The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘kamala-harris’

Who are the Judges ruling against Trump’s orders?


Money Trails and Backgrounds of 10 Democrat-Appointed Judges Blocking Trump Policies

Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors.

Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump’s policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters. 

Plaintiffs have been “forum shopping” to attain more favorable rulings, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. Forum shopping means they search for specific parts of the country where judges are more likely to be liberal and sympathetic to their case.

“They are trying to flood the zone and make it hard for the Trump administration to pursue its agenda,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “They are likely to win at the district level. And liberal districts are often in liberal circuits. So, in some cases, they can win at the circuit level and give the appearance that the Trump administration is under siege. Another advantage to flooding the zone is that the Supreme Court is limited. It only hears about 75 cases per year.”

Some of the judges ruling against Trump include:

A one-time major Democrat donor, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, recently sided with a group of Democrat state attorneys general in a lawsuit to block Trump’s attempted funding freeze for numerous federal grants to nongovernmental organizations. 

From 2000 until when President Barack Obama nominated him to the federal bench in 2010, McConnell contributed about $60,000 to Democrat candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed his nomination, noting his long career as a lawyer who sued over lead paint and tobacco, Forbes reported. 

McConnell was a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline, according to the Providence Journal. Cicilline was later elected to the U.S. House. 

Notably, the judge previously rejected a lawsuit to remove candidate Trump from Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot. 

In a separate case targeting the order on the funding freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Joe Biden, imposed a restraining order on the freeze. AliKhan was previously on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the D.C. solicitor general. 

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, enforced a restraining order to prevent the spending freeze on foreign aid disbursed by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 2020, Ali contributed $1,500 to Biden’s presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. He also made modest contributions to numerous other Democrat candidates. 

Before his nomination, Ali was the executive director of the MacArthur Justice Center, an organization initially founded to oppose the death penalty but that has since expanded to other criminal justice issues.  

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of the District of Maryland, an Obama appointee, blocked the Trump administration from conducting immigration raids and arrests at certain houses of worship. 

During much of Obama’s time in office, Chuang was the deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, from 2007 to 2009, he was the deputy chief investigative counsel for the Democrat majority on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was also a past contributor to several Democrat candidates, including giving $750 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $1,250 to the 2004 presidential bid of Democrat John Kerry. 

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York recently halted DOGE’s access to Department of Treasury records. 

Biden nominated Vargas, a former New York federal prosecutor, last year. Vargas contributed $2,000 to Biden’s 2020 campaign, and before that, gave $750 to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Before working in the Justice Department, Vargas clerked for then-U.S. 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor from 2001 to 2002. 

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the Western District of Washington state blocked Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions. Biden nominated Whitehead in 2023. During the Obama administration, Whitehead was the senior trial attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland sided with the American Federation of Teachers, a union, to block DOGE from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education regarding student loans. 

Biden nominated Boardman, a former federal public defender, in 2021. She has been a moderate donor to numerous Democrat campaigns, including giving $500 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $500 to Clinton in the same campaign cycle.  

U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s restrictions on federal funding for “sex change” treatments for minors. 

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued a similar ruling to block the Trump administration’s restriction on sex change funding. He was recommended for the seat by then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson of Maryland, Biden appointee, blocked Trump’s executive order ending federal support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs, or DEI. A very modest donor to Democrat candidates, he was previously a magistrate judge and in private practice in Maryland. 

Some notable exceptions to the Democrat-appointed judges handing Trump court losses: There have been at least four court rulings on Trump’s order scrapping birthright citizenship, with two of those rulings coming from Republican appointees—Judges John Coughenour of Washington state and Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire. They were nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NAACP Gives Kamala Harris Award. Who’d Have ‘Thunk’.


The NAACP will present its prestigious Chairman’s Award to former Vice President Kamala Harris at the upcoming NAACP Image Awards on February 22. This honor is supposedly reserved for individuals who “excel in public service” and “leverage their platforms to ignite and drive meaningful change.”

Now, let’s be clear—this is hardly surprising. The NAACP has long functioned as an extension of the Democratic Party, handing out accolades to left-wing politicians while ignoring Black Americans who don’t subscribe to their political agenda.

Case in point: this award has gone to Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Lewis, Bennie Thompson, and Maxine Waters, but never to Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell—two of the most accomplished Black Americans in modern history. Apparently, their contributions to public service don’t count because they don’t toe the party line.

The announcement was filled with the usual over-the-top praise. According to NAACP Board Chairman Leon W. Russell, Harris is not just a leader but a “force of change” driven by “an unwavering passion to shape a brighter, more equitable future.”

Meanwhile, NAACP President Derrick Johnson declared that Harris “embodies the power, grace, and unyielding courage that Black women have long brought to the heart of the United States.” And, of course, the president of BET Media Group, Scott Mills, added that her “unwavering commitment to justice, equity, and progress has inspired millions.”

But here’s the real question: what exactly has Kamala Harris done to deserve this award? What policies has she spearheaded that have tangibly improved the lives of Black Americans?

Under the Biden-Harris administration, inflation has hammered working-class families, crime has skyrocketed in major cities, and border security has become an absolute disaster—despite Harris supposedly being the “border czar.” Yet, in the world of the NAACP, simply existing as a Black liberal politician seems to be enough to earn a trophy.

