Category: Politics

Devon Eriksen

Cenk has seen the writing on the wall, and knows the dems have no future.

Problem is, the fact that he is able to pivot so smoothly and quickly means that he wasn’t drinking the koolaid.

Which means he knew Trump wasn’t Orange Hitler. That he knew most of the things said about him were lies. Because if half the stuff they said about him was true, no sane person would work with him.

So, if he knew before that it was all a lie, but he’s only pivoting now, that means this is self-interest, not enlightenment.

Which means he is not trustworthy.

This is something to keep in mind as more and more lefties try to pivot to the Trump Coalition, which they will.

Keep an eye on when they turned, and what they said before they turned. Not just about Trump. About covid. About immigration. About white people. About middle America. About heterosexuals. About the working class. About men.

Check the receipts.

Doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t work with them, but it means we must be judicious about how much trust we extend.

Works the other way, too. Ron Paul was laying tracks for the Trump Train before even Trump was on it. Hell, before there was a train. At great personal cost and risk.

The compass needle is swinging away from “experts” with academic credentials from certifying institutions, and towards those with a track record of accomplishment, skin in the game, and, most of all, proven loyalty to the American tribe over the political class.

America is a blood-and-soil nation, like all the others, and, while we have a permissive culture about allowing others to join the club, they must prove their loyalty to be allowed to do so.

Let’s remember to keep that in mind as the rats start to abandon the ship.

Can the Republican Senate protect the 2nd Amendment?

Donald Trump needs to protect the Second Amendment with Senate leadership choices who won’t negotiate our rights away.

Trump has already put forward a plan that, in the words of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., should earn him a space on Mount Rushmore.  But there is another problem with our ever persistent RINOs who insist on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Although the First Amendment is being shored up, we have to be concerned with the prospects of the Second, simply because all of our rights are mutually supportive.

The best analogy for this is fortifications with interwoven fields of fire — a case where a gun emplacement can fire to cover another part of the fortification for mutual support.  These were prevalent during the time of the masterful development, writing, and ratification of the founding documents.

In other words, the First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second protects the First.  All the amendments are vitally important, and when one is weakened, the rest are weakened as a result.

The current problem is that Mitch McConnell has scheduled a vote for the Senate leadership this week, attempting to get this under the radar, while everyone is still celebrating the win and no one is paying attention to RINO shenanigans.  Unfortunately for them, many pro-freedom patriots are aware of this and are voicing their opinions on the matter, and it seems as though our politicians are “aghast at the effort.”  Braden from Langley Outdoors Academy has the latest rundown on this issue.

Part of the problem is that the three choices are insufficient, to say the least.  Thus, it’s up to pro-freedom patriots to offer alternatives to the current slate of RINOs, such as Kentucky senator Rand Paul, Texas senator Ted Cruz, Utah senator Mike Lee, or Missouri senator Josh Hawley.  This is why people are calling the U.S. capital switchboard to have the RINOs removed in favor of the far superior alternatives.

We had a fantastic victory last week.  There’s no reason to water it down by putting in place GOP RINOs who have a history of negotiating our rights away for absolutely no benefit.  Senate leadership is vitally important for implementing the Trump agenda, so there is no reason to go “wobbly” within a few days of defeating the Undemocratic party.

Gun Owners Made a Difference in the 2024 Election Results.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is today congratulating the nation’s gun owners—especially those in critical “battleground” states—for obviously making a difference in the outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election.

“America’s gun owners saw the threat of a Kamala Harris presidency and took action,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Millions of ‘gun voters’ turned out to reverse the nation’s course on firearms rights, and keep Kamala out of the Oval Office. It was gun owners who also made the difference in Montana, re-electing pro-gun Gov. Greg Gianforte and replacing Democrat Sen. Jon Tester with Republican Tim Sheehy, thus shifting the Senate majority to GOP control.

“In this election,” Gottlieb observed, “the Democrats shot blanks and the voters buried their gun ban agenda. 

“But,” he cautioned, “I bet they will double down on gun prohibition because they know that it was gun owners that removed them from power and they are gunning to get even. The fight to defend gun rights is not over and every gun owner who helped win this battle must remember that the war on gun rights is ongoing.”

Gottlieb said Trump’s triumphant return to public office “will become the stuff of legend.” He added that the importance of gun owner participation in this historic achievement cannot be overstated. 

