The Department of Justice official who signed off on $2 million in taxpayer-funded payments to disgraced Russia collusion hoax participants left the Department of Justice to help lead the “legal resistance” to President Donald Trump and other duly elected Republicans, new records reviewed exclusively by The Federalist reveal.
FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, sued the Department of Justice over the release of messages detailing their role in pushing the Clinton campaign’s Russia collusion hoax. They said the release of the messages that were written using government resources violated their privacy. The Biden administration rewarded the duo with lucrative payouts. Strozk received $1.2 million in taxpayer funds while Page received an $800,000 settlement.
“[W]e have identified Brian Netter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General as the individual that approved the settlement agreements,” a DOJ official told the Center to Advance Security in America, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2024, when the payouts were publicly announced. Netter was the deputy assistant attorney general for the Federal Programs Branch during the term of President Joe Biden.
Netter currently serves as the legal director at Democracy Forward, a Democrat Party-affiliated group launched in 2017 to fight President Trump with lawfare. The group brags that it took Trump to court more than 100 times in his first term in office. It has continued its use of the courts to win political battles into his second term in office. “Liberal Legal Group Positions Itself as a Top Trump Administration Foe,” touted The New York Times last November.
Marc Elias, the attorney known for his work damaging the integrity of both the 2016 and 2020 elections, chairs the board of Democracy Forward. Elias, as the Clinton campaign general counsel, signed the checks for her campaign’s Russia collusion hoax. To hide the Russia collusion hoax’s origins, the funding was fraudulently run through Elias’s law firm as “legal services.” Clinton was fined only $113,000 for the false claims she made to hide her role. Elias also ran Democrats’ legal effort to destabilize the 2020 elections with the sudden expansion of unsupervised mail-in balloting operations staffed by Democrat-run nonprofit groups.
Other current and recent board members of Netter’s group include former Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, former Biden Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, Kamala Harris’ sister Maya Harris, and former leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Mindy Myers.
Netter worked for Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice from 2021 through early 2025. He opposed then-former President Trump’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block National Archives releases to the January 6 committee, a lawfare committee comprised only of members appointed by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Netter married Democrat lawyer and activist Karen Dunn in a ceremony officiated by Garland in 2009. Dunn, who played a key role in the Hillary Clinton campaign and was widely considered a likely White House Counsel if Hillary Clinton won her 2016 presidential campaign, specializes in Democrat debate preparation. She co-led President Barack Obama’s presidential debate preparation team for his re-election campaign and led presidential debate preparation for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024. In 2020, she led the preparation of Kamala Harris for the vice presidential debate.
Dunn started a law firm with Jeannie Rhee, one of the attorneys who worked on perpetuating the Russia collusion hoax through the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. The firm hired Mueller alumnus Rush Atkinson as well.
Dunn clerked for Garland when he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Netter also clerked for Breyer and Judge Judith Rogers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Congressional overseers were upset by the reward given to the hoaxers and demanded to know who signed off on them. They were thwarted by officials who said they didn’t know who had authorized the payments, and declined to respond to Congressional inquiries to find out.
“The American people are rightly concerned about the Biden Administration’s targeting of conservatives while their political allies were given special treatment,” said James Fitzpatrick, director of the Center to Advance Security in America. “These settlements are a prime example of the outrageous abuse of power endured by the American people under Joe Biden.”
Netter did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
Data released Tuesday shows that egg prices dropped 12.7 percent last month — the “biggest monthly decline since 1984.” The report follows weeks of President Donald Trump telling Americans that egg prices were falling — welcome news after the cost of eggs rose for 17 out of the past 19 months, according to CNN. But the left-wing legacy outlet is scrambling to process the eggcellent news.
CNN’s David Goldman wrote Tuesday that “For months, President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that egg prices are tumbling. It wasn’t true then, but it’s true now.”
Goldman continues:
“Despite Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ far more conservative estimate that egg prices would normalize in the summer, Trump last month said, ‘as you know, the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94% since we took office.’ Those percentage declines Trump stated are not close to accurate – but we now know that consumer egg prices were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks (the Consumer Price Index data wasn’t out yet to confirm or deny Trump’s claims).”
CNN admits egg prices “were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks,” but a few sentences later bizarrely still claims the “timing of his claim” was wrong.
Translation: Trump said something that turned out to be true (egg prices fell), but because we didn’t have the same data at the exact moment Trump said it, he was wrong.
That’s one of the propaganda press’ favorite things to do: dismiss or discredit the truth but then claim credit for discovering it themselves later and grant permission to everyone else to acknowledge it. Goldman’s piece is hardly an outlier. It’s the norm. Take the propaganda press’ coverage of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson are awaiting the release of their new book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, which details Biden’s decline over four years. The excerpts released thus far read more like a confessional of sins long known to anyone with a set of eyes and ears.
But the book and discussions amongst the left are all happening well after Tapper and the legacy media themselves engaged in the cover-up. The media decided that Biden wasn’t cognitively declining and essentially painted anyone who questioned the narrative as a far-right “conspiracy theorist” not acting “in good faith.”
The examples are endless. But now that Tapper, Thompson, and the rest of them can make a few bucks off telling the truth, they’re willing to do it.
Or take the coverage of masks during Covid. The New York Times’ Zach Montague said in September 2020 it was a “dangerous assertion” to state that wearing masks during the pandemic had “little to no medical value.” Fast forward just over two years when Bret Stephens, writing for The Times, declared, “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?” Stephens highlighted a report that found there was “no evidence” masks made “any difference.”
To be clear, it was a “dangerous assertion” to say masks did nothing until the propaganda press decided it was okay to make that same assertion. As the Federalist’s Elle Purnell wrote, outlets like the New York Times “played a significant role in defending the officially sanctioned [Covid] narrative” and “chok[ed] dissent.”
And then, of course, there’s the alternative — where something is true until the media says it no longer is, like the case of the propaganda press running cover for Kamala Harris’ devastating management of the border as vice president.
As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd wrote last year, “Years after acknowledging and even praising President Joe Biden for naming Vice President Kamala Harris ‘border czar,’ corporate media claimed the presumptive 2024 Democrat nominee was never charged with overseeing the logistics of the record-breaking invasion.”
In each case, one pattern remains the same: The truth never changed, only the media’s willingness to acknowledge it. Whether it’s egg prices, Biden’s cognitive decline, mask mandates, or who was in charge of the southern border, the facts don’t seem to matter to the propaganda press.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Many in Texas have significant concerns over Sharia Law enveloping their state. A planned Islamic-compliant only mega community (Epic City) is being planned in Texas near Dallas that is Sharia Law compliant. The only laws all Americans should follow are the Constitution and U.S. Law.
BRANCO TOON STORE
By Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – April 8, 2025
Conservative talk radio legend Mark Levin recently discussed the Islamic, Sharia Law compliant city being planned near Dallas in Texas and cited this report from the Gateway Pundit. In the report, a retired police lieutenant describes his findings after looking into the matter and raises some major concerns. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also spoken out about this and is investigating. The entire concept of this planned community is un-American. We do not need or want countries to be formed within our country. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Walz claimed he was Kamala’s code talker for white rural males, watching Football and fixing their trucks in order to put them at ease so they’d vote for the ticket.
Walz said that he was the “permission structure” for white males in rural areas to vote for the Democratic ticket. (Daily Caller News Foundation) — Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Monday that former Vice President Kamala Harris picked him as her running mate to “code talk to white guys.” Walz said during a Harvard Kennedy School forum that he was the “permission structure” for white males in rural areas to vote for the Democratic ticket. He admitted that his role on the campaign failed to procure the necessary male votes, who cast their ballots for President Donald Trump in record numbers… READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats are only interested in saving that one life if it fits their Marxist anti-gun agenda, but not when it comes to deporting illegal alien criminals.
MUST SEE: Stephen Miller GOES OFF in Explosive Five-Minute-Long Rebuke of the Fake News Media for Shilling for Terrorists and Failing Death and Destruction Caused by Biden’s Illegals (VIDEO)
Miller joined Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in the briefing room this morning to discuss the Trump administration’s return to common sense in the first 100 days. One reporter foolishly asked about rumors that the Trump Administration is in talks with El Salvador to inquire about returning deported MS-13 terrorist Kilmar Garcia Abrego, and Miller let it rip. As The Gateway Pundit reported, a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio a similar question during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Rubio leveled her with his response, saying, “I would never tell you that, and you know who else I would never tell? A judge.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
The Democrats find themselves in a mess of their own making—and what a glorious mess it is. They’ve managed to redefine political self-sabotage, creating a masterpiece of ineptitude that would make even the most bumbling bureaucrat blush. Let’s recap their genius strategy: after Biden’s stumble-filled tenure, they thought the solution was to parachute in Kamala Harris—the candidate nobody wanted. The woman who polled at a whopping one percent in her own party’s primary now carried the banner of “saving democracy.” Irony, thy name is the Democratic Party.
A Billion-Dollar Blunder
Kamala’s campaign wasn’t just a train wreck; it was a bullet train flying off the tracks at full speed. In a compressed timeline, she burned through $1.5 billion. Imagine the fiscal irresponsibility she could achieve with a full campaign cycle. Her penchant for turning campaign funds into Monopoly money is well-documented, but this time she truly outdid herself.
And for what? To lose spectacularly while leaving the Democratic coffers emptier than Hunter Biden’s alibi folder. The MSN article sheds light on this debacle, and it’s a doozy. It turns out that instead of crafting a message to connect with actual voters, the Democrats treated Harris’ campaign like a giant piggy bank for their wealthy consultants, donors, and advisors. Everyone was taking their skim, and Kamala was the unwitting ATM.
The Elite Bubble and the Working-Class Void
Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’ senior advisor, hit the nail on the head when he described the Democrats’ elite bubble. This is a party that loves to talk about the working class but wouldn’t dare let them anywhere near the decision-making table. Instead, they hand the reins to billionaire donors like Reid Hoffman and corporate types like Tony West, Harris’ brother-in-law and Uber’s chief legal officer. Because nothing says “fighting for the little guy” like having billionaires whispering sweet nothings in your campaign’s ear.
Hoffman, Cuban, and their ilk didn’t just fund the campaign—they steered it. According to reports, they watered down policies that might have resonated with actual voters, like a billionaire tax. Their advice? Tone it down. Don’t rock the yacht.
The result? A candidate with no coherent ideological framework, propped up by charisma alone, and a campaign that hemorrhaged money while alienating the very base it claimed to champion.
The Fallout: A Democratic Winter Is Coming
Let’s not sugarcoat it: Kamala’s campaign was a disaster for the Democrats, and the ramifications will echo for years. Their donors are disillusioned, their coffers are depleted, and their credibility is in tatters. The party of “fiscal responsibility for thee but not for me” now faces the grim reality that even its wealthiest backers are questioning their investments. After all, why pour billions into a party that can’t manage a basic campaign, let alone a country? MSN wrote:
According to Faiz Shakir, a senior advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt however, the problems with the Democratic Party’s structure and the way it runs campaigns go beyond just media consultants and the party’s love of paid ads. The core issue, as Shakir puts it, is that the party-political operations are a closed loop with well-off consultants, politicians and donors all taking advice from each other with little outside input.
“We have a working-class problem in the Democratic Party and when you have wealthy consultants talking to wealthy donors who are all living in an elite bubble, it can become detached from what messages will resonate with people who aren’t in the elite bubble,” Shakir said. “You can be a good person with good character trying to do the right thing to try and help Kamala Harris win but when you are surrounded by monied interests you have to figure out how you don’t become bubblized.”
(…)
Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn’t intend to let them direct policy.
Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.
The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.
In Tobias’ opinion, the Democratic Party needs to put forth candidates who either outright turn down business executives with divergent interests from working-class Americans or candidates who will at least force them into a position where they are not influencing policy or the campaign. He says the seats at the table currently occupied by people like West, Cuban and Hoffman should instead be occupied by people that, at the very least, represent popular constituencies, like the president of the AFL-CIO.
The MSN article rightly points out the Democrats’ need to reconnect with their working-class roots. But Democrats haven’t cared about the working class since unions stopped being their ATM. Until they stop treating billionaires as political demigods and start listening to the people they claim to represent, their woes will only deepen.
Trump: The Wild Card
And then there’s Trump. Like a hawk circling a wounded rabbit, he’s watching the Democrats flail with glee. If Trump performs as expected in his second act, the Democrats are staring down not just one or two lost election cycles, but potentially four. A political winter is coming, and the Democrats are woefully unprepared.
They can’t rely on their old tricks anymore. Trump’s ability to expose their hypocrisy—like their claims of defending democracy while coronating Harris—has resonated. The contrast between Trump’s America-first policies and the Democrats’ donor-first priorities couldn’t be starker. And voters are noticing.
Lessons in Leadership (or Lack Thereof)
In the end, Kamala Harris put Democrats in a major pickle for two reasons: (1) she lost, and (2) she spent money like a crackhead who hit the Power Ball.
If there’s one takeaway from this fiasco, it’s that leadership matters. The Democrats bet the farm on Kamala Harris, and it backfired spectacularly. They didn’t just lose; they exposed themselves as a party more interested in appeasing elites than addressing the concerns of everyday Americans.
As Trump gears up for what promises to be a scorched-earth campaign, the Democrats have their work cut out for them. But if their strategy involves more coronations, more billion-dollar blunders, and more catering to the billionaire class, they might want to stock up on blankets. It’s going to be a long, cold winter in the wilderness of irrelevance.
A startling fact has emerged following the 2024 presidential election: every state won by Kamala Harris, along with Washington, D.C., allows voter registration without requiring a photo ID. This discovery has amplified concerns about election integrity, particularly in a political climate already fraught with division and distrust.
Kamala Harris secured victories in 19 states plus Washington, D.C., all of which allow voters to register without presenting a photo ID. These states include:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
In these states, voters can register using alternative forms of identification, such as utility bills, bank statements, or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Even for first-time voters, a photo ID is not strictly necessary; they can use non-photo documentation. Critics argue that this lack of uniform ID requirements leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation.
The concern over election security isn’t theoretical. It has been highlighted by past voter registration scandals, such as the case involving GBI Strategies in 2020. This firm, contracted by several Democratic-aligned organizations, was found submitting fraudulent voter registrations in Michigan and other states. These included fake names, forged signatures, and false addresses.
Despite widespread alarm, the FBI’s investigation into GBI Strategies has been ongoing for over four years with few details released to the public. Questions about the extent of fraudulent registrations and their impact on elections remain unanswered. Critics contend that such incidents demonstrate how easily the system could be exploited, especially in states with minimal ID requirements.
Proponents of stricter voter ID laws argue that the lack of photo ID requirements in these states undermines the integrity of elections. They point to the possibility of fraudulent registrations and even votes slipping through the cracks, particularly in close races.
Bobbie Gross, a county clerk in Colorado, emphasized the importance of security measures, stating:
“We need secure, transparent elections to maintain public trust. When people question the integrity of the system, it’s our responsibility to show them that safeguards are in place.”
Opponents, however, argue that voter ID laws could disenfranchise voters, particularly those from marginalized communities. They maintain that the risks of voter fraud are minimal compared to the potential harm of preventing eligible voters from participating in elections.
The debate over voter ID laws and election security is emblematic of a broader division in U.S. politics. Many conservatives see stricter ID requirements as essential to safeguarding democracy, while liberals often view them as unnecessary barriers to voting.
The controversy is unlikely to dissipate soon. The National Voter Registration Act and state-specific laws ensure a degree of flexibility in how voters can prove their eligibility. However, critics of these laws argue that without standardized photo ID requirements, the system will remain vulnerable.
The 2024 election results have reignited the push for stricter election laws. Republican lawmakers in several states have already proposed legislation to tighten ID requirements and eliminate loopholes in voter registration processes. Whether these efforts will gain traction remains to be seen, especially in states controlled by Democrats, where such measures are unlikely to pass.
As the nation grapples with these issues, one thing is clear: public trust in the electoral process is crucial. Without it, confidence in democratic institutions could erode further. Transparent and secure elections are not just about preventing fraud; they are about ensuring that every American’s vote is counted fairly and accurately.
Advocates for tighter election laws argue that photo ID requirements are a simple, common-sense solution to potential vulnerabilities. Critics counter that these measures are unnecessary and could suppress voter turnout. The path forward will depend on finding a balance that secures elections while ensuring accessibility for all voters.
Democrats are worried America elected former President Donald Trump at his worst. Republicans are celebrating that Trump is at his best.
Eight years after the Manhattan real estate mogul and reality television star shocked the world with a triumphant victory over Hillary Clinton, Trump will reclaim the White House as a veteran politician with a full term behind him.
“Figures who once hoped to act as stabilizing forces — including a string of chiefs of staff, defense secretaries, a national security adviser, a national intelligence adviser and an attorney general — have abandoned Trump, leaving behind recriminations about his character and abilities,” CNN reported. “They’ve been replaced by a cohort of advisers and officials uninterested in keeping Trump in check. Instead of acting as bulwarks against him, those working for Trump this time around share his views and are intent on upholding the extreme pledges he made as a candidate without concern for norms, traditions or law that past aides sought to maintain.”
In other words, to CNN, a second Trump term will feature a brash president without the guardrails of closet Democrats to protect them from his impulses that offend the left. But to Trump’s supporters, the presidents-elect past experience with opposition personnel is the guardrail to insulate the duly elected commander-in-chief from deep state interference. Not only will Trump be governing without “The Resistance” undermining him from within, but he’ll be governing with the right people carefully picked in the four years since he left office.
“America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” Trump said Wednesday morning. “I will govern by a simple motto: Promises made, promises kept.”
He knows he can’t accomplish all he wants in his final term if things go anything like his first. Trump was hamstrung for half his previous Oval Office tenure with high staff turnover and fake scandals fabricated by the Democrats alongside a hostile media. Trump’s opposition was so desperate to destroy the president they exploited a new virus to rig election rules in 2020 and launched a cascade of lawfare afterward. His triumphant comeback re-election Tuesday, won in spite of impeachment, bankruptcy campaigns, criminal convictions, and even two attempted assassinations, now has those who initiated such efforts worried about accountability branded as “retribution.” Democrats might not have worried about a potential plot for revenge had they not weaponized the federal and state governments to punish Trump for the crime of winning the 2016 election.
“If you are a commie liberal and think Trump was ‘bad’ pre-2020, take a moment and consider what a post-landslide Trump will look like after you tried to murder him on live television,” wrote Federalist CEO Sean Davis on X. “You’re going to spend the next four years regretting every thing you’ve been up to for the last five.”
Had corrupt Democrats and regime media not used a pandemic to destroy the country and rig a presidential election in 2020, Trump would be on his way out the door today.
But they couldn’t help themselves. And Trump is going to have four more years with the full knowledge of…
Trump was voted back into the White House Tuesday in an electoral landslide, giving him a public mandate to tackle the burgeoning leviathan of the administrative state. This time, the incoming president knows better than to allow the deep state to undermine his agenda supported by the voters. The lessons from his first nine years as a politician fighting criminal and civil lawfare campaigns have, as Chuck Schumer might put it, “unleashed the whirlwind,” and delivered America a commander-in-chief who will be wiser in his second term and better able to avoid the pitfalls of his first.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Families are at risk under the Biden/HARRIS regime promoting taking away parental rights in the name of helping supposedly Transgender children. It is just one of many tyrannical policies on their list if she wins the Oval Office.
Paramount Global, Which Also Owns CBS, Rejects Ad Exposing Taxpayer Funded Child Transgender Mutilation Surgeries
By Margaret Flavin – The Gateway pundit – Oct 5, 2024
In yet another example of legacy media being the marketing wing for Democrats, Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, has rejected a series of advertisements from CatholicVote. The ad highlights the dangers of these surgeries as well as the disturbing fact that U.S. taxpayers are often footing the bill. The Daily Caller News Foundation exclusively obtained emails announcing the rejection: “Taxpayers, especially parents, deserve to know that they are paying for devastating and permanent surgeries that destroy the healthy body parts of children,” president of CatholicVote, Brian Burch, told the DCNF. “CBS and Paramount have been particularly aggressive in pushing transgenderism in mass media, so why would they be afraid to discuss what that means in reality for everyday families whose kids are receiving their pro-transgender messaging?”… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Democrat-run Cobb County cannot accept thousands of absentee ballots that arrive after the Election Day deadline. Cobb County announced on Thursday that as of Oct. 30, “more than 3,000 absentee ballots requested by last Friday’s deadline had not been mailed.”
Cobb County Board of Elections Chairwoman Tori Silas said that the county was “taking every possible step to get these ballots to the voters who requested them” but that the county was “unprepared for the surge in requests and lacked the necessary equipment to process the ballots quickly.” While absentee ballot requests had “been averaging 440 per day … that number surged to 750 per day” during the final week to request an absentee ballot, the county said.
To remedy the issue, the county announced on Thursday that it would overnight the late ballots for a Friday morning (Nov. 1) delivery with “prepaid express return envelopes to ensure voters can return them by Tuesday’s deadline.”
But on Friday, the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a suit arguing that, despite the county taking steps to get the ballots delivered to voters by Friday, voters would be “disenfranchised.”
Cobb County Judge Robert Flournoy bought the bogus argument, ruling on Friday that the 3,000 or so voters who received a late mail-in ballot could return those ballots before 5 p.m. on Nov. 8 — three full days after Election Day — as long as the ballots were postmarked by 7 p.m. on Nov. 5.
The Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party appealed the ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing that state law mandates the return of absentee ballots on Election Day and that since Cobb County paid for express return postage and overnighted the ballots to voters in order to — as Cobb County said — “ensure voters can return [the ballots] by Tuesday’s deadline,” there is no need to extend the date for acceptance.
The appeal also argued that Georgia “does not guarantee a right to vote by mail.” Rather, “Voters still have many options to vote, including by voting in person or delivering their absentee ballots in person.”