The pattern here is undeniable. If you’re a Black American who aligns with the left, you’re a “beacon of hope.”

If you’re a Black American who dares to think independently—like Clarence Thomas, who sits on the highest court in the land, or Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economic minds of our time—you’re ignored. The NAACP isn’t about civil rights anymore; it’s about maintaining a political monopoly.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Emotional Aftershock: How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
The Emotional Aftershock How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election
The Emotional Aftershock How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election

In the wake of the 2024 election, many leftists are so distraught that they anticipate leaving the country. Never at a loss for a catchphrase, some in the media call it the “Great Trump Diaspora.”

Capitalizing on the demand for leaving, International Living (IL), without mentioning Mr. Trump, sent a promotional offer to the readers of the leftist site Mother Jones. The company says the Caribbean, Thailand, Ireland, Italy, Greece and others lie open to Jacobin readers, even those of limited means.

Escaping the Craziness

Thus, IL throws in the idea that, for some, may be the clincher. “If you’re dreading the craziness of this election season… if you’re thinking: What if I could just get away (even if only for a while)… we have the solutions you need.”

Paul Starobin in Business Insider, himself the recent purchaser of a home in Italy, points out that this tendency is nothing new.

“Every four years, as Americans gird themselves to choose a president, there’s talk, mainly among Democrats, of leaving the country. I’m off for Canada if unacceptable candidate X wins! And every four years, the promised exodus fails to materialize. It’s mostly just therapeutic venting.”

But, Mr. Starobin assures his current readers, “This time is different.”

“This Dystopian Country”

Such sentiments echo throughout the mainstream press and many Internet news sources.

Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law

Yahoo Finance reports, “Immigration attorneys report a surge in relocation inquiries following Donald Trump’s presidential victory.”

About a week after the polls closed, The Hill shared the ruminations of actress Eva Longoria. She has already left but “says she’s anxious and nervous for Americans who can’t ‘escape’ their ‘dystopian country’ following President-elect Trump’s White House win.”

However, Miss Longoria showed her compassion by adding, “I get to escape and go somewhere. Most Americans aren’t so lucky. They’re going to be stuck in this dystopian country, and my anxiety and sadness is for them.”

Ever accommodating, the folks at Newsweek provided a “Full List of Celebrities Moving Abroad.” Their “Senior Pop Culture and Entertainment Reporter” explained that “Donald Trump’s presidential election win over Kamala Harris has sparked ire among a host of celebrities, with some going as far as to declare they will leave the U.S. rather than live under his rule for the next four years.”

Its “full list” was amazingly short, only including Barbra Streisand, Cher and Sharon Stone.

Frustrations, Fears and Disappointments

The same day Newsweek published its list, Reuters provided statistics. “Google searches for ‘move to Canada’ surged 1,270% in the 24 hours after U.S. East Coast polls closed on Tuesday, company data shows. Similar searches about moving to New Zealand climbed nearly 2,000% while those for Australia jumped 820%.”

Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times

Some of this speculation has been going on for months. On March 9, the financial site Benzinga posited that “Americans are increasingly considering relocation to escape the potential re-election of former President Donald Trump.”

In early September, The New York Times said, “Thousands of readers shared frustrations, fears and disappointments with American politics, and how they are able to live and work in another country.”

A Tale of Woe

CNBC noted four days before election day, “A growing number of wealthy Americans are making plans to leave the country in the run-up to Tuesday’s election, with many fearing political and social unrest regardless of who wins, according to immigration attorneys.”

Perhaps the most poignant tales of woe came from one-time cable news giant CNN. Opinion writer David Andelman poured out his laments.

“We were never really forced to make a choice whether [France] should become our home, permanently. Now, along with hordes of our fellow Americans, we are considering just such a move. In a growing number of cases, that reason can be traced to one proximate source—former President Donald Trump. Or, more precisely—how he has torn apart America and our democracy that, for my nearly 80 years on this planet, I have cherished.”

Mr. Andelman is no recent journalism school graduate with lots of opinions and no experience. Indeed, he has quite an impressive biography. He served as The New York Times bureau chief in Europe and Asia. He was CBS’s man in Paris—back when networks could still afford such luxuries. He was made a chevalier of the French Legion of Honor. For an American, that is no small feat.

Protecting the Left’s Victory

Leftists present Mr. Trump’s comeback election as an unparalleled disaster. In many minds, he is so evil that their only option is to leave the country.

They believe the election will mean the destruction of the causes to which they have dedicated themselves: wokism, the socialist economic policies (that provoked inflation), immigration, the LGBTQ agenda and similar issues.

They do not feel they can live in traditional settings where even slightly Christian values are affirmed.

Thus, many leftists are not taking any chances. One of the most basic physiological reactions is the “fight or flight” response. When in danger, animals—including humans—reach a point where they can only see two options: to flee from the threat or confront it. Ironically, many leftists are fleeing to a kind of reverse Benedict Option offered by companies like International Living. In these comfortable settings, they think they can ride out the storm.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

US absolutely rejected this piece of the left-wing shit agenda


America’s brave rejection of globalism will go down in history

While the public’s desire for lower prices at the grocery store and gas pump and a secure border were at the heart of President Donald Trump’s sweeping victory last week, the election was also an absolute rejection of the left-wing globalist agenda that has wreaked havoc on our country at every level for decades.