“Here is a man who endured four years of turmoil while he was in office,” Gottlieb noted, “and he suffered from Democrat-engineered ‘lawfare,’ and survived two assassination attempts including one which nearly cost him his life. Yet, despite his wound, he refused to call for more gun control, and encouraged his supporters to fight. And that is exactly what we intend to do, because the right to keep and bear arms is what protects this nation from tyranny, and frustrates the enemies of liberty.”

Trump won in Pennsylvania, which made it impossible for Harris to win the election.
Why did he win?
The Amish vote that the Republicans went out for.
Overzealous state bureaucraps, mostly demoncraps, went and did it to themselves.

Amish turn out for Pennsylvania vote in ‘unprecedented numbers’

Republicans could see a boost in Pennsylvania from a demographic rarely seen at the polls: the Amish.

The state’s famed “Pennsylvania Dutch” registered to vote in “unprecedented numbers” in response to a January federal raid on a local raw milk farm in Bird in Hand, Pa., a source familiar with the situation told The Post.

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture stormed Amos Miller’s farm Jan. 4 after reports of illnesses in children linked to raw dairy products purchased there, according to the local media outlet Lancaster Farming.

The Amish community saw the move as an overzealous reach by the government and was planning to vote for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose party favors less government intervention.

“That was the impetus for them to say, ‘We need to participate,’ ” the source said of local Amish voters. “This is about neighbors helping neighbors.”

The Amish community rallied around Miller, who cited his religious beliefs as a reason for not adhering to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

“If you think about Amish people and their connection to nature, I mean, some of these people work in the fields barefoot to be closer to the earth,” the source told The Post.

Actual numbers of Amish voters were unclear as of Tuesday night, though horse-and-buggy rigs were seen at polling locations in photographs from the region.

Poll Shows a Quarter of Americans Believe Civil War May Erupt After the Election

America hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. But does that mean that if the election doesn’t go the way that either party wants, another civil war will break out?

According to a poll taken by The Times, about a quarter of the U.S. population fears that civil war may break out after the election.

Barbara Walter, a noted Civil War historian, wrote a 2022 bestseller, “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them.” She said that measured against a checklist of the factors that could lead to civil war, “the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.” She added that “we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe because of “political extremism, cultural tribalism, the embrace of conspiracy theories, proliferation of guns and militias and the erosion of faith in government and democracy.”

Only the final item on her checklist matters. Neither the right nor the left has faith in our institutions to govern us. The right doesn’t trust the vote-counting process while the left thinks Trump will “destroy democracy” if he wins. It’s an incendiary mix that doesn’t bode well for the post-election period.

Fears that an eruption of violence is very or somewhat likely are shared across the political divide by 27 per cent of American adults, including 30 per cent of women and 24 per cent of men, YouGov found in a survey of 1,266 registered voters on October 18-21.

Twelve per cent of respondents said they knew someone who might take up arms if they thought Donald Trump was cheated out of victory in under two weeks’ time. Five per cent said they knew someone who might do the same if they thought Kamala Harris was cheated.

Does this really point to a “civil war” where there are two identifiable sides fighting for control of the government? If there is going to be violence after the election, it will be in the form of riots more than a military campaign.

Rebellions take planning and organization. The glorified brawl that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, was not a rebellion, no matter how the left wants to describe it. No court has ever said it was a rebellion. No insurrection charges were ever filed against any of the 1,200 defendants.

Whatever happens after the election, any violence will serve only to divide America further.

Concern over Trump’s response to losing again on November 5 was shown elsewhere in The Times-YouGov poll, with 66 per cent of voters saying the former president would not accept a narrow loss, compared with 27 per cent who said the same about Harris.

Among Harris supporters, 5 per cent said she would not accept a narrow loss and 90 per cent said the same about Trump; among Trump supporters, 50 per cent said Harris would not accept a narrow loss and 39 per cent said the same about Trump.

Trump is just as likely to accept the results of the election if he loses as not. Trump has a habit of doing exactly the opposite of what his enemies say he’s going to do, so anything is possible.

What’s not possible is Trump openly calling for armed resistance to the results. And without that, a large-scale revolt is not possible.

Not many respondents believed that Kamala Harris would offer armed resistance if she lost. Far more likely is an avalanche of legal filings challenging the results in several states.

