Thomas Sowell VS Barack Obama – The Political Coup of America || A Repub…
Reply
Category Archives: Politics
A Possible October Surprise ? Biden Resigns and Harris Becomes President
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
by Steve Krakauer, opinion contributor – 08/15/24 9:30 AM ET
A possible October surprise? Biden resigns and Harris becomes president
/
President Biden was fed a series of gentle softballs over the weekend by Robert Costa of CBS News. He mumbled through his responses in what felt like an exit interview.
After his debate debacle at the end of June, Biden publicly and privately stated that he was staying in the presidential race. It would take the “Lord Almighty” telling him to step aside for him to go, he told George Stephanopoulos. He held a press conference on July 11 that seemed to assuage concerns by some in his party. And then, 10 days later, he dropped out, in a letter posted to his social media accounts.
In the end, it didn’t take the Lord Almighty — unless that’s Biden’s nickname for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a media tour for her new book, Pelosi has been careful not to take too much credit for Biden’s withdrawal, but she did give a bit of a window into the process with Ezra Klein of the New York Times. She told Klein that Biden’s note to Democrats in Congress that he was staying in “didn’t sound like Joe Biden,” hinting that he was pressured into sending it. And she made it clear that the only thing that mattered was beating Trump.
As Biden noted to Costa, he ultimately left the race because he didn’t want to be a distraction, citing his bad poll numbers. But if he’s not up for running for president, how is he capable of actually being president right now?
Pelosi and her fellow Democratic elite operatives successfully waged a pressure campaign focused on reputational blackmail to push Biden out of the race. It worked.
But they also have a final lever that can be pulled before Election Day — a true “break glass in case of emergency” strategy. They could force Biden to resign as president, and elevate Kamala Harris to the Oval Office so that she can run as the incumbent.
Now, while the scenario may seem a little far-fetched, I’ve got a decent predictive track record in this column during the chaos of 2024. In February, I laid out how the Democrats and media could work together to push Biden out of the race, and later wrote specifically how the debate could be the catalyst that puts the plan into motion. I also predicted that Trump would pick JD Vance as his running mate. (They haven’t all been winners — in January I called 2024 “the Court TV election,” and while Trump’s and Hunter’s trials have been relevant, they haven’t been the overriding storyline they looked to be at the beginning of the year.)
So imagine it’s a couple weeks after the Democratic National Convention, and the Harris glow is starting to wear off. The vibes campaign could only last so long before reality set in. Trump and Harris are neck-and-neck, and Trump is trending in several key swing states.
“I have no reason to think President Biden will step down, unless he has absolutely no choice,” Mark Halperin, editor-in-chief and host of 2WAY, told me. “He wants to run through the tape. Well, at least, walk purposefully if haltingly through the tape.”
So perhaps Biden is convinced to exit the White House with the promise of a long, ceremonial celebration of his life and career on the way out. He could announce he’s resigning Sept. 1 to bury it before the Labor Day weekend, or on Sept. 13 to bury it after the ABC debate. He could give “two weeks’ notice” and get the long runway of puff pieces and retirement pageantry.
“I think this very much falls into the category of things that one might be able to take advantage of if events present themselves, but would be impossible to plan for a reliable outcome,” Chris Stirewalt of NewsNation told me. “But it may not matter what Democrats want. If Biden continues to have public struggles, he may be forced to go. It could be a scenario like the one we watched play out in July.”
null
A Biden exit in September or October would be particularly useful as a distraction from the race. The establishment media would get sidetracked with the Biden resignation, as well as the next phase — the introduction of President Kamala Harris. The history associated with the first female president, plus the bevy of stories about what it even means to have this massive transition, would allow for weeks of relatively substance-free coverage.
And what would Harris gain from being elevated to the top job? First, she’d get to run as an incumbent, which has historically helped presidential candidates. And she can make the case that she’s just getting started in the job and needs the vote of America to begin her real work.
