Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Just like the antifa and BLM riots would have been easy to disperse so would these. The first one shot would send the wake up call and when the second would go down dispersal would happen immediately. Just one police sniper is all they would need. So simple but no on has the guts to authorize it.
...................al
I love the way Branco always gets the 10% into his drawings somewhere. LOL
.................al
Hey posh-
Of course not. It neither fits their agendas nor attracts viewers or sells papers. And it definitely paints illegal aliens and city gov't in a bad light- and that is a big no no.
........................al
New York kills off another man named 'Floyd,' laying him off from his firefighter job to pay for illegals
By Monica Showalter
Kristi Noem v. Joe Biden in the indecency sweepstakes
By Mike McDaniel
Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs) are up arms about a brief passage in South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s new book. Said passage relates the long ago, sad tale of putting down a dog whose behavior proved inappropriate and dangerous to farm life. For those with even a pasing connection to farm or ranch life, it’s an unremarkable story.
Farming and ranching are businesses. For families it’s often their sole source of income. While farmers and ranchers love and care for their animals, they can’t afford to romanticize them. A dog that attacks other animals, to say nothing of people, is dangerous to the bottom line, and having to put down animals for all manner of reasons is an integral, and surely sad, part of farm and ranch life.
But Noem is horrible! She’s indecent!
When D/s/cs so indignantly attack Republicans and Normal Americans, I tend to suspect they just might be attacking them for less than honest, transparent reasons. Such attacks also tend to be revealing of their political fears, in this case, Gov. Noem might present an appealing, effective choice for a Trump running mate.
Speaking on indecency, we must remember Joe Biden’s promises to restore normalcy and decency to the White House and America. The invaluable Miranda Devine, writing at The New York Post, reminds us of just how decent Biden is not:
Joe Biden is not “decent.” He made that clear a few minutes before [Colin] Jost took the stage when he gave a graceless, inappropriate stump speech in which he lied about Trump and then laughably urged the assembled media to fight “disinformation.” [skip]
Biden rolled out his favorite lies about Trump, like: “He said he wants to be a dictator on Day One.”
False. When asked if he would be a “dictator” in office, Trump joked, “No, other than Day One.”
Biden said Trump “promised a bloodbath when he loses again. We have to take this seriously.”
False: Trump said there would be an economic bloodbath if he were to lose the election.
Biden then called on the journalists in the room to report “truth over lies. … In an age of disinformation, credible information people can trust is more important than ever.”
Honestly, there’s nothing decent about a president who lies and gaslights the American people day after day.
This would be the same Joe Biden who said “ We [D/s/cs] choose truth over facts!” That’s perhaps the perfect example of a gaffe: a politician accidentally saying what they truly believe.
Devine provides other examples of Biden’s indecency:
*Helping your family sell out the country to shady foreigners for tens of millions of dollars — and then pretending you know nothing about it.
*Inviting millions of illegal migrants into the country — and then lying that the border is secure.
*Sniffing and fondling children and women every chance you get.
*Refusing to acknowledge your out-of-wedlock grandchild until forced to issue a statement as part of a child support settlement Hunter Biden struck with the mother, and then failing to include the little girl in the annual family Christmas stocking lineup at the White House.
*Refusing to provide Secret Service protection to Bobby Kennedy Jr., despite threats against him and the history of assassination in his family.
*Continually looking at your watch in boredom as the bodies of the 13 heroes are repatriated to Dover Air Force Base, and then infuriating the families by making it about yourself and the fantasy that your son died in combat, too.
*Allowing your dogs to attack Secret Service agents.
By all means, take the link and read the rest. I would add perhaps the most obvious indecency: conspiring with federal, state and local prosecutors to imprison and bankrupt the Republican nominee for President, to deny Americans their electoral choice. The list, to be sure, is virtually endless.
One need not delve deeply into history to understand Joe Biden has always been a mean, angry liar. He aligned himself with many of the Senate’s D/s/c racists—the Democrat Party has always been the party of racism--and in 1977 said integration policies would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.” His failed attempt to exclude Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court needs little reiteration. Biden is also a plagiarist, lifting portions of a speech from British politician Neal Kinnock, ending his 1988 presidential bid.
Where political indecency is concerned, America might be best served by trusting the honesty and farming sensibilities of Kristi Noem over Joe Biden’s political record of indecency and lies.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/kristi_noem_v_joe_biden_in_the_indecency_sweepstakes.html
Illegals fly free--and secretly
By Mike McDaniel
By the time Joe Biden’s term ends, if it ends, no less than 10 million illegal aliens, many of them criminals and the insane, hundreds of thousands of terrorists and spies, even members of China’s military, will be within America’s borders. Terrorist attacks on a previously unimaginable scale are a certainty, so likely even our feckless FBI director is warning of them, surely to cover his bureaucratic posterior. Should Biden steal a second term, America will no longer resemble America. But voting with one’s feet is far from the only way illegals breach our borders with the help of Biden’s Handlers:
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the feds have admitted that in 2023 alone they secretly flew 320,000 illegal aliens into the United States. [skip]
Included in details of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit first reported by Todd Bensman, the Center for Immigration Studies found Biden's CBP approved the latest secretive flights that transported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from foreign countries into at least 43 different American airports from January through December 2023.
That's 320,000 in 2023 alone to which they’ll admit. The flights, carrying numbers unknown, continue. The information was obtained only by way of FOIA because these flights, usually in unmarked aircraft, are kept strictly secret and land only at night. The Administration does this through an app that allows illegals to apply for those flights. Unvetted, they are flown directly into America at no cost, bypassing public scrutiny and cameras depicting them freely crossing our “secure” and “closed” borders. Americans forced to evacuate hostile nations due to the foreign policy idiocy of the Biden Administration have to cough up airfare in advance, when the State Department can be roused to arrange a flight or two. Illegals, once here, are routinely flown and bussed across the country to destinations of their choice, also at taxpayer expense. Americans are not impressed:
Rasmussen, whose polls slightly overweight Democrats, asked, “It was recently reported that the Biden administration had a program of international flights that last year transported more than 300,000 illegal immigrants to U.S. airports. Do you approve or disapprove of this program?” Some 25% approved, 60% disapproved.
Overall, voters also panned Biden’s border policies. Asked to rate his handling of the crisis, 28% said good to excellent and 70% said fair too poor, with 53% declaring it “poor.”
Even 39% of Democrats are opposed. What that says about the 61% that aren’t is as despicable as it is unsurprising, unsurprising because they see illegals as future—as soon as the 2024 election—Democrat voters. But wouldn’t that be illegal? Only citizens can legally vote. Right. Only living people are supposed to be able to vote too. The old Chicago exhortation—“vote early; vote often”—applies. And by some unfathomable coincidence, the dead virtually always vote Democrat. It must be something about the afterlife.
Biden’s Handlers have already rigged the Census to count not just citizens, but illegals, increasing Democrat House seats increasingly depleted by the millions of Americans fleeing blue states.
So low have American’s expectations of government and our essential institutions become, we tend to view such things not with revolutionary outrage, but resignation. Each new illegal, unconstitutional, immoral usurpation is greeted with gallic shrugs and disgusted groans. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris blatantly lie, calling the border “secure” and “closed,” but because Americans aren’t yet ready to take up arms, they groan and suppress their anger, understanding our President and Vice President cannot be trusted.
Nor can the Senate. When DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, another serial border liar, was impeached, the Democrat-ruled Senate refused to do its constitutional duty to try him, and simply dismissed the articles of impeachment. It has been more than 150 years since a cabinet secretary was impeached, so it’s not as though it’s a common, political ploy.
What’s next? Giving illegals free room and board, cell phones, work permits, displacing veterans and the needy, taking over school facilities and lying about all of that? Oh. Right. The Administration is already doing that too.
It’s a truism to say America is a nation of immigrants, but never before have we imported them unvetted, by air, with taxpayer dollars from the brokest nation in history. Never before have we not expected them to pay their own way and to assimilate.
When that bill comes due, who will be left to pay it and what with?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/illegals_fly_free_and_secretly.html
How popular is the AR-15?
By Mike McDaniel
On April 13, American Thinker posted Should I Buy An AR-15? That article generated 99 comments, and suggested there are some 30 million ARs in private hands in America. I also suggested one of the best reasons to buy an AR-15 is the Mummified Meat Puppet Administration (MMPA) doesn’t want you to have one, that and you’re a free American and want one. It seems tens of millions of Americans agree:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently released a “Firearm Production in the United States and the Firearm Import and Export Data” report which indicates that 28,144,000 modern sporting rifles (MSRs) have been put into circulation since 1990. MSR production increased 32 percent from 2020 to 2021 alone.