But don’t ever refer to her as an “election denier.”

Dead Terrorists Are Good, Actually

Wow. Remind me never to start a war with Israel, huh? The bad guys got a jump on them a year ago, but ever since, the Jews have been kicking ass.

I thought Operation Beep-Beep-Boom would be the highlight, but they saved the best for last. Witness the glorious farewell of October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar:

 

It’s good to see that before they put him out of his misery, he was literally disarmed.

Sinwar has now ceased firing.

“What has one thumb and just got pwned by the Jews? This guy!”

That scumbag’s last great act of defiance was lobbing a stick at a camera drone. Yet according to his fans (mostly American college students and Congressional Democrats), Sinwar “fought to the end.”

LOL!

Gotta say, putting a hole in this guy’s head only improved his looks. As the great Andrew Stiles puts it: “World’s ugliest terrorist killed in war he started.”

Continue reading “”

Remember John Kerry going on about deer hunting back in ’04? Just as ignorantly stupid here. One would think they would have learned not to try this after Dukakis’ idiot stunt in a tank back in ’88.

“I talk to anybody. I always call it my

“I speak to the construction workers and the cabdrivers, and those are the people I get along with best anyway in many respects. I speak to everybody…. You’ve got to know your audience, and by the way, for some people, be a killer, for some people, be all candy. For some people, different. For some people, both.”

Said Donald Trump in 1989, talking to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in “A lost Trump interview comes back to life/The yet-to-be-president holds forth on strength, friendship, dealmaking, public service and building violations” (WaPo)(free-access link, so you can read it all and click on the recordings).

Woodward — who’s pushing his new book from which this is an excerpt — exclaims “What a remarkable time capsule, a full psychological study of a man, then a 42-year-old Manhattan real estate king.”
I think Trump comes across very positively, so thanks to The Washington Post for making this available.
Here’s one more Trump quote, short and sweet: “I believe in having great friends and great enemies.”
Great enemies. That’s so funny — makes me think of Batman, James Bond — and Trump does have great enemies. Putin. Pelosi. Who else? The big categories: establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats. But who are the individuals? Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris really aren’t that great, as enemies… or even opponents. He needs someone he can really go big with.
Putin is big, and yet he can’t go big with Putin. He has to be trickier, tricky enough that people would say Putin is his great friend, not his great enemy. But there’s the idea: “for some people, be a killer, for some people, be all candy…. For some people, both.”
Here’s the commission-earned link for Woodward’s book: “War.”

I said that Joe would quit campaigning for reelection over Jill’s dead body.
I think she, as much or more than Joe, is behind this back stabbing

Are we witnessing President Biden’s revenge tour?
A Kamala loss would mark the ultimate “I told you so” moment.

Hell hath no fury like a corrupt politician scorned.

You can’t help but notice that “Dark Brandon” isn’t exactly falling in line these days.

President Joe Biden finds himself a victim of the Democrat establishment mutineers, stripped of an opportunity at two-term greatness, and with quite a few interesting incentives coming into the November election.

More and more polling points to the possibility that Kamala Harris may lose by a significant margin in November. Donald Trump’s momentum keeps building, with nothing but tailwinds at his back. The Biden family is keenly aware of all of this, and they seem to be positioning the president for the ultimate “I told you so” moment for his legacy. Should Kamala Harris fall in defeat, President Biden becomes a man both wronged by a political establishment and righteous for being the one man who could defeat the GOP nominee.

We need not rehash the bizarre events of July 21, but it’s worth recalling that Biden was seemingly forced out of the running for his second term, and Democratic Party power brokers (Obama, Soros, Pelosi, Schumer, etc) hastily selected VP Kamala Harris as the nominee. Furthermore, they filled the lame-duck months on Biden’s schedule with instructions to stay quiet and soak up the sun in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Since that fateful week in Delaware, Biden’s tone has changed dramatically.

In his rare public appearances, the president is attempting to transition into political retirement as an elder statesman, and he’s almost always doing so far removed from the instructions of his teleprompter. His newfound rhetoric is far removed from his infamous verbal dumpster diving of the Biden-Trump debate (and the vast majority of his presidency). He’s now linking arms with supporters of the one-time “threat to democracy,” reframing his legacy as Scranton Joe, the bipartisan blue-collar president. He never once engaged in such deliberate bipartisan appeals, on or off script, for his entire presidency.