On a majority of the top issues for Americans – inflation, immigration, trade, jobs, war, and even guns – Americans were largely aligning with Trump and Republicans for months leading up to this election.

This included a growing number of groups that supported President Joe Biden in 2020, from independents and minorities to young people and suburbanites. It also included the broad, white working-class coalition that got Trump elected the first time in 2016.

And yet, according to most national polls, Trump was within two to three points of Harris, often a few points behind her. Although conservatives hoped for the best, many were tempering their expectations after the nightmare election of 2020.

Yet, on Wednesday morning it became abundantly clear that the so called ‘nonpartisan’ polls had once again, skewed predictions in Democrats’ favor, underestimated Trump, and failed to capture vast swathes of the electorate.

A red wave began to descend across counties in every single state as Trump secured not only the electoral college but won the popular vote for the first time for a Republican candidate in 20 years. Republicans also swept the Senate and maintained their leadership in the House. Something flipped Tuesday, from the suburbs to cities and small towns, as Americans stood up and said, ‘enough’.

The Nov. 5, 2024, election served as a powerful referendum on the crippling and outright evil clutch of globalism that has held the American economy and culture hostage for decades.

Not only did Democrats lose power at virtually every level of government, but the greedy, destructive ideology of globalism was vehemently rejected in one of the strongest rebukes of centralized power since our nation became a nation.

The United States is still a new country compared to much of the Western world, and last century exploitative forces sank their teeth into the country at every level of government, media, academia, and culture. The Democrat Party, once branding itself as a party of the working-class, abandoned all pretense that it stood for anything other than the enrichment of wealthy elites.

Globalists sold out the middle-class through nefarious schemes like importing cheap foreign labor to undermine American wages, allowing greedy companies to utilize slave labor overseas while benefiting from the infrastructure American taxpayers paid to keep running, and allowing our country to be taken advantage of by enemies and even allies in global affairs and trade.

They hollowed out our middle class, destroyed any attempt at energy independence, and furthered racist admissions policies that punished our own citizens.

They controlled the press, ensuring that endless streams of propaganda painted a constant smear campaign of President Donald Trump and his allies, including any Democrats who crossed over to join him such as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

They formed a ruthless cancel culture that encouraged the general public to terrorize and ‘cancel’ conservatives for daring to defer to science over radical gender ideology or question if the United States should continue to remain heavily involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Americans who had concerns with, or even simply questions for, the current administration and the radical ideology of gender hysteria, open borders, and globalist foreign policy, were bullied, belittled, and threatened with job loss and violence.

Many Americans decided to stay silent about politics. Suburbanites in liberal hubs like Los Angeles and Boston, moderates, independents, Hispanic and Black voters, young people, groups who could suffer social ostracization, or worse, were bullied into silence.

Still, all over the country, supposedly deep blue pockets are showing cracks in the system, with Americans breaking for Trump in larger proportions than last time.

According to existing exit polls, Trump made a sweeping eleven-point gain with our youngest voters – those under age 25 – going from just 31 percent of their vote four years ago to 42 percent on Tuesday.

Among the broader coalition of young people under age 30, Trump gained seven points, going from 36 percent of their vote in 2020 to 43 percent last week. A bulk of Trump’s support came from young men under age 30, with Trump outright securing their vote by two points, 49 percent to 47 percent.

However, Trump also gained with young women compared to four years ago, despite running against Harris, who targeted her campaign specifically at young women. Harris beat Trump by only 24 percentage points among young women, after Biden beat Trump by 35 points in 2020.

NBC News even admitted that their polling data shows Trump secured more voters under age 30 than any Republican presidential candidate since 2008, reversing a 16-year trend of young people eschewing Republicans.

Another sweeping victory for Trump was his support among minorities, specifically Latino men and women and Black men. According to exit polls, Trump gained fourteen points with Latinos, going from 32 percent in 2020 to 46 percent on Tuesday.

Trump gained a stunning 19 percentage points with Latino men, going from 36 percent in 2020 to 55 percent this year. This number is very close to the share of white men Trump earned this cycle – 60 percent.

Among Latino women, Trump also gained, but by less. He is sitting at a sizeable eight-point gain with Latino women compared to 2020, going from 30 percent to 38 percent, just seven points shy of his share of white women this cycle.

Black voters dropped slightly as a share of the electorate this year, indicating possible reduced interest in supporting Harris. Trump did make some stunning victories with Black men – for example he gained sixteen points with Black men in Pennsylvania – but his share of the Black vote moved up by only a percentage point nationwide compared to 2020. Broken down by gender, Trump gained three points with Black men, winning one in five, and lost two points with Black women.

Trump also gained with independents, securing 46 percent of their vote this year compared to 41 percent in 2020. Moderates moved six points toward Trump as well, going from 34 percent for Trump in 2020 to 40 percent Tuesday.

Trump also made slim but important gains among suburbanites, a three point gain compared to 2020, and lost no ground against Harris among urbanites according to CNN’s exit polls.

Trump also gained five points with union households, going from 40 percent of their vote in 2020 to 45 percent this year.