She also could find herself in a crisis, however minor — real or manufactured — during the final weeks of the race, in mid-to-late October, that allows her to shine. She could showcase her prowess in her new role of president and ride it into Election Day — with the compliant Acela media, full of partisan journalists who want to keep Trump away from the White House, by her side.
The last-minute presidential swap then plays well for the Democrats on two distinct but related levels. A President Harris could have a leg up over a Vice President Harris, even marginally. It surely wouldn’t hurt. And any little bit helps in what will likely be a very close election.
“She certainly would make history adding to her resume that she would be the first woman president in American history,” Halperin told me. “Perhaps for some voters, it would be more appealing to vote for an incumbent, but I don’t think the upside is all that great.”
But the whole final chaotic twist in the 2024 electoral cycle would provide a brilliant diversion from whatever policy and substantive discussions and debates are bubbling up in those final few weeks. What better misdirection for the public than to ensure the story that’s on people’s minds in the days leading up Nov. 5 is not the economy or immigration, but the excitement of a new president installed at the last minute?
So don’t be shocked if this cycle’s October Surprise is a new occupant in the White House — even before we get ourselves to Jan. 20, 2025.
Steve Krakauer, a NewsNation contributor, is the author of “Uncovered: How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People” and editor and host of the Fourth Watch newsletter and podcast.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.Follow Us On
Get the Android app from Google Play
Get the iOS app from App Store
THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
© 1998 – 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
Best Way to Lose Free Speech–Never Define It
(Editor’s Note: The following opinion column does not constitute an endorsement of any political party, or candidate, on the part of Newsmax.)
There’s No Getting Around Losing Free Speech Means We’ve Lost It All
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others have said that left-wing media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN must stop inciting political violence by referring to former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to democracy.
The words “inciting violence” are dangerous — no matter who’s claiming it.
And it’s particularly dangerous from the left, because the left dominates essentially everything: government, the large corporations, the media, universities, primary and secondary schools, and all of culture, including the entertainment industry.
But it’s still dangerous no matter who says it. When conservatives claim, “Kamala Harris incites violence by spreading hatred of Trump supporters,” it logically implies, “They shouldn’t be permitted to do this. They should be held legally accountable for their speech.” It’s like saying: “You’re making people violent by saying things they dislike.”
Let’s be clear: You cannot incite me to do anything just because you express strong opinions. I can’t incite you to do anything just because I express strong opinions.
You’re free to ignore me, and I’m free to ignore you. Unless or until you initiate an act or threat of force against me, the law is not in play. Or at least, it should not be.
Conservatives are understandably frustrated by everything happening globally.
However, we all must understand a basic principle of psychology: It’s not possible to make someone say or do something merely because of your words.
The left today claims that certain speech is “hateful” (never defined) and a “threat to democracy,” (never defined) — and therefore can be punished on that basis alone.
Yes, we still have a First Amendment in America — at least for now — and those on the left must tread more carefully than tyrants otherwise would; but for all practical purposes, left-adherents and Democrats no longer recognize free speech.
They merely pretend to do so because they realize they might lose the support of the confused swing state voters on Election Day.
Comedian Ricky Gervais says it well, “Everyone agrees with free speech until they hear something they don’t like.”
The left seemingly is not held accountable for their contradictions.
The minute not just President Trump, but anyone critical of leftism expresses disagreement with any of their views, they make the charge, “Hate Speech! Hate Speech!”
Then they turn around, loudly proclaiming, “The First Amendment doesn’t protect Hate Speech.”
Oh, it doesn’t?
“You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater!” they exclaim.
That’s because the theater owner doesn’t want his customers annoyed or terrorized.
It’s bad for business.
The reason you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater is because of property rights, not because there are exceptions to freedom of speech.
Free speech neither endorses nor condemns any specific type of speech.