The Georgia Supreme Court agreed, granting the RNC and Georgia GOP’s motion to pause the lower court ruling. This means any late-arriving absentee ballots will not be counted. The court also ordered the late-arriving ballots sent in by the 3,000 voters to be segregated until further notice from the court.
Voters who did not receive their mail-in ballot may vote in person on Tuesday.
“Democrat-run Cobb County wanted to accept 3,000 absentee ballots AFTER the Election Day deadline. We took this case to the Georgia Supreme Court. We just got word that we WON the case. Election Day is Election Day — not the week after,” Whatley said.
“We will keep fighting, keep winning, and keep sharing updates.”
For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
It has been five decades since Lorne Michaels’ “not ready for prime-time players” created Saturday Night Live, a show whose stars and characters became touchstones for all Americans, regardless of politics. But this weekend, Michaels decided to flush that all down the toilet.
On Saturday night, Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on the birthplace of Ed Grimley and the Church Lady in a cringeworthy skit that also happened to be a blatant violation of Federal Communications Commission elections rules.
Back on Oct. 1, Michaels told The Hollywood Reporter that neither Harris nor her opponent Donald Trump would appear on the show, a statement which turned out to have all the honesty of Jon Lovitz saying, “Yeah, that’s the ticket.” Suddenly, with three days left before the election, Michaels decided that his comedy show, one of the few things all Americans still share, would become a full-blown arm of the Harris campaign.
I’d be very curious to know exactly how this happened. Did Michaels have a change of heart and reach out to Harris? Or as seems more likely, did a panicked Harris campaign beg for her star turn on the weekly broadcast? This is the same Kamala Harris who couldn’t be bothered to attend the Al Smith dinner at the invitation of Cardinal Timothy Dolan because her schedule was too tight. Suddenly, 72 hours before the election, she cancels a rally in Michigan to appear live at the home of Father Guido Sarducci?
Live from New York….It’s Democrat Propaganda!
Michaels broke a real and serious trust here, part of what makes comedy as social commentary work. It’s something SNL has often strived at: fairness and the idea that all sides are open to ridicule. Such a blatant display of partisanship destroys that.
This is why woke comedy doesn’t work. In the place of the edgy and honest skewering of society, it instead is a laundry list of pseudo-religious shibboleths wearing a shabby comic costume. The audience isn’t laughing at the joke, but at the stupidity of those they disagree with.
It is also worth noting that SNL has produced some of the most notable conservatives in Hollywood, including Dennis Miller, Rob Schneider, and Victoria Jackson.
Lorne Michaels created “Saturday Night Live” 50 years ago, but it was never supposed to shill for the Democratic Party, writes David Marcus. (Rosalind O’Connor/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images via Getty Images)
The reason that comedians skew more to the right is that, unlike actors, screenwriters, or directors, they don’t learn their craft in colleges or conservatories with progressive worldviews. They just sign up at a club and if people laugh, they get asked back. Comedians also need to be free to walk right up to the line of decency in their work, to challenge the things the left says should not be challenged. This is why Dave Chappelle is in hot water every six months.
In this sense, Michaels has not only done the worst disservice to his audience since he took Norm MacDonald off of the Weekend Update segment, but he’s also harmed his own cast who he decided to feature in a super expensive political ad.
In response to the FCC violation, NBC gave Trump equal time during NASCAR and NFL broadcasts, but who at the network greenlighted this mess to begin with? Whoever it is deserves to be sleeping in a van down by the river.
If there is a silver lining to Michaels’ mendacity, it is that the Harris skit was abysmal. Every time she looked in the mirror, all I could think of was Stuart Smalley saying, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
Actor Maya Rudolph and Vice President Kamala Harris appear on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” on Nov. 2, 2024, in New York City. (Jeenah Moon/Getty Images)
Michaels really ought to apologize to his audience and his cast for either his harebrained decision to hand the show over to Harris or his cowardly acquiescence to their unfair and illegal request. Whichever it is, he doesn’t exactly look marvelous.
If there is ever a time when Americans need an escape from the constant drumbeat of partisan politics, ads and signs, it is three days before an election, but Michaels didn’t care, trying to elect Harris was more important.
Michaels might think he pumped up Harris like Hanz and Franz, but all he really did was soil the reputation of his show. As Wayne and Garth might say, at least in this instance, “he’s not worthy.”
In the previous installments of this investigation into how the Harris-Walz presidential campaign is dishonestly manipulating online platforms, I noted the existence of a Discord server where campaign employees coordinate with a volunteer army to flood social media sites with campaign propaganda. The volunteers also vote en masse on social media to artificially boost Harris-Walz content or downvote content that is harmful to their campaign. Not only is this deceptive and misleading to voters, it’s a clear violation of these websites’ Terms of Service.
In part one and part two of the investigation, I noted this strategy had been successful at manipulating both Reddit and X. Over the past month, one out of every eight of the top stories in the eight-million-member Politics subreddit was planted by the campaign. On X, the campaign appears to have successfully voted down Community Notes accurately calling out the Harris campaign for tweeting out brazen lies.
But one activity I found on the Discord server was particularly concerning. After years of Democrats erroneously insisting that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election and otherwise warning of foreign election manipulation, the Harris-Walz campaign is actively recruiting foreigners to work on the campaign and is even encouraging them to donate to American political causes.
There appears to be no vetting and given that the Harris-Walz campaign’s Discord community overtly engaged in disinformation campaigns, it was ripe for infiltration and abuse by foreign intelligence and other bad actors attempting to influence the election — although I saw no concrete proof of that.
However, my research found multiple foreign nationals actively volunteering for the Harris-Walz campaign. This activity, while permitted by the FEC, raises questions about whether foreigners should be allowed to volunteer for official U.S. political campaigns. Their comments ranged from showing excitement at how they could volunteer to “save democracy” …
… to Canadians sharing their plans to make road trips to Michigan, where they aim to go door-to-door canvassing …
…and asking how they, as foreigners, could donate money to “help fund the Harris-Walz campaign” using a legal donation loophole …
… which was praised by the server’s moderators, who went on to distribute the link to other channels (chats) in the Discord server.
The server’s moderators embraced the foreigners with open arms. Moderators are powerful users in Discord communities — they have the power to delete messages, ban users, and make announcements that reach the entire server’s user base (35,000 individual people at the time of writing). They were overjoyed to see non-American support, and eager to help foreigners learn how they could make a meaningful impact in the upcoming presidential election.
On Oct. 20, 2024, the campaign pinged the abroad group, desperately urging foreigners to spam call Wisconsin voters. Their goal was to reach 5 million telemarketing calls on Kamala’s birthday.
When one foreign user expressed concern about “meddling in US elections,” a moderator quickly assured him this was perfectly legal, and urged him to phone bank for Kamala.
While the Federal Election Commission does prohibit foreign nationals from making monetary donations and contributions to U.S. campaigns directly, it does explicitly allow foreign nationals to volunteer for campaigns as long as they are uncompensated. Unfortunately, the FEC does not account for donation loopholes, which are currently being propagated throughout the Harris-Walz Discord server.
The Harris-Walz staff are clearly teaching foreigners how to skirt FEC regulations. This may not be illegal, but it is enticing foreign nationals to influence American elections — something that Democrats have spent years warning is a serious threat to democracy.
Whether this directly violates election laws is also beside the point for many Americans, who believe foreign nationals should not be allowed to volunteer for U.S. presidential campaigns. American elections should be for Americans, and the Harris-Walz campaign is actively inviting foreign influences into their campaign.
The author runs the popular Twitter account @reddit_lies.
Pro-life advocate Bevelyn Williams turned herself into a federal prison in Alabama earlier this month. Williams was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act during a June 2020 protest outside a New York City Planned Parenthood facility. Williams is a Christian wife, a devoted mother, and a woman who has experienced the pain of abortion. She should be pardoned and reunited with her family, and the FACE Act must be repealed.
In 2019, Williams watched in horror as then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Reproductive Health Act. That decision to legalize abortion up to birth was disturbing to her, even as someone who’d had multiple abortions. During her sentencing hearing, she made a statement before the judge. In it, she said:
After I got my first abortion, it took a toll on me. … The next thing I know, I am waiting in the room and it’s time. I go to sleep, I wake up, it’s done. But it wasn’t done. You can’t just pull something out, you can’t cut something out of you without the emotional consequences that people have to face every day. And for me, that led me down a very, very dark road of depression.
That emotional turmoil continued as Williams had two more abortions. Yet amid a chaotic life, Williams gave her heart to Christ. Her empathy for those considering abortion led her into pro-life activism. Williams never imagined she’d stand in front of an abortion facility in protest. Once her life was surrendered to Christ, she began to feel deeply for other black women considering abortion. Knowing the pain that comes with abortion, she wanted to reach these women to share her story and to help them choose life.
Now, Bevelyn Williams is facing the second longest sentencing in a series of recent FACE Act-related convictions. Lauren Handy was unjustly convicted in a FACE Act trial in Washington, D.C., in August of 2023 and was sentenced to 57 months, the only defendant to have received a longer sentence than Williams.
Williams, a married mother of a young daughter, was blindsided by the length of the sentence. When her legal team requested, she remain at home with her family during the appeal process, the judge refused, saying, in Williams’ words, that she was a danger to the “streets” and “society.” In her statement before the judge Williams said, “I am loud. I am passionate. But am I violent? No.”
During Williams’ sentencing hearing, prosecuting attorneys referred to Handy’s case, saying that both involved alleged injuries to abortion facility employees. In Willams’ case, at the New York City Planned Parenthood protest, a staffer’s hand was allegedly caught in a door — which government prosecutors presented as Williams doing intentionally. Williams’ attorney disagreed; in his opinion, it was relatively minor.
Bevelyn told the judge, “I didn’t go there with intentions to hurt that woman or anybody else. … I wanted to preach the gospel, and I wanted to use the message that God gave me because I lived it. I’m not judging those girls who go in there ready to get an abortion. I know exactly what it’s like.”
Willams was charged with violating the FACE Act in June 2020 in connection with her interference with individuals seeking to obtain an abortion. The official designation of the offense given to her was “unlawful assembly.”
A three-plus-year sentence for unlawful assembly is egregious. The Biden-Harris administration continues to inflict unjust prosecution against pro-lifers by invoking the FACE Act. The FACE Act was supposedly created to protect pregnancy centers and churches, along with abortion facilities. Yet the FACE Act has been weaponized and used to make an example out of pro-life activists. As Republican lawmakers Mike Lee and Chip Roy wrote earlier this year, “Since its passage, the FACE Act has been used approximately 130 times against pro-lifers — but has only been leveled in defense of churches and pregnancy centers five times, even though churches and pro-life centers are 22 times more likely to be attacked than abortion clinics.”
Kamala Harris, specifically, has leveraged the legal system to jail Americans who engage in efforts to protect preborn children for the majority of her political career. As California’s attorney general, she went after pregnancy resource centers and pro-life journalists, describing peaceful attempts such as Williams’ protest as “outrageous and immoral.”
In her own words, Bevelyn shared her thoughts on Facebook saying, “My family and I remain hopeful and are trusting God through this challenging time. The Bible is clear that persecution will happen, but ministry continues, even in prison. Our job as Christians is to be a light, especially in dark places.”
Pray for our ally in this mission for life, as she sacrificially suffers imprisonment for this cause. We must push back on this persecution and repeal the FACE Act, as Lee and Roy are leading the effort to do in Congress. Not only do our human rights depend on it, but the rights of the innocent babies in the womb as well.
Christina Bennett is a pro-life missionary and activist whose powerful personal story — she was moments away from being aborted — ignited her passion for advocating for life. Currently serving as a Live Action news correspondent, Christina is also a sought-after pro-life speaker, all while living in Connecticut with her husband and son.
Georgia’s top elections official is accusing Vice President Kamala Harris of lying about the state’s voter security laws. Without naming Harris, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger took aim at her comments during a campaign speech in Michigan earlier this week.
“Frustratingly, recently, a candidate repeated that lie that we will lock up people that give water to voters waiting in line to vote,” Raffensperger said. “That’s a lie, because we don’t have any lines in Georgia. It’s just cheap politics.”
He also took aim at Democrats’ overall criticism of Georgia’s voter security laws, “We have worked tirelessly to prepare for this election by adding early voting days and investing in infrastructure, creating more security and more voter convenience…only to be rewarded with the lies about ‘Jim Crow 2.0.“
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger pushed back on Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats’ criticism of state voter laws. (Getty Images)
Harris has not referred to the Georgia laws as “Jim Crow 2.0,” but she has criticized the state’s limits on handing out food and water in voter lines.
Harris said in Ann Arbor on Monday night, “I was just in Georgia. You know they passed a law that makes it illegal to give people food and water for standing in line to vote?”
“The hypocrisy abounds. Whatever happened to ‘love thy neighbor,’ right?” she added as the supportive crowd jeered.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for a response to Raffensperger.
The remark also got pushback from Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who mocked Harris’ short-lived 2020 presidential bid.
“Sounds like Kamala Harris just can’t handle the truth,” Kemp wrote on X on Tuesday. “We made it easier to vote and harder to cheat in Georgia. As a result, more than 3 million Georgians have already voted — that’s 3 million more votes than the Vice President got in the 2024 primaries.”
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp also criticized Harris’ comments. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)
Georgia officials moved to implement several new voting laws after the 2020 race put the Peach State under a microscope. Among them was limiting the number of ballot drop boxes – which were not used in Georgia before 2020 – and restricting political groups from giving food and water to voters waiting in line on Election Day within a certain distance from their polling place. Georgia also installed new ID requirements for absentee ballots.
Democratic organizations and civil rights groups accused Republican officials of restricting voter access with the measures.
But Raffensperger and other Republicans have pushed back on those attacks, particularly in the wake of record-setting voter turnout in Georgia since early voting got underway on Oct. 15. As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 45% of active Georgia voters have cast pre-Election Day ballots. Meanwhile, Raffensperger cautioned both candidates to accept a loss “gracefully,” comparing it to his grandson losing his recent baseball playoff game.
More than 45% of active voters in Georgia have cast ballots early. (Megan Varner/ Washington Post)
“As soon as they came up short, and they lost, I know that they were disappointed. But what they did, because both teams were good sportsmen, they lined up, and they did that passing of shaking each other’s hand and said, ‘Congratulations, good game,’” he said.
“As a grandparent, I’m proud to see that. But just as an American, I think that’s wonderful, because I think that’s what America is – is gracefully accepting your wins, but also gracefully accepting your losses.”
He vowed, “I will hold both parties accountable to you, the voters of Georgia.”
Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.
Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com
Christina Lewis is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
As Americans prepare to head to the polls on Nov. 5, some voters are putting their money where their mouth is by placing bets on the election’s outcome. With less than a week left before the election, Polymarket, a betting platform and the world’s largest prediction market, gives former President Donald Trump a two-thirds chance (66.3%) of winning back the presidency. Vice President Kamala Harris has a one-in-three chance (33.8%).
Behind the overall odds of becoming president are Polymarket’s odds for Trump and Harris in the major swing states. Trump, according to Polymarket, is the favorite to win five of the six tracked swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Michigan is currently a dead heat, while Polymarket does not include North Carolina among the swing states on its webpage.
Polymarket users are placing their bets on Trump in the state of Nevada, home to the gambling mecca of Las Vegas. Currently, the betting platform has Trump with a 66% chance of winning the Silver State, while Harris has a 34% chance.
The polls, however, show the race much closer. Real Clear Polling averages show Trump winning by only 0.7 of a percentage point. Why, then, do the betting markets seem fairly confident of a Trump victory there?
For one thing, Nevada is home to one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, at 5.6%. The state’s economy is still reeling from the havoc caused by the COVID-19 lockdowns. Trump is planning to address the housing crisis and inflation when he visits the state for a rally in Henderson on Thursday afternoon.
In Arizona, Trump is seen as having a 74% chance of winning, whereas Harris has just a 26% chance. However, Real Clear Polling averages show Trump winning by 1.3 percentage points. Trump won the state in 2016 by 3.6 points, but lost to Joe Biden in 2020 by 0.3%.
Polymarket shows Trump with a 73% chance of winning Georgia, Harris with a 27% chance.
Shelby Arnette moved to Georgia four years ago and has noticed that she and her husband are receiving different political messaging that seems to be targeted at their respective genders.
“I have seen different signs and things specifically advertising toward women to vote Democrat to have reproductive rights,” Arnette said.
There’s a smaller margin between Trump and Harris in Wisconsin, according to Polymarket, with a 55% chance of a Trump victory there and a 45% chance of Harris winning the state. In 2016, Trump won the state by 0.7% but lost to Biden by 0.7% in 2020.
Polymarket shows a dead heat in Michigan, 50% to 50%. The state is still up for grabs, as Democrats are targeting women on the issue of abortion, while Trump is banking on support from the state’s autoworkers.
Trump invited a group of Arab and Muslim leaders to speak at his rally in Novi, Michigan, on Saturday.
“We as Muslims stand with President Trump because he promises peace, not war,” one speaker at the rally said. “We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine. The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make it happen.”
As all eyes turn to Pennsylvania, seen by many as the most important of the swing states, Polymarket shows Trump with a 62% chance of winning the state, with Harris trailing at a distant 38%. But again, Real Clear Polling averages put Trump in the lead by a much smaller margin—0.4 of a percentage point.
Pennsylvania resident Ruth Howard moved to the Keystone State from Oregon a few years ago. She said that she thinks Pennsylvania will play a pivotal role in the presidential election.
“I knew it was important to vote in [Oregon], but then coming to Pennsylvania, I feel like there’s a little more opportunity that my vote will make a difference, that it could help swing the state or politics in particular,” Howard said.
For years, many have speculated that Democrat political candidates may be filling social media with fake posts to deceive the public and make their campaigns and causes seem more popular than they are. These claims have often been dismissed, citing that Democrat voters are already more likely to be on the internet compared to their not-as-tech-savvy Republican counterparts. This would suggest that the constant flood of left-leaning content on websites such as Reddit was merely a reflection of the userbase. However, many people simply couldn’t shake the feeling that something was just off, especially in the run up to major elections. Despite my fervent belief that something was amiss, I never had any direct proof that Democrats were actively manipulating social media.
That all changed two weeks ago, when X user @jessiprincey replied to one of my posts with a screenshot from a Discord server, seemingly related to the Harris-Walz campaign:
I immediately messaged Jess, and soon received a link to the Discord server where this operation was taking place. What I’d find there went far beyond algorithmic manipulation. I discovered massive “astroturfing” campaigns operating across multiple platforms. “Astroturfing” is a political and marketing term that describes creating swarms of coordinated and/or paid messages and posts to deceptively create the illusion of support from ordinary people. Essentially, “astroturfing” is the opposite of grassroots support.
In this case, there is a team of volunteers who spam social media with posts that specifically promote Kamala. They then have other users pretend to be random individuals who just happened across the post and decided to comment. It’s no different than a shady company paying a team to write a bunch of fake Amazon reviews about their product to make it appear to be a better and more popular product than it is.
On Amazon, that might result in a product getting more sales. In a U.S. election, it could mean that the falsely advertised candidate receives more votes. This behavior is not only incredibly dishonest, but in many cases, it directly violates the Terms of Service they’ve agreed to by operating on certain social media platforms.
In part one of a three-part series, we’re going to look at how the Harris-Walz campaign has manipulated the popular website Reddit, one of the top social media sites with 500 million users, to publish campaign propaganda.
Astroturfing on Reddit
Reddit is broken into thousands of message boards on discrete topics, known as “subreddits.” The Politics subreddit and several others are being actively targeted by the Harris-Walz campaign, with notable success. Since the Reddit astroturfing operation started, it has rapidly developed an organizational structure — complete with roles for team members, spreadsheets for tracking their analytics, and “Key Messaging” to stick to when making a social media post.
I found that 126 of the top 1,000 posts in the past month on r/Politics were posted by official Harris-Walz campaign volunteers. Owning one out of every eight of all top posts in r/Politics is not an easy feat, and it doesn’t just happen. Here’s how they achieved it.
Every weekday morning, Harris for President staffers like Gabrielle Lynn post the “Daily Messaging Guidance” to the server’s Reddit channel. It usually consists of articles and data that the Harris-Walz campaign wants to boost, as well as “key messaging” that their Reddit volunteers should stick to.
On Gabrielle Lynn’s profile, you’ll find a Staff icon (the blue D), which indicates that she is a paid Democrat staffer. In this case, Gabrielle is a Harris for President staffer.
The links compiled by official Harris-Walz staffers, along with other articles submitted by volunteers, are added to a Google Spreadsheet called “Reddit Organizing.”
Kamala’s “Lead Posters” (people who have demonstrated a “cultural” knowledge of Reddit) then choose which links will resonate best with different Reddit communities. For instance, a link about “how Project 2025 impacts reproductive health” will be directed towards communities with young women as their primary user base, whereas news about Kamala’s Fox News interview “winning over swing state voters” gets directed to Reddit’s Democrat communities, and possibly to people living in swing states.
Harris-Walz campaign volunteers have created a database of more than 100 subreddits — each containing detailed information on what kind of content they permit, what topics perform the best, and any specific notes about each community, such as how much “karma” or cumulative upvotes one needs to post in each subreddit.
After their links have been collected and categorized, volunteer “Posters” will take a handful of the links provided and post them to their assigned subreddits. Kamala’s posters, however, don’t simply spam links haphazardly. They use a calculated, sequential post timing metric to avoid Reddit’s built-in spam filters. Harris-Walz campaign volunteers often discuss their ban-avoidance tactics in their Discord server, while continuing to spam Reddit with their collected links.
Once the users make their Reddit posts, they return to the spreadsheet and update it with a link to their brand-new post.
