforts to reduce racial bias, improve procedural fairness, strengthen the relationship between communities of color and law enforcement, and hold police departments accountable.”

Or as the New York Times put it, West “launched an investigation into the 2014 shooting death in Ferguson, Mo., of an unarmed 18-year-old black man, Michael Brown, by a white police officer”. Michael Brown had assaulted a store clerk and then the police officer who shot him in self-defense, but West proved to be a crucial link in the chain that unleashed BLM on America.

The ‘Ferguson Effect’ and the lies around the shooting of Michael Brown would help cripple policing and lead to race riots and then a crime wave spilling across the nation’s cities.

West had helped start the fire that burned down the country and killed thousands of Americans.

Crump however pointed out that West had another major asset besides the Ferguson Effect, he was also “the brother-in-law of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.”

Big Government is indeed a small world.

While Biden’s inner circle proved wise enough not to bring in Kamala’s family into the cabinet, West wasted no time rushing in to consolidate Kamala’s position during the Biden palace coup.

The New York Times described West as her “secret weapon” who, coincidentally, was in Kamala’s residence when Biden ‘dropped out’ and ‘worked the phones’ helping “her reach out to would-be supporters” and “his own network of donors and business contacts”.

Since Kamala was in D.C. and West works for Uber in San Francisco (but also has a home on Martha’s Vineyard), thousands of miles away, he might not have just dropped by for a visit.

And West indeed worked fast.

Shortly thereafter, West pressed Kamala to bring in his former boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, to ‘vet’ vice presidential candidates. And West put himself on the 5-person vetting team. When Kamala picked Gov. Tim Walz, it was really the old Obama DOJ team that got it done.

Derek Anthony ‘Tony’ West, married to Kamala’s sister-in-law, Maya Harris, a radical ACLU activist, have been the power couple behind Kamala’s political career. Maya was the campaign chair of her sister’s 2020 presidential campaign. And when Kamala headed to her presidential campaign headquarters back then, Maya and her husband were by her side.

Maya was credited by campaign staffers with wrecking the campaign and this time around, Kamala’s campaign is officially being chaired by Biden’s old campaign chairwoman, Jen O’Malley Dillon, but West is very clearly acting as the unofficial chair of the 2024 campaign. West, who formerly co-chaired her transition team, has emerged as its number two.

The ‘slush fund’ amounting to between $1 and $3 billion was directed to leftist groups like ACORN and La Raza. And a House Judiciary Committee investigation obtained documents showing that West’s team had deliberately screened out conservative groups.

West’s deputy had emailed the Office of Legal Counsel asking, “[c]an you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing.” Explaining the final settlement to the press team, West’s deputy wrote that the donation provisions require banks to “[m]ake donations to categories of entities we have specified (as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate to).”

Such a level of corruption is concerning. West has suggested that he will go back to working at his extremely lucrative position at Uber after the election, but Crump’s op-ed touting him for Attorney General suggests that he was interested in that role. And might be yet again.

While serving at the Justice Department, West had praised Al Sharpton, linked to years of racial violence in New York City, including the Crown Heights Pogrom against Jews, the assaults on Asian groceries and the Freddy’s massacre of Latino women, for his work on “reconciliation”.

Sharpton brought up West’s name during discussions about Biden’s next attorney general. He warned that there should be no hesitation in providing Tony West with a “waiver”. A possible reason for such a waiver would have been to exempt West from anti-nepotism rules due to Kamala’s position. While the Biden team did not listen to Crump and Sharpton, and did not pursue such a waiver, it is likely that Kamala would be more motivated to do so than Biden.

Tony West helped set America on fire by legitimizing BLM assaults on law enforcement and the justice system. He brokered some of the most corrupt settlements in the DOJ’s history.

And the next time you see him, he might be the attorney general.

Daniel Greenfield, Frontpagemagazine

In the three weeks since Joe Biden handed her the nomination, Kamala Harris spent a total of 70 seconds in front of reporters and issued one specific promise, which she stole from Donald Trump.

This is the first presidential campaign in history that appears to be guided by Nancy Pelosi’s line about Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

At her brief stop before a handful of reporters while boarding Air Force Two, one of them oh-so-politely asked Harris when she’d sit down for a press interview.

Her answer: “I’ve talked to my team. I want us to get an interview scheduled before the end of the month.”

Staging rallies around the country is easy. Sitting down for an interview with a fawning reporter? That’s complicated business!

This is all in keeping with Harris’ completely content-free campaign, which she apparently hopes to ride until November on the wings of an adoring press.

To date, her website is utterly substance-free, consisting only of a bio of her and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a donation page, and a page selling sophomoric merch.

So far, the only specific promise Harris has made — other than to “defend democracy” and “freedom” — is to eliminate taxes on tips, something she only now embraces because it’s been a winning idea for Trump. (Never mind that she cast the tie-breaking vote for the criminally misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act,” which gave the IRS $80 billion to catch tax cheats, after which it quickly announced plans to crack down on tip income.)

Harris claims she’ll release an economic plan this week that will explain “what we need to do to bring down costs and also strengthen the economy.” We aren’t holding our breath.

To the press who are supposedly covering Harris, keeping her agenda vague and sticking with scripted remarks is a smart strategy. But that strategy only works if the press lets it. So far they are happily obliging.

When the New York Times reported on Harris’ lack of press access, it spent most of it defending her strategy. It’s “a cautious choice” and “political strategists” say is “exactly what she should be doing.” The Times quotes James Carville saying “Where is it written that you have to sit down for a press interview?”

Time magazine ran a sickly sweet paeon to Harris, even after she refused to sit down with them for an interview.