It merely upholds the right to speak freely. Of course, in a fully free society, you can’t speak freely without the consent of the person on whose property you’re speaking.
The right to free speech doesn’t permit Kamala Harris supporters to put signs on the lawn of a Trump supporter.
Why are the people who scream the loudest about “hate speech” the ones most riddled with hatred and venom?
Woke leftists preach self-importantly that they hate hatred. They’re against hatred on principle. But what about their own hatred — of those they want silenced? It’s self-refuting. Yet nobody ever calls them on it.
The left lives in a cultural, legal, and political vacuum.
They reinforce and agree with each other on absolutely everything.
They shun those who even hint at crossing the party line.
They rarely face the dissension of right wingers, because they refuse to listen; and increasingly, they attempt to shut down the opposition either by screaming and waving their fists or, more recently, with imprisonment and even guns.
The mentality of the left is characterized by anger and rage.
Often, anger and rage are a mask for fear and terror.
Psychologically, most people would rather feel angry than petrified.
Anger (rather than fear) makes them feel stronger and like they haven’t been defeated.
It’s perfectly understandable.
However, the terror that many on the left feel at the prospect of living in a world where anyone — absolutely anyone at all, especially one as unapologetic as Donald Trump — disagrees with them now converts into rage and a desire to imprison people who dissent from left propaganda.
This is genuinely a most dangerous point we now find ourselves in; it means we’re rapidly approaching some modern equivalent of Nazi Germany (1933-1945).
Want to try objecting to any of this? You’re guilty of “hate speech.”
“Off with your head!” Or the 21st century equivalent.
Being cancelled or (in Donald Trump’s case) indicted or possibly assassinated.
Beyond the current election season, free speech faces perhaps its most chilling times.
That “chill” will transmute to an ice-age level freeze, unless we stand up to for our First Amendment, now with all the passion, integrity, and conviction we possess.
And if we don’t have those qualities, we need to learn to acquire them fast, to preserve our nation’s future.
(A related article may be found here.)
Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. is a psychotherapist with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Psychology. He is the author of “Grow Up America” and “Bad Therapy, Good Therapy,” available exclusively at www.DrHurd.com. He has been quoted in and/or appeared on over 30 radio shows/podcasts (including Rush Limbaugh and Larry Elder), on Newsmax TV, and writes two self-help columns weekly. Dr. Hurd resides in Charleston, South Carolina. Read more of Dr. Hurd’s reports — Here.
Posts by Michael Hurd
- Kamala Harris’ ‘Unity’ Means Never Hearing From You
- Team Biden’s Glass House Grows More Brittle by the Hour
- View More Posts by Michael Hurd
Newsmax Blogs:
- : Blaine Holt to Newsmax: Israeli Raids in Lebanon a ‘Mop-up Operation’
- Daniel McCarthy: Iran Targets Election ’24, and Trump
- 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:
- Invest at $0.25/Share-Tap into $325M+ in Earnings & Savings!
- Find The Perfect Partner on Dream Singles
- Military Insider: Do This Before the Power Grid Goes Down
- Strange Vision Hack Helps Restore Eyesight to 20/20
- US Army Research Warns: Those 60+, Stop Drinking Plain Water
- Trump ‘Save America’ Tumblers Red Edition, Claim Yours Here
Click Here to comment on this article
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
Tyrants Don’t Create Tyranny, Your Obedience Does
Something I don’t understand: Our election laws say you can’t promote a candidate for office unless you register as a campaign, and follow all the rules related to elections (such as spending or donation limits). I don’t agree with these laws. In a free country, people should be permitted to speak out as often or with as much money as they wish, for any candidate they choose. Of course, in a free country, the government would not have all the power our government enjoys, either.