“Modern sporting rifle” has become the standard term for the AR-15 and its several variants, though it arguably encompasses such arms as the Ruger Mini-14, even semiautomatic AK-47/74 variants. “AR,” by the way, is not an acronym for Assault Rifle, nor for “Assault Weapon,” a designation that does not exist in firearm nomenclature, but is an invention of the anti-liberty/gun Left designed to scare the uninformed into thinking semiautomatic AR-15s are machineguns. The AR-15 platform was invented by Eugene Stoner, who then worked for Armalite, thus “AR,” Armalite Rifle. Stoner invented the AR-10 first, chambered in .308/7.62 NATO, but scaled it down to the AR-15 in .223/5.56 NATO for the Air Force, the first military branch to adopt it, with its iconic triangular handguard, in M-16 form.
AR-10s are still available in .308, and that platform, and the AR-15 are also available in a variety of other calibers by switching the upper receiver and magazine. As long as other cartridges will fit an AR-10/15 magazine/magazine well, they’ll work with the appropriate upper receiver. This too contributes to the popularity of the AR platform.
In 2021, according to the findings, more than half of the 21,037,810 total firearms made available for the U.S. market were either pistols or revolvers. In all, 12,799,067 were handguns, 4,832,198 were rifles and 3,406,545 were shotguns. The figure includes firearms domestically produced plus those imported (minus exported firearms).
Americans have always liked and purchased guns, but when liberty is more obviously, even blatantly, threatened they’ve responded by buying the means to deter and resist tyranny. By December 2023, Americans, judging by federal firearm checks, had purchased more than a million guns per month for 53 consecutive months. Make that 57 months by the end of April, 2024. How many more? The December, 2023 number was 1.7+ million. With each firearm check, more than one gun may be purchased, which means the ultimate number, using that metric, is always larger than the number of individual checks. The American firearm industry, despite the worst efforts of leftists, continues to fill the arsenal of Democracy:
Total domestic firearm production reported in 2021 was 12,521,614—an increase of 28.6 percent over 2020 reported figures.
Because guns, well maintained, are nearly eternal, it’s difficult to estimate ultimate numbers, but this is a reasonable attempt:
In all, NSSF estimated the total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1990 to 2021 is 473.2 million.
Again, that’s only from 1990 to 2021, and why the Japanese, during WWII, believed invasion of America was impossible. They’d be facing a gun behind every blade of grass. Domestic tyrants share that Japanese perspective, which is why they’re so desperate to ban and seize AR-15s and every other effective firearm.
Ammunition sales are equally high. Even in 2020, sales increased by 139% and contemporary sales are as robust.
These statistics are surely horrifying for those that want to establish “our democracy,” an eternal tyranny of the majority. For Normal Americans, people who want only to be left alone to live under the Constitution—our representative republic—and the rule of law, they’re heartening indeed.
Our military is currently trying to replace the AR platform for general issue, but that effort may or may not be going well. In the meantime, no rifle so represents American liberty and American’s determination to retain it as that little black rifle.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/how_popular_is_the_ar_15.html
The preachy females got to James?
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
Student suspended for truthful statement
By Eric Utter
Killing Capitalism by Ending Racial Discrimination
By Robert Weissberg
For more than a half century the federal government has enacted countless laws and issued thousands of administrative decrees to promote racial equality. Central to this quest has been the doctrine of “disparate impact” (based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that holds that any job requirement a business of at least 15 employees has that disproportionately harms blacks, might be punishable as racial discrimination. In the landmark case of Griggs (1971) for example, the Supreme Court held that requiring all applicants for a power company lineman job to have a high school degree was racially discriminatory since blacks were less likely to graduate high school. Crucially, the burden of proof was on the employer to demonstrate that the requirement producing the disparity was essential for the job, a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Nevertheless, despite decades of this and similar measure, progress has been slow, if at all, yet Washington remains steadfast in forcing businesses to hire blacks, even if businesses resist. Tellingly, there is no pretense that this compulsion helps business, and one might be reminded of parents forcing junior to eat his vegetables or else.
The latest example of enforcing disparate impact involves Sheetz, a chain of 700 stores with 23,000 employees that features fast food and snacks in six states. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint, this privately owned firm discriminates against blacks by automatically rejecting job applicants having criminal records. The EEOC alleges that it is discriminatory since blacks comprised 14.5% of those rejected for this reason versus less than 8% for whites. The EEOC further demands Sheetz offer jobs to all blacks previously denied employment plus back pay and benefits. There is, however, no indication of how many blacks were discriminated against, and Sheetz has denied all wrongdoing.
This “helping hand” to blacks will impose billions in costs to Sheetz and tens of thousands of other retail businesses and is thus a de facto tax on Americans, blacks included. Since only former criminals benefit, the edict is comparable to no-bail reform and de-funding the police in terms of helping the criminal class.
This EEOC edict ignores the seriousness of employee theft. Blatant shoplifting garners news coverage, but according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a store employee was 15 times more likely to steal from the store than a non-employee. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that a third of all business failures resulted from employee theft or fraud. In addition, nearly two-thirds of businesses are victims of employee theft but only 16% of these thefts are reported. The National Retail Federation estimated that in 2019 the average theft was $1,240 per employee. Given that this thievery almost entirely comes from those without a criminal past, it would undoubtedly skyrocket if ex-cons were hired.
Employee crime is also difficult to prevent since dishonest employees have countless options, ranging from just taking cash from the register or going home with concealed merchandise. Devious employees can also misrepresent their working hours, take unrecorded breaks, or just waste time chatting on cellphones, all of which cost employers money. Employees can also collude with friends to under-ring sales and then sell this “free” merchandise. They can also ignore shoplifting by confederates, plus stealing customer credit card numbers, client lists, and payroll data that includes social security numbers.
Large retailers have multiple anti-theft measures, but small businesses are more vulnerable. And, catching culprits hardly ends the store’s cost since firing an employee, even if caught red-handed, may invite litigation, especially if the employee belongs to a legal protected group. Better to “fire” the thief by reducing hours, assign unwelcome tasks, and otherwise make life uncomfortable so he voluntarily quits. But, if the thief files a complaint with the EEOC or a local human rights agency, the store’s defense may run to thousands of dollars.
Businesses are not totally defenseless. They can avoid areas with a large black population, outsource tasks such as payroll to contractors, avoid selling merchandise that invites thievery, and minimize cash transactions. Some might migrate to the internet or market their products through Amazon. The doomsday option is closing the store, a tactic that has exploded as shoplifting has grown on an industrial scale. Unfortunately, closing a store is better suited to Walmart and similar big box merchants than locally owned smaller enterprises, but rampant employee thievery may leave no choice.
Compelling employers to hire blacks with criminal records can, ironically, devastate black communities. Crime means higher prices for those with the lowest incomes while fewer businesses reduces jobs for hard-working blacks without criminal records. Yes, though many retail jobs seldom pay well, they nevertheless may be valuable sources of extra income (and health insurance) for struggling families. Even entry level jobs can be résumé-building stepping-stones. Stock clerks at Walmart can become department heads and, eventually, store managers who can earn as much a $170,000.
The exodus of retail also means a shrinking local tax base and with this decline, localities must trim expenses in education, law enforcement, and social services, or beg for national or state handouts, so store-closing reduces local political autonomy.
Surely EEOC bureaucrats must know this reality and the feeble economic benefits of imposing it, so the question is “why?” Why not just raise business taxes and redistribute the money to blacks via welfare payments or enhanced social services? Conceivably, however, enforcing the disparate impact doctrine is more a punitive measure directed at small businesses. Now a government official can be anti-capitalist under the guiles of “helping society.” Destroying capitalism on the sly, so to speak.
In the long quest to achieve racial equality, the federal government’s mission has expanded to include multiple other “protected” groups, and the end is hardly in sight. The EEOC even actively promotes claims of discrimination. In 2021, for example, the agency conducted some 186 outreach events among LGBT+ groups explaining how to file formal complaints. What’s next? Obesity? Tattoos? The possibilities are endless. Here the latest mission statement from the EEOC according to its website:
You have a right to work free of discrimination. This means that your employer cannot make job decisions because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity) national origin, disability, or genetic information. Your employer also can’t discriminate against workers who are 40 or older based on their age. This right applies to all types of job decisions, including hiring, firing, promotions, training, wages and benefits.
A sword of Damocles now hangs over nearly every American business since it undoubtedly has at least one disgruntled job applicant, employee, or fired worker convinced that he, she, or it was the victim of discrimination and relief is only a telephone call away at 1-800-669-4000. What began as help for blacks has metastasized into a futile quest for Utopia.