In a rare bit of honesty, The New Yorker magazine admitted that:

The task of filling in what Harris prefers to leave blank would usually fall to the press. But, to date, there have not been particularly loud or widespread calls for her to sit down and answer questions….I think it’s fair to say that, so far, the mainstream press has handled Harris quite gently.

You don’t say.

The press is — to the surprise of no one — bending over backward to help her win.

When the New York Times ran a headline that was the tiniest bit critical of Harris’ vacuous campaign, it quickly got revised.

Here’s the original:

And here’s the updated version that appeared later in the day.

But there’s a deeper reason for Harris’ hiding from the press. When she had to present a policy agenda in 2019, it was laughably amateurish. And when she talks off the cuff, she comes across as … well … stupid.

Early in Biden’s term, after putting Harris in charge of fixing the “root causes” of the border crisis, she sat down for an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, which was such an epic disaster that she basically avoided sit-down interviews for a year.

That didn’t prevent Harris from displaying her dim grasp on things whenever she spoke extemporaneously, repeating her “unburdened by what has been” line ad nauseam when not waxing philosophically about the “significance of the passage of time.”

Harris has no doubt spent three years preparing for this moment, so maybe she’s improved her skills. But when Americans held prisoner in Russia returned at the start of the month and a reporter asked her how she feels, Harris blurted this:

Issues & Insights @InsightsIssues · Aug 11 Kamala Harris On The Significance of Diplomacy @CSPAN

If she is so sharp and politically savvy and so full of great ideas, you’d think she’d be eager to show off all this off. Why keep her light under a bushel?

Having said all this, the real risk to the country isn’t electing someone who is stupid. It’s electing someone who’s been allowed to hide the fact that she is a hardcore leftist.

That’s what voters will learn about Harris if, God help us, she wins this November.

Biden was initially interested in Gretchen Whitmer – until the death of George Floyd.

A handful of Republicans have referred to Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, as a “DEI hire.” They were essentially saying that President Joe Biden picked Harris to be his running mate in 2020 because she was a person of color. Democrats have, of course, pushed back, calling the phrase “extremely offensive and dehumanizing,” in the words of former U.N. Ambassador and Obama and Biden White House insider Susan Rice. Some Republicans, like former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, pushed back, too, calling the accusation “totally stupid and dumb.”

The issue goes back to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. In March of that year, when he had all but wrapped up the nomination, Biden explicitly promised to choose a woman as his running mate. “I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” Biden said in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Biden’s promise came in the same answer in which he promised to appoint “the first black woman” to the Supreme Court if he had the opportunity to nominate a justice. So, in that moment, Biden made a specific promise of race and gender for the court while promising only to pick a woman for vice president.

Later, during a July 20 appearance on MSNBC, Biden was asked, “Are you committed to naming a black woman as your vice presidential running mate?” Biden declined to say but said that among those under consideration at that moment, “there are four black women.” He then offered a few hints. Black women have long supported his career, he said, “and so they’re the ones, as that old saying goes, that brought me to the dance. I have been loyal. They have been loyal to me. … My administration, I promise you, will look like America, from vice president to Supreme Court, to cabinet positions, to every major position in the White House. It’s going to look like America. It’s critically important that that be the case. I can guarantee you that.”

It’s fair to say that Biden strongly suggested the pick would be a black woman. And three weeks later, Biden picked Harris. According to an Associated Press report, Biden was initially quite interested in Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. But after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and the national nervous breakdown that followed, Whitmer withdrew from consideration and recommended that Biden choose a black woman.

“Forces in the country, and within the Democratic Party, were indeed pushing Biden toward a history-making pick,” the AP reported. “As protests over the death of Floyd and other black Americans filled the streets across the country, an array of Democrats urged Biden to put a black woman on the ticket — a nod to this moment in the nation’s history, to the critical role black voters played in Biden’s ascent to the Democratic nomination, and to their vital importance in his general election campaign against President Donald Trump.”

So Harris got the nod. In the end, Biden kept his woman-only promise for the vice presidency, and also made good on the strong hints he had given out that it would be a woman of color. And then he and Harris won the election. (In time, Biden also kept his promise to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court.)

Now, the issue is less how Harris got the job of vice presidential nominee — it’s not hard to understand the dynamics inside the Democratic Party — but what she would do on the DEI front were she to step up to the presidency. The short version is that she would be the president for DEI.

Immediately upon taking office, Biden issued proclamations and executive orders concerning equity, the “E” in DEI. It began on inauguration day, Jan. 20, 2021, with his “Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” The order said, “Our nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda.” On June 25, 2021, Biden issued another executive order, “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” building on the earlier order.

When the 81-year-old president talked about “equity,” it seemed clear he meant something along the lines of the old idea of “equality of opportunity,” as opposed to “equality of outcome.” The former is universally accepted; the latter is the opposite of the American way of life.

Kamala Harris is different. When she talks about “equity,” she means “equality of outcome.” In February 2021, when Harris had been vice president a little more than a month, she took part in a virtual celebration of Black History Month. She took the occasion to say this:

“We have always fought for equality. But now we are also talking much more rightly about equity, understanding that we must be clear-eyed about the fact that, yes, we want everyone to get an equal amount — that sounds right — but not everyone starts out from the same place. Some people start out on first base; some people start out on third base. And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place, some folks might need more equitable distribution.”

It is hard to imagine a major-party nominee for president of the United States saying that. But that is what Vice President Harris said. That is what she believes. Should she become president, she would, of course, have much more power to pursue her goal of equity across the country — a president for DEI.

FrontPageMagazine