And why do they collect their post links?
They collect their Reddit links so Kamala’s volunteers can flood the post with likes and comments, thus making them appear more active. This, in turn, triggers the algorithm to make the post appear in more user timelines. Reddit’s post activity algorithm is extremely simple, and can easily be abused, which is known on Reddit as “brigading.”
How Effective is This?
While the Harris-Walz Discord server was created many months ago, the spreadsheet to track their vote manipulation on Reddit was only implemented on Oct. 4.
Over the course of 15 days, this group of volunteers, directed by official Harris-Walz campaign staff, was able to make 2,551 posts to Reddit. So far, they have received more than 5.7 million upvotes and 418,000 comments on those posts, according to their own data:
Currently, they’re posting approximately 120 unique links to Reddit per day.
However, Kamala’s volunteer data wasn’t enough for me. I wanted to know just how effective this campaign has been. So, I exported their spreadsheet and got to work.
Using their oh-so cleverly named “Please Upvote These!” spreadsheet, I filtered the information to find posts exclusively made by official Harris-Walz campaign volunteers. I found 1,728 posts created by 67 unique Harris-Walz campaign volunteers since Oct. 4, many of which received a LOT of traction in a very short time span.
I tagged each of their usernames with a “Kamala Harris Volunteer” label using a browser extension called Reddit Enhancement Suite, and went to their targeted subreddits to determine exactly how successful they’d been.
I found their primary target to be r/Politics, the largest community on Reddit for discussing U.S. politics with more than 8 million members. I sorted the top 1,000 posts of the past month, and what I discovered shocked me.
Of the top 1,000 posts on r/Politics, 126 were written by a user bearing the mark “Kamala Harris Volunteer.”
This means 12.5 percent of the most upvoted content on r/Politics came directly from volunteers of the Harris-Walz campaign.
Remember, this operation has only picked up steam in the last two weeks. On Oct. 17, eight of the 30 hottest posts on r/Politics were created by Harris-Walz campaign volunteers. That’s over 25 percent.
On Oct. 20, 13 of the 100 newest posts were created by Harris-Walz campaign volunteers.
Beyond r/Politics, they also target swing state subreddits, which tend to be a lot smaller in number and far less strictly moderated. They created a collection of swing state subreddits, including communities dedicated to their towns and cities, which streamlines the process of targeting them with Harris-Walz supplied messaging.
Because these communities are small, it’s a lot easier to get their posts to rank. In the week between Oct. 13 and the 20, 10 percent (39 of 400 posts) of top posts in their swing state collection were created by Harris-Walz volunteers, many of whom aren’t even from a swing state.
It’s safe to say that the Harris-Walz astroturfing operation has fundamentally compromised the authenticity of political discussions on Reddit. Kamala is actively ruining the internet by making her campaign look far more popular than it is in reality.
The actions, while seemingly not illegal, directly violate Reddit’s Terms of Service. The volunteers of the Harris-Walz campaign are using multiple accounts to manipulate votes …
and solicit votes from others …
in a group formed to coordinate voting:
These are all direct violations of Reddit’s content policy, which explicitly forbids the types of vote manipulation that is encouraged on the Harris-Walz volunteer Discord server.
Why is This So Effective?
For those unfamiliar with Reddit, the site tends to be very left-leaning, largely due to the biases of activist Reddit moderators. Here’s a recent example:
The following post was made by a Democrat redditor to r/Texas. The call for Democrats specifically to get out and vote was met with heaps of praise and showered with upvotes.
However, when the same text was posted but with “Democrat” and “Kamala” replaced with “Republican” and “Trump,” the post was deleted and the user banned from r/Texas.
It’s unknown if Reddit is aware of the policy violations being performed by the Harris-Walz campaign. While it’s possible that their accounts will be banned when their actions come to light, it is also entirely possible that Reddit is giving the Harris-Walz campaign free rein to violate the rules. In 2018, Reddit’s CEO Steve Huffman plainly stated in an interview with The New Yorker:
I’m confident that Reddit could sway elections. We wouldn’t do it, of course. And I don’t know how many times we could get away with it. But, if we really wanted to, I’m sure Reddit could have swayed at least this election, this once.
The author runs the popular Twitter account @reddit_lies.
It was such a fun time last week watching the perpetual drama queens that make up our national news media boil with rage over two newspapers declining to issue meaningless campaign endorsements. But it also revealed something unsettling about the unhealthy degree of emotional investment they have in this race.
Will the media accept the outcome of the election if Donald Trump wins? It’s far from a foregone conclusion that they will. There’s a strong argument they didn’t the last time Trump won. Why should anyone expect them to accept it this time around?
It’s a question these homely nerds are inclined to ask every elected Republican in the shallowest way possible — some variation of, “Will you accept the outcome of this election no matter what?” (I think every restaurant server from now on should ask Jake Tapper the moment he’s seated, “Will you accept the way your food comes out no matter what? It’s a yes or no question.”)
After the appalling behavior they displayed last week, now is a very crucial time to ask them the same thing. If they were this hysterical over management at The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times deciding, there would be no endorsement of Kamala Harris this campaign cycle — the type of endorsement that hasn’t mattered for decades — how can they be expected to acknowledge a Trump victory? And if they won’t, what will it mean to the people who are still influenced by them? They will have essentially been told their elections and their government are invalid. These are the things civil wars are made of.
As silly as the media have made themselves look, they’re dead serious. That a major news publication wouldn’t throw its weight behind the non-Trump candidate means nothing to normal people, but reporters in Washington and New York aren’t normal people. Look how they talk. They say things like “Democracy dies in darkness,” and we laugh because it’s corny. But they believe in earnest it’s a sacred oath binding their entire life’s meaning to a cause: maintaining the Washington and corporate power structure to their financial benefit. To hell with everyone else.
If in 2016 the news media eagerly went along with an absurd hoax that Trump won that election in large part because he conspired with the Russian government, what won’t they say when he wins again? They just spent the past three months telling voters that up is down, black is white, and Kamala is popular. They moved on from the attempt on his life like it was a standard news cycle that had run its course.
How could we expect them to concede defeat after everything they’ve done? And yes, a Kamala defeat will be theirs, too. Her campaign is theirs.
It’s a question they’re not ready to answer because, for them, it’s unthinkable.
The Pravda press has asked former President Donald Trump over and over again whether he’ll accept the results of the election if his Democrat opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, wins. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, has heard the question ad nauseam as well.
CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns peppered the former president with the question in late August, as the Democratic National Committee was installing Harris as the party’s nominee following President Joe Biden’s forced exit from his reelection campaign.
“Will you accept the results of this election?” the reporter asked.
“Absolutely. I assume it’s going to be a fair election. If it’s going to be a fair and free election the answer is absolutely I will,” Trump said.
Burns pressed with this ridiculous question. “What does fair mean to you?”
“It means the votes are counted. It means that votes are fair,” Trump said. “It means they don’t cheat on the election, they don’t drop ballots, install new rules and regulations that they don’t have the power to do.”
In other words, if leftist activists and Trump-hating elections officials don’t rig this election like they did the last one.
“They don’t use 51 intelligence agents to give phony reports, which had an effect on the election. They don’t do many of the things that they did in the last election,” he added, referring to the former intelligence officials who signed a letter insisting the Hunter Biden laptop story reported by the New York Post days before the 2020 presidential election was “Russian disinformation.” It was not. It was very real. And the Deep State, assisted by a complicit corporate media, silenced a story that many Americans say could have changed the results of the election.
Do Tell
But the Pravda press has been generally loath to ask Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the same question. The Federalist is asking. We sent email requests to both the Harris campaign and the vice president’s office asking if she will accept the results of the election if she loses next month to Trump. As of publication, crickets.
The Federalist also asked the National Security Leaders for America whether their members will accept the results of the election if the former president wins. NSL4A made headlines and garnered lots of airtime last month when its 700-plus former government, military and national security leaders signed an open letter endorsing Harris. Former CIA Director John Brennan is one of the endorsers. He’s also one of the 51 signers of the letter falsely claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
Again, no response.
A good question voters should be asking is, why aren’t the accomplice media asking whether Harris, the Democrats, the intelligence community and other swamp creatures will be patriotic enough to accept the results of the election if Trump wins?
They Do Not Accept
They’ve been far too busy publishing all kinds of stories asking all kinds of conservatives whether they’ll accept the results of the election if their guy loses — Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.), even Republican voters at large via variouspolls. They’re the same “journalists” who like to gloss over the fact that leading Democrats refused to accept the election results of 2016, when Trump surprised the world and beat bitter shrew Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state and the Pravda press’ presidential chosen one.
“I do not see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told NBC News as Trump was taking office amid Democrats’ cries of “Russian interference.”
“I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process,” he added.
Sour Grapes Hillary said the same and has kept on saying since.
“I believe [Trump] understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did,” she complained in a 2019 CBS News interview.
During the vice presidential debate between Vance and Walz, moderator Norah O’Donnell demanded Vance answer whether he would “seek to challenge this year’s election results.” She didn’t press Walz on whether he would accept the results of a Trump-Vance win.
Walz was given a moment to deliver a “can’t we all get along” speech, insisting that questioning the results of elections must end.
“When this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner,” the leftist said. “This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.”
Vance rightly reminded Walz about the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.
“…[W]e have to remember that for years in this country Democrats protested the results of elections. Hillary Clinton in 2016 said that Donald Trump had the election stolen by Vladimir Putin because the Russians bought like $500,000 of Facebook ads,” Vance said. “This has been going on for a long time. And if we want to say we need to respect the results of the election, I’m on board. But if we want to say, as Tim Walz is saying, that this is just a problem that Republicans have had, I don’t buy that.”
Voters shouldn’t buy it, either. That’s why it’s important to know where the Democrat Party presidential nominee stands less than two weeks before Election Day. So, The Federalist is asking.
Vice President Harris, will you accept the results of the election if you lose?
An official with National Security Leaders for America has provided a comment following the publication of this story. The official, who asked to be identified as an NSL4A “spokesperson” said the following:
“Unlike Mr. Trump, who led a violent insurrection to try to overturn an election he lost, our members–who fought for this nation’s democratic and pluralistic ideals–will respect America’s democratic decision. We hope Mr. Trump, whose own Chief of Staff said Mr.Trump wants to be a dictator, will do the same.”
As has been well documented, Trump’s former chief of staff’s incendiary comments have been debunked by multiple sources, and the assertion that Trump “led a violent insurrection” is widely disputed.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
Kamala Harris speaks during a July 13 campaign event at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia. (Drew Hallowell/Getty Images)
As Vice President Kamala Harris slips in the polls, the Democratic National Committee/Harris campaign/mainstream media fusion talking points become even more absurd. Claiming that JD Vance and Donald Trump were “weird” did not work—especially given the genuinely odd behavior of vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz and would-be first gentleman Doug Emhoff.
Nor was the next Harris meme convincing: that the frenetic and nonstop Trump was somehow “exhausted,” “senile,” and “confused.” Voters know the workdays of the younger Harris are usually far shorter—or sometimes not workdays at all.
But Harris also falsely claimed the physically and mentally challenged President Joe Biden was, in her words, “absolutely authoritative” and “very bold and vibrant.”
Now Harris asserts that Trump is a “fascist,” a “dictator,” and “unfit” for office. But this new talking point will also not stop the Harris campaign’s hemorrhaging—and for a variety of reasons.
First, voters see the election as a conflict of two absolutely antithetical visions.
On the one hand is the prior, concrete Trump 2017-20 record: border security, no major wars abroad, calm in the Middle East, a deterred Russia, Iran, and China, low inflation, low interest rates, lower crime, lower taxes, strong deterrent military—and opposition to mandatory electric vehicle mandates, biological males competing in women’s sports, and the woke/DEI agenda.
On the other hand, is the Biden-Harris 2021-2024 record: the unchecked entry of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a destroyed border. People still struggle under Biden-Harris’ earlier hyperinflation and high interest rates. The horrific regional wars in Ukraine and the Middle East continue. Biden-Harris embraces the unpopular woke/DEI agenda.
Harris herself knows that the Biden-Harris years were a failure. That is why she has shed almost all of the administration’s hard left-wing agendas—policies she has embraced for much of her adult life.
So suddenly, in the last 90 or so days, Harris has completely flipped and flopped.
Now she is for more funding of, not defunding, the police. She pivots for a secure border, not 20 million illegal aliens pouring across it. Harris brags about fossil fuel energy, not banning fracking; she’s for increasing, not cutting, defense.
In fact, several endangered incumbent Democratic senators in swing states are claiming more allegiance to Trump’s issues than identifying with Harris and her unpopular record as vice president.
Voters likely conclude that if Trump doubles down on his record, while even Harris and many senators temporarily piggyback on it, then it must be more effective and popular than Harris’ own.
Second, Harris now claims Trump is a fascist and insurrectionist.
But mouthing “Jan. 6” ad nauseam no longer persuades voters that Trump is a danger to anyone. They recall that Harris bragged of the far more violent demonstrations of 2020—five killed, $2 billion in damage, 1,500 law enforcement officers injured, 14,000 arrested—and said that the unrest would not and “should not” stop, while drumming up support to bail out jailed violent protesters.
Nor does the slur that Trump is a fascist resonate. The Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations weaponized the CIA and FBI to interfere in the 2016 and 2020 elections by peddling the fake “Steele dossier” and suppressing all the embarrassing news about Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop.
Trump certainly didn’t coordinate, as Biden did, with local, state, and federal prosecutors to wage lawfare prosecutions to destroy his political opponents. He didn’t use the FBI to partner with social media to suppress the news.
Neither Trump nor his supporters tried to remove Biden from state ballots.
The House’s Republican majority didn’t impeach Biden twice despite the Biden family’s corruption and Joe Biden’s unlawful, decadeslong removal of classified papers to several insecure private residences.
Trump and the Republicans never coercively removed the party’s primary-winning nominee. They didn’t nullify the will of 14 million primary voters. And in backroom fashion, they didn’t anoint a candidate who had never entered a single primary in her life.
Nor did Trump support packing the Supreme Court. He doesn’t seek unconstitutional means of destroying the Electoral College. He isn’t demanding an end to the Senate filibuster or the creation of two new states to obtain four partisan Senate seats.
Third, as for Trump being “unfit” and lacking “decorum?” It depends on what the Biden-Harris standards were.
Having a trans activist reveal his breasts on camera at a White House “pride party?”
Biden’s reportedly calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a f***ing idiot” and “son of a b**ch?” Bragging about locking Trump up, while waging lawfare against him?
Unleashing son Hunter Biden with impunity to shake down foreign governments?
The Nov. 5 election will not be decided on these empty talking points or fake, media-generated narratives.
Instead, only two criteria matter: Which candidate’s past record and current agenda best appeal to voters? And which candidate seems the most authentic and genuine?
They’ve attacked him. They’ve impeached him. They’ve arrested him. They’ve desperately tried to imprison him. They unconstitutionally denied him access to the ballot. They’ve tried to kill him. Democrats have failed at every turn to get rid of Donald Trump. Now the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy and their corporate media allies are turning to the last vestige of hope for the desperate in an extremely tight presidential race: Lies. And name-calling.
‘Do You Think Donald Trump Is a Fascist?’
Democrat presidential hopeful Kamala Harris opened Wednesday night’s CNN town hall with a long tirade in which she warned ostensibly undecided voters that Trump would be a dictator if given another term in the Oval Office.
“Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?” host Anderson Cooper asked the vice president in the opening moments of the latest long-form, packaged-as-news political ad for the Harris-Walz campaign.
“Yes, I do. Yes, I do,” Harris answered as if reciting an unholy wedding vow.
Of course she does. The “Trump is Hitler” narrative is Harris’ — and the left’s — closing argument in a Reader’s Digest presidential campaign for the Democrats. It must be noted that Harris’ abridged quest began with the Democrats’ bloodless coup that removed the demented Democrat president of the United States from his run for a second term.
In an act of corporate media collusion so transparent it burns the eyes, the shameless Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief at The Atlantic, published the hit piece earlier this week that Harris and her team are using in one last-ditch effort to paint the former president as “unfit” to be president again. The smear job, citing bitter former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly, claims, among other outlandish charges, that while in office Trump suggested Hitler “did some good things.” The story, mostly employing anonymous sources, was quickly debunked on the record by multiple people who were in the room with Trump.
As my Federalist colleague John Daniel Davidson wrote, the story “would never have passed muster in a newsroom 20 years ago.” And former Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi aptly noted on X, “The Hunter Biden laptop story couldn’t be repeated by any major outlet because it hadn’t been independently verified. The Atlantic pieces can be repeated by everyone. Weird how that works.”
The Hunter Biden laptop story couldn't be repeated by any major outlet because it hadn't been independently verified. The Atlantic pieces can be repeated by everyone. Weird how that works.
Of course, it’s not weird at all. Painting the former president as the devil has long been the playbook. Lies and empty accusations are just fine, if they’re in pursuit of what the left thinks is right. And what is right to the Democrats is holding on to power by any means necessary.
Just ask the late spawn of Satan, Harry Reid. The nasty, formerly breathing Democrat senator infamously lied about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney not paying his taxes. Reid lied from the Senate floor. When called out on his lie, Reid sneered, “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
‘She May Lose’
That’s the left. It’s what they do. And, yes, sometimes the lies work. But there is political peril for Harris. Voters have heard it all from Democrats, particularly the patently false stuff about Trump and his relationship with the military and service members.
As pollster and political strategist Frank Luntz told CNN’s Kasie Hunt hours before her network’s town hall, Harris runs a real risk of alienating the relatively few undecideds in the race. Luntz said Harris did well in the opening days of her Joe Biden replacement campaign focusing on “why she should be elected.” Remember all those “good vibes” and joy and crap?
“She’s had the best 60 days of any presidential candidate in modern history. And then the moment that she turned anti-Trump and focused on him and said, ‘Don’t vote for me, vote against him,’ that’s when everything froze,” the strategist said.
The polls show as much. Trump in recent weeks has devoured any gap as Harris could no longer hide and had to answer at least some actual questions about her record and her agenda. In Harris parlance, he is unburdened by what has been.
Trump is defined, Luntz said.
“He’s not gaining, he’s not losing. He’s who he is and his vote is where it is,” the pollster said.
“[Harris] is less well defined and if she continues just to define this race as ‘vote against Trump,’ she’s going to stay where she is now, and she may lose.”
But desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess. Democrats haven’t been able to stop Trump to date. So, they’re hoping to deal him a death blow with lies.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
The latest battleground state polls have the race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remaining a dead heat as Election Day approaches, with single-digit margins or ties being reported. The seven battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will likely determine who will become president, political analysts say.
Current polling for each state shows:
Arizona: The race between Trump and Harris remains tight. A Marist Poll released Thursday shows Trump with a 1-point lead (50%-49%) over Harris. Recent polls from Morning Consult/Bloomberg and Atlas have the two in a tie at 49% each.
Georgia: The numbers are still too close to call. The Marist Poll on Thursday shows Trump and Harris in a tie with 49% each. The recent Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll shows Trump up by 2 points (50%-48%).
Michigan: No new polls for Thursday. A RealClear Politics average gives the battleground state’s nod to Trump (47.9%-47.7%).
Below is my column in the New York Post on the growing hysteria among press and pundits proclaiming the imminent end of democracy if Kamala Harris is not elected. The predictions of mass roundups, disappearances, and tyranny ignore a constitutional system that has survived for over two centuries as the oldest and most stable democracy in the world. More importantly, the public appears to agree that democracy is under threat but appear to hold a very different notion of where that threat is coming from.
Here is the column:
“Democracy dies in darkness” is the Washington Post’s slogan, but can it handle the light?
The Post has been doggedly portraying the election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as a choice between tyranny (Trump) and democracy (Harris). Yet when it commissioned a poll on threats to democracy shortly before the election, it did not quite work out.
Voters in swing states believe that Trump is more likely to protect democracy than Kamala Harris, who is running on a “save democracy” platform. The poll sampled 5,016 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. When asked whether Trump or Harris “would do a better job” of “defending against threats to democracy,” 43% picked Trump while 40% picked Harris.
Notably, this was the same result when President Biden was the nominee. While over half said that threats to democracy were important to them, the voters trusted Trump (44%) more than Biden (33%) in protecting democracy.
Even with the slight improvement for Harris, the result was crushing for not just many in the Harris campaign but the press and pundits who have been unrelenting in announcing the end of democracy if Harris is not elected.
I have long criticized the apocalyptic, democracy-ending predictions of Biden, Harris and others as ignoring the safeguards in our system against authoritarian power. Nevertheless, Harris supporters have ratcheted up the rhetoric to a level of pure hysteria. Recently, Michael Cohen, a convicted felon and Trump’s disbarred former lawyer, told MSNBC that if Trump wins the election, he will “get rid of the judiciary and get rid of the Congress.”
Recently, MSNBC host Al Sharpton and regular Donny Deutsch warned viewers that they will likely be added to an enemies “list” for some type of roundup after a Trump election. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow also joined in the theme of a final stand before the gulag: “For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants? So, yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was quick to add her own name to a list that seems to be constantly updated by the media. She told podcast host Kara Swisher, “I mean, it sounds nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy threw me in jail.”
On ABC’s “The View,” the hosts are becoming indistinguishable from tinfoil-hatted subway prophets. Whoopi Goldberg even explained how Trump is already committed to being a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”
Of course, assuming that Cohen is wrong that there will be no courts after a Trump victory, this would require federal judges to sign off on the rounding up of MSNBC personalities, all gay people, all reporters, and, of course, Whoopi Goldberg. All that is required is for over two centuries of constitutional order to fail suddenly, and for virtually every constitutional actor in our system to suddenly embrace tyranny.