Remember the line, “He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their Substance.”
The quote is from the Declaration of Independence and is directed against King George III. And the colonists thought that they were besieged by Swarms of Officers. Thomas Jefferson, call your office. We need an update.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/killing_capitalism_by_ending_racial_discrimination.html
Is Peace Possible in the Middle East?
By Allan J. Feifer
Living with Climate Change
By Ted Noel
It’s really easy to think that the whole world is like home. I live in Central Florida, so warming seems like a threat. In the summer, it’s hot enough to threaten my ability to play golf, and it’s “hydrate or die.” Any warmer and I won’t be able to swear and beat the ground with sticks. Then this week I visited New Lanark, Scotland.
The woolen mill of this World Heritage Site is extremely proud of the fact that all its electricity comes from renewable sources that supposedly have small carbon footprints. It’s quite easy for them, since they are situated on a steep section of the River Clyde, allowing for ready development of hydro power. And Scotland is quite windy, with proliferating wind farms supply forty percent of all electricity in the country.
When I left the mill for my tour bus, I made certain that I was wearing a windproof three-layer outfit and a warm cap, since the temperature in late April was projected to reach a sultry high of fifty degrees. The wind chill wasn’t reported, but gloves were necessary if I was to be outdoors for long. The mill tour guide seemed to be caught flat-footed when I asked her if all this emphasis on “green” energy was designed to keep Scotland cold. Her startled laugh spoke volumes.
Most of the Karens of Klimate Katastrophe completely neglect the northern (or far southern) climes in their nattering. While various tropical and subtropical areas might have concerns with warmer temperatures, much of the civilized world is actually located in areas where an increase in average temperature might not have such awful effects as are routinely advertised. Florida’s upper crust, who can afford coastal vacation homes made possible by federal flood insurance, might find their property falling into the sea. Ditto for the California coastal elites. The rest of us won’t see much more than dramatic pictures at 6:30 and 11:00.
People in the upper Midwest will be thrilled as winter blizzards diminish. They may have a shorter ice fishing season, but will exchange that for longer growing seasons with fewer parka days. For those who don’t wish to board a giant aluminum cloud for the trip across the pond to experience this, an alternative is readily available. Just get on a floating hotel and cruise the Inside Passage to Alaska. It’s a beautiful trip, and Juneau is the same degree of northern latitude as the Isle of Mull, where I am currently writing. Yesterday the snow level on Ben More was below three thousand feet.
All this dramatic picture illustrates a simple fact: People adapt. If we don’t, we die. People who live in cold climes wear heavier clothing for thermal protection than Floridians. My golfing buddy’s SPF2 mesh tee shirt won’t be much use in Scotland, or Alaska, or Northern Canada. But if temperatures warm, those areas will be much more habitable. People will move northward (or southward down under). Such migrations are a fact of history. Eric the Red named the largest North Atlantic island “Greenland” simply because it was green, and a good place for farming. It didn’t stay that way because climate change froze it, just as it has done in multiple cycles since the second millennium BC.
Climate is always changing. Man has nothing to do with this simple fact. Our paltry contribution of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the earth by about the same amount that the period at the end of this sentence will block the light from your computer screen. It didn’t begin to rise much until long after warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age about two hundred years ago. If we achieve “net zero,” we may actually see a large part of the green on the earth disappear, since carbon dioxide is essential to all plant life. If, on the other hand, we encourage its rise, then plants will grow more readily in arid climates, allowing deserts to bloom like roses.
Space prevents a full discussion of the carbon footprints of “green” structures such as wind turbines, EVs, and other “environmentally conscious” items. In short, they are not green. All we have to do is to consider the fact that clouds, made of nothing but water, are at least a hundred times more potent modulators of climate. And the modeling of cloud dynamics is at present much of a black art.
The very idea that mankind can predict or control the climate is an ultimate act of hubris. The pursuit of climate modification is, rather, a religion, whose sole value inures to the person who declares what penance the rest of us must pay in order to pacify the demigods of green “virtue.” It is a fool’s errand, far more expensive to us in taxes and loss of freedom than any imagined benefit. We can and will adapt, regardless. My proper response to those who choose to be my “better” and command my behavior is not printable in this location. It is time for us to demand that they go away and leave us alone.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/living_with_climate_change.html
Gallup: Biden’s Approval Rating Craters
Pollster says it's the lowest in 70 years.
by Leesa K. Donner | Apr 30, 2024
Joe Biden is making history, but it’s likely not the kind any president would want. Gallup, one of the nation’s oldest and most reliable pollsters, has weighed and measured the Biden presidency and found it wanting. This means it will be challenging to turn Biden’s approval numbers around in short order, which he must do if he wants to be re-elected.
Going back as far as 1938, the average presidential job approval rating in April of a president’s fourth year in office is 52%. Donald Trump had a rating of 46%, Barack Obama edged Trump out by one point, and George W. Bush came in higher than both gentlemen at 52%.
Gallup’s presidential approval rating for Biden is staggeringly low at 38.7%.
Unsurprisingly, the rating was split along party lines. The president has the overwhelming approval of his party. The survey showed that 83% of Democrats approve of the job he is doing as commander-in-chief, but only 2% of Republicans agree. Things begin to get interesting in the independent column; that’s where Biden’s approval rating came in at a paltry 33% — hardly a ringing endorsement.
As Americans become more fed up with the traditional two-party system, the number of independents is growing faster than a kudzu vine in the South. Here again Biden was not able to cash in on this third non-party party. Calculating the average over the course of his presidency, the man from Scranton has enjoyed a 38% average approval rating from independents. Ouch!
Biden’s Approval — Tanking Fast
Gallup noted that “Biden’s most recent approval rating places him 277 out of 314 presidential quarters in Gallup history dating back to 1945, placing him in the bottom 12% of all presidential quarters.”
Writing for the Gallup organization, Jeffrey M. Jones asserted, “None of the other nine presidents elected to their first term since Dwight Eisenhower had a lower 13th-quarter average than Biden.” Jones also pointed out that only Jimmy Carter had a “sub-50% average in his 13th quarter.” And we know how that ended for the man from Plains, GA.
Those who did get another bite of the apple for a second term include Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Dubya — the son who bested his father when it came to re-election. Every single one of them posted approval numbers over 50% during the same quarter outlined in the Gallup poll.
Worse still, a graph showing Biden’s quarterly approval numbers continues to head toward rock bottom.
Enthusiasm and Momentum Lacking
Following this year’s State of the Union address, it appeared the president’s campaign was on the upswing. He almost exclusively used his precious time before Congress to tout his accomplishments in what many termed a quasi-campaign speech; however, his message did not appear to bear any long-term fruit.
In the month following the SOTU, Biden beat Trump in nine of the 20 polls posted on RealClearPolitics. This was far and away the best showing for the president this year. However, that bump did not last, and, once again, the president finds himself in a sea of red, trailing 45 in the polls.
Gallup summed up Biden’s poor showing in its approval poll with the following: “With about six months remaining before Election Day, Biden stands in a weaker position than any prior incumbent, and thus faces a taller task than they did in getting re-elected.” This means the president has his work cut out for him, especially in light of a recent GOP get-out-the-vote drive. As Liberty Nation’s Kelli Ballard recently reported, “Leading up to the 2020 election, Democrats had the advantage, with 51% of registered voters, compared to 46% Republicans. Pew Research now shows the tides are changing, with Dems posting 49% to the GOP at 48%. ”
With just a 1% split between the parties, one of two things must happen: Either one party has to show up and vote in greater numbers than the other, or independents will have to make a clear choice between Biden and Trump. But with such lackluster numbers in his approval rating, it will be a heavy lift for the Biden campaign.
https://www.libertynation.com/gallup-bidens-approval-rating-craters/
The Left-Wing Media Frets Over Presidential Debates
Beyond the ratings windfall, some could be dreading Trump-Biden TV showdown.
by Graham J Noble | Apr 30, 2024
Will American voters get to see presidential debates in 2024? Currently, nobody really knows the answer to that question even though the Commission on Presidential Debates has created a schedule. The first face-off between the two presumptive nominees – incumbent Joe Biden and challenger Donald Trump – is slated for Monday, Sept. 16. While the television networks appear anxious for the debates to go ahead, there seems to be something of an emerging campaign by left-leaning print and digital media outlets to shield Biden from having to take the stage for direct verbal confrontations with his predecessor and would-be successor.