However, here’s the thing I really don’t understand. When Hollywood celebrities speak out through the characters in their shows, or when Jimmy Kimmel or Saturday Night Live promotes a candidate through mockery, satire or outright advocacy, then why aren’t these activities considered part of a campaign? Why aren’t presidential debates that are clearly sponsored by the same people running one of these campaigns (always the Democrat) considered as on the campaign’s payroll? Why aren’t the “news” stories — which are actually opinion pieces — on networks and websites like CNN, MSNBC, ABC News and all the others not considered (under the law) advocacy for a campaign — since they clearly, openly are?
Isn’t it possible that the laws I’m not defending are being broken right and left — and none of the lawbreakers are held remotely accountable?
Happy “election” season, comrades!
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 X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!
The Counter-Constitutional Movement: The Assault on America’s Defining Principles
By Jonathan Turley
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the growing counter-constitutional movement in the United States. This assault on the Constitution is being led by law professors who have lost their faith in the defining principles and institutions of our Republic.
Here is the column:
Kamala Harris declared in Tuesday’s debate that a vote for her is a vote “to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ’cause you don’t like the outcome.” She was alluding to the 2021 Capitol riot, but she and her party are also attacking the foundations of our democracy: the Supreme Court and the freedom of speech.
Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats. Mr. Biden opposed the idea, but a week after he exited the 2024 presidential race, he announced a “bold plan” to “reform” the high court. It would pack the court via term limits and also impose a “binding code of conduct,” aimed at conservative justices.
Ms. Harris quickly endorsed the proposal in a statement, citing a “clear crisis of confidence” in the court owing to “decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.” She might as well have added “because you don’t like the outcome.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has already introduced ethics and term-limits legislation and said Ms. Harris’s campaign has told him “that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about.”
The attacks on the court are part of a growing counterconstitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics. The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Others have railed against individual rights. In my new book on free speech, I discuss this movement against what many professors deride as “rights talk.” Barbara McQuade of the University of Michigan Law School has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”
In another Times op-ed, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, asserts that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”
Mainstream Democrats are listening to radical voices. “How much does the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.
the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.
The Nation’s Elie Mystal calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the U.S. Senate. Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.
Without countermajoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power. That’s what some have in mind. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”
Trashing the Constitution gives professors and pundits a license to violate norms. The Washington Monthly reports that at a Georgetown conference, Prof. Josh Chafetz suggested that Congress retaliate against conservative justices by refusing to fund law clerks or “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” When the audience laughed, Harvard’s Mr. Doerfler snapped back: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.”
The cry for radical constitutional change is shortsighted. The constitutional system was designed for bad times, not only good times. It seeks to protect individual rights, minority factions and smaller states from the tyranny of the majority. The result is a system that forces compromise. It doesn’t protect us from political divisions any more than good medical care protects us from cancer. Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.
When Benjamin Franklin said the framers had created “a republic, if you can keep it,” he meant that we needed to keep faith in the Constitution. Law professors mistook their own crisis of faith for a constitutional crisis. They have become a sort of priesthood of atheists, keeping their frocks while doffing their faith. The true danger to the American democratic system lies with politicians who would follow their lead and destroy our institutions in pursuit of political advantage.
Mr. Turley a law professor at George Washington University and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”
:
Irangate: Iran’s Plan to Stop Trump and Elect Kamala
“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”—David Horowitz
Irangate: Iran’s Plan to Stop Trump and Elect Kamala
Unlike Russiagate, Irangate is real and has roots in the White House.
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
In the last two months, Iran set up fake news sites to defame Trump and promote Kamala, hacked the Trump campaign and tried to pass stolen documents to the Harris-Walz campaign and its media allies, and finally plotted to assassinate former President Trump and his officials.
These rather definite statements of Iran’s intentions in the presidential election have been dismissed with generic Russiagate buzzwords that describe the Islamic terrorist state as being out to “destabilize and sow chaos”. When Iran hacked the Trump campaign, we were told that it was to “sow chaos” and now that Trump has been briefed on the assassination threats, once again it’s been described as a plot to “destabilize and sow chaos” in the United States.