Even in densely blue states, Trump made tangible inroads. As exit polling stands now Trump lost California by 21 points this year after losing it by 29 in 2020.  He also gained in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, which he lost by 25 points this year after losing it to Biden by 33 points in 2020.

The 2024 election also put possible future battleground states into play, with Trump adding enough points in liberal certain states that if the GOP continues to make inroads these states could become battleground states in the next few years.

One example is New Jersey, which Trump lost by a mere six points this year after surrendering it by sixteen points in 2020. Another is New Mexico, which he lost by six points this year, after losing it by eleven in 2020.

By all accounts, a vast number of Americans simply refused to share with pollsters who they intended to vote for, which goes part of the way in explaining the vast gap between pre-election polls and reality.

A groundswell of new voters also entered the voter pool, encouraged by Trump to reject globalism and put America First again. This strong rejection will go down in history as the voice of the people, and generations to come will benefit from Americans who decided that regardless of an entire political and cultural matrix stacked against them, the Republic was worth it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Kamala Harris Admits That Everything She Said About Trump Was A Lie


Vice President Kamala Harris concedes

Failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris admitted on Wednesday that she knew every single attack she launched against President-Elect Donald Trump and his presidency was a bald-faced lie.

More than twelve hours after Trump delivered a stunning blow to the regime and swept both the popular vote and Electoral College, Harris took the stage at Howard University to begrudgingly concede. She could have conceded in the wee hours of the morning, but that would have required showing up when it mattered — something she clearly doesn’t do (see her disastrous handling of Afghanistan).

But it wasn’t her hollow speech about “unity” and “joy” that stood out. It was the moment she openly confessed to spreading egregious falsehoods about Trump for months, all in a desperate attempt to sway the election.

“To the young people that are watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed,” Harris said. “But please know it’s going to be okay.”

It’s going to be okay?

How can it be okay when Harris told us that her opponent is a fascist? She said a Trump victory would be “dangerous” and a “huge risk for America.” Harris claimed that Trump “wants to send the military after American citizens” and that “he is out for unchecked power.” She painted him as an existential threat to “democracy” itself.

But now it’s “going to be okay”?

The truth is, it’s easy for her to say that “it’s going to be okay” because it will be okay. And it will be okay because everything Harris said was just a lie. The attacks, the smears, the fearmongering — it was nothing more than a political stunt designed to scare voters into supporting her because her policy positions weren’t enough to drag her across the finish line.

Harris banked her entire electoral victory on her supporters being ignorant about who Trump really is and what his presidency could achieve. And now, after losing, she can admit the truth — but it’s too little too late. Her divisive rhetoric, alongside the hate-filled narrative pushed by her party and the propaganda press, did more than just tarnish Trump’s reputation — it demonized half the country. It fostered an atmosphere of hate that contributed to the first two assassination attempts against Trump.

But now she wants to say it’s “going to be okay”?

Sure, things will be okay — thanks to Trump’s leadership and America-first policies. But the damage Harris did by stoking division, fear, and hatred for political gain will never be “okay.”

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

First, Second, & Fourth Amendments Endangered By Kamala Harris


Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats claim they are the party of freedom. In Harris’ interview on Club Shay Shay on Monday, she argued that people need to vote for her to preserve the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, that Trump “wants to terminate the Constitution.”

Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins. You have been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Will Tuesday’s Vote Counts Be Another Sham Biden-Harris Statistic?


If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Americans will be told that the final vote count is a sacred number that was practically handed down from Mt. Sinai engraved on a stone tablet. Any American who casts doubt on Harris’s victory will be vilified like one of those January 6, 2021 protestors sent to prison for “parading without a permit” in the US Capitol. Actually, anyone who doubted the 2020 election results was being prominently denounced as “traitors” even before the Capitol Clash.

But is there any reason to expect the final vote count in this presidential election to be more honest than any other number that the Biden-Harris administration jiggered in the last four years?

Biden, Harris, and their media allies endlessly assured Americans that the national crime rate had fallen sharply since Biden took office. That statistical scam was produced by the equivalent of disregarding all the votes in California and New York. FBI crime data simply excluded many of the nation’s largest cities until a revision earlier this month revealed that violent crime had risen nationwide.

Deceitful national crime data helped cover-up the disastrous impact of open border policies. The Biden-Harris administration did backflips to avoid disclosing the true size of the surge of illegal immigrants from early 2021 onwards. Kamala Harris did zombie-like face plants in recent interviews when elbowed for honest answers.

In the same way that another surge of unverified mail-in ballots may determine the 2024 election, Biden manipulated the number of illegal aliens by using his presidential parole power to entitle more than a million people from Haiti, Venezuela, Cubans, and other countries to legally enter and stay in America on his own decree. The Biden administration even provided a vast secretive program to fly favored foreign nationals into select airports late at night where their arrival would occur under the radar.