On April 14, 11 prominent news organizations issued a joint statement urging presidential candidates to publicly commit to a series of televised debates. CBS, CNN, ABC News, Fox News Media, and several other organizations argue that the stakes in this election are “exceptionally high” and that “there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”
One hardly needs a master’s degree in communications to figure out why these news companies want the debates to go ahead: Televised Trump-Biden grudge-matches are sure to be ratings gold. It is beginning to look, however, as though a lot of Biden supporters in the world of digital and print journalism are less enthusiastic about the idea. A quick internet search for “presidential debates 2024” throws out a list of articles that attempt to rationalize, in various ways, the argument against presidential debates. Unsurprisingly, each one of these articles focuses on Trump, and why he is supposedly unworthy to share a stage with the current occupant of the White House. Examples include:
Why Biden Should Not Debate Trump – The Atlantic, April 16
Have presidential debates outlived their usefulness? – The Boston Globe, April 15
TV networks want Biden and Trump to debate. What’s the point? – Poynter., April 10
In The Atlantic article, David Frum argued that Trump should not be given “equal status on a TV stage” to Biden because to do so “would be a dire normalization of [Trump’s] attempted coup.” The opinion piece from Poynter. is at least a more honest and less hysterical argument – agree with it or not. Presidential debates have become a tradition, the author posited, and they are very important – just perhaps not this time around because, “In the end, there is a risk that Trump won’t play by the rules and any debate will skid off the rails.”
Presidential Debates Perilous for Biden?
That was a common thread running through many of these media articles: that Trump “won’t play by the rules” of presidential debates. The unavoidable suspicion, of course, is that the authors of these articles know full well that Biden has a potentially career-ending problem. His undeniable cognitive decline in recent years renders him incapable of holding his own against Trump in anything but the most rigidly controlled and staged-managed event. The rules by which Trump might refuse to play are perhaps those these journalists hope would be put in place to make the debates as accommodating as possible to Biden. They would leave little or no room for mistakes on his part – or for any appearance that he is not up to the task.
It’s a theory supported by former Biden White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain’s recent appearance on MSNBC. Speaking with Jen Psaki – a former White House press secretary under Biden who now hosts her own show on the network — Klain said:
“I think what we have to see is something different than we saw in 2016 and 2020, where the debate commission lost control of the debates. Trump didn’t follow the rules at all. He talked over his opponents. There wasn’t a fair division of time. It was more a spectacle than a debate. That’s always going to be true with Donald Trump on the stage.”
Klain went on to describe his vision of the Trump-Biden presidential debates. He spoke about the candidates getting equal time and “where there is an orderly way of proceeding.” The president’s critics could be forgiven for interpreting that as a way of shaping the debate format so that Biden can recite prepared comments without interruption and without having to respond to Trump spontaneously.
It is fair to say that in past presidential debates – even up to as recently as the 2020 Democratic Party primaries – Biden usually came off as calm, cool, collected, and rational, even if one does not agree with his politics. Since that time, however, he has demonstrated a tendency to lose his temper, to raise his voice at times to a level one might even describe as hysterical, and to call people names. Additionally, Biden is now known for his frequent gaffes and a habit of recounting fictional episodes from his personal and political history. In a nutshell, he has on several occasions conducted himself in a manner often ascribed to Trump – and frequently used against the 45th president.
Those on the political left wary of presidential debates between Biden and Trump are, in all likelihood, concerned about these very issues. Thus, they would prefer to see either no debates or only events that are very strictly regulated. They are almost certainly hoping to eliminate the possibility of Biden embarrassing himself or simply being unable to go toe to toe with his notoriously boisterous opponent.
Trump has made it clear that he wants to debate Biden – who has, in turn, now claimed he is happy to engage in presidential debates with Trump. However, neither campaign has officially accepted the debate commission’s schedule – and so it still remains to be seen whether there will be any presidential debates in 2024. If there are none, then Biden’s handlers might well breathe a sigh of relief. Trump, on the other hand – along with his supporters – will probably feel cheated.
https://www.libertynation.com/the-left-wing-media-frets-over-presidential-debates/
Morning Glory: The left’s favorite legal 'analysts' are almost always wrong
So where are the conservative legal eagles who could tell them that?
Hugh Hewitt
Published April 30, 2024 5:00am EDT
Conservative legal commentators are usually very cautious whether on cable or radio broadcasts or in-print for some obvious reasons detailed below. Legal commentators from the left are—sharp contrast alert—much more likely to be egregiously, repeatedly and loudly wrong in their "analysis." And not just on questions concerning the criminal liability of former President Donald Trump, but again and again, on all sorts of issues from abortion to EPA rule-making to property rights disputes.
This inherent bias towards caution among the right’s legal commentariat generally combined with the partisan assessments dressed up as legal deep-thinking has led to an enormous imbalance among the dueling left-and-right legal analysts, which in turn has led to a particularly pernicious impact on big consumers of blue bubble media, whether broadcast over MSNBC or CNN or from the very online left at any of a dozen sites where the left goes to get its news.
The audiences fed the almost-always-wrong hot takes from the left’s favorite "legal analysts" are not about to lose their faith in the commentators who led them astray. They are, when disappointed, going to fall for the absurdist conspiracy theories of the likes of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse or even the simply naked partisanship of Senators Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin, who are at this moment the Senate Majority Leader and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee respectively. Again and again the legal "analysis" on the left’s platforms has been proven to be horribly wrong but the usual suspects keep spewing out stupid and actually astonishing claims with zero consequences.
Why is the conservative legal commentariat cautious even when they know the blue bubbles are filling up with junk legal takes?
First, there just aren’t many conservative legal analysts anywhere except on Fox News which features Andy McCarthy, Jonathan Turley and Mark Levin. David French and Sarah Isgur Flores, who are well known and deserve their reputations as serious legal analysts, are more often than not mixing their legal commentary with pure political commentary because they are asked to do so, and thus are not categorized as "chief legal analyst" or some such absurd term that networks deploy to credential-up whomever they hire to take positions that will reliably defend the legal positions preferred by the left. Those include expanding the reach of the administrative state, the erosion of property rights, the most permissive positions on abortion rights disputes, and especially to side with Special Counsel Jack Smith, America’s Javert.
Serous legal scholars who are considered conservative or "originalist" or at least "center-right" like Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith and Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute are often reluctant to give quick assessments, probably because they value being careful and nuanced more than they do cable news appearances —and that’s fine. Indeed that’s an admirable restraint.
Second, younger legal scholars who aspire either to the bench, or confirmation to a senior position in the Department of Justice or even just tenure at a law school know better than to get involved in the rat-a-tat-tat of legal commentary much less posting on X because, well, they know the left keeps score.
As does the right. Look at what the Republicans did to Neera Tanden when she was nominated by President-elect Biden to lead the Office of Management and Budget. The GOP rejected her for mean tweets and hot partisan takes on cable even though Tanden was extremely well qualified for the job. She is a very smart lawyer from the left and should have been confirmed. The message for young ambitious lawyers that followed that episode are obvious: Stay low to the ground and do good and hopefully boring work and, for goodness’ sake, don’t get caught up in any high-profile fray. (And never, ever defend Trump on any issue, or kiss that confirmation or tenure vote goodbye down the road.)
Prudence on the part of conservative legal analysts combined with the hunt for ratings drawn almost exclusively from the deep blue part of the potential audience means even the center-left audience in America has been continually surprised by decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years, even when those decisions were extremely predictable.
The decision returning abortion law decisions to state legislatures in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reflected the center-right, "originalist" position on that issue since the decision in Roe v Wade came down in 1973. The ridiculous "joint opinion" in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not create a new category of "super precedent" and the outrage from the left when Dobbs overturned Roe and Casey was inevitable because that blue bubble audience had been led to believe in "super-precedent" by erroneous references to what the doctrine of stare decisis actually means.
The 9-0 per curiam opinion returning former President Trump to the Colorado ballot in this year’s Trump v. Anderson decision was another decision that was obvious from the jump.
The remand from the Supreme Court to the District Court that will be forthcoming in Trump v. United States will likely stun and outrage the left again, even though it shouldn’t. The question of the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office will require further proceedings in keeping with the majority’s delineation of the zone of immunity for all presidents past, present and future. That’s the obvious conclusion from the oral argument, and it was obvious from the briefs when they were filed and indeed from prior case law concerning presidential immunity and the powers of the president. An erroneous decision by the D.C.Circuit provides some legal commentators on the left cover in this case, but did even one of them stand up and question the D.C. Circuit given the obvious conclusion that there must be some scope of immunity for presidents when they exercise their legitimate powers?