Those pushing this hysteria often curiously cite the January 6 riot as proof that the end is near. Yet that horrible day was the vindication, not the expiration, of our constitutional system. The system worked. The riot was put down. Congress, including Republicans, reassembled and certified Biden as the next president. In the courts, many Trump-appointed judges ruled against challenges to the election. Our system was put through a Cat 5 stress test and did not even sway for a moment. Nevertheless, the same voices are being heard on the same media outlets with doomsday scenarios.
Former Acting US Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” ominously, “We are looking at a very possible constitutional crisis and one that’s going to make January 6, 2021, look like a dress rehearsal. And this year, the rogues have had four years to go pro and perfect the big lie.”
In other words: Be afraid, very afraid.
Then, in a New York Times column, Katyal lays out scenarios premised on a complete breakdown of the oldest and most stable democratic system in history. It is like telling passengers on an ocean liner that we will all drown and then whispering that this is “assuming the crew intentionally scuttles the ship, all bulkheads and sealed departments fail, and every lifeboat and life preserver is discarded.”
But then we are all going to die.The only way to avoid that watery grave (with the death of democracy itself)? Vote Democratic.
There is, however, some good news in all of this: Despite years of alarmist predictions from Biden, Harris, the press, and pundits, the public is not buying it. It is not because they particularly like Trump. Many of his supporters seem poised to vote for him despite viewing him as polarizing and, at times, obnoxious.
No, it is because the American voter has a certain innate resistance to being played as a chump. Many of the same figures claiming that democracy is at stake supported ballot cleansing to remove Trump and others from the ballots. They supported the weaponization of the legal process in New York against Trump. Likewise, as Harris insists that she is the only hope for fundamental rights, many cannot fail to notice that she is supporting an unprecedented system of censorship that one court called “Orwellian.”
None of this means that the choice between Trump and Harris is easy. However, Harris’ claim to be the only hope for democracy is proving as tin eared as running on pure “joy.”
Voters are clearly demanding more than a political pitch of abject fear mixed with illusive joy.
A.F. Branco Cartoon — Harris-Biden’s last four years in office have been a total wreck on the American people, and now that she’s running for another four years, she says that she’ll fix it, but according to the latest polls, fewer voters believe her.
GOING VIRAL: Anderson Cooper Drops Bomb on Kamala Harris: You’ve Been in the White House For 4 Years. Why Haven’t You Done Any of This Already?
Cristina Laila – The Gateway Pundit – Oct 23, 2024
Kamala Harris participated in a CNN town hall for undecided voters on Wednesday night. She completely bombed. Kamala Harris did so bad that even CNN admitted she ‘didn’t close the deal’ with voters. CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out to Harris that there are voters out there who say that day one for her started almost four years ago. Kamala Harris keeps promising to secure the border and bring down the price of groceries. (READ MORE)
A.F. Branco Cartoon — Desperation has consumed the Harris campaign, which has brought out the “Trump is Hitler” card just 12 days before the election. Kamala echoed a debunked comment by Trump’s ex-disgruntled Chief of Staff John Kelly. October surprise?
President Trump Slams ‘Comrade’ Kamala and ‘Low Life’ John Kelly’s Disgusting ‘Hitler’ Allegations as Desperate Election Ploy Just 2 Weeks Before Voting
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Oct 24, 2024
With just 12 days left before Election Day, the Democrats and their allies are pulling out all the stops, launching baseless attacks to smear President Trump. On Wednesday, Kamala Harris pushed a tired, debunked hoax published by The Atlantic, being owned by a Kamala’s personal friend Laurene Powell Jobs. Harris seized upon a claim from Trump’s former Chief of Staff, John Kelly, who conveniently “remembered” just in time for the election that Trump allegedly praised Adolf Hitler—an absurd and false claim. This latest smear came as part of a coordinated effort by Harris and the Democrats, desperate to shift the narrative away from their failing policies and lackluster campaign.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – It’s been a lousy week for Kamala and a great week for Trump as he surges ahead in the polls. The mainstream media and the Democrats ridiculed Trump for showing up for a campaign stop at McDonald’s, but it turned out to be an ingenious move politically. No worries, Kamala, I hear McDonald’s is hiring.
War Room Guest Host Dave Bossie Discusses President Trump Dominating the Polls with Rasmussen Pollster Mark Mitchell (VIDEO)
By David Greyson – The Gateway Pundit – Oct 22, 2024
** Please keep our friend and political prisoner Steve Bannon – the founder of The War Room – in your thoughts and prayers during this time. War Room guest host Dave Bossie discussed President Trump dominating in the polls with Rasmussen pollster Mark Mitchell on Tuesday. Mitchell said that President Trump is doing better in the polls now than in 2016. “Instead of taking a bottom-up approach, I would take a top-down approach because Donald Trump is polling better than he did in 2016,” Mitchell said. (READ MORE)
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
How does a Democrat senator hang on to his seat when voters are leaning Republican? If you’re 17-year incumbent Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., you start running advertisements aligning with former President Donald Trump.
Leftist scumbag Bob Casey — who supported BOTH impeachment hoaxes and votes with Kamala 100% of the time — is now desperately trying to embrace President Trump.
Pennsylvanians know he's a shill for Kamala's deranged, radical left agenda — and always will be. pic.twitter.com/nlplWvQiK9
The feeling is not mutual, with Trump calling Baldwin a “Radical leftist senator.”
Baldwin must have noticed a change in the wind to suddenly align with Trump because in September she was seen on video calling Trump the “most offensive, and hateful, and unacceptable presidential candidate we’ve ever had.”
“What does that say about the people who support him?” she added.
This is what @SenatorBaldwin thinks of Trump and his supporters
If you live in Wisconsin vote for @EricHovde for Senate
“Imagine being Kamala Harris and changing the channel from President Trump’s epic performance at the Al Smith dinner only to see … swing state Senate Democrats embracing President Trump’s historic record in their ads,” Republican National Committee Spokesman Gates McGavick told The Federalist. “Thankfully for Kamala, this will all be over for her in just 18 days.”
Trump was asked about this phenomenon on a recent appearance on a Breitbart News Special Report, hosted by Matt Boyle,that aired on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125.
“Well, it’s an honor, actually,” Trump said. “They have senators that voted to impeach me, Democrat, and they’re Democrats, and now they’re bragging about my policies, and they have to use that because their policies were radical left and not good. So, they’re now taking ads saying that I was in favor of tariffs like President Trump. I was in favor of this and that. And nobody’s ever seen anything quite like it, but they weren’t. I mean, they weren’t.”
Riding Trump’s Popularity to Maintain Statehouse Power
Federal Democrat candidates are not the only ones embracing the “Trump is my pal,” strategy.
In a Republican-leaning Pennsylvania district, 16-year incumbent Pennsylvania State Rep. Frank Burns is running as a Trump-loving Democrat. Burns has been running ads — many, many ads — attacking his Republican challenger, Amy Bradley, using images of Trump, and implying that he is more aligned with Trump than Bradley is.
Image CreditFrom Frank Burns Ad
“President Trump supports secure borders and putting America first. Amy Bradley doesn’t,” one television ad says. “It’s time to tell Amy Bradley —” the video cuts to Trump saying, “You’re fired. Get out of here.” In fact, Burns is the incumbent and could be the one fired by voters in this scenario.
It is also a total lie. Trump endorsed Bradley.
“Frank seems to be obsessed with President Trump’s endorsement of me. He is accusing me of tricking the president, which is ridiculous,” Bradley told The Federalist. “Sen. JD Vance also endorsed me last weekend following Frank’s accusations, they are clearly on board with my campaign.”
Local Republicans driving past the “Republicans for Burns” signs dotted strategically throughout Cambria County next to Trump signs, may believe they were paid for by Republicans, but the fine print on the signs shows they were paid for by The Committee to Reelect Frank Burns.
Image CreditWilliam Klika
Image CreditWilliam Klika
Burns represents District 72 in the Pennsylvania House. The district largely covers Cambria County, which went for Trump in 2020. According to Pennsylvania Department of State data, the district currently has 20,272 registered Republicans; 16,902 registered Democrats; and 4,910 registered voters not affiliated with the two major parties.
To win, Burns needs to flip Republican voters, and he often tries to present himself as friendly to conservative causes. Burns is endorsed by Gun Owners of America. The Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation endorsed Burns as the incumbent with a known voting record, and also lists Bradley as a pro-life candidate. Burns sometimes votes against his party.
Yet Democrats are spending big bucks on this small, rural, state race to keep Burns in power.
“Right now, the Democrats hold a one vote majority in our state house, 102-101, so every member of each caucus matters,” Matt Brouillette, CEO and president of the Harrisburg-based Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs, told The Federalist. “Frank Burns is an outlier in that he is in a very conservative district but empowers the Philadelphia progressive political agenda to march through the halls of our General Assembly.”
A look at Pennsylvania Department of State campaign finance reports going back to 2008 show The Committee to Reelect Frank Burns fund rarely had more than $100,000, and often much less for campaign spending. That is typical spending for a race of this size in Pennsylvania. His most recent required financial filing, May 13, 2024, shows he had $40,000 on hand.
The new financial reports, due Oct. 25, will show a huge infusion of cash into the Burns campaign, because the Committee to Reelect Frank Burns has spent more than $4 million on broadcast advertising.
FCC records show Burns has signed multiple advertising contracts in excess of $100,000 each.
It is quite a contrast from the nearly $22,000 his Republican challenger has spent so far.
The Federalist requested an interview with Burns, but he did not respond, so we could not ask him who is funding these extraordinary buys.
But it helps to understand the delicate balance of power in the statehouse. The party in power leads committee discussions, and the majority leader decides which bills make it to the floor for a vote. For a long time, Pennsylvania has had a Republican-led House and Senate, and a Democrat governor. It meant Republican bills passed and were often vetoed by the governor. Democrats were powerless to get much done.
After 12 years of Republican leadership, in 2022, the Pennsylvania House flipped to a razor thin Democrat majority, 102-101. But immediately after the election, before the House was sworn into office in January 2023, Democrats had three vacant seats, giving Republicans the voting majority, 101 Republicans and 99 Democrats.
One Democrat seat was empty because longtime Democrat Rep. Anthony M. “Tony” DeLuca died after the ballots were printed. Voters chose him posthumously.
Two other seats were immediately vacated by candidates who ran for two offices at the same time and won both seats. They both left their House seats for higher offices. Former state Rep. Austin Davis is now lieutenant governor, and former state Rep. Summer Lee is now in Congress.
Republicans wanted to vote for a party leader while they had the voting majority. Democrats used delaying tactics and by February 2023, Democrats had won special elections to fill the three vacancies, and the power was back to 102 Democrats and 101 Republicans.
But in July, former state Rep. Sara Innamorato, a Democrat, left the district representative seat to run for the position of Allegheny County Executive. The House was tied at 101 for each party until a September 2023 special election where Democrat Lindsay Powell prevailed, moving the power back to Democrats 102 and Republicans 101.
The tug of war has continued since then. Often when Democrats lose a member, they go into recess until it is resolved so Republicans can’t call a special vote and regain power over the chamber.
With the help of Frank Burns voting with his party, the chamber voted to make Democrat Joanna McClinton Speaker of the House, and with that, the longtime Republican House veered its agenda to the left. Democrats desperately want to hold on to power — even if it means promoting Trump’s agenda in campaign ads.
“[Burns] can’t disown the fact that he voted for Joanna. He had to, and that’s typical Frank Burns. When the party needs him, he’s there for Democrats,” State Rep. Josh Kail, who serves on the House Republican Campaign Committee, told The Federalist. “The guy has this phony facade back in district, but he goes to Harrisburg, and he’s a complete enabler of the left-wing agenda. He voted for one of the most liberal speakers of the house to give Democrats control of the House … The most important vote that a legislature takes is when they vote for who the speaker is, and who’s going to control the calendar and what we’re voting on. He is directly responsible for all of the left wing votes that we’re getting out of the state house.”
At Ethel Kennedy’s funeral on Wednesday, President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama were caught on camera seemingly discussing Vice President Kamala Harris’ election chances, according to a professional lip-reader hired by the New York Post.
In the video, Biden can be heard telling Obama that “she” is “not as strong” as him, to which Obama responds, “that’s true.” The outlet suggests that the conversation is about Harris’ chances in the upcoming election.
But the White House was quick to dismiss the lip-reading claims, with spokesperson Andrew Bates telling the New York Post, “A ‘lip reading expert’? Did your usual right-wing soothsayer have their out-of-office up?
Only President Biden and President Obama know what they discussed, but this certainly wasn’t it.” Even former Biden White House officials, who are now working on the Harris campaign, denied the claims, saying that it is “not even like [Biden] to say that” and urging the outlet to get “a new lip reader.”
However, this is not the first time Biden has expressed confidence in his own abilities to defeat President Trump in the election. In July, after dropping out of the presidential race, Biden appeared on “The View” and said that polls showed he was still able to beat Trump and that he even believed he could beat the former president if he was still in the race. He also admitted to not fully believing the claims that there was an overwhelming reluctance for him to run again, and instead, suggested that some people just wanted a chance to move on.
But Harris’ reputation among voters seems to be taking a hit, with her negative rating increasing four points in just one month, according to MSNBC national political correspondent Steve Kornacki. And journalist Mark Halperin, speaking on Oct. 8, claimed that he had seen new private polling that showed Harris was “in a lot of trouble.” He went on to say that both Trump’s supporters and Democrats with access to data were feeling “extremely bullish” on Trump’s chances in the last 48 hours. Halperin also pointed out that Harris is in danger of losing key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia.
It seems that the more voters learn about Harris and her policies, the less they support her. Her favorability ratings have dropped, and she is now facing trouble in key battleground states. Biden, on the other hand, continues to express confidence in his abilities but the reality is, he may just be in denial. As noted by the lip-reader, even Obama seemed to agree that Harris is not as strong as Biden.
If the two men who have worked closely with Harris are not convinced of her abilities, why should the American people be? It is clear that Trump still has a strong chance of winning this election, especially now that Harris’ weaknesses are being exposed.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks Sept. 12 at a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The United Kingdom’s Labor Party and Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign may be marching into the same legal jeopardy as the Australian Labor Party and Bernie Sanders’ campaign for president did in 2016: violating federal law that bans foreigners from financial involvement in American political campaigns.
Various news sources report that Sofia Patel, head of operations for the Labor Party in the U.K., is recruiting members to campaign for Harris in swing states such as North Carolina, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
As a former member of the Federal Election Commission, the agency responsible for civil enforcement of federal campaign finance laws, I can tell you that the law on this is quite clear: 52 U.S.C. § 30121 prohibits any foreign national from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a federal, state, or local election.
As the FEC’s website explains, that ban doesn’t prevent a foreigner from participating in “campaign activities as an uncompensated volunteer” although even as a volunteer, the foreigner cannot “participate in the decision-making process of the campaign.” But this also means that if the members of the U.K. Labor Party who are interfering in our 2024 election process aren’t really volunteers, then Patel, her party, and the Harris campaign are potentially in a lot of trouble.
If Patel and the Labor Party are paying any expenses for party members, including travel costs to get to the U.S. or any kind of salary or stipend, then they are violating the law. And if the Harris campaign accepts their help, then the campaign also is violating the law. That is exactly what happened in 2016 to the Australian Labor Party and Sanders’ campaign for the U.S. presidency.
As the 2018 agreement to settle the enforcement action (MUIR 7035) filed by the FEC against the Labor Party explains, the Sanders campaign accepted “seven delegates” from the Aussies to work in four locations. These individuals were part of “an international program that sends delegates around the world to engage with progressive, social democratic, and Labor parties,” the document says. The so-called volunteers not only had travel expenses covered by the Australian Labor Party, but they also received a stipend from the party. In other words, they were being paid by the Australian Labor Party to work for the Sanders campaign. Those payments constituted a “prohibited in-kind foreign national contribution in violation of” federal law, as the settlement agreement outlines.
The Australian Labor Party claimed that the purpose of the program “was to learn best practices and skills in progressive policy and campaign development” and that the party “did not intend to influence any election.” That claim obviously doesn’t pass the laugh test.
In order to settle the case, the Australian Labor Party agreed to pay a civil penalty to the FEC of $14,500 and to “cease and desist” from violating federal law. The Sanders campaign— “without admitting liability”—agreed to pay a similar civil penalty of $14,500 and to stop violating the law. Why? Because it is also a violation of the law for a campaign to accept a foreign financial donation or in-kind contribution. By accepting the assistance of foreign-paid staffers, the Sanders campaign broke federal law.
By the way, even if the U.K. Labor Party were to work independently of the Harris campaign without any coordination or communications between them, it still potentially would violate the law. An FEC regulation, 11 CFR 110.20, explains that foreign nationals also are banned from making any “independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state, or local election.”
It seems a bit far-fetched to believe that the U.K. Labor Party would send “volunteers” to the U.S. without paying their way, or that these volunteers would know what to do in a foreign country without any communications or coordination with the campaign they are here to assist. But even if that is true and the foreign nationals are engaging only in independent campaign expenditures, they are still breaking the law. In any event, the U.K. Labor Party is going down a dangerous road that may result in legal action against it.
Apparently, the party hasn’t learned the lesson from its brethren in Australia, who discovered that interfering in a U.S. election has consequences. Patel, as the party’s operations chief, might want to give the Aussies a call.
The Harris campaign should publicly reject this assistance and inform the U.K. Labor Party that its members aren’t welcome to play in American politics. Otherwise, the vice president’s campaign will be saying that it welcomes foreign interference in our election process—as long as it’s progressive interference that helps Harris’ side of the political aisle.
Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, but Heritage is named in this commentary for identification purposes only. The views expressed are the author’s own and don’t reflect an institutional position either for Heritage or its Board of Trustees.
By now it’s commonplace to note that Kamala Harris often seems out of her depth, like she’s unsure what to say about policy, or how to explain her past positions, or why she hasn’t already done the things she’s promised to do if she’s elected given that she’s the current vice president.
But on one particular subject she’s been consistent and forceful throughout her campaign. She’s adamant that Donald Trump will destroy America if he’s reelected. And not “destroy” in the sense of enact bad policies, but that he’ll round people up with the military and put them in camps. She talks about this all the time now. At one point during her Wednesday evening interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, she became visibly upset after Baier played a clip of former President Donald Trump calling out the weaponization of government and the endless investigations and lawfare he’s been subjected to.
The vice president, her voice rising in outrage, jabbed her finger at Baier and said, “You and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”
At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania this week she told the crowd that former President Donald Trump considers anyone who doesn’t support him to be an enemy of the United States. “He is saying he would use the military to go after them.”
Earlier this week, during an audio town hall with Charlamagne Tha God, Harris claimed without a hint of irony that if Trump is elected, he’ll use the Department of Justice “as a weapon against his political enemies,” adding, “You know who does that? Dictators do that.” At one point during the show, she agreed with a caller who said Trump will lock “anyone who doesn’t look white into camps,” replying, “You’ve hit on a really important point and expressed it I think so well.”
That’s just a sampling from this week, but there are many other recent examples. In the waning weeks of the presidential election, Harris has been deploying increasingly extreme rhetoric about Trump and the dangers he poses to the country. Even before Harris seized the Democratic nomination from President Joe Biden, the idea that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy was the refrain of the Biden campaign. Harris has taken that theme and run with it. The purpose of it isn’t just to scare voters into casting their ballot against the former president, or to provoke some unstable would-be assassin into taking a shot at Trump (although some Democrats no doubt see that as a happy by-product of this Trump-as-dictator rhetoric). Its main purpose is to prime Democrat voters for violent resistance should Trump win in November.
Consider the lopsidedness of the rhetoric between the Trump and Harris campaigns. Trump often makes sweeping (and mostly true) statements about the deep state, about the border and illegal immigration, about crime, about how Harris and the Democrats are destroying the country. But when he uses the phrase “destroying the country,” he’s talking about things like crime, homelessness, drug addiction, rampant inflation and the cost of groceries. These things, he says, are the result of policies Democrats have put in place. If you’re looking for someone to blame, he says, blame Biden and Harris, because all these problems are their fault.
But that’s not what Harris and the Democrats are doing with their rhetoric. They’re not making a case that crime and inflation will be worse under Trump because of his policies. Democrats aren’t really interested in policy. What they’re doing is pushing a narrative that Trump is going to be a fascist dictator if he wins office and use the powers of the presidency to go after ordinary Americans. That’s an extreme and frankly unhinged position with no basis in reality. You don’t say things like that unless you’re hoping to provoke a strong reaction, and the reaction Democrats are hoping to provoke is violent resistance to a second Trump term.
After all, if you really thought that Trump would order the military and the Justice Department to round up you and your family, wouldn’t you do anything to stop him? Wouldn’t you take to the streets to save your country and thwart the rise of a fascist dictatorship? At least two would-be assassins have taken the Democrats’ anti-Trump rhetoric seriously. Harris is hoping that many more people will do so between now and Election Day and respond by rejecting a second Trump term — in the streets, if they must.
There’s a precedent for this that Democrats set four years ago. During the BLM riots in the summer of 2020, Harris herself was out in front egging on the rioters, infamously working to raise bail money for those who had been arrested. Of the protests, she said this in a June 2020 interview with Stephen Colbert: “Everyone beware. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day … They’re not gonna let up, and they should not.”
Harris and her fellow Democrats knew that the civic unrest unleashed by BLM and Antifa rioters would damage Trump’s reelection campaign, and they did their utmost to amplify the violence and also justify it by claiming the moral high ground. The protesters and rioters were only reacting to systemic injustice, after all, and as Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
All of this only makes sense if you understand that Harris isn’t just a bumbling politician but a left-wing radical, and left-wing radicals have no qualms about using violence as a political weapon. If your goal is to seize and wield political power as part of a revolutionary program to transform America, then who cares if a couple neighborhoods here there get burned to the ground in race riots? Who cares if some young women get raped and killed by illegal immigrants, or a handful of apartment complexes get taken over by criminal alien gangs? Those things on their own might be unpleasant or disturbing, but they’re all in the service of a greater goal, which is the re-shaping of American society. So, it’s all justified.