But if Iran is out to only “sow chaos” then why isn’t it trying to assassinate Biden or Kamala?
Where are the Iranian agents soliciting useful idiots to take a shot at current administration officials rather than former Trump administration officials? And why didn’t Iran hack into the Kamala campaign and then email the stolen files to the Trump-Vance campaign?
Iran isn’t trying to “sow chaos” which is a meaningless buzzword the intel community seem to have come up with to project its own nation building paradigm abroad onto American politics.
The Islamic Republic is out to win. And it defines winning as Trump’s political defeat or death.
America’s leading middle eastern enemy actively interfering in a presidential election ought to be bigger news than it is. The Clinton campaign spun Russia’s awkward efforts to recruit black nationalists into backing its Syria agenda after the election into the great Russiagate hoax complete with British ex-secret agents, micturating hookers in Moscow hotel rooms, secret bank internet connections and a multi-year investigation fronted by a senile former FBI boss.
The revelation that Iran is trying to stop Trump and elect Kamala by any means occasions no more from the White House and the intel community than a reluctant briefing and some boilerplate prose about sowing chaos as if there is no motive or agenda to these activities.
No one has brought ‘Irangate’ into being even though there’s more than enough materials.
After September 11, Joe Biden suggested, “this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.”
Biden urged restoring an American diplomatic presence to Tehran where our diplomats had been held hostage and cutting off Radio Liberty broadcasts undermining the Iranian regime.
Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign was backed by Iran Lobby figures and he believed that Iranian support was so vital to his campaign that he attacked Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for being insufficiently pro-Iran, and used his vote against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the key player behind Hamas, Hezbollah and the murder of hundreds of American soldiers, as a terrorist organization to argue that he would make a better president.
For Iran.
After being part of an administration that provided Iran with the massive sanction relief and clearance that enabled it to build a massive missile arsenal and nuclear program, Biden left office and misappropriated classified documents involving Iran that he took home with him.
Biden stayed loyal to the Iran Lobby and it to him. Iranian hackers with the IRGC tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to stop Trump and aid Biden.
In the 2020 election, Jamal Abdi, the executive director of National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action, often described as the Iran Lobby, was exposed as one of Biden’s biggest bundlers, and NIAC claimed its members had run phone banks and donated $385,000 to him.
NIAC Action had endorsed Biden and celebrated the election outcome by declaring that, “our long, national nightmare is almost over. AP has called the race for Joe Biden”.
Iran’s president cheered Biden’s election win by expressing the hope that “the next American administration will surrender to the Iranian nation.” The Islamic terror state leader was not to be disappointed. The Biden-Harris administration offered billions in sanctions relief to Iran while attempting to restore the failed nuclear deal with the terror state. It dropped support for the Saudi campaign against the Houthis in Yemen which allowed the Iran-backed terrorists to arm up and terrorize shipping in the Red Sea leading to 9 months of fighting in what has been described as the “most intense combat since World War II” for the U.S. Navy.
The Biden-Harris administration was filled with Iranian sympathizers and lobby figures, including Rob Malley, Biden’s envoy to Iran, under FBI investigation for mishandling classified information, whose actions were illegally covered up by State Department figures. It even brought in Ariane Tabatabai, an Iranian immigrant who had worked with the Iranian government to advise it and spread its propaganda, before working with Malley on the Iran negotiations, to act as a senior adviser to the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, exactly where Tehran would have wanted her, before making her a Pentagon Chief of Staff.
Over the next four years, the Biden-Harris administration gave Iran everything it wanted from endless sanctions relief to a hostage trade that not only freed Iranian agents but allowed them to remain and continue their activities inside the United States.
This year the Biden administration was still at it, warning the British and French not to censure Iran at a vote in the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency despite its nuclear violations
When the chopper carrying Iran’s previous president crashed, the Biden administration sent its condolences and Deputy UN Ambassador Robert Wood stood for a moment of silence in the memory of the leader of a regime that had recently been responsible for killing U.S. soldiers.