Some states will officially count mail-in ballots that arrive well after Election Day even if the envelopes have no postmark. This is the same “late doesn’t matter” standard that Biden used to vindicate the $42 billion provided by his 2021 infrastructure law to boost broadband access in rural America—which Uncle Joe said was “not unlike what Roosevelt did with electricity.” Unlike the Tennessee Valley Authority, Biden’s broadband program has nothing to show since it delivered faster internet access to almost no one. The same default occurred with the Inflation Reduction Act’s alleged showpiece achievement—42,000 new charging stations around the nation for electric vehicles. But that program produced more presidential applause lines than EV refills. As of March, $7.5 billion in federal spending had only produced seven new charging stations nationwide.

How many votes will Harris lose on Tuesday because Americans remain outraged at the inflation that has slashed the dollar’s value by more than 20 percent since Biden took office? There would be far more popular fury if the feds had not deceived Americans about the full financial damage that Washington inflicted. The official inflation statistic doesn’t count soaring mortgage and housing costs—which is akin to excluding any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line from the national vote tally. Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, said that if the feds today used the same inflation gauges used in the 1970s, Biden’s peak inflation would have been 18 percent, twice as high as the reported number.

Tens of millions of voters will not be obliged to show any identification before voting in this election: they are presumed trustworthy regardless of zero verification. But this is the same standard that the Biden-Harris administration uses for not disclosing its most controversial policies to American citizens. People will vote next week without knowing the facts behind whistleblower allegations on Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz’s connections to the Chinese Communist Party, to Secret Service failures to prevent Trump assassination attempts, and the brazen details of the Censorship Industrial Complex.

In Washington, politicians feel entitled to applause for any grandiose promise—regardless of their failure to deliver. Similarly, politicians and election officials promising that the presidential vote count will be accurate and reflect “the will of the people” is far more important than tabulating the actual ballots. Will the unmanned ballot boxes in big cities be stuffed with bogus ballots the same way a politician jams endless balderdash into his campaign speeches? As pundit Stephen Kruiser quipped, “the clothing donation boxes that were all over my old neighborhood in Los Angeles were probably more secure than the ballot drop boxes.”

Of course, if Trump wins, then all the forces of decency must instantly shift to the other side of the barricades. Any electoral victory by Trump will be illegitimate because of politically incorrect comments made by speakers at Trump campaign rallies. As in 2017, if Trump wins, every “true patriot”—or at least every true progressive—will be honor-bound to join The Resistance™.

Keep your heads on a swivel. Do not say you have not been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Democrats, Not Republicans, Are Responsible for Post-Election Violence


Anti-Trump protestors, some violent, took over major U.S. cities for weeks in 2016. But the January 6-obssessed media and Democratic Party want the public to forget what happened. Here’s a reminder.

Donald Trump’s comments about envisioning neocon nepobaby Liz Cheney deployed to any one of the Cheney family’s favorite war zones has resulted in perhaps the most deceitful media campaign of the 2024 presidential news cycle. Cable news commentators including increasingly irrelevant and bitter NeverTrumpers such as Jonah Goldberg—who walked back his tirade on CNN claiming Trump advocated the use of a “firing squad” against Cheney—caterwauled how Trump’s remark would spark “political violence.”

The unsubstantiated allegation is central to Kamala Harris’ closing argument. She continues to insist without evidence that Trump is a perpetrator rather than a victim of “political violence.” Harris fielded a pre-planned question during a campaign stop in Wisconsin on Friday to accuse Trump of using “violent rhetoric” that disqualifies him from office. 

Despite numerous examples of Democrat-involved political violence in Washington over the past decade—2017 Trump inaugural riots, 2018 Kavanaugh protests, 2020 BLM/antifa riots, post-election confrontations with Trump supporters during “Stop the Steal” events in November and December 2020, and recent incidents tied to pro-Hamas demonstrations—the media now claims Republicans, not Democrats, will start tearing down major cities including the nation’s capital if Trump does not win the election.

January 6 Survivors Speak

D.C. police and activist groups, according to the Washington Post, are preparing for violence initiated by “white supremacists,” aka Trump voters, after Election Day. Apparently still traumatized by the unarmed four-hour disturbance on Capitol Hill nearly four years ago, the ruling elite wants to take every precaution necessary to prevent another QAnon shaman or Indiana meemaw from invading their personal fiefdom on the Potomac.

“I really fear outsiders coming in,” D.C. resident Gail Sullivan told the Post last week. ‘This is where the insurrection happened. Maybe it will spill out more into our neighborhoods than it did before.’”

D.C. resident Shreya Tulsiani told Politico last month that she still struggles with flashbacks of that fateful day. “January 6th was a very scary time,” she confessed. ‘I used to live right off of North Capitol Street, so I could see the Capitol. There were Proud Boys petting my dog that day.”

OMG PROUD BOYS PET HER DOG!

Cassie Miller and her husband recently decided to move out of their Capitol Hill home “having lived through” the events of January 6 and fearful of a reprise. “We decided we’d rather be safe than sorry,” Miller told the local D.C. NBC News channel.

To create more drama, the U.S. Capitol Police conducted a “mass casualty” exercise earlier this week, a publicity stunt intended to bolster fears of MAGA trouble. This is the same law enforcement agency, by the way, that protected then promoted Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt at near-point blank range on January 6.

Police across the country reportedly also are bracing for post-election violence. Why? Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan of course blames Trump. “[As] Trump once again promotes falsehoods about election fraud and denigrates election officials, law enforcement officers worry that the floodgates to violence are open,” Swan claims. Swan then used a few thousand more words to detail alleged threats to election workers and other incidents that solely targeted Democrats and Democratic jurisdictions in the post 2020-period.