What Harris and the Democrats are doing with this line about Trump rounding up Americans and putting them in camps is preparing the ground for massive civic unrest in the event of a Trump victory. The purpose of the unrest would be to cripple Trump’s administration before he even takes office, and to disrupt normal life for so many Americans that they will rue the day they ever voted for Trump.
It’s the hecklers veto on steroids, and it’s exactly what Harris is planning for and hoping to provoke if Trump wins.
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.
Vice President Kamala Harris has so over-used her talking points about “growing up in a middle-class family” and about her “love of the American people and our “hopes, dreams, ambitions, and aspirations,” that they have become punch lines to jokes. That’s not a good macro-political sign for her presidential campaign. And neither are some of the numbers emerging from the smaller demographics she must have to win. One of those smaller units of the American electorate are the Arab Americans generally, and in Michigan specifically, and the news isn’t great for Team Harris there either.
In early October, the Arab American Institute released its poll of Arab Americans on the upcoming presidential election. The “top line” takeaway was very surprising: “Trump and Harris [are] in a virtual tie with Arab American voters (42-41%), with 12% supporting third-party candidates.”
I asked former President Trump why he was doing this well with this demographic, especially at the same time as his support among Jewish Americans is increasing?
“Because I want to see everything get worked out,” he replied. “I want peace,” he continued. “I don’t want to see people killed. I want peace, and they [Arab Americans] know that. And the Jewish people know that. And both sides like it and know that I can get peace.”
That’s a good answer, and perhaps it does account for a good chunk of some Arab Americans voting Trump, but the same poll revealed that when “asked to rank their top issues, the following were the top three for Arab American voters: jobs and the economy (39%), Gaza (26%) and gun violence (21%).” Turns out that this demographic cares the most about the same issue the entire electorate cares the most about: The economy. There was no cross-tab provided on how the 39% break down between Trump and Harris, but my guess is that, as with the electorate as a whole, Arab Americans who are worried about inflation and their jobs break for Trump.
Then there are the issues that very few pollsters ask about and which this poll didn’t. The first is “transgender rights” which can mean a lot of things to different people. But to at least many millions of voters it means this: Boys who identify as girls playing in girls’ sports and using girls’ locker rooms. The second issue not often polled is “reparations.” This issue was introduced into the campaign just this week when Vice President Harris was asked about reparations by podcaster “Charlamagne tha God” and the Democrat nominee declared the issue “needed to be studied.”
The Harris campaign has distanced itself from the controversy. (AP/Jacquelyn Martin)
“Americans view the prospect of reparations mostly negatively,” according to a 2021 Pew Research Study. “Three-in-ten U.S. adults say descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid in some way, such as given land or money,”Pew reported. 77% of Black Americans support reparations while only 39% of Hispanic Americans and 33% of Asian Americans do. (Arab Americans were not broken out in the polling.)
What about the first issue mentioned above? A super-majority of all Americans—69% according to Gallup—believe that “transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender.” But the Biden-Harris Administration has proposed new Title IX rules that have been widely viewed as mandating the right of transgender athletes to compete in the sports reserved for the biological category they identify with. To most voters that probably means “boys who identify as girls playing girls sports.”
While Harris has not spoken to this specific issue, she has adopted the very controversial position of taxpayer payment for prison inmates seeking to transition from one sex to another. (The Trump campaign has made Harris’s on-the-record support for these taxpayer payments part of their ad rotation.)
It is a guess, but a safe one, that conservative family cultures of the sort typical for Arab Americans—Muslim, Christian or agnostic—largely reject both reparations for Blacks and the idea of biological boys playing in girls’ sports.
That’s an informed guess because the Arab American Institute polling demonstrated that Arab Americans are in fact like most Americans on what matters most. Don’t be surprised when the post-election exit polling reveals that Arab Americans ended up supporting Trump in roughly the same percentage as all Americans and that they viewed Vice President Harris as simply too radical to take a chance on.
Hugh Hewitt is host of “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
Last night, millions tuned in to watch Fox’s Bret Baier interview Vice President Kamala Harris in a brief but substantive exchange. One of the most interesting aspects of the interview was the purely pedestrian view of the presidency that Harris presented in the interview. Harris repeatedly responded with “I will follow the law” while refusing to say where she personally stands on immigration, transgender athletes, and other issues.
After confining interviews to largely softball forums like The View, Harris faced a serious journalist who pushed for actual answers on policies. While confined to a short time by the Harris campaign, Baier kept pulling Harris back to these questions to cut off the evasions that have characterized past interviews. Baier noted that she has previously campaigned on some of these issues and publicly declared that she worked for such things as gender transitioning operations for undocumented persons. Harris now refuses to state her position on such issues and says “I will follow the law.”
Yet, Harris is not adopting that pedestrian model in other areas like abortion rights where she is pledging to use executive powers to resist pro-life laws. The Biden-Harris Administration has used such orders to negate both constitutional and statutory authority. That includes orders that were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on issues like the national eviction moratorium.
Notably, Harris did flip her position on decriminalizing unlawful entries. Despite running on that pledge in her earlier unsuccessful run for the White House, Harris now says that she is against such decriminalization. As with her past opposition to fracking and gun rights, the change is likely to draw criticism that Harris is adopting a new persona for a close race.
The refusal to give her position on these issues is reminiscent of Joe Biden’s last campaign where he simply refused to say if he opposed packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. What is different is that Harris previously stated strong and public positions on these questions but is now refusing to confirm that she continues to support those policies, including some that rank near the top of issues for voters.
Baier did a heroic job in trying to prevent the filibustering of the interview and push for answers on these questions. It was the first such interview where Harris faced a dogged interviewer. Given the frantic effort of the staff to end the interview (after showing up late), it is likely to be the last.
The mantra of “I will follow the law” ignores that a president plays a major role in the legislative process and has considerable executive powers in determining how such laws are enforced. The presidency is more than a promise of “joy” and compliance. It is about leadership on issues that matter to voters.
The interview had a seasonal feel with Halloween approaching like a political reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven where every question is answered by “Nevermore.”
That could well be the theme of the Harris campaign. When pressed on contradictions or controversies, Harris seemed to declare “Nevermore Trump” over and over again. We will see if that is enough in a matter of a few weeks.
In the meantime, real journalists will be left seeking answers that never come, exclaiming like Poe’s protagonist “tell me—tell me, I implore!” However, “Quoth the [Harris] ‘Nevermore.’”
Here we are just a few weeks before election day. People have already begun voting around the country and yet panic is setting in at the Kamala Harris campaign. Maybe it’s the RealClearPolitics polling averages showing former president Donald Trump leading in 6 of 7 swing states. Or it could be headlines like this, “Trump is in a better polling spot now than he was against Clinton or Biden,” from USA Today. Ouch!
Despite raising $1 billion, Harris not only isn’t making any inroads with voters, but she’s losing momentum. Americans have complained from the start of her selection as the Democratic nominee that they need to hear more about where she stands on the issues considering her history and the disastrous results of Biden-Harris policies. But Kamala, the woman of “change” and “joy,” has supplied neither details nor seriousness.
Kamala remains oblique, much like a riddle wrapped in an enigma, to borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill. But there is one group that isn’t confused at all about Harris’ positions and intentions: the progressive left. Why? Because for years she has been showing them who she is, and during this campaign she has been telling them in their own special language, that nothing has changed.
Harris has no problem being specific and avoiding word salads when she’s actually speaking her mind and not trying to hide something. Like in 2020 when telling Stephen Colbert in the wake of George Floyd’s death that the riots “were not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop… and they should not, and we should not.” This, as she also promoted and encouraged a fund to bail out those arrested during the riots. A clip of Harris has also emerged of the vice president addressing the National Congress of American Indians on Columbus Day in 2021—full of red meat with nary even a side salad in sight—discussing the “shameful past” of Columbus Day, decrying the explorers “perpetrating violence, stealing land, and spreading disease.”
Destroying America’s heroes is an important plank in destroying the country.
In 2017, Trump’s first year in office, Kamala Harris made clear her enthusiasm for the cancerous leftist ‘woke’ ideology. Fox News reported on her remarks at a conference imploring people that, “We have to stay woke. Like everybody needs to be woke. And you can talk about if you’re the wokest or woker, but just stay more woke than less woke.” Her commands were punctuated by bursts of her now well-known bizarre and inappropriate laughter.
But this is not the version of Kamala voters with which voters have been presented for the past few months, which is understandable. After all, even a home invasion robber knows he can’t announce at the door what he’s up to; you unlock the door because you think you’re helping a guy who wants to mow your lawn. No one wants more of malevolent, woke progressives. The Democrats and Kamala know it, but they believe America deserves to be kneecapped, so they won’t stop.
Hence, Kamala is behaving as though she’s been dropped in from the planet Venus as a gift from the stars to chart a new way by “turning the page” to better vibes and joy. Or from what has been, to the same darn thing but with pearls on.
The bad news for Harris is, platitudes and fantasy talk might be good for a first date, but not when you’re running to become president of the United States. But progressives are just fine with Kamala Harris despite her talk of being a capitalist, believing in entrepreneurs with great lawns, and her affinity for the middle class because well, you know the rest.
The so-called progressive left (which is actually quite regressive) are comfortable that Kamala hasn’t changed, because she tells them so directly and indirectly. Her most direct wink-and-nod to her pals on the fringe of her party came during the CNN interview with Dana Bash in August. After being asked about her dramatic policy shifts on issues like immigration and energy production, she told Bash,“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.”
That may sound like another vacuous platitude but having been on the left as a community organizer, I recognized that phrase immediately and can tell you there’s much more to that line than people realize. When leftist organizers talk about their “values” they mean the socialist wish-fantasy of government which owns and controls everything, devoting its efforts to centralized planning on behalf of the workers who exist to maintain the bureaucratic state. “Fundamentally transforming” the nation is their “value” system. With that simple, seemingly innocuous phrase, Kamala was saying a great deal to the leftist extremists who hold the Democratic Party in thrall.
The indirect message comes from the vacuousness of the campaign itself. It is understood by the left that the goal is to win, no matter what that takes. Have they gotten the message? You bet. Take it from Sen. Bernie Sanders.As reported by The Hill, “Asked during an interview on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ whether Harris had abandoned her progressive ideals, Sanders said she is saying what she needs to say to beat Trump. ‘No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s tried to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election…”
The duality of Kamala’s message involves believing the average American is too dumb to know when they’re being manipulated with gibberish, and the left will understand the language meant to assuage them. And just in case, Kamala herself will use a blunt instrument if things start to go south, as they are. When asked on “The View” if she would have “done something differently than President Biden during the past 4 years,” the page-turning change-agent answered, “There is not a thing that comes to mind… And I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.” Oh, the tangled web she weaves.
Harris is entering what David Sacks, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor, calls a “doom loop” noting, “What I said two months ago is that if Harris gets behind, she’s going to have to abandon the basement strategy of not doing interviews… The problem is she is not good at interviews, and if she does more interviews, she’s going to fall further behind in the polls… That’s where we appear to be right now.”
As her campaign falters and she scrambles to make more noise at the voters with interviews, Democrats are coming to grips with having underestimated the American people. The left understands what her intentions are. The rest of us must also understand that her gibberish has an actual meaning meant to obscure her intentions and gain power to maintain the catastrophic Democratic agenda.
Last week, Politico ran a headline. Once upon a time, it would have been tempting to attach some superlative to said headline, such as “astonishing,” “remarkable,” or “crazy.” Now such headlines are commonplace and illustrative of the information warfare that defines American politics. Anyway, here it is:
One of the biggest political problems in America is the complete disconnect between what passes for “conventional wisdom” inside the beltway and how most Americans’ perception of reality affects how they vote. Roughly half the country identifies as politically conservative, and beyond that, there are supermajorities involving good chunks of the Democrat party that think that elite opinion has gone too far left on several key issues. And yet, nearly all discussions that take place context of our “media-run state” basically start from the premise that radicalism on the right is a clear and present threat to the republic, whereas radicalism on the left is never threatening to prosperity and our way of life. Rather, it’s just a messaging problem, where the establishment left must be given broad latitude to say whatever it needs to say to get elected and stave off the absurdly broad category of candidates labeled dangerous right-wing extremists. And it doesn’t matter if what is said is fundamentally dishonest because the threat justifies the deception.
This is why an army of fact-checkers, misinformation experts, censors, and journalists — and good luck telling the difference between those four ostensible vocations, as they are frequently rolled into one indistinguishable blob — exists to create the illusion of retroactive continuity between what’s being said now and what we all know actually happened.
And so, we have the headlines such as the one above. In the real world, we’ve had record inflation, and anyone looking to buy a house or car has taken note of the fact interest rates are about three times higher than they were before Harris and Biden took office. But it’s not enough to say that the economy is good; before you can even choke down that obvious falsehood, we’ve moved from an incorrect cause to an offensive effect. The real problem isn’t that people can’t afford groceries; no, the real problem is the voters themselves, who are presumed ignorant for not believing a lie. Without even getting past the headline, you’re experiencing more gaslighting than a winter solstice in Victorian London.
Which brings me to another Politico headline, which even ran on the same day, natch. This time it’s a column by Jonathan Martin, a former New York Times political reporter, who is currently Politico’s senior political columnist and politics bureau chief. Martin is here to tell us “Here’s What Harris Must Do to Seal the Deal.” To that end, he’s hatched a plan where Harris can “prove to skeptics that she’s committed to bipartisan government” by, among other things, preemptively announcing Mitt Romney is going to be her Secretary of State.
Of course, the idea that Mitt Romney, who for years now has been a professional malcontent who’s entire public persona revolves around attacking nearly all of his senate GOP colleagues, has bipartisan cred is wishful thinking. And that’s without even going into how spectacularly Martin’s proposal validates the concern that ideological extremism is forever a one-way street. In 2012, when Mitt Romney was running for president against Obama, he was a racist, gay-bullying, dog-abusing, extremist who gave his employees cancer. Without exhuming what Martin himself said during Romney’s failed presidential bid, it sure says something that many of his peers who dutifully smeared Romney for threatening a Democratic president’s hold on power have no problems with now soliciting the guy that did all these terrible things to help elect a Democrat president.
Regardless, the whole point of Martin’s cockamamie scheme to retrofit Harris as a bipartisan moderate ultimately boils down to this assessment: “These voters don’t want white papers, they just crave reassurance Harris isn’t a lefty.”
Well, Martin has correctly identified the problem, and he’s even come up with a plan to remedy it — even if an unconvincing, last-minute feint at bipartisanship is unlikely to sway voters. But before we get on with hatching a plan to reassure voters “Harris isn’t a lefty,” Martin is skipping a pretty crucial question that anyone concerned with truth-telling would probably try and address.
Is Harris, in fact, a lefty?
The answer is unequivocally yes. She’s a creature of San Francisco politics, and she had the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. One of the most effective ads Trump has run so far involves video footage of Kamala Harris saying, in her own words, that taxpayers should pay for the sex change operations of prisoners. Because she’s running away from her liberal record, she’s flip-flopped on several major issues since she was installed as the Democrat presidential candidate because her previously articulated positions were electorally damaging. She’s even now committed to building a border wall, for crying out loud.
Unsurprisingly, Martin and his peers have put precious little pressure on Harris to explain how and why her sudden attempt to hot swap radical leftist policies with more moderate policies is remotely sincere.
To the extent that Martin even deigns to acknowledge this might be an issue, his response is something: “I know from having covered her for a decade that she’s no faculty club progressive, much more comfortable dropping a ‘motherf–ka’ than taking care to say ‘Latinx.’”
I don’t know what world Martin is envisioning where people that swear are somehow so transgressive they’re anathema to people that police gender neutrality. Speaking of gender cops, it’s probably worth mentioning Harris, who I am assured is no “faculty club progressive,” currently has her pronouns listed in her Twitter bio. Regardless, it’s more likely that those that insist neutering the lexicon are very much the same people who consider objecting to use of the word “motherf–ka” a matter of kink shaming.
In case you were wondering, though, the word “Latinx” is used in Harris’ 2019 campaign book, The Truth We Hold, seven times — it’s eight times, if you count the fact the word has its own entry in the index. (It must be said that this is a different book than the one Harris now stands accused of plagiarizing; the book where she stole other people’s ideas amusingly titled Smart On Crime.) Anyway, maybe this is all pedantic. I’m just a guy who CTRL-F’d her book, and Martin probably knows her well enough to have her cell number. As such, I’m sure Martin would advise me to take Harris seriously, not literally.
In any event, I don’t think Martin is intentionally deceiving anyone or endorsing the idea that Kamala should openly deceive people by telling her to present herself as moderate. Alas, he’s not a cartoon villain, and if he was, that would be an easier problem to address. Unfortunately, the fact remains that deception is the logical outcome when journalists’ default assumption is that radicalism among Democrats is something to be massaged and contextualized, not called out for what it is.
As it is, Kamala Harris is pretty radical. If voters are concluding that the supposed mango monster opposing her, who thinks taxpayer-funded sex changes are bad and has long opposed letting millions of largely unvetted illegal immigrants into the country, might be the more moderate choice, well, it’s not an occasion to assail them for noticing the wrong things. It’s an invitation to state the facts fairly for once and get out of way and let democracy take its course.
Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator
Tesla CEO Elon Musk demonstrates his enthusiasm for former President Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on Oct. 5. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
BUTLER, Pa.—Elon Musk said the reason he was in Butler on Oct. 5 to speak at former President Donald Trump‘s rally was because of the critical nature of this year’s presidential election.
“The reason I’m here is because I think this is the most important election in our lifetime. This may be the most important election that has ever happened,” the industrialist said.
The world’s richest man and the leader of Tesla and X (formerly Twitter) was standing in the holding room behind the stage of the event, on a dirt floor, with white curtains behind him, and chicken crates and haystacks to his right. “I think we’re looking at the destiny of civilization, of America, the Western civilization,” he said.
The traditionally media-shy Musk, wearing an “Occupy Mars” shirt underneath a black sport coat and “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, was all smiles as he and Trump bantered back and forth during the interview.
“I think President Trump represents the actual path to a democratic future, ironically, because they say he’s a threat to democracy. But, in fact, the ones saying he’s a threat to democracy are the ones who are a threat to democracy in reality,” Musk said.
Musk famously endorsed Trump in a post on X minutes after a gunman tried to kill the former president here in July. Musk, a robust supporter of free speech even before he purchased X, said, “Who are the ones that are trying to silence free speech? That’s the Democrats. They’re the ones trying to silence free speech. You know who the bad guys are, the ones who want to stop you from speaking, those are the bad guys. It’s a no-brainer.”
Musk said he recognizes that the people here in Butler, and in places all across the country that aren’t located in the centers of power and wealth, are the ones most concerned about protecting and preserving both free speech and the Second Amendment.
“America is about freedom and opportunity,” he said. “You have to have freedom to speak your mind. What is the First Amendment? Why does it exist? Because in the countries people came from, you’d get arrested or killed for speaking your mind. Why is the Second Amendment there? Because you weren’t allowed to own firearms in other countries so they could oppress you. The thing protecting the First Amendment is the Second Amendment.”
Trump leaned over: “Salena, he’s worth $300 billion. Salena, $300 billion. I worked my ass off, and I’m like a fraction of that,” he joked.
Earlier in the day, a woman I interviewed said that, to her, Musk is the Benjamin Franklin of our era: an inventor, a proponent of free speech, and a disrupter. She said she really liked that he both “made things” and explored the newest frontier through space.
“That is part of the American ethos, hard work, innovations, but also helping people out in the way he has done with Starlink in North Carolina,” she said.
“I try to be as helpful as possible,” Musk said with a smile. “Well, if it wasn’t for President Trump, this would be hopeless.”
Musk said his message was to make sure people exercise their voting power.
“I think we really need to encourage people to register to vote,” he said. “That’s my main message today: Everyone in the audience, there’s nothing more important than registering to vote.’
“Anyone. People in the streets. Everyone. Friends, family, people you run into. Text them right now,” he said, encouraging people to “swamp the vote.”
“Check swampthevote.com to see if you’re registered. Everyone here has one mission. Everyone listening, you’ve got one mission. Register everyone you know to vote,” he said.
Youngstown State University political science professor Paul Sracic said it’s hard to overstate how significant Musk’s full-throated endorsement of Trump is this year. “Musk is to the 2020s what Trump was to the 1980s and ’90s. He is a celebrity businessman. Trump famously appeared in one of the ‘Home Alone’ movies, and Musk made a guest appearance on ‘The Big Bang Theory,’” he said of Musk’s cultural impact.
“Also like Trump, he is a risk-taker and builder, something that appeals to the American psyche. People forget, but one of the things that helped Trump when he first ran for president was his ability to get things done. His rebuilding and restoration of the skating rink in Central Park, something the New York City parks department had failed to do, was frequently mentioned,” Sracic said.
“Musk is the classic self-made billionaire,” Sracic explained. “He made his initial fortune by helping to design PayPal, an innovative online payment system that was later purchased by eBay. Rather than sit on his wealth, or just try to grow it by investing in the stock market, Musk used it to build other things. In almost every case, Musk’s innovations paralleled things the government was trying to do, but he did it better,” he said.
Think of it this way: The Inflation Reduction Act tries to use government subsidies to encourage companies to build and consumers to buy electric vehicles, while Musk actually makes vehicles.