The Biden-Harris administration now not only allowed sanctioned Iranian figures into the country but warned journalists away from filming outside the hotel where the Iranian delegation was staying. What did their cameras catch? The former head of NIAC, the Iran Lobby group linked to the Biden-Harris administration, entering the hotel. Is it any wonder that when Iran hacked the Trump campaign, it sent the materials to Harris-Walz staffers who did not report it to the FBI?
There is no shortage of materials for a theory of ‘Irangate’. The Biden-Harris administration has been even better for Iran that the previous low-water marks set by Carter and Obama.
Iran is not trying to “sow chaos” but to swing a presidential election in favor of its candidate.
The Islamic regime has also had a longtime obsession with Trump ever since he approved the operation that took out the IRGC’s deadly terror boss Qasem Soleimani. Even with Trump out of office, the official website of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a video simulating a drone strike on Trump’s home with the message, “Revenge is Inevitable”
Unlike Russiagate, Irangate is real and has been taking place out in the open for us to see.
An enemy of the United States is doing everything possible to stop a free election from taking place. It already used fake news, hacking and assassination plots to stop Trump.
Those tactics are likely to pick up as Election Day approaches.
Facing defeat in Gaza and Lebanon, Iran is not about to give up. And the most troubling question at the heart of Irangate that needs to be asked is how much support do Iran’s agents have inside this country, and inside the Biden-Harris administration and the intel community.
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
The Brainwashing of Democrat Kids is Frightening
CNN partnered with psychologist Ashley Landrum to study how kids see politics, and some of the results were easy to predict and others were pretty disturbing.
But the thing that stood out to me was that kids who grew up in Blue areas with Democrat parents were clearly brainwashed to hate Republicans.
While Republican-leaning kids (10-11 year-olds) expressed that the political views of another kid didn’t matter that much to them, the opposite was true for kids who have grown up in a left-leaning environment.
It’s not even close and is a great indicator of how well the brainwashing works. And that is clearly what it is if you think about it. Kids who grow up around Republicans are pretty laissez-faire about others’ political attitudes, while kids exposed mainly to Democrats see the people who think differently from themselves as evil.
Pure evil, as one kid put it.
This probably is in line with your experiences, as they are with mine. I think most Democrats are emotive and respond to what they perceive to be “good intentions,” while my experience with Democrats is that they think of Republicans as evil. When people disagree with strong liberals, they perceive it as a challenge to their identity.
Democrats constantly signal their virtue, while Republicans usually want to be left alone. We don’t demand people know our pronouns.
The personal is the political is a slogan I encountered all the time when I hung around leftists. This is why there is so much rage directed against Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and also why even Mitt Romney was the subject of so much rage when he was running for president.
Mitt Romney. So don’t tell me that this is special to Trump. All Republicans are portrayed as evil because it is necessary to maintain this fiction in order to forward the brainwashing. Any nuance is antithetical to the need to make people–especially young people–repeat things robotically.
The fact that Democrat-leaning kids are unapologetic about not wanting to be friends with Republicans tells you a lot, and not about the kids. It’s not like they came up with these ideas independently. They are reflecting what is around them, and what they are reflecting is raw, unreasoning hate.
Kids who grow up in Republican areas don’t hate Kamala Harris, even if they don’t like her. The opposite is not the case with Democrat-leaning kids. They HATE Trump and his supporters.
This is sad, and most of all, I blame the brainwashers and not the kids. The kids have grown up in a North Korea-like environment where ideas are pounded into them. Their parents watch MSNBC and CNN, and they hear this all day, every day.
It’s saddening and maddening. Sowing this division makes it harder to see how America can come together, at least outside of a massive threat that temporarily unites us.
It shouldn’t take something like that to get people to sit down and talk, even if we disagree.