January 6 Amnesia

If reporters and their Democratic handlers suffer from amnesia about the recent history of election-related violence spawned by supporters of their own party, we know why. As repeatedly stated, every day is January 6, 2021 to Democrats and regime media. It’s as if American history ceased to exist in any meaningful way before that date; nothing that happened before January 6 matters.

So here is a little refresher about what went down following Trump’s shocking victory on November 8, 2016 when Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media exploded into a full-blown fit of rage:

  • The New York Times documented days of protests spanning 52 cities following Trump’s election. Anti-Trump demonstrators blocked traffic in Miami, Portland, Las Vegas, and Madison, Wisconsin; protesters burned an American flag in front of the Georgia Capitol building.
  • Democrats in Los Angeles burned a pinata resembling the president-elect.
  • After three days of intense violence, Portland police declared a riot on November 10, 2016. Anti-Trump thugs attacked police, vandalized business, and set buildings on fire. The following day, the Portland police department announced the use of “pepper spray, rubber ball distraction devices, [and] rubber baton rounds” to halt the rioting.
  • More than 7,000 protesters took to the streets of Oakland, California on November 9. A local Oakland newspaper described the chaos: “Protesters hurled Molotov cocktails, rocks and fireworks at police. Some protesters set off fireworks. Others burned a Trump effigy, and someone set a pile of cardboard on fire in the middle of a downtown intersection. A group of protesters wearing clown and Guy Fawkes masks used bricks, their feet and a large stick to smash the glass windows of the Oakland Coin and Jewelry Exchange at 1725 Broadway. Other storefronts on that block were covered in graffiti as well. Multiple trash and cardboard fires were started in the middle of the street and a much larger fire was raging at the intersection of 17th Street and Broadway.” At least three Oakland police officers were injured that night.
  • Confrontations with police in Omaha, Nebraska resulted in the deployment of mob control munitions on November 10, 2016; at least two people were arrested for obstructing justice.
  • Protesters began shouting “kill the police” during an anti-Trump demonstration in Indianapolis on November 12, 2016. Some protesters threw rocks at police; at least seven protesters were arrested and two officers received minor injuries.

Demonstrations lasted for weeks leading up to Inauguration Day. Students walked out of classes; protesters surrounded Trump’s hotel properties in Chicago, New York, and Washington; and clashes with police continued. Now, some events certainly can’t be categorized as violent but considering the Biden/Harris Department of Justice now considers anyone who nonviolently participated in the events of January 6 a domestic terrorist—the new rules must apply to history.

Post-election protests in 2016 culminated in a violent riot in the nation’s capital on January 20, 2017. Protesters tied to antifa lit cars and businesses on fire just blocks from the inauguration proceedings. More than 200 rioters were arrested and six officers sustained injuries.

But unlike those who protested on January 6, the DOJ dropped all charges against 2017 inaugural rioters.

In anticipation of potential post-election violence next week, D.C. businesses have begun boarding up their doors and windows. Regardless of the media spin or outlandish fears by D.C. residents of another unarmed “insurrection,” those business owners undoubtedly fear Kamala Harris supporters will cause trouble if she loses. After all, years of precedent prove the opposite of what Democrats and the media want the public to believe. They, not Trump supporters, represent the real threat for “political violence.”

Don’t say you have not been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

When Endorsements Meet Elitism: The Media’s Unspoken Rule Of ‘Do As I Say But Not As I Do’


The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times pride themselves on upholding journalistic ethics that purportedly ensure impartiality. They demand that their reporters refrain from engaging in any activity that might give the appearance of political bias—no donations, no rallies, no overt displays of allegiance. Yet, until recently, these very publications, sanctimonious in their purported objectivity, have been all too comfortable endorsing political candidates. Such endorsements are the highest form of bias, a blatant declaration of preference wrapped in a veneer of editorial independence. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have recently abandoned this farce, and I, for one, commend this decision. Let us dissect why their previous stances were not only hypocritical but actively undermined the core principle of journalistic integrity.

These three titans of journalism have long insisted on the importance of maintaining an unbiased front. They have crafted ethical guidelines designed to keep reporters above the political fray, much like a judge instructed to recuse themselves in cases of personal interest. The guidelines—prohibiting financial contributions to political causes, participation in campaign activities and attendance at political events in anything other than a professional capacity—serve to preserve an image of neutrality. They are meant to shield both the journalists and their institutions from accusations of favoritism or, worse, collusion.

But it’s all too clear that these ethical rules, while imposed with great vigor on individual reporters, somehow did not apply to the institutions themselves. In endorsing political candidates, the editorial boards of The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have essentially proclaimed, “Our newsroom will maintain objectivity, but our paper will not.” The glaring double standard is impossible to ignore. How can a publication demand its reporters remain unbiased, while simultaneously endorsing Democratic candidates cycle after cycle? It’s akin to a preacher who rails against sin on Sunday only to indulge in every vice come Monday.