For the past 60 years, one of the symbols of American ingenuity and world dominance has been the space program run by NASA, a government agency, Sracic explained. “Over the years, NASA has begun contracting out its rocket program to private companies. One of those companies, Boeing, was supposed to transport our astronauts back and forth to the International Space Station on their Starliner capsule. When that capsule was found to have potential safety issues, trapping two U.S. astronauts on the space station for months, it is Musk’s SpaceX that will rescue them next February,” he said.
Polls clearly show that people are unhappy with the direction of the country. Failures such as this one by NASA, along with our crumbling infrastructure, make voters feel like we as a nation are falling apart.
The Biden-Harris administration has tried to appeal to voters by a combination of intense government spending on projects and industrial policy, which subsidizes private businesses. “And they are upset that the American people don’t properly credit them for their achievements, and sometimes blame the press for not covering the story,” Sracic said.
What the Harris campaign misses, however, is the hunger people have for innovation. “We don’t want to be as good as the Chinese. We want to be better,” Sracic said. “When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, we didn’t just want to launch a rival satellite. We wanted to go to the moon. That’s the America people want back again.”
Sracic said there are several ways that Musk and Trump are alike. “Trump could have taken his money and had a nice retirement. Instead, he entered politics and went from being an admired celebrity to being ridiculed and attacked. In the same way, Musk didn’t have to buy Twitter. In fact, it was by all accounts a poor financial decision. But Musk, like Trump, wanted, to quote Teddy Roosevelt, to be ‘the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.’”
Minutes after the interview, Musk took to the stage and was greeted with wild enthusiasm by the crowd, an enthusiasm he responded to by jumping in the air.
While many of the political elite still struggle to understand the connection two billionaires would have with the working and middle class of the country and why both Trump and Musk meet that moment, it is real and has much to do with being seen and respected by both of them.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk demonstrates his enthusiasm for former President Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on Oct. 5. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
BUTLER, Pa.—Elon Musk said the reason he was in Butler on Oct. 5 to speak at former President Donald Trump‘s rally was because of the critical nature of this year’s presidential election.
“The reason I’m here is because I think this is the most important election in our lifetime. This may be the most important election that has ever happened,” the industrialist said.
The world’s richest man and the leader of Tesla and X (formerly Twitter) was standing in the holding room behind the stage of the event, on a dirt floor, with white curtains behind him, and chicken crates and haystacks to his right. “I think we’re looking at the destiny of civilization, of America, the Western civilization,” he said.
The traditionally media-shy Musk, wearing an “Occupy Mars” shirt underneath a black sport coat and “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, was all smiles as he and Trump bantered back and forth during the interview.
“I think President Trump represents the actual path to a democratic future, ironically, because they say he’s a threat to democracy. But, in fact, the ones saying he’s a threat to democracy are the ones who are a threat to democracy in reality,” Musk said.
Musk famously endorsed Trump in a post on X minutes after a gunman tried to kill the former president here in July. Musk, a robust supporter of free speech even before he purchased X, said, “Who are the ones that are trying to silence free speech? That’s the Democrats. They’re the ones trying to silence free speech. You know who the bad guys are, the ones who want to stop you from speaking, those are the bad guys. It’s a no-brainer.”
Musk said he recognizes that the people here in Butler, and in places all across the country that aren’t located in the centers of power and wealth, are the ones most concerned about protecting and preserving both free speech and the Second Amendment.
“America is about freedom and opportunity,” he said. “You have to have freedom to speak your mind. What is the First Amendment? Why does it exist? Because in the countries people came from, you’d get arrested or killed for speaking your mind. Why is the Second Amendment there? Because you weren’t allowed to own firearms in other countries so they could oppress you. The thing protecting the First Amendment is the Second Amendment.”
Trump leaned over: “Salena, he’s worth $300 billion. Salena, $300 billion. I worked my ass off, and I’m like a fraction of that,” he joked.
Earlier in the day, a woman I interviewed said that, to her, Musk is the Benjamin Franklin of our era: an inventor, a proponent of free speech, and a disrupter. She said she really liked that he both “made things” and explored the newest frontier through space.
“That is part of the American ethos, hard work, innovations, but also helping people out in the way he has done with Starlink in North Carolina,” she said.
“I try to be as helpful as possible,” Musk said with a smile. “Well, if it wasn’t for President Trump, this would be hopeless.”
Musk said his message was to make sure people exercise their voting power.
“I think we really need to encourage people to register to vote,” he said. “That’s my main message today: Everyone in the audience, there’s nothing more important than registering to vote.’
“Anyone. People in the streets. Everyone. Friends, family, people you run into. Text them right now,” he said, encouraging people to “swamp the vote.”
“Check swampthevote.com to see if you’re registered. Everyone here has one mission. Everyone listening, you’ve got one mission. Register everyone you know to vote,” he said.
Youngstown State University political science professor Paul Sracic said it’s hard to overstate how significant Musk’s full-throated endorsement of Trump is this year. “Musk is to the 2020s what Trump was to the 1980s and ’90s. He is a celebrity businessman. Trump famously appeared in one of the ‘Home Alone’ movies, and Musk made a guest appearance on ‘The Big Bang Theory,’” he said of Musk’s cultural impact.
“Also like Trump, he is a risk-taker and builder, something that appeals to the American psyche. People forget, but one of the things that helped Trump when he first ran for president was his ability to get things done. His rebuilding and restoration of the skating rink in Central Park, something the New York City parks department had failed to do, was frequently mentioned,” Sracic said.
“Musk is the classic self-made billionaire,” Sracic explained. “He made his initial fortune by helping to design PayPal, an innovative online payment system that was later purchased by eBay. Rather than sit on his wealth, or just try to grow it by investing in the stock market, Musk used it to build other things. In almost every case, Musk’s innovations paralleled things the government was trying to do, but he did it better,” he said.
Think of it this way: The Inflation Reduction Act tries to use government subsidies to encourage companies to build and consumers to buy electric vehicles, while Musk actually makes vehicles.
For the past 60 years, one of the symbols of American ingenuity and world dominance has been the space program run by NASA, a government agency, Sracic explained. “Over the years, NASA has begun contracting out its rocket program to private companies. One of those companies, Boeing, was supposed to transport our astronauts back and forth to the International Space Station on their Starliner capsule. When that capsule was found to have potential safety issues, trapping two U.S. astronauts on the space station for months, it is Musk’s SpaceX that will rescue them next February,” he said.
Polls clearly show that people are unhappy with the direction of the country. Failures such as this one by NASA, along with our crumbling infrastructure, make voters feel like we as a nation are falling apart.
The Biden-Harris administration has tried to appeal to voters by a combination of intense government spending on projects and industrial policy, which subsidizes private businesses. “And they are upset that the American people don’t properly credit them for their achievements, and sometimes blame the press for not covering the story,” Sracic said.
What the Harris campaign misses, however, is the hunger people have for innovation. “We don’t want to be as good as the Chinese. We want to be better,” Sracic said. “When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, we didn’t just want to launch a rival satellite. We wanted to go to the moon. That’s the America people want back again.”
Sracic said there are several ways that Musk and Trump are alike. “Trump could have taken his money and had a nice retirement. Instead, he entered politics and went from being an admired celebrity to being ridiculed and attacked. In the same way, Musk didn’t have to buy Twitter. In fact, it was by all accounts a poor financial decision. But Musk, like Trump, wanted, to quote Teddy Roosevelt, to be ‘the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.’”
Minutes after the interview, Musk took to the stage and was greeted with wild enthusiasm by the crowd, an enthusiasm he responded to by jumping in the air.
While many of the political elite still struggle to understand the connection two billionaires would have with the working and middle class of the country and why both Trump and Musk meet that moment, it is real and has much to do with being seen and respected by both of them.
Former President Bill Clinton said in a speech Sunday that Georgia nursing student Laken Riley’s murder would not have happened if the alleged killer, an illegal immigrant, was properly vetted. While campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris in the Peach State, Clinton accused her rival, former President Trump, of tanking negotiations over a bipartisan border compromise in Congress because he wanted it to be a campaign issue. He seemed to suggest that Riley’s death could have been avoided if Congress was able to pass a compromise – despite the alleged killer having already been vetted.
“She’s the only candidate who has actually endorsed a bill that would hold down immigration any given year to a certain point and then made sure we gave people a decent place to live, didn’t divide people from their children. And we did total vetting before people got in. Now, Trump killed the bill,” Clinton said.
Former President Bill Clinton’s speech in Columbus, Georgia, heavily featured the issue of the border. (Getty Images)
“You had a case in Georgia not very long ago, didn’t you? They made an ad about it, a young woman who had been killed by an immigrant. Yeah, well, if they’d all been properly vetted that probably wouldn’t have happened.”
“And America isn’t having enough babies to keep our populations up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work – there wouldn’t be a problem,” he added.
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), meanwhile, previously publicly confirmed that people who are encountered trying to cross the border illegally are vetted and screened. The alleged killer was encountered by CBP on Sept. 8, 2022, after entering near El Paso, Texas, and was “paroled and released for further processing.,” Fox News Digital was previously told.
The bipartisan border deal also only failed earlier this year, years after the Venezuelan national accused of killing Riley entered the country, still under the Biden administration’s watch.
Clinton later praised the current administration’s handling of the border and illegal immigration during a campaign stop in Georgia on Monday.
“For the last three years, the Biden-Harris administration has done increasingly tough things, trying to control the border. And illegal crossings have gone down every year for three years. Our friends in the other party don’t want to talk about that,” Clinton said.
It is notable that the former president’s speech largely focused on the border in Georgia, a state President Biden won by less than 1% in 2020.
The issue of illegal crossings at the border has become a political lightening rod in this election cycle. Democrats in tight races – both for the presidency and congressional and local positions – are emphasizing their support for tougher border security measures as Americans across the country have seen their area infrastructures strained by a deluge of people seeking shelter in the U.S.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event at East Carolina University, Sunday, Oct. 13, 2024, in Greenville, North Carolina. (AP Photo/David Yeazell)
However, Republicans have long criticized Democrats’ handling of border security, citing the record number of border crossings since Biden took office. They have continued to do so during the campaign by arguing Harris has failed to live up to her informal “border czar” title.
Despite several instances of high-profile use in the media, Clinton accused Republicans of bestowing the title on Harris – which he dismissed as inaccurate.
“They want to attack Kamala Harris and blame her for anything they managed to keep from happening. Like they claim she was the ‘border czar,’ that’s not what her jobs are,” Clinton said.
“Her job was to go down to these other countries that were sending us a lot of people and trying to get them, to enroll them in a legal process while they were still in the country so they wouldn’t be illegally trafficked, show up our border, had to be cared for on one side of it or another, and then we’d run the risk of having people get in here who weren’t properly vetted. That’s what she tried to do.”
Former President Bill Clinton also accused former President Trump of not actually wanting to fix the border.
He also accused former President Trump of working to derail the bipartisan border compromise that failed in the Senate, and which House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., deemed “dead on arrival” in the House.
“He said, ‘Oh my God, we can’t fix the border. What am I going to do for TV ads? Who am I going to demonize every day? I don’t get into politics to solve problems. I get in it to create problems and blame other people for doing,’” Clinton said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Trump campaign for a response.
The former president is on a campaign swing through rural America on behalf of Harris’ 2024 bid.
Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.
Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com
Vice President Kamala Harris confidently declared during her Univision town hall on Thursday night that she deserved the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee title she currently holds. The allegedly undecided voters who watched the Democrat and corporate media collusion to coup President Joe Biden out of power and replace him with Harris, however, aren’t so sure. One voter in the crowd at the Las Vegas event specifically asked the candidate to soothe his concerns that former President Joe Biden “was pushed aside” during Democrats’ 2024 presidential nomination process.
“I am honored to have earned the Democratic nomination. I am honored to have the endorsement of people from every walk of life,” Harris said, before commencing a rant about how former President Donald Trump would “terminate the Constitution of the United States.”
A voter tells Kamala he has big concerns about her shoving Biden aside and taking his place as the nominee without earning a single vote.
Contrary to her claims, Harris did nothing to “earn” her spot as Trump’s opponent in the race for the White House. Instead, she played a large role in the Democrats’ and the corporate media’s successful attempt to coup the flailing Biden out of future office.
When Biden was successfully couped out of the 2024 race, Harris was quickly handed a list of high-profile endorsements, something she made sure to mention in her town hall answer. But not even a good word from theClintons, Nancy Pelosi, former President Barack Obama, or NeverTrump Republicans can change Americans’ concerns that the VP and her Democrat allies altered the course of the 2024 election against voters’ wills.
Harris recently admitted during her “60 Minutes” sit down that “no one should be able to take for granted that they can just declare themselves a candidate and automatically receive support.”
“You have to earn it,” she explained.
KAMALA: “No one should be able to take for granted that they can just declare themselves a candidate and automatically receive support. You have to earn it.”
The government thinks people are stupid & can’t research for themselves. Well this woman 👇did! She went to the Federal Register and checked out Executive Orders that Presidents have signed, as well as those they revoked.
Nearly every time she opens her mouth, Harris lies to the people she claims she wants to represent. When she’s not spouting falsehoods that she knows her allies in the corporate media will refuse to fact-check, the VP is insulting voters everywhere by playing politics during devastating natural disasters and attempting to distance herself from the crises she helped create.
This young lady says a white liberal told her the MAGA crowd will never accept her
This is awesome. She says she left the plantation and if you don't like it, kick rocks
Just as the voter who questioned the circumstances surrounding Harris’ nomination suspected, the VP did nothing to “earn” his or any other Americans’ trust or vote. Instead, she’s done everything — including pledging to throw her political opponents in prison and trying to nuke the filibuster — to subdue those Americans’ voices and voting power.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Democrats are sounding the alarm that presidential nominee Kamala Harris is trailing Republican Donald Trump among the male vote – across the racial spectrum – by a lot with weeks to go before the election, with one donor asserting that “men are gone,” The Hill reported Friday.
My name is CJ Pearson. I’m 22 years old. And in 25 days, I’ll be joining millions of other young black men and voting for Donald J. Trump!
Recent polls show Harris trailing Trump by double digits in some battleground polls, while a New York Times/Siena poll found her trailing by 11 points nationally. In battleground Arizona, Harris trails Trump by 12 points among Hispanic males in the 18-34 age group and by 20 points among Hispanic males 35-49. Another poll showed Harris’ support among Black voters in Pennsylvania is lower than what President Joe Biden received when he won the state in 2020, and that’s being driven by Black men.
“I don’t think people understand what a big problem we have on our hands with men,” one Democrat strategist told The Hill. “Black men, Hispanic men, men in general.”
Given that Trump defeated Hillary Clinton among men by 11 points in 2016, some Democrats are pointing to misogyny, with one telling The Hill that “not everyone is ready to vote for a qualified woman to be president of the United States.”
Republicans say that’s a cheap excuse – male voters remember how Harris ran on a progressive, identity-driven platform in 2020.
“[T]hat approach just doesn’t have much appeal to a broader range of men voters,” Republican strategist Kevin Madden told The Hill. “Thinking you can solve that now by just saying, ‘I own a Glock,’ makes that effort even more difficult.”
To combat Harris’ icy draw with male voters, her campaign is sending running mate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to talk football and hunting in battleground Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin this weekend, The Hill reported. That comes after former President Barack Obama lectured Black men in Pennsylvania about their hesitation voting for Harris.
“Part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that,” he said in Pittsburgh on Thursday.
But one Democrat donor said it’s too little, too late for Harris in 2024.
As if supporting the chemical and surgical mutilation of children, murder of unborn babies until birth, and censorship of speech he dislikes wasn’t radical enough, Kamala Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is now backing another extreme Democrat policy: abolishing the Electoral College.
Speaking at a campaign fundraiser in Democrat-run California on Tuesday, the Minnesota governor endorsed getting rid of the system used to elect American presidents since the republic was created.
“All of us know the Electoral College needs to go. We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in,” Walz reportedly said before listing competitive areas in toss-up states he clearly would rather not campaign in.
It didn’t take long for the Harris-Walz campaign to tell their buddies at anti-truth CNN that this is just another time the governor “misspoke.” An anonymous campaign staffer claimed, the outlet says, that “Walz’s call for eliminating the Electoral College is not an official campaign position.”
OK, so who is running this campaign? The actual Democrat candidates whose names are on the 2024 ballot, or the unnamed staffers who keep claiming without evidence that neither of their top candidates backs the radical policies both have publicly endorsed.
While Walz is certainly known for lying his way through politics, one thing neither he nor Harris have been shy about is theirsupport for the most extreme positions adopted by today’s Democrat Party. That brings us back to leftists’ war against the Electoral College. Walz is not alone in wishing to eliminate this presidential election system that protects minority rights and prevents the United States from becoming a straight mobocracy. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris also said she was “open to the discussion” about getting rid of the Electoral College. Many Democrat-led states have signed onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”
The purpose of the Electoral College is to stave off what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” The system gives voters in rural, lesser-populated states a voice in presidential elections by limiting higher-populated states’ ability to solely determine their outcomes. That was also the original design of the U.S. Senate, and without such protections for smaller states, the U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified. That means without constitutional protections for lower-population states, there would be no United States at all.
As with many of America’s institutions, Democrats loathe the Electoral College because it deprives them of the unbridled power to silence all opposition. There’s no need to waste time campaigning to the rubes in “flyover country” if they can juice turnout in Democrat-heavy cities and states instead.
Walz’s fundraiser remarks are an outward display of this disdain. Democrats claim they’re fighting for the “forgotten” man and woman, all the while working to deprive millions of Americans of having a say in the policies that control their lives.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
At the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently said she would “engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘bold, persistent experimentation,’” as he had told the 1932 graduating class at Oglethorpe University. But she did not mention FDR’s vision of “remaking the world,” which included fundamentally changing “our popular economic thought” to see to “a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.” Instead, she said she would seek “practical solutions” and even declared, “I am a capitalist.” She said she’s “been working with entrepreneurs and business owners” for her “whole career.” (No one has yet even been able to verify Harris’ job at McDonald’s.)
She also professed her belief in “an active partnership between government and the private sector,” sounding much like FDR at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in September 1932. There he called for a new “economic constitutional order” built together by an “enlightened administration” and “enlightened businessmen” who together would “[adjust] production to consumption.”
Indeed, the desire to control production and fix prices was the aim of the largest contributor to the Roosevelt campaign, Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch. He got the wish he paid for, the NRA (National Recovery Administration). Similarly, Harris supporter and billionaire Mark Cuban is vying for the position as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and calling those who call Harris a Marxist “idiots.”
It was natural that Harris would quote Roosevelt. Biden referenced FDR in his speeches, especially in his last State of the Union address, when he invoked the “Four Freedoms,” which became the basis of his campaign (before it was usurped by Harris). The media hailed Barack Obama as the second coming of FDR, with the Nov. 24, 2008, Time magazine cover showing Obama posed as FDR in a convertible, clenching the characteristic cigarette-holder.
But as Ben Shapiro pointed out, Roosevelt’s “bold, persistent experimentation” actually prolonged the Depression. So also warned James Freeman. Relying on Amity Shlaes, Freeman noted that FDR’s impulsiveness made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead.
FDR’s Ignorance
Indeed, as I point out in my book, FDR was barely capable of keeping a sustained thought, flitting from one subject to another, like Harris does in “word salads.” He would tell two advisors with diametrically opposed solutions to compromise. He would incorporate contradictory statements into the same speech. He was ignorant about economics and made no effort to learn. Prejudices learned in childhood guided his foreign policy. Yet, he felt himself qualified to plan the economy and the lives of all Americans.
FDR experimented, indeed. He followed the economic theories of his Brain Trust (“cornfield philosophers” with Ph.D.s, as John T. Flynn called them). Instead of letting prices bottom out and the economy recover as it had after World War I, the Brain Trust ordered farmers late in the spring of 1933 to plow under crops and then taxed processors. The NRA set prices, driving out small businesses.
The result? Food shortages and increased prices for people already hungry.
Harris’ “first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging” by food companies promises the same results.
The Politically Connected
Another experimental idea was to confiscate the gold that American citizens had been “hoarding.” Average Americans who had tried to protect their investments were ordered, by threat of a 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to hand in gold bars and even Christmas gold coins. FDR then determined the price of gold, sometimes by multiples of “lucky numbers.” But Baruch kept his gold. Today, politically connected stock market speculators, e.g., those married to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, use advance knowledge about legislation to sell stocks at a profit.
Similarly, Harris’ economic policies will not provide the “opportunity” she promises to all equally. Just as FDR doled out federal funds to court votes, federal funds will be doled out selectively. She promises to increase the startup deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 and “provide low- and no-interest loans” to small businesses. On what basis? Will the loans be forgiven, just like student loans? As business owner Chad O. Jackson asks, is even a $5,000 loan needed to start a business?
Redistribution of Wealth
On MSNBC, after her speech, Harris said that she would cut the “red tape” involved in housing and low-income housing construction. She explained, “some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”
Out of this holistic mess we can gather that federal assistance will be contingent on where the housing is built (near public transit). Such stipulations indicate more“red tape” and an exacerbation of a housing crisis largely created by the government.
Her “$25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers,” she explains, would mean “creating the ability of that working person to build intergenerational wealth.”
Like FDR, she wants a redistribution of wealth. Her ideas about “intergenerational wealth,” referred to twice in her speech and then on MSNBC, echo Nikole Hannah-Jones’ argument for reparationsbecause of advantages in white “generational wealth.” Harris is a big fan of Hannah-Jones. She called Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project a “masterpiece” that told the “truth” of how “the very foundation of our country was built on the backs of enslaved people.” Which first-time homebuyers will get $25,000 from the government? Look at the model Evanston, Illinois, reparations program. Number one priority is “restorative housing.”
Democrats seem to think that quoting FDR will magically reassure voters. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz tried to salvage a disastrous debate by paraphrasing FDR’s nonsensical statement about having nothing to fear but “fear itself.”