Also obvious? That the civil fraud judgment against Trump rendered by New York State trial court Justice Arthur Engoron will be reversed eventually, just as it was obvious that his ridiculous bond requirement would be reduced.
Alvin Bragg’s prosecution is likely to result in a conviction because of the absurd rulings of that trial judge and the extraordinary stretch by Bragg to stack charges and find a way to turn a time-barred misdemeanor into dozens of felony charges against the president. This abhorrent abuse of the prosecutorial power is also overwhelmingly likely to be overturned on appeal down the road. That’s the likely end result, but you won’t hear that on MSNBC because that network doesn’t want to burst its audience’s blue bubble.
Fanni Willis should not be leading the prosecution in Atlanta given the misstatements and evasions she made when under oath, and for that reason and others, that case and the recent Arizona case against Trump are likewise obviously deeply flawed and based on extravagant theories which will get tossed eventually.
These are all obvious things. You don’t have to have been an accomplished prosecutor like McCarthy or a tenured and respected professor like Turley to know these things. Every legal analyst who takes to the airwaves should be prepared to present both sides of every argument and the pros and cons of each. They should not be about brainwashing their audiences.
To repeat: The feigned surprise by the analysts on the left when confronting decisions they don’t like is predictable, and the outrage on the left side of the Democratic Party over those rulings is inevitable because of the junk analysis the activists are being fed in their news feeds every day. That’s just what happens when terrible hot takes are churned out by the usual suspects every day: shock followed by outrage.
But, hey, these analysts of the left or the Never Trump rump are protected by the First Amendment and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Forewarned is forearmed, though, and you might want to send this column along to any of your friends who are absolutely certain Trump is "going down" and will end up behind bars because Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg and Fanni Willis alleged he did crimes so therefor he should obviously be convicted and do the time. That’s not how it works in our country though, no matter what that lawyer on TV says.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/morning-glory-left-favorite-legal-analysts-almost-always-wrong
Middle-Class Americans Don’t Care What Paul Krugman’s Charts Say About Inflation
By: Christopher Jacobs
April 29, 2024
6 min read
Paul Krugman cares little about these price variations, making him an economist seemingly unconcerned about the details of his own finances.
When covering the political persistence of “Bidenflation,” I’ve noted that economists keep wondering why opinion polls continue to show the American people are sour on an economy that continues to create jobs. Ultimately, the question in many ways comes down to one’s economic perspective and the fact that the so-called “experts” live far different lives than the people surveyed by most opinion polls.
A column earlier this year by perhaps the paragon of liberal economic opinion shows the not-so-subtle snobbery behind the failure to take families’ inflation concerns seriously. It also explains why Americans’ economic insecurities could result in a political bloodbath for the left come November.
New York Times Elitism
In late February, The New York Times’ Paul Krugman dedicated a newsletter commentary to grocery prices. Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data, he claimed that “prices of groceries for home consumption rose 19.6 percent between January 2021 and January 2023, then another 1.2 percent over the following year. Yes, grocery prices are up a lot, but not nearly as much as some people claim, and the big surge is behind us.”
In a typically flippant manner, Krugman then went on to inveigh against “the vehemence — and sheer silliness — of the grocery truthers,” analyzing the cost of goods at Walmart versus official Bureau of Labor Statistics data. His results, in graphical form:
In trying to rebut what he describes as “ad hominem attacks” by commenters that claim “grocery prices have doubled under President Biden and are still soaring,” Krugman totally missed the forest for the trees. Whether ordinary citizens know the specifics of whether grocery prices have gone up by 10 percent, 110 percent, or 1,000 percent, they recognize that prices have gone up by more than they can afford.
Krugman tacitly admitted this with his column’s self-owns. Start with the visual evidence he offered, in the form of a Federal Reserve chart of BLS data, to claim that grocery prices “are up a lot, but not nearly as much as some people claim, and the big surge is behind us:”
Yes, the increases have tailed off in the past few months. But the chart shows a huge increase from the middle of 2021 through early 2023. Not exactly a reason for most families to break out the Champagne and celebrate (not least because Champagne prices went up by double digits last year alone).
Again, remember Krugman has argued that because grocery prices “only” went up by 20 percent from 2019 through 2022, people should follow the message of “Obi-Wan Kenobi in reverse: Look, don’t trust your feelings.” But to most families, a 20-plus percent increase in grocery prices over three years is huge. My income certainly didn’t go up 20 percent in three years, and I’m guessing that holds true for most families as well.
Paul Krugman Is Different
And to most families, it’s not a question of their feelings about how much prices have gone up, it’s about outcomes — not being able to afford a vacation, pay for car repairs, or find a first home now that mortgage rates have gone through the roof. Krugman admits he doesn’t have these problems:
I also sometimes think about what I paid for roughly the same stuff three years ago, and the truth is that I have no idea. I know that it was less, but off the top of my head I can’t tell you by what percentage. And if you say you can, forgive me for having doubts.
First of all, this shopper pays careful attention to prices at the grocery store. I noticed (as did media outlets) when Trader Joe’s raised the price of its bananas from 19 cents to 23 cents. I notice when stores go from having “buy two, get three free” sales (a 60 percent discount) to “buy one, get one free” sales (a 50 percent discount). And I know which items to buy at which grocery stores, such that I can save money by buying milk at Harris Teeter and not Safeway.
Paul Krugman cares little about these price variations, making him an economist seemingly unconcerned about the details of his own finances. It brings to mind the famous F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about the rich being different: “They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard. … They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves.”
Out of Touch
Although Fitzgerald applied his quote to the “very rich,” the disconnect between the merely affluent and more working-class families appears to have become more acute in recent years. Of all places, The Atlantic recently called out the “bastion of college-educated, upper-middle-class professionals” for not understanding the struggles of Americans in the heartland.
That article noted that the percentage of disposable income spent on food has grown to the highest share in three decades, and the poorest 20 percent of Americans (i.e., not Paul Krugman) spent nearly a third of their income on food in 2022. As economist Isabella Weber observed, “If you are spending 25 to 30 percent of your income on food and prices have jumped 25 percent, you are in real pain.”
Couple rising grocery bills with soaring energy costs, rent prices, and mortgage rates that make Americans feel like home ownership is out of reach for them, and you get a deep-seated sense of unease, frustration, and even resignation that the American Dream is slipping away from them. As Weber told The Atlantic: “Many Americans worked throughout COVID; they saw friends die; they think, I did all the things I’m supposed to do, and I still can’t afford this life.” (Emphasis original.)
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, if Paul Krugman has lost The Atlantic, he’s lost the argument, even among the liberal intelligentsia. Perhaps Krugman, Gavin Newsom (“I revere [Biden’s] record … what he’s done in three years has been a master class”), and the others trying to gaslight voters should climb down out of their well-heeled ivory towers and start understanding the real-life concerns of the American middle class.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/29/middle-class-americans-dont-care-what-paul-krugmans-charts-say-about-inflation/
CONFIRMED – IT WAS ALL A SETUP: New Evidence Affirms Previous TGP Reporting that Deep State Sent Documents to Mar-a Lago to Set Up Trump
by Jim Hoft Apr. 29, 2024 1:40 pm
FBI agents spread docuements from Mar-a-Lago on the floor during their raid on President Trump’s home.
President Trump shared last week that he believes the FBI stole his will. The FBI also stole 1,800 other items that were not documents that belonged to President Trump. This was not lawful or necessary.
It is also widely known at this point that Joe Biden who ordered the FBI access to Trump’s documents at Mar-a-Lago and President Trump’s personal belongings.
On pages 2-3 of the ruling Judge Cannon revealed that it was JOE BIDEN who ordered the FBI access to the Mar-a-Lago documents and President Trump’s personal belongings.
This was despite the Biden regime insisting they had nothing to do with the raid.
In September 2022, Joe Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported that Chris Wray’s FBI created a fake crime scene at Trump’s home by adding their own documents to the scene and doctoring at least one photo. (more here).
The FBI created the crime scene, inserted their own documents, and then photoshopped the document. At the bottom of the photo provided to the court there is the number 2A, indicating that this was a crime scene photo as well as a type of tape measure across the bottom of the photo. The corrupt FBI threw the photos on the floor themselves. They staged this.
We know this because the containers were right next door. The documents would have been placed on a table had the FBI wanted to take a picture of the documents. Showing them as scattered across the floor is for show to indicate they were found this way, a lie we explain below. Also, the cabinets are right next to the documents, which is likely where they were stored. They weren’t stored on the floor.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Biden’s corrupt FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago was all a set-up. We reported this when it happened. Now we have more evidence.
It was all another set up from our totally corrupt DOJ and FBI.