The practice of candidate endorsement has a long history at these newspapers, with The New York Times first endorsing Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Over time, their preferences became glaringly clear: since the mid-20th century, all three newspapers have displayed a marked tendency to endorse Democratic candidates, with The New York Times endorsing Democratic nominees in almost every presidential election since 1960. The Washington Post, too, has consistently favored Democrats since its entry into political endorsements in 1976, backing figures like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and most recently Joe Biden. The Los Angeles Times, though slightly more balanced in its earlier days, also drifted predominantly towards Democratic endorsements as the political winds in California shifted.

The partisan tilt is unmistakable. Since 1960, approximately 90% of The New York Times‘ endorsements have gone to Democrats, while The Washington Post has endorsed Democratic candidates about 85% of the time. The Los Angeles Times, though a bit more balanced, still endorsed Democrats around 70% of the time since the 1960s. In practice, the editorial boards have taken on the role of kingmakers, wielding their platforms to influence the electoral outcomes under the guise of impartiality. It is an affront to the very idea of unbiased journalism, a Trojan Horse of partisanship presented as a gift of informed guidance.

To put it plainly, this behavior reflects the elitist arrogance of the Democrat-aligned media establishment. It is the progressive elites, ensconced in their glass towers in New York, D.C. and Los Angeles, who believe they know best—not just for their readers but for the country at large. Their endorsement practices reveal a deeply ingrained belief that the American electorate needs to be nudged in the “correct” direction, a belief that aligns squarely with the ethos of the modern Democrat Party: top-down control, the subordination of individual thought to the wisdom of those who “know better.”

The hypocrisy is staggering when one considers the rules applied to individual reporters. A New York Times journalist cannot attend a political rally for fear that it might suggest bias—even if attending merely out of curiosity. The same journalist is forbidden from making even a minor political donation. Yet the very paper they work for does not hesitate to publicly endorse candidates, making a grand spectacle of their political preferences every four years. If the rationale behind restricting individual journalists is to avoid even the appearance of bias, how does that square with the outright endorsement of one political party’s candidate time after time?

This hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed by readers, and it’s a major reason public trust in the media has cratered. A 2024 Gallup poll revealed that public trust in mass media is now lower than that of Congress—a body so mired in dysfunction that its approval often hovers below 20%. It seems readers are keenly aware of the dissonance between what these newspapers preach and what they practice. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, hit the nail on the head in a recent op-ed when he acknowledged the public’s perception of bias, stating, “Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.” Bezos has taken steps to course-correct, hiring more conservative voices and ceasing presidential endorsements, recognizing that endorsements do little but tarnish credibility and heighten perceptions of bias.

The editorial boards have long argued that endorsements are simply a matter of opinion, distinct from the “hard news” of their journalistic reporting. But anyone with a shred of political insight knows better. Endorsements, particularly from newspapers with such vast readerships, are not inert exercises of free speech. They influence, they persuade and they signal. When the editorial board endorses a candidate, it cannot help but set a tone that trickles down through the entire organization—from the framing of stories to the tenor of opinion columns, to the questions asked (or not asked) by journalists. It creates an institutional culture that, consciously or not, biases coverage.

The decision by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times to cease endorsing presidential candidates is a step in the right direction—albeit a small one. True reform would require these institutions to stop masquerading as impartial arbiters altogether and admit their biases plainly. Until then, their claims of objectivity will remain dubious at best. By dropping endorsements, The Times and LA Times have at least tacitly acknowledged the hypocrisy in their previous practices. The New York Times, however, remains stubbornly unrepentant, continuing the charade that it is somehow possible to separate its editorial advocacy from its news coverage.

The partisan slant of these newspapers has always aligned with a particular view of America’s future—one where globalism and progressive social policies are the default, and dissent is not so much debated as dismissed. The alignment is not accidental; it reflects the worldview of the elites who run these newspapers. Historically, this has meant a consistent championing of Democratic causes, whether through endorsements or through biased coverage that subtly advances the narrative of one party over the other. These papers have long lambasted Republicans, especially those aligned with America First policies, labeling them as “threats to democracy” or painting their concerns as unfounded conspiracies. Meanwhile, the failures and ethical lapses of Democrat leaders are routinely underplayed or spun with euphemisms that soften the impact.

To be sure, legal immigration, fiscal prudence and a measured foreign policy are principles that many conservatives endorse—principles that have broad appeal across the electorate. But the endorsement machinery of these major newspapers has never been interested in nuance or balance. Instead, their endorsements—and the editorial stances they reflect—serve to anoint Democratic leaders who are viewed as suitable by the establishment, whether or not they represent the broader interests of the nation.

The time for hypocrisy is over. It is refreshing, even if rare, to see some of these publications begin to align their practices with their stated ethical commitments. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have taken steps to bridge the gulf between their own ethical guidelines and the actions of their editorial boards, and this should be recognized as progress. It’s not nearly enough to restore the credibility lost over decades of partisan advocacy disguised as public service, but it is a step. The New York Times would do well to follow their lead—or at least drop the charade of impartiality altogether. For the press to regain its lost credibility, it must choose either abide by the standards you impose on your journalists or admit openly that the days of unbiased reporting are long behind us.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Kamala’s Chaos: How Democrat-Funded NGOs Are Fueling America’s Criminal Gangs


America’s immigration crisis is spiraling out of control, and it is no accident. This catastrophe is the result of deliberate choices by the Biden-Harris regime, especially Vice President Kamala Harris in her unofficial role as “Border Czar.” The so-called leadership of this administration has wreaked havoc on our state and local law enforcement, endangered communities and eroded the very fabric of our nation. It is a man-made disaster that could have been avoided—if not for the left’s obsession with open borders and uncontrolled immigration.