Continue reading “”

Oops: MSNBC said the quiet part out loud.

 Kamala Must Lie about Being a Liberal and Pretend to Be a Moderate, Just Like Tim Walz Did.

Hayes Brown, an MSNBC writer and editor, wrote a new column today, entitled “What to make of Kamala Harris’ move to the center.” It’s an eye-opening observation and/or admission from the Democratic Party’s base. As you likely suspect, the Radical Left views the 2024 presidential election differently than Team MAGA: It’s not about making America great again, but tricking Americans into voting for a candidate who’s out of step with the voters’ ethos, goals, fears, and priorities.

And the role model for Kamala Harris’s trickery? None other than Tim Walz.

“[Kamala’s] attention is now fully on barnstorming the purple areas of swing states,” Brown wrote, “focused less on appeasing the progressive base of the party than on winning over whichever voters are still making up their minds about how to vote in November — or if at all. The result has been a campaign that’s burning through the fuel the base provided when she became the nominee.”

Alas, the only way to attract the middle, it seems, is to forego the wackier, more controversial positions of the Radical Left. In Brown’s mind, it’s a risky tradeoff.

“The goal is to convert that [progressive] energy into enough moderate votes to eke out a win against former President Donald Trump,” Brown noted. “In the process, she has steadily shed the stances she took when vying against 19 other candidates to court the progressive left in 2019.”

In a kind, nonjudgmental way, Brown pointed out that Harris has switched positions more often than an OnlyFans model.

If it were a Republican who abandoned key policy positions overnight, then to MSNBC, this would surely be emblematic of a dishonest, Machiavellian, racist politician who’ll say and do anything to get elected, of course. But since it’s a Democrat, well, it’s just par for the course. Just another day at the office!

When in Rome, ya know.

Continue reading “”

Here’s How We Really Know Kamala’s CNN Interview Wasn’t Good for Her

There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris’s first interview since she took Joe Biden’s place at the top of the ticket was underwhelming at best — or a train wreck at worst — for her. I thought it was really bad. Kamala got a lot of softball questions that she couldn’t answer, and Tim Walz didn’t help much either.

But how do we know that the interview was a bust for Kamala? Let me explain.

As you know, Kamala has been under significant pressure to stop hiding behind scripted campaign events and speak to the media in interviews and press conferences. When her interview with CNN was announced, there was little reason to believe that it would satisfy her critics — between choosing a friendly network with an anchor who was gonna give her the softest of softball questions, the deck was going to be stacked in Kamala’s favor to come out looking pretty good after the interview.

She didn’t, and that’s not because I said so. Kamala’s performance Thursday evening didn’t exactly floor CNN pundits.

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod said he thought Kamala did well, but “It wasn’t a huge — I don’t think she moved the ball that much forward.”

Ashley Allison, a former Obama White House staffer, similarly tried to paint the interview in a positive light, by falsely claiming that Kamala “answered every question” but added, “Now, you might not like the way she answered them. But she answered them as a capable, qualified leader. And I do think she — I think she moved the ball forward a little bit. Maybe she didn’t score a touchdown, tonight. But she definitely moved down the field.”

One goal that Kamala wants to achieve in the campaign is putting distance between her and the Biden-Harris administration. CNN political analyst Astead Herndon clearly doesn’t think she succeeded.

“I don’t think there’s a policy separation that they’ve created with Biden. Obviously, she gave a kind of personal defense of him. But they’re also very clearly trying to position her as a change candidate,” he said.

Another devastating blow for Kamala is that even CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale admitted that she was being dishonest about her flip-flopping on fracking.

Remember, this is CNN. This network wants Harris to win, yet its attempts to put lipstick on the pig that was this so-called “interview” let enough truth come through to make it clear that nobody really thought she did that great of a job.

Karl Marx and Kamala Harris…
Slightly different words, same message.

Karl Marx was the father of modern-day communism, a philosophy and form of government responsible for the despair, deprivation, and deaths of countless millions of people since the Russian Revolution in 1917.