FDR’s Real Legacy
History books, overwhelmingly written by FDR fans, quote his line about fear as if it were a gem of profundity and cast the blame for the extended Depression on other factors, such as obstructionist Republicans and judges. Some argue that FDR did not spend enough money. The fact that he was president during the crisis of depression and war, plus his long-established celebrity status as a Roosevelt, etched him into the national memory as a hero.
Historian David M. Kennedy admits that the Great Depression was “a catastrophic economic crisis that Roosevelt failed to resolve, at least not until World War II came along.” But FDR had “larger purposes.” In 1937, as a second depression hit, FDR worried that economic recovery might be “politically premature.” It might “dismantle the fragile edifice of reforms” he had instituted, and it might weaken the executive branch.
So, Roosevelt’s “reforms” and his power in the executive branch were more important than the well-being of Americans, whose life expectancy was declining. According to Kennedy, the president knew the Depression offered “a rare political opportunity, and Roosevelt made the most of it, to the nation’s lasting benefit.”
What is assumed to be the “lasting benefit” includes such things as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and banking deposit insurance. But these programs’ costs are borne by consumers. Americans’ taxes pay for deposit insurance. While “too big to fail” financial institutions were bailed out during the 2008-2009 recession, average Americans lost their homes. Under Democrat “Green New Deals,” politically connected companies, from Solyndra to Blue Whale Materials, get the loans and contracts. Obama’s make-work plan, with huge signs announcing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at sidewalks that went nowhere, mimicked the make-work boondoggling of the FDR administration. In both administrations, Washington, D.C., grew and prospered. FDR never really pulled the United States out of the Depression. Obama’s first-term recovery was the slowest one ever.
Like FDR, Kamala Harris is interested in growing the government for political power and transforming the country. If more Americans understood the real FDR, they would be able to see that they do have something to fear: another FDR-like administration.
Fox News’ Bill Melugin on Kamala Harris’ upcoming Arizona border trip as polls show more voters trust Trump on border policy. Former President Donald Trump holds a razor-thin two-point edge over Vice President Kamala Harris in battleground Arizona, according to a new public opinion poll. Fueling the former president’s margin appears to be support from voters age 50 and over.
Trump stands at 49% among likely voters in Arizona, with Harris at 47%, according to an AARP poll conducted Sept. 24-Oct. 1 and released on Tuesday. According to the survey, Green Party candidate Jill Stein grabs 1% support, with 3% undecided.
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall on Thursday in Tucson, Arizona. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
“Among voters 50+, Trump is ahead by 7 points, driven by a 14-point lead among voters 50-64,” the poll’s release highlights.
Harris holds a 4-point advantage among voters under 50, according to the survey, “while the race is a tossup with seniors.”
The poll also points to a gender gap in Arizona which favors Trump. The former president and Republican nominee is up 11-points over the vice president and Democratic nominee among men, but down only 6 points among female voters, the survey indicates.
While on the presidential campaign trail stopping in battleground states, Vice President Kamala Harris walks out into a packed rally in Glendale, Arizona, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The survey is the latest to indicate a margin of error race between Harris and Trump in Arizona, a state President Biden narrowly carried over Trump in the 2020 election.
Arizona’s one of seven crucial battlegrounds whose razor-thin margins decided Biden’s White House victory four years ago and are likely to determine if Harris or Trump win the 2024 election.
The survey was released on the eve of the kick-off of early in-person voting in Arizona.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump during their first and likely only presidential debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024. (Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The major party vice presidential nominees – Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota – each hold campaign events in Arizona on Wednesday. Harris returns to the state on Friday.
Besides being a crucial presidential swing state, Arizona is also holding one of a handful of competitive Senate elections that will decide if the GOP wins back the chamber’s majority. The AARP poll indicates Democratic Senate nominee Rep. Rueben Gallego holding a 51%-44% lead over Republican nominee Kari Lake, a former news anchor who narrowly lost the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election.
The AARP poll was conducted by the bipartisan polling team of Fabrizio Ward (Republican) & Impact Research (Democrat). The firms interviewed 1,358 likely voters in Arizona. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.
The reinvention of Vice President Kamala Harris in this election has been a thing to behold. In politics, candidates often reconstruct their records to secure votes, but Harris appears to have constructed an entirely mythical being. Once ranked to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and viewed as among the most liberal members of the Senate, Harris has sought to convince the public that she is actually a frack-loving, gun-toting, border-defending moderate. This last week, Harris sounded like she has hired Neo as her new campaign manager from the Matrix. When asked “what do you need, besides a miracle?” Neo replied “Guns. Lots of Guns.”
When CBS’s Bill Whitaker expressed shock at her gun-toting persona on the campaign trail, he asked if she actually fired it. Harris then did her best Rooster Cogburn, who noted “Well a gun that ain’t loaded, ain’t much good for nuthin.” Harris said that she has of course fired the gun in her trips to the firing range.
While she was referring to defending her home, Harris’s pledge to gun down intruders stands in stark contrast to her opposition to stand your ground laws. When she was the San Fransisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris was one of the signatories on the District Attorneys’ amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller — in support the handgun ban. The Court rejected the position of Harris and her fellow Democratic DAs and held that there is an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Harris’ true grit has delighted activists who are trying to lure male voters back to the Democratic Party. It may not be as thrilling to some in the Biden-Harris Administration including President Joe Biden.
As we have previously discussed, Biden and other Democrats have repeatedly denounced semiautomatics and some have suggested that, with a change in the Supreme Court, they might be banned. While the Administration has repeatedly called for a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America, President Biden has suggested in the past that he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.
In reference to guns that use 9mm ammunition, Biden declared “there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection.”
It is a call that has been echoed in Canada where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”
While the White House subsequently tried to walk back his comments, Biden saying there’s “no rational basis” to own 9mms makes the new Harris look . . . well . . . irrational. Both Biden and Harris have made sweeping, unsupportable statements about guns and constitutional protections. For example, despite being repeatedly corrected, President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Likewise, in support of the ban on AR-15s, Harris declared: “Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.”
Yet, courts likely would press a Harris administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military “assault weapons,” and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.
As discussed earlier, President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned “high-caliber weapons” like 9mm handguns and said “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”
Biden has not made any comment on Harris promising to blow away anyone coming into her house with her own Glock.
Yet, before condemning Harris for her implied threat to “blow lungs out of bodies,” Biden should again check both the constitutional and practical statements about handguns.
Gun experts mocked the notion that 9mm rounds blow organs out of bodies, but 9mm ammunition is the most popular handgun caliber in the U.S., with more than half of all handguns produced in 2019 using that round, according to Shooting Industry magazine. If Biden pushed a ban, he would target more than 40 percent of all pistols produced in the U.S., including many Glocks.
Again, in fairness to Harris, she is not the first politician to reinvent herself on the campaign trail. For now, Harris wants to be clear that “I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time.” For critics, the reload is a bit much given her record. Yet, in a close election, many activists want voters in states like Pennsylvania to know that Harris is the virtual Jed Clampett of the Beverly Hills set. Indeed, you get the impression that she would use her Glock to frack, if only she could.
While 9mm’s have been vilified by the Biden-Harris Administration, it just happens to be one of the most popular guns in the United States . . . and Harris wants people to know that she has one and knows how to use it.
As a politician reinventing herself in a higher-caliber image, she chose wisely. Indeed, other politicians may want to take heed and listen to Deputy Marshall Sam Gerard in U.S. Marshalls: “Get yourself a Glock and get rid of the nickel-plated sissy-pistol.”
The Largest-Ever Survey of American Gun Owners Finds That Defensive Use of Firearms Is Common
The results also confirm that “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines are widely used for lawful purposes.
The largest and most comprehensive survey of American gun owners ever conducted suggests that they use firearms in self-defense about 1.7 million times a year. It also confirms that AR-15-style rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, frequent targets of gun control legislation, are in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said is the test for arms covered by the Second Amendment.
The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners. Georgetown University political economist William English, who commissioned the survey as part of a book project, presents its major findings in a recent paper available on the Social Science Research Network.
The overall adult gun ownership rate estimated by the survey, 32 percent, is consistent with recent research by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. So is the finding that the rate varies across racial and ethnic groups: It was about 25 percent among African Americans, 28 percent among Hispanics, 19 percent among Asians, and 34 percent among whites. Men accounted for about 58 percent of gun owners.
Because of the unusually large sample, the survey was able to produce state-specific estimates that are apt to be more reliable than previous estimates. Gun ownership rates ranged from about 16 percent in Massachusetts and Hawaii to more than 50 percent in Idaho and West Virginia.
The survey results indicate that Americans own some 415 million firearms, including 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns. About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had ever owned AR-15s or similar rifles, which are classified as “assault weapons” under several state laws and a proposed federal ban. Such legislation also commonly imposes a limit on magazine capacity, typically 10 rounds. Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) said they had ever owned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Those results underline the practical challenges that legislators face when they try to eliminate “assault weapons” or “large capacity” magazines. The survey suggests that up to 44 million AR-15-style rifles and up to 542 million magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds are already in circulation.
Those are upper-bound estimates, since people who reported that they ever owned such rifles or magazines may have subsequently sold them. But even allowing for some double counting, these numbers suggest how unrealistic it is to suppose that bans will have a significant impact on criminal use of the targeted products. At the same time, widespread ownership of those products by law-abiding Americans makes the bans vulnerable to constitutional challenges.
Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder.
Owners of “large capacity” magazines likewise cited a variety of lawful uses. Recreational target shooting (64 percent) was the most common, followed by home defense (62 percent), hunting (47 percent), defense outside the home (42 percent), and competitive shooting (27 percent).
Politicians who favor a 10-round limit argue that no one except for criminals and police officers really needs a larger magazine. Yet respondents described various situations, based on their personal experiences, where “it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds.” These ranged from muggings and home invasions by multiple attackers to encounters with wild animals.
Maybe these gun owners were wrong to think the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading was important in those situations. But judging from the responses that English quotes, they had cogent reasons for believing that. Bans on “large capacity” magazines routinely exempt current and retired police officers, on the theory that they are especially likely to face threats (such as multiple assailants) that may require more than 10 rounds. It strains credulity to suggest that ordinary citizens never face such threats, and this survey provides further reason to doubt that assumption.
Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.
That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.
About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner’s home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).
Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that “guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English’s figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million.
Although less than one in 10 of the defensive gun uses identified by English’s survey happened in public places, most of the respondents (56 percent) said they had carried handguns for self-defense. More than a third (35 percent) said they did so “sometimes,” “often,” or “always or almost always.” About the same percentage reported that they had wanted to carry handguns in circumstances where local rules prohibited it.
At the time of the survey, the ability to legally carry handguns in public varied widely across jurisdictions. Some states had highly restrictive laws that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry permit applications, a policy that the Supreme Court recently deemed unconstitutional. Even after that ruling, some states plan to enforce licensing requirements and/or location restrictions that make it difficult for residents to carry handguns for self-defense. Depending on your perspective, the results of this survey demonstrate either the wisdom or the injustice of that strategy.
English’s survey also asked about incidents in which respondents believed that the visible presence of a gun had neutralized a potentially violent threat. He says that category would include, for example, “a situation in which a combative customer calmed down after noticing that shop owner had a handgun on his or her hip, or a situation in which a trespasser cooperatively left a property when questioned by a landowner who had a rifle slung over his or her shoulder, or a situation in which a friend showed up with a firearm to help [defuse] a dangerous situation.”
Nearly a third of gun owners reported such incidents, and some said they had witnessed them more than once. English says the results imply “approximately 1.5 million incidents per year [in] which the presence of a firearm deterred crime.” That estimate, of course, depends on the respondents’ subjective impressions, so it is probably less reliable than the estimate of explicit defensive uses, which itself is open to the usual questions about the accuracy of respondents’ interpretations and recollections. But even taken with the appropriate measure of salt, the results suggest that competing studies may grossly underestimate the defensive value of guns.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did the interview with Fox News his running mate never will, but instead of moving on from his record of dishonesty, he had another brutal run-in with the truth. On Sunday, Walz joined Shannon Bream for the network’s flagship Sunday political program, where Bream grilled the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee on a range of issues from the serial falsehoods about his personal life to Iran. ABC News characterized the interview as a “cleanup” operation. It came days after the debate with Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, when Walz celebrated friendships with school shooters and struggled to explain his lie about where he was during the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square. Walz has also previously exaggerated his military service and wrongly claimed his own children were conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF).
“What do you say to the American people who think, ‘I don’t know that I can trust this guy with all those modifications to be the potential commander-in-chief of this country?’” asked Bream.
“I think they heard me,” Walz said, “… and I got to be honest with you, Shannon. I don’t think people care whether I used IUI or IVF when we talk about this. What they understand is Donald Trump would resist those things.”
Bream, however, corrected Walz on former President Donald Trump’s platform, which explicitly endorses IVF. “If we’re going to deal in truth,” Bream said, “both the president, the former president and his nominee have said they are very supportive of IVF.”
Earlier in the interview, Bream pressed Walz about the incumbent immigration crisis that is unfolding under Vice President Harris, the administration’s “border czar.”
“She has policies that make a difference,” Walz said. “Her border policies are the most strongest, the fairest we’ve seen.”
“Governor, you know a lot of people, including your own party, would not join that statement,” Bream said, in light of the fact that more than 10 million illegals having entered the United States under President Joe Biden.
Walz pivoted to complain about Republicans in Congress rejecting a bill, negotiated by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., that would have codified an open border. “This is a real bill that has bipartisan support. It has the experts on board, and it starts to tackle these issues,” Walz said. The bill, however, also grants asylum for all, with 5,000 crossings permitted on a daily basis.
“That piece of legislation,” Bream said, “does … include the wall. … You’ve disparaged that. I mean, the vice president has as well. So, I don’t know if she really intends to move forward with that.”
In fact, here’s what Harris wrote about the border wall in her 2019 book, The Truths We Hold, when recounting the 2018 budget debate over the barrier:
A useless wall on the southern border would be nothing more than a symbol, a monument standing in opposition to not just everything I value, but to the fundamental values upon which this country was built. … How could I vote to build what would be little more than a monument, designed to send the cold, hard message “KEEP OUT”?
Walz ran into another fact-check when he blamed the death of a Georgia woman on Republican abortion laws. “States like Georgia force women to cross the border and then we have a death of Amber Thurman,” Walz said. “Trying to cut hairs on an issue on this is not where the American public is at. They want the restoration of Roe versus Wade. Vice President Harris said she would sign it.”
Bream clarified the Democrats’ support for on-demand abortion goes well beyond the precedent previously established in Roe v. Wade, and then corrected the record on Thurman’s death.
“What her family has said is it was a complication from an abortion pill that she received, and she didn’t get proper care when she went to a Georgia hospital, which had multiple opportunities to intervene there,” Bream said. “Her own attorney, the family’s attorney, says it wasn’t the Georgia law, it was the hospital.”
“I’m a knucklehead at times,” Walz said in last week’s CBS debate with a performance so disastrous, the writers of Saturday Night Live (SNL) mocked him this weekend.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Vance demolished Walz in the last debate, and all he used was the truth, while Walz fumbled under the weight of his lies.
Tim Walz melts down at debate when pressed to explain his China trip, admits he ‘misspoke’
By Mariane Angela – Oct 2, 2024
When confronted with the discrepancy by the host, Walz responded with a lengthy discourse on his background and various accomplishments. (Daily Caller News Foundation) — Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz faltered when pressed to clarify his previous claims that he was present in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 during the vice presidential debate against Republican Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. Despite earlier claims of being in the region during the pivotal events of spring 1989, credible reports from Minnesota Public Radio and other outlets have shown that Walz did not travel to Asia until several months later, as pointed out by the debate host. When confronted with the discrepancy by the host, Walz responded with a lengthy discourse on his background and various… (READ MORE)
A.F. Branco Cartoon – After Kamala’s Administration blew all the FEMA money on illegals, she’s offering $750.00 to the victims of Helene. Billions have gone to Ukraine, and now millions are going to Lebanon.
Smash-Mouth Marxism: Kamala Harris Brags Online About Sending $157 Million to Lebanon As Southeast US Suffers Through Historic Flooding and FEMA Admits It Blew Money on Illegals
By Jim Hoft – Oct. 6, 2024
This is what you call smash-mouth Marxism. They mock you in your suffering because they know they can. As long as elections can be stolen this is what you can expect from your ‘representative’ government. On Saturday, Kamala Harris bragged online about the Biden regime sending $157 million to war-ravaged Lebanon. She then added that over $385 million has gone to assist Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon over the past year. (READ MORE)
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
It’s not exactly breaking news that MSNBC is dedicated to advancing Democrat Party power, but it is truly fascinating to witness one of its producers so openly disdain the channel and its viewers.
On Thursday journalist James O’Keefe released another sting operation-style video that shows a man identified as MSNBC producer Basel Hamden chatting with a woman who is surreptitiously recording the conversation. Hamden talks at length about MSNBC as less of a news operation and more of a hype machine for the national Democrat agenda, with amplifying party messaging as its sole purpose.
When asked about the ways MSNBC has been able to “help” Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, Hamden says, “They’re doing all they can,” adding, “What her message of the day is, is their message of the day.”
He says MSNBC’s reporters and anchors are “often saying the same exact things” as Democrat Party leaders. “This news network is indistinguishable from the party,” he says. When Hamden’s undercover interlocutor calls that “bad journalism,” he replies, “They’ve made their viewers dumber over the years.”
BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign
During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan (@BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC) was asked what the network has done to assist… pic.twitter.com/y9Yk8o1UX7
To be fair to the poor schlub, he showed some loyalty to his employer by accusing MSNBC’s competitor, Fox News, of producing “racist propaganda.” So at least he has that going for him.
I’m sure this is a highly embarrassing affair for Hamden, but he should know that he’s done a good thing, even if it was unintentional. He told the truth out loud about MSNBC’s real purpose (aiding Democrats) and the real consequence of its programming (dumber viewers).
Disrupting communications is a military strategy that has been deployed during wars throughout history. It’s also what the federal government has done to rural Americans as part of its war on Elon Musk, a tech billionaire whose support of free speech has put him at odds with the Biden administration and other powerful Democrats. The decision to cut rural Americans off from broadband communications had already been strongly criticized as harmful, politically motivated, and completely without merit even before Category 4 Hurricane Helene wrought destruction last week in some of the most remote areas of Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Now the FCC’s war on Musk may have turned deadly. The death toll is already at 138 Americans across six states, with many hundreds still missing. Among the serious problems facing rural victims is an inability to communicate with potential rescuers as roads are washed out, telecommunications are down, electricity is out, and people are facing fatal flooding.
It didn’t have to be this way.
In 2020, the Federal Communications Commission awarded Musk’s Starlink an $885.5 million award to help get broadband access to 642,000 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. A subsidiary of SpaceX, Starlink is a satellite internet system delivering high-speed internet to anyone on the planet. The plan would work out to less than $1,400 per linkup, same-day delivery of the necessary hardware, and only a few hours to get up and running.
Some 19,552 households and businesses in North Carolina would have had access to Starlink if they desired. Of the 21 worst-hit counties in North Carolina, the FCC-funded Starlink program would have served all or part of 17 of them, according to multiple officials. The FCC suddenly canceled that grant in 2022, a few months before Joe Biden suggested that the federal government find ways to go after Musk, a former Democrat who began criticizing some of the Democrat Party’s support of censorship of and lawfare against political opponents. After a challenge from SpaceX, the FCC reaffirmed its decision to cancel the award in 2023.
Democrat FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel implausibly claimed to believe that Starlink couldn’t provide the service it had promised, a claim that didn’t pass the smell test for many industry observers at the time it was made. Starlink and its military counterpart were in wide use by other government programs. What’s more, at this moment Donald Trump and Elon Musk are rushing Starlink kits to remote North Carolina on their own. So are other Americans doing relief operations. And the White House is claiming it is also going to send Starlink kits to the area.
“The @FCC would rather Americans die, than approve a very inexpensive way to connect people in disaster areas. They should be ashamed,” Maye Musk, the mother of Elon Musk, said on X. “Biden, Harris and the FCC are also punishing people in disaster areas and rural areas. Shame on them,”she added.
Other agencies also joined Democrats’ anti-Musk efforts. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the Department of Justice pursued multiple attacks on Musk and his companies. The Federal Trade Commission began harassing X by making myriad questionable document demands, including requests for information on the journalists who worked on the project exposing how previous leaders of Twitter had colluded with the federal government to censor American speech and debate. The National Labor Relations Board went after Tesla over its dress code. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are also investigating Musk and his companies.
The FCC’s politically motivated cancellation of the contract in 2022 left rural Americans with no options.
The cancellation “is without legal justification,” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who voted against canceling the award, said at the time. “[I]t will leave rural Americans waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide.”
The FCC’s political action against Musk isn’t the only Biden administration action harming Americans who were ravaged by Helene. Joe Biden named Kamala Harris the Broadband Czar in April 2021 and placed her in charge of a $100 billion slush fund for broadband projects. At the Commerce Department, a $42.5 billion subset of that program was launched in 2021, with guidance written to limit the ability of Starlink to compete for contracts. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program was supposed to fund programs in all 50 states. It has been a complete failure.
More than three years later, not a single rural American family or business has been connected to broadband through the program. At best the groundwork will begin four years after the launch and won’t finish until 2030 at the earliest. For that much taxpayer money, Starlink could be provided to 140 million people, and without the wait, observers noted.
The FCC’s anti-Musk efforts come at the same time that the Democrat-run agency fast-tracked a shocking application by a group backed by the Democrat Soros family to purchase more than 200 radio stations across the country. Federal law requires applicants with significant foreign ownership, as the Soros group has, to go through significant paperwork and security reviews prior to receiving licenses for radio stations. They didn’t follow the law and yet the FCC fast-tracked the approval for the first time in its history.