In November 2022, we reported at TGP that the FBI set up President Trump and inserted documents at the Mar-a-Lago raid.
1. We know that the FBI wanted to make this look like a crime scene.
We know this because at the bottom of the photo provided to the court there is the number 2A, indicating that this was a crime scene photo as well as a type of tape measure across the bottom of the photo. The corrupt FBI threw the photos on the floor themselves. They staged this.
We know this because the containers were right next door. The documents would have been placed on a table had the FBI wanted to take a picture of the documents. Showing them as scattered across the floor is for show to indicate they were found this way, a lie we explain below. Also, the cabinets are right next to the documents, which is likely where they were stored. They weren’t stored on the floor.
2. The FBI inserted documents into the photo.
The cover sheets in the above photo that were red, yellow, and brown were inserted by the FBI. They are the FBI’s cover sheets. We know this for various reasons. The Trump White House did not need these cover sheets in the documents they held because they had their own cover sheets.
If you look closely at the photo above, the document right above the 2A is folded back. The papers are stapled together as they should be. If you look at that batch you see there already was a cover sheet on that document. It says “Please store in…”. That is the real cover sheet.
The red, yellow, and brown cover sheets were inserted. If you look closely at the yellow cover sheets, they are paper clipped to the documents. The documents would have been stapled. They are paperclipped because they were inserted by the FBI.
Also, the front cover sheet in brown, showing SCI, says the following wording:
Handling, storage, reproduction, and distribution of the attached document must be in accordance with the applicable executive orders statutes and agency implementing regulations.
This document was inserted. The FBI inserted this to indicate that the “agency implementing regulations” – i.e. the DOJ – is involved in the maintenance of these records but this is not the case. The President has the right to documents that are his. They are his property and an inserted document saying something different is simply not true.
3. The photo was altered or photoshopped after it was taken (i.e. the FBI was tampering with evidence).
Throughout the picture there are sections in white. It would be proper for the FBI to take pictures of the crime scene and then add paper to cover up the classified info and then take photos to cover up any classified information. However, we know that these white sections are redactions to the photo.
At the end of the article we reported that this was a crime scene but the FBI and DOJ were the criminals.
This past weekend Judge Cannon redacted documents previously concealed to the American public.
The unredacted documents prove the raid on Mar-a-Lago was all a set up as we previously reported.
Julie Kelly reported on X that an entire pallet full of boxes that was held by GSA was later dumped at Mar-a-Lago. These boxes contained the papers with “classified markings.”
it was all a set-up.
So an entire pallet full of boxes that had been held by GSA somewhere outside of DC is dumped at Mar-a-Lago. Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with “classified markings.”
I will double check indictment but I don’t recall this event in the timeline: pic.twitter.com/H08oh4gkjI
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) April 27, 2024
Based on the current evidence released:
…the federal government potentially shipped boxes of classified information from government storage to Trump at Mar-a-Lago, then charged him for possessing it, then rescinded his clearance after charging him?
Basically
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) April 27, 2024
It appears the entire Mar-a-Lago raid was a set-up by the Biden DOJ and Chris Wray FBI to get Trump. Apparently, the real criminals are not on trial.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/confirmed-it-was-all-setup-new-evidence-confirms/
Hey posh-
Gee I hope the bee doesn't close. They do produce some great satire.
........................al
Pep Talk on a Dark Day
“We live in an age of full spectrum deception.” — Edward Dowd
James Howard Kunstler
Apr 29, 2024
You realize, don’t you, that what’s going on in our country is the collapse not just of an empire, or an economy, but a comprehensive paradigm of human progress. The hallmark of post-war life in Western Civ was supposed to be a return to sanity after the mid-twentieth century fugue of mass psychotic violence. The wish for just and rational order was not entirely pretense. But that was then. Now that we are going medieval on ourselves, the not-so-ironic result will be our literally going medieval, sinking back into a pre-modern existence of darkness, superstition, and penury, grubbing for a mere subsistence in the shadow of scuffling hobgoblins, our achievements lost and forgotten.
What’s most appalling is that our governing apparatus is visibly willing that to happen. When Barack Obama warned America to not underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck things up, was that some kind of joke? After all, it was Mr. Obama and his fellow blobsters — the cabal of Intel spooks, covert Marxist bureaucrats, lawfare ninjas, globalist megalomaniacs, post-liberal think tankers, weapons grifters, degenerate billionaires, and assorted mentally-ill camp followers — who inflicted Joe Biden on the body politic. And then ran him on the country like some demon algorithm designed to wreck the USA as fast as possible.
The source of anguish in all that is the struggle to understand why they would want that to happen. What debauched sense of history would drive anyone to such lunatic desperation? It’s a cliché now to say that the Democratic Party has turned its traditional moral scaffold upside down and inside out. It acts against the kitchen table interests of the working and middle classes. It’s against civil liberties. It demands mental obedience to patently insane policy. It’s avid for war, no matter how cruelly pointless. It’s deliberately stirring up racial hatred. It despises personal privacy. It feeds a rogue bureaucracy that has become a veritable Moloch, an all-devouring malevolent deity. And now, rather suddenly, it aligns itself with a faction that seeks to exterminate the Jews.
And how did the opposition to that epic divergence into bad faith turn so flabby? How did the Republican Party roll over and wheeze so feebly while the FBI ran amok swatting grandmothers in dawn raids, and the US attorney general made justice a whore, and a Republican Congress allowed the Frankenstein agency of Homeland Security to flood the country with its enemies and give them gobs of operational cash? If Mr. Trump was unappetizing to them as a leader, why were they unable to produce an alternative figure of standing and stature at least equally resolute? They look like traitors and cowards.
For the moment, the country lies mired, inert, and demoralized in the face of in those terrible mysteries. But events are still tending and the hidden hand of emergence still operates backstage, preparing surprises for us. You are necessarily aware that the center did not hold. It’s even hard to locate where the center used to be with the action so heavy on the far-out margins. You’re watching drag queens importune young children to shove all the Jews into the sea. And the kids are sitting next to their mommies. What happened to the mommies’ brains that permits them to think this spectacle is okay? How will the mommies ever get their minds right?
In some quarters, a great rage is building. Not a few resent the overthrow of common sense, common law, and common decency. You better believe they will be aiming to do something about it. They will stand up for their dignity, their culture, their history. Virtue isn’t dead; it’s just broke down on a lonely highway waiting to hitch a ride back to where the lights are still on. Don’t forget that this really is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Meanwhile, prepare for action. It’s obvious that the enemies of the people don’t intend to rest. They are going to try to play out this string to the last move because otherwise a lot of them will be going to jail, or might even hang for their wickedness. Once they turned criminal, there was no turning back. They have dishonored themselves and they’re trying to dishonor their country.
It’s true nonetheless that we’re moving into a new disposition of the human project. It’s going to be smaller and leaner, and not nearly as complex as the tottering Rube Goldberg apparatus we’re currently trapped in. We don’t know yet what the shape and texture of that America is going to be. As the sage Yogi Berra observed, our whole future is ahead of us. If you’re not among the insane, have faith. We’ll get there and everything is going to be all right.
https://jameshowardkunstler.substack.com/p/pep-talk-on-a-dark-day?publication_id=2076970&post_id=144127543&isFreemail=true&r=rd9j8&triedRedirect=true
DoD employee tells O'Keefe citizens should be forced to relinquish their firearms
By Eric Utter
No, the government is not to be trusted
By Richard Berkowitz
Tulsi Gabbard as a role model for female military leadership
By Mark Jarrett
Memorial Day is approaching.
The Memorial Day weekend will feature a painful ritual known as “the Murph”: To honor the fallen, run 1 mile, do 100 pullups, 200 pushups, and 300 squats, in body armor, if you have it.
I teared up (no actually, I cried) watching a video of Tulsi Gabbard completing last year’s Murph.
Why is this beautiful woman so sad? Of course, I know why. But I contemplated her path through life for days, and how her approach to remembering the fallen helps make her an effective leader and a role model for women seeking to lead in the military context.
You see, after the attacks of 9/11, Tulsi was a newly elected Hawaii Congressional representative, a Democrat, who had focused on protecting the environment. She felt duty’s call in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and she enlisted in a Hawaii National Guard medical unit which soon deployed to Iraq, just northeast of Baghdad in 2004.
In that first deployment, she was campaigning for legislative re-election, and her commander gave her the choice to stay home. She chose to go with her unit to Iraq.
That year that she arrived in Iraq was one of the worst of the war. The American offensive had toppled Saddam’s government, and now a thousand Saddams had risen in his place, creating a kaleidoscope of civil war, terror, and anti-American resistance that would create almost unfathomable human suffering and years of pain.