But if the Democrats get their way, we won’t even be able to try, because their goal is to censor all but the people who mindlessly mouth the “right” words.
Oh JOY!
David Strom, hotair.com
The Infestation of Soros-Inspired Leftism is Moving South
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) – Charleston County Sheriff Kristin Graziano released a statement Tuesday afternoon refuting claims by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace that accused the sheriff of “systematically dismantling immigration enforcement” in the county.
The release from Mace’s office alleges Graziano’s office has “ignored at least 51 ICE detainer requests” since 2021.
“Under your leadership, the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office has refused to provide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with adequate hold time to assume custody of illegal aliens and refused to provide ICE with notification you have an illegal alien in custody prior to their release. In fact, Charleston County has been recognized as a non-cooperative institution by ICE,” Mace wrote. “In other words, you are purposefully and systematically allowing criminal illegal aliens to roam free in Charleston County and surrounding areas. You are purposefully putting local residents at risk, adults and children alike.” [Source for photo and this quote HERE.]
You cannot escape the vapid, sinister Soros-inspired politicians even in the Lowcountry of South Carolina. The infestation is everywhere. Read about this Democrat sheriff in Charleston County SC who’s selectively enforcing the law based on political factors. Her excuse: “I can’t prosecute illegals if they break the law. That’s a federal issue.” So if you’re robbed, raped or murdered by an illegal…tough luck! Wow, that’s pure Soros. She obviously has her eye on a federal role in a Kamala Communist federal regime. With any luck, we’ll ditch the b**ch in the upcoming Sheriff’s election. Good for U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace for calling her out.
“May she soon be a recipient of her own shytestorm policy consequences.” writes a reader on my Facebook thread.
Yes, indeed. What goes around comes around.
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 X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!
Gallup: Almost Every Indicator Favors GOP, Making Election Trump’s to Lose
A new Gallup poll shows Republicans leading on nine out of 10 key issues the pollster uses to determine which side has an advantage ahead of the election. Gallup said the GOP trails only on the approval of Congress, and voters don’t like either party on that.
“The political environment suggests the election is Trump’s and Republicans’ to lose,” Gallup said. “Nearly every indicator of the election context is favorable to the Republican Party, and those that aren’t are essentially tied rather than showing a Democratic advantage.”
Party identification has traditionally been a strong indicator in predicting election outcomes, Gallup said, and this year, 48% say they are, or lean, Republican, versus 45% who are, or lean, Democrat — a GOP advantage not seen in decades.
Gallup said, “Republicans previously have not had an outright advantage in party affiliation during the third quarter of a presidential election year, and they have rarely outnumbered Democrats in election and non-election years over the past three decades.”
The second highly predictive measure is which party voters believe will better handle big problems. In this, too, Republicans outgun Democrats, by 46%-41%, mostly on the view they are better suited to handle the economy. The poll finds that respondents view the GOP as the party that will make American prosperous by a 50%-44% margin.
The GOP is also getting help because of voter dissatisfaction with the Biden administration. Gallup said, “Biden’s unpopularity could still affect the election to the extent voters transfer their frustrations with the Biden administration to Vice President Kamala Harris. For her part, 44% of U.S. adults approve of the job she is doing as vice president, down slightly from a 47% reading in August.”
The Gallup survey took place between Sept. 3 and 15, polling 1,007 people, and has a margin of error of ± 4 percentage points.
Kate McManus ✉
Kate McManus is a New Jersey-based Newsmax writer who’s spent more than two decades as a journalist
What Is Hezbollah, the Group Battling Israel in Lebanon ? Newsmax.com
After almost a year of trading fire, Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah are now engaged in ferocious confrontations that threaten to turn into a full-blown war.
Israel faces a much more formidable foe in Hezbollah than it faced in Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Many consider the Iran-backed group the strongest paramilitary force in the region — but the group also has political and social wings with considerable power in Lebanon.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has warned Israel that his group has new weapons and capabilities, and it has published surveillance drone footage taken deep inside northern Israel that showed the port of Haifa and other sites far from the Lebanon-Israel border. In the past few days, it has struck deeper into Israel than at any time in the past year.