“Your last name should not determine how the government treats you, and very clearly that’s what is happening here,” said Carr of the FCC’s politicized actions on behalf of the Soros group and against the Musk group.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ battleground border state visit on Friday is being panned by House Republicans whose districts represent the front lines of the current migrant crisis. At issue is Harris’ campaign stop in Douglas, a border town in the key state of Arizona, that comes less than six weeks before voters head to the polls to pick the next president.
“I have been consistent in my willingness to work with anyone – on either side of the aisle – to address the crisis at the border,” Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., told Fox News Digital. “However, Vice President Harris’ visit to the border smells like nothing more than a photo opportunity to try and score political points.”
Ciscomani is just one of several GOP lawmakers from border districts who are accusing Harris of caring more about optics than results. They have long blamed the Biden administration for the record number of illegal border crossings since Democrats took office, and Harris’ handling of the border is one of Republicans’ most significant political cudgels against her.
Reps. Darrell Issa and Juan Ciscomani are among those who criticized Vice President Harris’ border visit. (Getty Images)
“For three and a half years, the Vice President has been in a position to address this crisis, but instead she has ignored it,” Ciscomani said. “As a result, border districts, like mine, have suffered under her lack of leadership.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., whose San Diego-anchored district includes about 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, suggested the border crisis is a “feature, not a flaw” of the administration’s policies.
“What followed? America’s deadliest drug crisis ever, the unprecedented trafficking of women and girls, and 10 million illegals allowed to enter the country and stay,” Issa said. “Kamala owes America an apology, not a photo op.”
Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital that she believes Harris’ trip is purely about playing politics.
“It’s no coincidence that this last-minute visit comes as polls show Harris struggling in Arizona,” she said. “Despite the photo ops, the fact remains [that] under Harris’s watch, we’ve faced an unprecedented border crisis, a stark contrast to the secure border we had under President Trump.”
Rep. Monica De La Cruz, whose district is also on the border, similarly accused Harris of staging a photo opportunity. (Getty Images)
The 2024 election has seen a paradigm shift in how Democrats are discussing the border. Candidates on the left who need to appeal to moderate and independent voters – a contingent that includes Harris – have emphasized the need for border security. Democrats have also pointed to President Biden’s executive actions on asylum that preceded a drop-off in the number of illegal border crossings between ports of entry in recent months. Encounters at the southwestern border were lower in July than during former President Trump’s final month in office.
On an annual basis, however, Biden’s tenure has seen more illegal crossings – with 2022 seeing a record 2.2 million border encounters. Crossings also soared between 2020 and 2021 when Biden took office and rolled back several of Trump’s more restrictive border policies. But rather than the issue uniting both parties, it has split Democrats and Republicans on how best to approach that goal.
Harris has frequently touted her support for a border security plan that was tanked earlier this year by Republican lawmakers, who said it did not do enough to secure the border and also codified policies they opposed. Democrats accuse the GOP of killing the legislation because it was opposed by former President Trump.
Asked for comment on Republicans’ attacks against Harris visit, a campaign spokesperson pointed Fox News Digital to a senior Harris campaign official’s comments that previewed the vice president’s Friday remarks.
Harris is expected to lay into her opponent, former President Trump, during her border visit. (Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
She’s expected to accuse Trump of blocking progress on border security for political gain and advocate for tougher border security measures. The Harris campaign also pointed Fox News Digital to a statement on her visit that said Harris will “outline her plan to deliver real solutions on border security and the fentanyl crisis – unlike Donald Trump, who did nothing to fix our broken immigration system, made things worse, and killed bipartisan border solutions to play politics.”
Harris has not visited the border since 2021, a trip that came shortly after she was tasked with spearheading a solution to the root causes of mass migration, which earned her the informal title of “border czar.”
The Trump campaign said in its own statement on Harris’ Friday trip: “Kamala’s last-minute trip to the border and empty calls for more security 39 days before the election will not rewrite the past 44 months of chaos, crime, and bloodshed caused by her open border policy.”
Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.
Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com
Kamala Harris speaks at an event hosted by The Economic Club of Pittsburgh at Carnegie Mellon University on Sept. 25, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Jeff Swensen via Getty Images)
An October surprise is usually defined as the well-known (and more often left-wing) tactic of manufacturing or unloading a news story right before voting to surprise a rival without allowing them time sufficiently to respond or recover.
Think of the last-minute bombshell disclosure, five days before the 2000 election, that candidate George W. Bush had been cited for drunk driving over a quarter-century earlier. That surprise may have cost Bush the popular vote that year.
Sometimes, an incumbent can use his powers of office to warp the election. President Joe Biden benefited before the 2022 midterm elections when leftist activists leaked the impending Supreme Court repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Closer to the actual voting, Biden sought to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt owed to the federal government. He also began draining the strategic petroleum reserve to lower gas prices (as he is doing again this election year, as well). No wonder the predicted Republican midterm red wave ended up a tiny ripple.
More often, October surprises are more ad hominem and unleashed on a rival candidate’s supposedly previously undisclosed failings. At the end of the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton’s team leaked news of her purchased bogus “Steele Dossier” as supposed proof of Trump-Russian “collusion.”
On the eve of the last 2020 presidential debate, Biden delegated now Secretary of State Antony Blinken to work with former interim CIA Director Mike Morrell to round up “51 former intelligence authorities.” They were to lie that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was likely a product of a Russian intelligence “disinformation” operation. The ruse worked—turning potential proof of Biden family corruption into a replay of the fake 2016 Trump-Russian collusion hoax.
This time around, apparently the Harris campaign could not wait until October or early November to spring their surprises. Perhaps the Harris campaign’s impatience is due to Democratically inspired radical changes to state voting laws. Remember that in 2020, under the cover of COVID-19, Democrat legal teams got state laws altered to institutionalize early and mail-in voting in key states. Those changes reduced our once iconic Election Day into a mere construct when only 30% of voters cast their ballots. So, former October surprises—both the embarrassing disclosures and the use of incumbency to warp the election—are now becoming earlier and more frequent preemptive “September” shocks.
Suddenly, the Federal Reserve Bank, just 50 days before the election, decided that interest rates that spiraled under Biden-Harris in reaction to their hyperinflation right now need to be slashed—as supposed proof that the Biden-Harris inflation is now over, and the economy needs a sudden revving up.
Just as abruptly, on Sept. 23, just 43 days before Election Day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was flown by the Biden-Harris administration—at U.S. government expense—into the United States. More amazingly, Zelenskyy landed first in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania, where most observers believe the currently deadlocked election will be decided. No surprise, Zelenskyy immediately toured a Pennsylvania munitions plant making artillery shells likely destined for his Ukraine—at a time when the state’s voters are concerned about job losses. The Harris-Biden administration was sending the not-so-subtle message that providing billions of dollars in arms to Zelenskyy’s Ukraine translates into jobs for voting Pennsylvanians.
But that was not all to this crass September surprise. In an interview with the left-wing, pro-Biden-Harris New Yorker magazine, Zelenskyy plunged right into the current neck-and-neck presidential race. He trashed Harris’ rival, former President Donald Trump, as someone who “doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how.” Not satisfied with that putdown, the Ukrainian president hit even harder Trump’s running mate and vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, as “dangerous” and “too radical.”
The left still talks nonstop about nonexistent 2016 Trump-Russia “collusion” and equally bogus 2020 Trump-Russian “disinformation.” Yet it would be hard to define any clearer “election interference” than the current Zelenskyy surprise. After all, has any vice president incumbent running for president ever flown in a foreign leader on a U.S. military jet to the one key U.S. state that will likely decide the impending election?
And furthermore, has any paraded him around that state’s weapons export plant while he trashed current Vice President Kamala Harris’ two opponents with invectives like “dangerous” and “radical?”
And why else was Zelenskyy’s Pennsylvania trip arranged by the Biden-Harris administration but to coincide with the traditional dates that mail-in and early-voting balloting start? Yet were the Zelenskyy sudden Pennsylvania drop-in and his crude domestic politicking and trashing of Trump and Vance all that wise? After all, Harris’ opponent Trump had just escaped an assassination attempt from a pro-Ukrainian gunman furious over Trump’s purported preference for a negotiated settlement to the 30-month-long, 1-million-casualties war.
Add it all up, and sometimes September surprises backfire—when they appear to voters as crude and insulting rather than just conniving.
Vice President Kamala Harris will use her short appearance in Atlanta Friday afternoon to falsely blame Georgia’s lifesaving pro-life law for the deaths of at least two women. The untimely passings of Amber Thurman, Candi Miller, and their babies, however, had nothing to do with the Peach State’s protections and everything to do with Democrats and corporate media’s dangerous abortion rhetoric.
Shortly after the articles’ publication, Harris posted a four-part statement to X falsely claiming, “Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care.”
“Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again,” she wrote. “Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.”
States that limit when life in the womb can be ended do not criminalize treatments for spontaneous loss or complications like those experienced by Thurman and Miller. In fact, every single pro-life law — including the one in Georgia — contains carveouts for abortion procedures like dilation and curettage when they are deemed necessary to save the life of the woman.
Yet, Democrats, with the help of their media allies like ProPublica, routinely assert that doctors are no longer permitted to treat complications, ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriages.
As SBA Pro-Life America’s State Policy Director Katie Danielnoted in a press conference Friday before Harris’ speech, the exceptions built into red-state legislation limiting abortion “rarely changed from the laws pre-Dobbs to the laws post-Dobbs.”
“The test used — reasonable medical judgment in most states, good faith judgment in others — is the test that was used before and is the test that’s used in many others,” she said, noting that physicians had no problems interpreting those exceptions for years, but “somehow, mysteriously two years ago, they stopped being familiar with that test.”
Harris, like many Democrats in recent years, has made abortion a hallmark of her 2024 campaign. She’s tried multiple times on her short time on the campaign trail to claim that Trump has deceived voters by, as ABC News put it, “flip-flopping” on signing federal abortion limits into law, even though the Republican’s 2024 abortion platform explicitly states decisions about ending life in the womb should be left “up to the states.”
It’s Harris’ extremism disguised as ambiguity, however, that is deceiving voters, who are more pro-life than politicians and the media credit them for. She’s refused numerous times to say whether she supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and lied about the prevalence of late-term abortions. Harris has long lamented life-saving laws and even co-sponsored the original version of the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which seeks to codify abortion through birth. She’s even called the pills that caused Thurman and Miller’s deaths “safe and effective.”
Harris’ radical abortion rhetoric is tricking women everywhere into believing pro-lifers are gatekeeping maternal care. Because of her lies, women like Thurman and Miller believe the abortion pills made even more readily available to them under the Biden administration’s expansions will do them no harm. In reality, the pills can cost them their lives.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign suggested on Friday that the “toxic positions” former President Donald Trump shared at the debate in Philadelphia earlier this week are the reason he doesn’t want to debate again. Harris called for another debate after her performance on Tuesday night exceeded expectations, but Trump shot down the idea on Thursday, saying there’s no reason to debate the vice president again.
“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate.”
“THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” he said, after participating in the debate against President Joe Biden in June and the one against Harris on Tuesday.
In a Friday memo obtained by The Hill, Ian Sams, Harris campaign senior spokesperson and senior adviser for rapid response, outlined “5 toxic positions Trump took” and claimed those positions will come back to haunt him in November.
Sams also claimed Harris appeared “presidential” and was “in total command” during the debate.
“While much of the focus the past few days has rightly been on Vice President Harris’ total and complete shutdown of Trump, it shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle that Trump took at least five toxic positions on the debate stage,” Sams wrote.
Trump’s five “toxic positions,” according to the Harris campaign official, include:
Refusing to say if he would veto a national abortion ban
Denying the outcome of the 2020 election
Saying “we” when referring to the protesters who breached the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021
Saying he had “concepts of a plan” to repeal ObamaCare
Not saying if he wanted Ukraine to win its fight against Russia
On Thursday, Harris reportedly ridiculed Trump at a North Carolina campaign rally for saying he had “concepts of a plan.”
In the memo, Sams said “Trump should have to answer for” his “toxic positions.”
“Trump doesn’t want to have to account for them on another debate stage, but he should have to say what the ‘concepts’ are that he is considering repealing [ObamaCare],” he wrote.
Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Dick Cheney teams up with Harris to defeat Trump. Just a few months ago, She and the Democrats hated Him, calling him Darth Cheney and labeling him a warmonger. Now they love him.
Disgusting! Warmonger VP Dick Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris, Says Trump Greatest Ever Threat to Republic
By Ken Kew – The Gateway Pundit – 09/7/24
The former vice president and architect of America’s foreign wars, Dick Cheney, has endorsed Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. In a statement on Friday, the 83-year-old argued Trump was the greatest ever threat to the American republic. “In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said. “He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him,” he continued. “He can never be trusted with power again.” READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Over 25 Kamala Harris lies were counted during her debate with Trump. She lied about Trump’s stand on abortion, IVF, his Bloodbath comment (debunked), his “good people on both sides” comment (debunked), and his connection with Project 2025, just to name a few. ABC was quick to fact-check Trump numerous times, even when he was right, but failed to fact-check Harris’s lies not once.
Trump Campaign Fact-Checks Kamala Harris Point by Point After Biased Moderators Fail to Call Out Her Lies During Debate — Here are the Details
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Sept 11, 2024
The Trump campaign is taking matters into its own hands after a blatantly biased performance by the debate moderators, who failed to hold Kamala Harris accountable for her numerous lies. Last night’s debate featured Kamala Harris dodging responsibility for her failed policies while a complicit moderator allowed her to escape scrutiny in yet another display of blatant media bias. Despite the stacked odds, President Donald Trump emerged victorious, offering clear solutions while exposing Kamala Harris’s disastrous record and long list of lies. The debate was a glaring example of how far the radical left is willing to go to distort the truth. Kamala Harris, with the full support of a biased moderator, attempted to rewrite history while pushing dangerous, far-left policies. But the facts speak for themselves. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
The border czar has some explaining to do. But don’t count on a complicit corporate media to ask Democrat Party presidential hopeful Kamala Harris to answer questions about the mayhem the Biden-Harris administration has caused with their deadly open border policies.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, intends to press the point, however. His office has detailed the “breadth and depth” of the destruction in a new 36-page white paper titled, “America Invaded: How the Biden-Harris Border Crisis is Fundamentally Transforming the United States.” The Texas Republican and his constituents in the Lone Star State’s 21st Congressional District have lived with the damage for nearly four years, as have so many other places in the nation dealing with a tsunami of illegal immigrants that has brought the border to their backyards.
“This document lays out the breadth and depth of the continuing damage to our country — which has morphed from a strong nation built on the rule of law that welcomes immigrants in accordance with that law, to a lawless, dangerous, and unrecognizable collection of individuals without common bond,” Roy said in a press release announcing the report’s release.
My team compiled a summary of the Border Invasion perpetrated against the American people by the Harris-Biden regime – and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Our country is being torn apart – from dangerous fentanyl to lawless criminals, from known terrorists to death and abuse… pic.twitter.com/Sx0JwITFRR
The numbers are breathtaking. According to the report, Since President Joe Biden and his No. 2 took office, more than 8.5 million illegal immigrants have crossed the U.S. southwest border, approximately the population of the state of Virginia. The Biden-Harris catch and release program has sent at least 5.6 million illegal aliens into the interior of the country, while some 1.9 million “got-aways” have slipped the attention of “distracted and exhausted” U.S. Border Patrol agents. All told, more than 7 million illegals have poured into the United States on the Biden administration’s watch.
‘Terrible Scourge’
Deadly fentanyl, horrific crimes, and a mountain of dead bodies have accompanied wave after wave of illegal immigrants. According to the report, fentanyl drug overdoses (poisonings) claimed the lives of 75,000 Americans in 2023 — “an average of over 200 deaths a day.” The epidemic is brought to you by the Mexican drug cartels and killer chemicals made in China smuggled across the border.
“Almost all of us know someone — a family member, a friend, or a neighbor — who has been affected by the terrible scourge of opioid overdose, especially from fentanyl,” said Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes following last year’s First Regional Family Summit on Fentanyl. “These deaths have torn apart families, schools and communities, and we grieve for the loss of so much life, talent and goodness.” Utah alone counted 541 dead from drug overdoses in 2022, with opioids like fentanyl accounting for three-quarters of the fatalities, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
There are thousands more victims of myriad crimes, including some of the more heinous homicides and assaults on record, Roy’s report points out. Consider the families of Laken Riley,Kayla Hamilton, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was reportedly lured under a bridge, assaulted for two hours and strangled to death by two illegal immigrants. The little girl’s body was found bound and stripped in a Houston bayou.
“While Border Patrol has intercepted increasing numbers of criminals, DHS [Department of Homeland Security whistleblowers revealed on August 11, 2024, that as many as 950,000 violent criminals have gone unidentified,” the Roy report states. “In some cases, CBP did not collect DNA for nearly 70% of illegal border crossers.”
Welcoming Terrorists
On Sept. 10, 2001, the nation was ill-prepared for the hell that was about to hit it. The border crisis, security officials warn, has potentially planted the seeds of another 9/11.
As the Roy report notes, terrorists are “streaming cross the border in record numbers.” In fiscal year 2023, 169 known or suspected terrorists were arrested at the southern border. How many “got-away” terrorists slipped through is anyone’s guess.
“At least 99 illegal aliens on the terror watchlist were released into the U.S. after being apprehended at the southern border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023,” the report notes.
“Alarmingly, individuals and groups with known or suspected ties to terrorism have capitalized on our porous border by smuggling foreign nationals, some of whom originate from terror-prone countries, into the U.S.,” the report continues.
Meanwhile, drug cartels have been emboldened. According to Roy’s report, the criminal operations are hauling in more than “$13 billion a year off human trafficking alone.” The abuses are horrifying. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Management Alert issued last month showed the Biden-Harris administration has lost track of up to several hundred thousand illegal immigrant children, many at risk of being victims of “trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor.”
“Mexican cartels have joined forces with Chinese crime syndicates to produce fentanyl and traffic it into American communities,” the white paper states.
‘Absolutely Bizarre’
None of this should be surprising after Biden rolled out the welcome mat for illegal immigrants even before he took office. In one of his first orders of business, Biden pledged a 100-day moratorium on deportations and moved to protect the sanctuary cities — that have been invaded by the illegal immigrants — from ICE and other federal law enforcement authorities. Early on, Biden urged illegals seeking asylum to “surge” to the U.S.-Mexico border.
“We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million,” Biden said at an Iowa campaign event in 2019, CNN reported. “The idea that a country of 330 million people cannot absorb people who are in desperate need and who are justifiably fleeing oppression is absolutely bizarre.”
Contrary to the gaslighting by Democrats and their allies in corporate media, Biden made his vice president “border czar” and placed her in charge of investigating the “root causes of migration,” which, it turns out, are Biden-Harris border policies.
As illegal immigration became a top concern of the American people — and a significant political liability for Biden and Harris, who stepped over the octogenarian’s political corpse on the way to the Democratic presidential nomination — the gruesome duo have awkwardly tried to distance themselves from a crisis of their own making. Even Democrat Party press agent CNN has had to begrudgingly report that the new “Build that Wall” Kamala Harris running for president sounds nothing like the sanctuary candidate for president in 2019 and the vice president under Biden.
Paying the Cost
The Biden-Harris border debacle has come with a huge cost for the U.S. taxpayer. The Roy report shows the tab for the southwest border states has been draining, with Texas alone forced to spend $13 billion on border security initiatives “to do the job the federal government refuses to do.” Biden has fought Texas’ efforts to secure its border in federal court. As of January, “60 Texas counties have invoked disaster declarations over the border crisis, and 50 Texas counties have passed resolutions declaring an invasion,” according to the report.
“What many people fail to comprehend is that Texas is facing a real threat to the safety and security of our citizens,” Kinney County Attorney Brent Smith told the Center Square. “This is not an immigration policy debate playing out but a constitutional threat to the sovereignty of Texas.”
The border crisis is gobbling up billions more dollars in lodging costs for illegals, the report notes. Sanctuary city New York City alone has spent more than $1 billion housing the influx of immigrants. And the health care system, public schools and social service agencies are facing unanticipated costs in caring for illegal aliens. A House committee report earlier this year on the impact of illegal immigrants on social services asserts nearly 60 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants “use one or more major welfare programs.”
‘Flames Have Spread’
The long list of victims include illegal immigrants themselves. In fiscal year 2022, according to the report, a record 853 foreign nationals died attempting to cross the southwest border. That number includes the deadliest human smuggling case in U.S. history when 53 people, including eight children, were “cooked alive” in a tractor-trailer beneath the San Antonio sun.
Last year, there were more than 8,000 migrant deaths recorded on migratory routes worldwide, the deadliest year in history, according to the Migration Data Portal.
Sadly, the report asserts, the invasion has been carried out in the name of naked politics. America is much less safe because Democrats under Biden-Harris have attempted to harvest the next crop of leftist voters. The regime has fought tooth and nail against legislation like the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), which would require documented proof of citizenship to register to vote. As The Federalist has reported, Virginia recently removed more than 6,300 foreign nationals from its voter rolls. Texas did the same, clearing potentially 6,500-plus noncitizens from its voter database.
The white paper calls for passage of the Secure the Border Act, not the failed Senate bill Biden and Harris have pressed for that lawmakers have called a “joke.” As critics note, among the many warts of the “deal” is the fact that it would commit to law up to 5,000 border crossings per day before the president shuts down the border.
“Radical progressive Democrats have caused the worst border crisis in recent history, and the flames have spread to almost every state and locality in the nation. This crisis is rooted in a fundamental desire to remake and cement one party rule built on dependence on the state,” the report states.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.