One of Tulsi’s jobs was to scan the list of names, the names of those hurt every day, and to make sure those in the unit who had been hurt were getting the care they needed. Being in a medical unit serving in the hardest hit areas at that time meant that she was well aware of the horrific cost of war.
It only takes truly understanding one shattered life to forever understand the abyss of grief in a list of names.
My first deployments were also at that time, and my nights were filled with the sounds of burning convoys, calls for help, roadside bomb attacks and ambushes, and the call for MEDEVAC.
Soon, Tulsi went through officer training, and led soldiers in further deployments and so progressed through her reserve career so that she commanded a battalion of warrior-diplomat civil affairs soldiers.
What I notice about Tulsi’s leadership style is her combination of what I call compassionate competence. The compassion and care for the soldiers she serves is right at the surface.
For example, in 2019, while she was campaigning for president, she made sure to take time to be there as her old unit left again to deploy to Afghanistan. Her prominent anti-war positions are because she cares greatly that we not waste our lives and treasure without great reason.
As for competence, she has over and over accomplished important things, winning numerous elections, serving the people in those elected positions, and achieving national prominence as a political candidate. You also see her competence in the way she shows effortless grace in warrior disciplines such as Tactical Shooting and Rucking.
By integrating her compassion and competence, Tulsi is a warrrior-healer-mother figure as a leader -- she is good at her job, because she wants her soldiers to return home. Her soldiers know this and perform highly, even perhaps sacrificially because of the family atmosphere that this leadership style creates.
At some level, they must understand the deep personal sacrifice that she is making: as one of the most articulate and prominent foreign policy critics in the nation, she understands fully why she distrusts and disagrees with our government’s decisions, but she still leads her soldiers in the knowledge that she may be able to save their lives.
Her deeply thought-through spiritual practice allows her to exercise her compassion without burning out, as she understands what she needs to maintain emotional and spiritual balance.
Jack Hoban, one of the founders of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, said once that through all religions and cultures, the way of the ethical warrior is to protect lives.
Tulsi has centered herself on the protection of what is good, and in doing so retains her balance in troubled times. She also is often in the ocean, which cleanses a person of life’s stresses. Like her, each of us should consider what we must do to maintain balance and purpose.
Quite simply, as a military leader, Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent role model. This Memorial Day, consider following her example, and do the Murph in memory of all those who have given so much for our great nation.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/tulsi_gabbard_as_a_role_model_for_female_military_leadership.html
European and British Muslims are calling for a new caliphate
By Andrea Widburg
Even before 2015, Europe, including the UK, has opened its doors to Turkey, North Africa, and the Middle East. Part of it was leftist guilt about colonialism, and part of it was the need for labor to make up for a Western population that had stopped having children. Then, in 2015, Angela Merkel opened the floodgates to the only people who hate Jews, Christians, and Western Civ more than Hitler and his Nazis did. Now, Europe and the UK are reaping what they sowed, as the Muslims nearing critical mass in those nations push for a caliphate. Their confidence in making this demand is reasonable, given their rising population and the West’s strong support for Hamas.
From 1683, when Europeans stopped the Ottoman Turks at the Gates of Vienna, until the era after WWII, Islam was a marginal faith, at best, in Europe and the UK. Then, that potent combination of post-colonial guilt and a desperate need for laborers changed Europe’s and the UK’s immigration policies.
According to a Pew estimate, in 2016, just one year into Angela Merkel’s attempt to atone for the Nazis by inviting in the only people who hated Jews more than the Nazis did, things had changed. Muslims were almost 5% of Western and Northern Europe’s population, with France having a high of 8.8%, followed by Sweden (8.1%), the Netherlands (7.1%), the UK (6.3%), Germany (6.1%), Austria (6.9%), Switzerland (6.1%), Norway (5.7%), Denmark (5.4%), Italy (4.8%), and Spain (2.6%).
In the eight years since the Pew analysis, the percentage of Muslims in these populations has presumably edged upwards. However, without doing a deep, deep dive—and I lack the time and the resources—it’s impossible to tell what the real numbers are. If I were paranoid, I would suspect that there’s a concerted effort to hide or downplay that information.
What we do know, though, is that Muslims are younger and have more children than their European and British counterparts. Every study, including the Pew estimate above, assumes a massive growth in the Muslim population relative to the European and British populations by 2050. And indeed, there is evidence that, in France, the percentage has already edged up from 8.8% to 10%. The same is probably true across Europe.
While the European countries and the UK probably still have overall Muslim populations that are less than 10% and even hover closer to 5%, it’s important to note that Muslims are disproportionately represented in the capital cities. For example, while England’s overall Muslim population is around 6.5%, the percentage of Muslims in London is 15%. In Paris, about 10-15% of its population identifies as Muslim. Berlin’s Muslim population is 11.4%, while Hamburg, even before 2015, had so many Afghan immigrants that it was known as Little Kabul. It’s now estimated that Muslims are about 8% of the Hamburg population.
My obsession with the percentage of Muslims relative to the overall population is because small changes in those numbers make a very big difference. Dr. Peter Hammond’s famous analysis of patterns in Muslim immigration shows that Muslims disproportionately throw their weight around even when they are a relatively small percentage of the overall population.
At 2-5%, they’re recruiting and proselytizing; at 5-10%, they are pushing for cultural accommodation (halal food, hijabs on driver’s licenses); at 10-20%, they begin to use low-level violence to force the dominant population to accede to their demands; from 20-40%, they become violent on a much larger scale; from 40-60%, they actively wage war on the non-Muslims in their country; and after that, it’s Islam all over.
With these facts in mind, contemplate the following three items, one from England and two from Germany:
In England, two Muslims feel comfortable speaking about the three different ways to establish a Muslim caliphate. In this regard, it’s important to note that all Muslims are required to work towards a worldwide Islamic caliphate:
Islamists from @5PillarsUK are openly talking about how to overthrow the British gov. & establish a Caliphate
The plan is either to infiltrate the Army & convert its top generals to pave the way for a military coup or just a regular jihadist civil war
🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/VwIhEXft7o
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 28, 2024
In Hamburg, more than 1,000 people took to the streets to demand that Germany become part of the Islamic caliphate:
NEW - Islamists march in Hamburg for a caliphate in Germany.pic.twitter.com/A6AYTLyOBV
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 27, 2024
Sreams of Allahu Akbar Echo Throughout Germany!
Hordes of Muslims March Through Hamburg, Demanding a Caliphate in Germany and Media to Abide by Sharia
Mobilizing the Umma (the global Muslim community) to establish their Islamic Civilization is their admitted goal.
Today in… pic.twitter.com/B07C7LqIjz
— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) April 27, 2024
In Germany, children are converting to Islam in record numbers because they fear social ostracism and have come to believe that Sharia law is the best form of government. Indeed, the converts buy into all aspects of the faith, including the justification of violence and the perceived threat from the West. Notably, in some Berlin schools, Muslim children are more than 80% of the student body.
You cannot blame the Muslims for doing this. Like the scorpion, it is their nature. Their current sense of ascendency is helped by the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas marches that have rocked the Western world, including in America. These are signals that the caliphate’s time has come.
Unless the West pushes back, these Muslims may well be right. Here in America, the man at the helm has never hidden his hatred for Israel and Bibi Netanyahu, and he will do anything to get the Dearborn vote.
If Islam is not your preferred future, you must vote for Trump. There will be cheating in the election, so the turnout for Trump must be so overwhelming that it cannot be cheated away. And don’t wimp out with a third-party vote. A third-party candidate won’t win so that’s just throwing your vote away.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/european_and_british_muslims_are_calling_for_a_new_caliphate.html
A justice delayed is justice denied
By Mike McDaniel
Groupthink and its consequences in today’s academia
By Tyler Asbell
A defense strategy for the case of NY v. Trump
By Howard J. Warner
The sham trial in NYC being orchestrated by DA Alvin Bragg against Donald Trump is designed to keep Trump off the campaign trail and further salacious material to create more doubt about him in the minds of undecided voters. The judge, Juan Merchan, is an acting Supreme Court judge, appointed to this position by the Administrative Chief Judge Ann Pfau and selected for this case since he has presided over other Trump cases. Though I am not a lawyer, the obvious failings of this case are numerous. I propose to outline a strategy for a not-guilty verdict instead of a hung jury.
After one week of testimony there is no clear indication of the underlying crime that Bragg used to elevate misdemeanor crimes to a felony. A bill of particulars in the indictment is required in American criminal proceedings and was one of the rationales for the Revolution. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the defense to call legal scholars to demonstrated this limitation. Several would be able to clearly state that that tabloid “catch and kill” efforts are not illegal and are ordinary political and celebrity procedures. Then David Perker’s testimony could be nullified in the jury’s minds.
Many legal scholars have stated that the defense should only show that there is no proof of criminal activity which would allow any juror to hang the decision. This will not help Trump in the election as a not guilty result will. Further an effort to show that this trial is illegitimate will give credence to Trump’s claim that he is being persecuted.
If there is evidence of Alvin Bragg’s interaction with the White House, this should be brought out. If this requires calling him as a witness, it should be pursued. Undoubtedly Judge Merchan will balk, giving another cause for appeal should that be necessary. This is a way of showing this prosecution is political. Matthew Colangelo left his senior position in the Justice Department to take a lesser position as a prosecutor in this case further suggests political motivation. This should be brought out. I would call Mark Pomerantz, who quit Bragg’s office and wrote People v. Trump. An Inside Account. He repeatedly took the “Fifth” when called by the House Judiciary Committee. That would look terrible to the jury.
Further, the prosecution has yet to demonstrate how the statute of limitations should be ignored for the primary crimes being charged. Even the judge indicated that there were several possible underlying crimes which were not identified against the constitutional requirement. This could allow a double jeopardy claim as a least four ideas were claimed in pre-trial motions. An effort to have a legal scholar testify to these issues would help further. The judge might object, though. The jury might be instructed to ignore these issues but once heard, how can they forget?
Judge Merchan is in violation of judicial regulations which require six degrees of separation from any family members that could have any financial benefit from these proceedings. His daughter works for a political consulting firm that has represented many Democrats and is raising funds off this trial. Further Merchan is required to instruct the jury when a claim of illegality is falsely made by the prosecution. But the worst error he has made is to allow is extraneous evidence.
The Court of Appeals of NY State just ordered a new trial for Harvey Weinstein in his sexual misconduct trial. This was necessary since the judge in that case allowed unrelated evidence into the case against Weinstein. The same is already apparent in the Trump case. Further, what is the crime in extramarital affairs? The defense should call federal officials who refused to prosecute him for election issues. The defense must demonstrate that the NYC DA has no authority over federal crimes. A “not guilty” verdict will boost Trump’s campaign beyond any speech, ad, or debate.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/a_defense_strategy_for_the_case_of_em_ny_v_trump_em.html
War is Not Law Enforcement
By Civis Americanus
All this is doing is making the pussy hats look like incompetent fools,
..............al
The Democrats Validate an Einstein Postulation
By John Green
Albert Einstein allegedly said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
But without validation, he was just a super-smart guy making an educated guess about scientific repeatability and human mental stability. Fortunately, his postulation is moving from “theoretical” to “proven,” via testing provided by the Democrat party.
The Dems came up with a surefire battle plan to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the Oval Office. Just prosecute him for something — it didn’t matter what. The Donald would become “damaged goods,” and voter outrage would prevent a return of mean tweets to the office that comes with an armed entourage and a big blue airplane. It should have been foolproof. But as engineers say: “One should never underestimate the ability of fools to screw things up.”
In the spring of 2023, Trump was surging ahead of his Republican rivals and was dangerously close to President “Return to Normalcy” in polling. He was becoming a serious threat. It was time to load the boats and storm the beach.
The attack led off with Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, who indicted Trump for improperly accounting for contractual expenses during the commission of a crime. Bragg claims that Trump stole the 2016 election (the crime) by incorrectly documenting payments to his lawyer in 2017 (the method). No, that is not a typo. Bragg claims Trump that stole the election by doing something illegal a year after the election. Hopefully, a TDS-afflicted jury can help him with that little time warp thingy.
But Donald Trump surged in the polls after the indictment. “Surefire” was starting to look like “backfire.” The Dems were shocked. It never occurred to them that making him a victim, might create sympathy rather than disgust. But an empty suit from behind the Resolute Desk reassured them: Ignore the malarkey. I’ve come up with an ingenious plan. Let’s do it again! Call up George (Soros) and have his gal down in Atlanta start earning her campaign money.
A call to action was placed to Fulton County, where District Attorney Fani Willis launched the southern prong of the attack. [Aside: Doesn’t Fani have the most appropriate name ever for someone about to take a spanking for the Dems?] She indicted Trump for pulling a “Stacey” — Abrams, that is. The Donald claimed that he’d won the election in Georgia, even though it was certified for Biden. That’s not a crime, but what the heck — the judge is a Fani-supporter. Maybe Fani — and the judge covering her fanny — can keep the jury entertained long enough to slip past them the fact that no crime was committed. Besides, a conviction isn’t necessary. Fani just needs to make voters disillusioned with the guy who gave them prosperity and security. She even got the first ever mug shot of The Donald. But what was intended to taint his image turned out to be a MAGA fundraising bonanza.
Dang if the Donald’s polling didn’t go up again. Oh well — if at first you don’t succeed...yada, yada, yada. The White House fired off a message to Merrick Garland (call sign “Wingman”) to put someone competent in command and get it right this time.
“Wingman” appointed Jack Smith for the mission. Smitty kicked the operation into high gear, using all the resources of the federal government. He had Trump’s home raided by the FBI, during primetime coverage, with the cameras rolling. It was all scripted to paint The Donald as the grifter every self-righteous leftist with gender confusion believes he is. Then he indicted Trump in Florida for having the classified documents that the Presidential Records Act says he can have. But damn if Trump’s polling didn’t go up again. Not to worry. Smitty was just getting started.
Smitty also indicted the Donald in Washington, where a TDS-afflicted jury is a brain-dead certainty. He charged The Donald with obstructing an official congressional proceeding, by giving his MAGA followers the code words “protest peacefully.” Unfortunately, The Donald’s MAGA minions forgot to pull the “just kidding switch” (i.e., the fire alarm) before interrupting Congress, so they and their MAGA leader are guilty of MAGA insurrection until proven innocent.
But The Donald’s polling went up again. Maybe there’s a greater time lag between court filing and news cycle than the Dems had factored in. They’ve been wrestling with that messaging problem for years.
Along the way, the Dems augmented their criminal attack with a civil flanking maneuver. Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll claimed that Trump had raped her some years previously — in a crowded department store. Though she couldn’t remember the exact year it happened, the event is seared into her memory. But Trump called her a liar — so a TDS-afflicted jury ordered him to pay her over 80 million bucks, for damaging her reputation more than she already had.
New York attorney general Letitia James also sued Trump, insisting he applied for loans while claiming his real estate holdings were more valuable than her expert estimate. A TDS-afflicted judge awarded the state almost a half a billion bucks, for not actually hurting anyone. Letitia immediately began the paperwork to seize Trump properties. Then The Donald’s polling rocketed into the stratosphere.
Now we’re one year into the Democrat foolproof plan to keep Trump from winning the election. The Donald has vanquished his Republican challengers. He is outpolling Biden in all the swing states, and his first trial has begun in Manhattan. Knowing that the trial is about politics rather than justice, Judge Juan Merchan ordered The Donald to remain in New York for the entirety of the campaign trial. But Trump just started campaigning in New York City instead. Now small donor contributions are rolling in, and throngs of cheering N.Y. construction workers may become the defining photo of the campaign. If he doesn’t flip New York in November, it won’t be for lack of trying.
Polling since the trial began isn’t available yet, but the only thing that could help The Donald more than another indictment would be if the judge actually incarcerated him. Merchan is currently entertaining contempt charges against Trump — for publicly claiming that his political persecution is political persecution. MAGA Ts with a photo of The Donald in an orange jumpsuit are still a possibility. The Donald could sell them as a set with his mug shot mugs.
After all the attacks on Trump, here’s where the campaign stands:
Trump is riding high in the polls;
The legal system has less credibility than CNN;
His supporters are more enthusiastic than Green Bay Packers fans on a sub-zero Sunday;
Former critics like Bill Barr are admitting that democracy is being threatened, but not by the Donald; and
As the cold sweat stage of the Biden/Harris campaign commences, the Dems are frantically looking for something else to charge The Donald with (perhaps in Arizona) — expecting a different result.
Now we know: Doing something (Bragg attack) over (Willis attack) and over (Smith attack) and over (James attack) again actually produces the same result (MAGA growth). Further, those expecting otherwise (Democrats) are totally bat-crap crazy.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/the_democrats_validate_an_einstein_postulation.html
It's the Economy... Again
By Victoria White Berger
GM Gmenfan-
We both know that Ithaca is a town full of loonies. What else would one expect.
....................al