Founded in 1982 during Lebanon’s civil war, Hezbollah was initially devoted to ending Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. It achieved that in 2000 following a long war of attrition that eventually forced Israel to withdraw. But it has continued its battle and seeks Israel’s destruction.
Shiite Muslim Hezbollah is part of a collection of Iranian-backed factions and governments known as the Axis of Resistance. It was the first group that Iran supported and used as a way to export its brand of political Islamism.
In addition to being an armed group, Hezbollah is also a political party with lawmakers in the Lebanese parliament and has had representatives in most Lebanese governments for decades. It also provides extensive social services, including running schools and health clinics, in southern Lebanon and other parts of the country where it has a strong presence.
In its early days, the group attacked U.S. interests, causing Washington to designate it a terrorist organization. Those attacks included taking U.S. hostages in Beirut and the infamous 1983 truck bombing of a Marine Corps barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American service members.
“Iran’s support has helped Hezbollah consolidate its position as Lebanon’s most powerful political actor as well as the most-equipped military actor supported by Iran in the whole of the Middle East,” said Lina Khatib, the director of the SOAS Middle East Institute in London.
In 2006, Hezbollah fighters ambushed an Israeli patrol and took two Israeli soldiers hostage in a cross-border raid. That sparked a monthlong war between Hezbollah and Israel that ended in a draw, but Israeli bombardment wreaked widespread destruction in southern Lebanon.
Israel’s objective was eliminating Hezbollah, but the Lebanese group came out stronger and became a key military and political power on Israel’s northern border.
Domestic opponents have criticized Hezbollah for maintaining its arsenal and for coming to dominate the government. Hezbollah’s reputation also suffered when it briefly seized a section of Beirut in May 2008 after the Lebanese government took measures against its private telecommunications network.
Hezbollah is the Arab world’s most significant paramilitary force with a robust organizational structure as well as a sizeable arsenal. It claims to have some 100,000 fighters
Hezbollah’s military capabilities have surged over the years, and it has played a key role in the Syrian civil war, helping keep President Bashar Assad in power there. It has also helped train Iran-backed militias in Syria and Iraq, as well as Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
Israel estimates Hezbollah has some 150,000 rockets and missiles, including guided missiles and long-range projectiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel.
Throughout its latest conflict with Israel, Hezbollah has gradually introduced new weapons to its arsenal.
While Hezbollah initially began launching anti-tank missiles and rockets, it eventually introduced explosive drones and surface-to-air missiles for the first time. Nasrallah said the drones are locally manufactured, and they have many at their disposal.
The group sustained a severe blow last week, when thousands of communications devices, used mainly by its members, exploded in different parts of Lebanon, killing 39 and wounding nearly 3,000, many of them civilians. The attack — an embarrassing breach of Hezbollah’s supply chain — is widely blamed on Israel.
Israel has recently also assassinated several of the group’s senior leaders, including a top military commander.
Born in 1960 into a poor Shiite family in the Beirut suburb of Bourj Hammoud and later displaced to south Lebanon, Nasrallah studied theology and joined the Amal movement, a Shiite political and paramilitary organization, before becoming one of Hezbollah’s founders.
He became Hezbollah’s leader in 1992 after his predecessor was killed in an Israeli strike.
Idolized by many for presiding over Israel’s withdrawal from the south and leading the 2006 war, his image appears on billboards and on gadgets in souvenir shops in Lebanon, Syria and other countries across the Arab world. But he also faces opposition among Lebanese who accuse him of tying their country’s fate to Iran.
Nasrallah is also considered to be pragmatic, able to make political compromises.
He has lived in hiding for years, fearing Israeli assassination, and delivers his speeches from undisclosed locations.
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 