One of Karl Marx’s many aphorisms addresses the social, educational, and fiscal disparities of classes; he believed the root of all evil was capitalism. Marx argued that the only solution was equity, a social construct that ensures equal outcomes, however low the common denominator must be set to achieve them. Only by abandoning capitalism and embracing equity can a society and its people, according to Karl Marx, “move forward into a future unburdened by what has been.”

Does that quote sound familiar? Surely you’ve heard the modernized version, one that avoids any attribution to Karl Marx: “What can be… unburdened by what has been.” Who’s adopted those words as her wide a-Woke progressive mantra and spreads it at every opportunity?

That’s right… Kamala Harris, America’s very own Karl Marx.

Whoa! Is it possible Kamala Harris isn’t as vapid and intellectually shallow as she lets-on, could she be cloaking her Marxist message in words many people don’t understand? Her supporters clearly don’t, they’re unable to focus on anything beyond their overwhelming obsession with her gender and race, or… perhaps, they just don’t care. It’s very possible the prospect of a socialist… or its ugly stepchild, communist America sounds great to Kamala Harris voters.

That distinct possibility aside, the rest of America mustn’t be fooled by Kamala Harris; like Barack Obama’s promise to “fundamentally change America,” she could be hiding some very insidious intentions in her word-salad message. And unless we understand what Karl Marx meant when he said, “Move forward into a future unburdened by what has been” and what Kamala Harris means when she fantasizes about “What can be… unburdened by what has been,” she’ll continue to feed that message to the American public… until we choke. And when it comes to getting rid of communism… once it blocks our collective airway and starves us of freedom…

No Heimlich Maneuver ever invented will be able to remove it.

Amy Curtis THREAD TIME

THIS what this has ALWAYS been about: guys like Tom spent YEARS forcing milquetoast candidates on us, candidates who didn’t care about the voters they supposedly represented.

So when Trump came along, the fed up electorate turned their backs on the so-called “experts.”

The🐰FOO
@PolitiBunny
Aug 26
A thread where Tom explains why it’s more important to punish the right than save the country from communism.

After the Bush years (yay, endless war and suppressive surveillance state!) they gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Guys who never met a Democrat they wouldn’t compromise with.

“XZY issue isn’t the hill to die on!” screamed guys like Tom and their preferred politicians. Meanwhile, the Left ran roughshod over the political landscape.

“Just shut up and take it!” said guys like Tom. “I’m the expert here!”
After years of this, Trump came along.
Brash, crass, and completely not like the jerks the Washington Generals of Punditry demanded we settle for time and again. It wasn’t perfect, but it was different.

Having been kicked in the head repeatedly by guys like Tom, voters decided to say * it. Why should we listen to pundits who don’t really give a * about anything other than rubbing elbows in DC?”

This made Tom SO MAD. How dare the little people he constantly sneers at defy him!
He’s the EXPERT!
How dare they pretend to know their lives and needs and political preferences better than him!
He wouldn’t set foot in their hometowns, but he knows how to run them!

So rather than take two minutes for some introspection — to realize maybe voters wanted something other than a rehash of Romney or Bush or McCain — Tom lashed out.
“I bear no responsibility for how we got here, even though I’m the self-proclaimed expert!”

Since 2016, the entire raison d’etre of guys like Tom has been to punish the voters for defying him.
That’s it.
He — and many of his cohort and colleagues — are out for revenge.
It’s not more complicated than that.

Tom and friends don’t give a * if you can’t afford food. If you lose private health insurance. If Kamala Harris wrecks the country. In their eyes, we *deserve* it for not obeying them.
They, at least economically, are insulated from it.
This is a middle finger to US.

But the Left — once Tom and crew stop being useful — will destroy them.
The Left always does.
In his conceit and arrogance, Tom thinks he’ll either avoid this by being a good foot soldier or the right will forgive and forget.

We won’t. But we’ll vote for Trump to stop Kamala.And Tom will benefit from that.
He’ll still be a spiteful, ungrateful prick.
But he’ll also continue to enjoy not paying insane capital gains taxes.

My vote for Trump is not *for* him. It’s *against* Kamala and it’s also *against* guys like Tom who — after years of * candidates and “compromises” — STILL think they can tell me how to run my life.
It’s against guys who have the audacity to admit this entire thing is about punishing us for not kissing their rings.

Guys like Tom deserve nothing but contempt and scorn. When Karma comes a-knockin’, it’ll come HARD.

Enjoy it when it does.