Since the Biden-Harris regime took power, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that effectively serve as migration facilitation programs for unvetted foreign nationals. These dollars are channeled to Democrat-controlled NGOs, which in turn use the funds to flood American communities with waves of illegal immigrants. Make no mistake, this is not compassion—it is a cynical political strategy aimed at importing a new voter base. Democrats have given up on their traditional working class and minority voters, replacing them with individuals who will rely on the very programs Democrats promise to expand.

Among the groups taking advantage of this wide-open border are criminal organizations, like the Venezuelan paramilitary gang Tren de Aragua. Originally formed within Venezuela’s prison system, Tren de Aragua has rapidly expanded its operations across the Americas, and with the Biden-Harris regime’s open-door policies, they’ve gained a foothold right here in the United States. These are not run-of-the-mill criminals—Tren de Aragua is involved in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and a host of other violent activities. The group has already taken control of taxpayer-funded apartment complexes in four states. These are not just isolated criminal incidents; these are organized takeovers of American neighborhoods, facilitated by Kamala Harris’s grotesque negligence.

In San Antonio, Texas, police raids have uncovered Tren de Aragua‘s operations in at least four apartment complexes, including the Palatia Apartments, which has been used as a base for drug dealing and human trafficking​. The Democratic regime, in concert with their NGO partners, has literally handed over control of entire residential blocks to foreign criminal organizations, turning formerly safe neighborhoods into no-go zones. Residents live in fear as gang members take over the buildings, and federal law enforcement sits idly by.

The same story is playing out in Colorado. In Aurora, the Whispering Pines Apartments and part of The Edge at Lowry have been seized by Tren de Aragua members​. In a devastating twist, local law enforcement has been essentially neutered. They can only act once a crime is committed. Even if they suspect the entire complex is controlled by criminals, their hands are tied—thanks to federal policies shielding the activities of these so-called asylum seekers. The Biden-Harris regime, especially Kamala Harris, has ensured that crucial data about the residents of these federally-funded properties remains hidden from local authorities. This is a war on local control, and it is the Democrats who are waging it.

State police and local officers, those brave men and women on the front lines, are rendered powerless by bureaucratic red tape and federal indifference. Their primary duty—to protect and serve their communities—is being undermined at every turn by an administration more concerned with importing voters than protecting citizens. And it’s not just law enforcement feeling the effects; it’s every American citizen living in or near these newly-formed gang territories.

The crime wave that follows these gangs into our country is devastating. Crime statistics are rising in every area where Tren de Aragua has taken hold. But what is the response from the Biden-Harris regime? Deafening silence. In fact, Kamala Harris continues to dodge responsibility, focusing instead on photo ops and empty rhetoric. The real situation on the ground tells a different story. Tren de Aragua and other similar groups are not only here, but they are flourishing under the protection of misguided federal immigration policies. While Democrats continue to deflect blame, the hard reality is that their policies have made our country less safe.

It’s not enough to point out the danger, though. We must recognize the larger plan at play. The Democrats have long relied on a two-pronged approach to maintaining power: they use identity politics to secure the loyalty of minority voters, and when that fails, they turn to mass immigration as a means of demographic replacement. The left has abandoned working-class Black and Latino voters, whose values no longer align with their radical agenda, in favor of unvetted, unassimilated foreigners who they believe will eventually be granted voting rights, legal or otherwise. Harris is complicit in this scheme. Her failure to secure the border is no accident—it’s a deliberate choice aimed at reshaping the American electorate.

In less than two weeks, Americans will have a chance to reverse this trend. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to end the Biden-Harris regime’s open-border policies and restore sanity to our immigration system. The contrast could not be clearer. Trump has made it clear that under his administration, America’s borders will be secure, criminals like Tren de Aragua will be deported, and American communities will once again be safe. Democrats will do everything in their power to keep the border open—because they know that without new voters, they cannot win. But we still have a choice.

What we are witnessing today is not just a failure of leadership; it is a calculated, cynical attempt to destroy the America we know and love. Kamala Harris’s refusal to enforce the law is not just incompetence—it is treachery. She has made it impossible for law enforcement to act while empowering the very criminals that threaten our way of life. The stakes could not be higher.

We have reached the tipping point. If we do not act now, if we do not elect leaders who will prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants and foreign criminal organizations, then we are condemning ourselves to four more years of unchecked violence, open borders and criminal chaos. Gangs like Tren de Aragua will not stop with a few apartment complexes—they will continue to expand their reach, and the Democrats will continue to turn a blind eye.

It’s now or never. If you believe in the rule of law, if you want to keep your family safe, then the choice is clear. Donald Trump is the only candidate willing to take the bold action needed to stop this madness. The Biden-Harris regime has made their priorities clear—import voters, enable crime and destroy American sovereignty. Let’s make ours just as clear: secure the border, protect our communities and take our country back.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: