A Borderline Election by Lawrence Kadish

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20867/borderline-election

In this presidential election year, it is time to do the math.

Not the traditional math of counting electors, calculating swing states voters, or debating polling data. No. It’s time to do the math regarding the profound and stunning increase in the number of new citizens who will be eligible to vote in this year’s exercise in democracy.

According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the fiscal year 2022 saw one million new citizens sworn in, citing it as the highest number of naturalizations in nearly 15 years. The government agency says this number reflects the Biden Administration’s effort to address the backlog of applications that had grown during the COVID pandemic.

The FY 2023 statistics saw 878,500 new citizens participate in naturalization ceremonies that make them eligible to vote. By doing the math, we find that naturalizations in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 made up nearly a quarter of all naturalizations over the past decade.

It is as if Washington seeks to consciously create a demographic sea change as to who will now be able to go to the polls in 2024.

There is a Pew study breakdown of where these new voters are coming from.

Their report reveals that Mexico is the top country of birth for U.S. immigrants. It states that in 2022, over 10 million immigrants living in the U.S. were born there, or 23% of all immigrants. India, with the second-largest share, was far behind at 6%, followed by China came at five percent, the Philippines at four percent, and the Latin American nation of El Salvador stood at three percent.

What these various numbers mean is that the nation’s electoral base has changed over the last four years, either through a deliberate political calculation or by happenstance. For those of us who don’t believe in coincidences, it potentially represents a subtle, even unscrupulous, strategy to change the outcome on Election Day.

Sensitivity Training from the Left By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/08/sensitivity_training_from_the_left.html

Throughout the year, college instructors are required to have mandatory faculty training. This month it is “Disability Cultural Responsiveness for Faculty: Improving Communication and Understanding.” It was led by Sara Sanders Gardner, the autistic designer of Bellevue College’s Neurodiversity Navigators Program, established in 2011.

Consequently “autistic people prefer identity first language, i.e., “disabled, autistic” whereas parents and professionals often prefer person first language, i.e., “person with autism. Yet, according to Gardner whose pronouns are (they/them), the latter “is awkward syntax, separates the disability from a person, and shows a desire to be distant from the disability.”

In fact, “a push to treat autism as a cultural identity is challenging notions of it as a disorder.”

Unlike past training which promoted euphemistic language, now teachers are to avoid euphemisms such as “on the spectrum,” “differently abled,” “challenged,” or “diffability” because “embracing the word ‘disability’ and normalizing it as an aspect of identity has the potential to lead to positive psychological health outcomes.”

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a national law that protects qualified individuals from discrimination based on their disability. This includes individuals with physical or mental impairments that limit major life activities.

According to Gardner, it is “not necessary to know the details of, or even the name of, a student’s disability to respond to, include, and communicate with them effectively.” Thus, words need to be used to “avoid a clinical relationship” — rather, it should be a “human relationship.”

Instead, one needs to consider “what barrier is the student experiencing and how can they be supported by recognizing their strengths?” For example, wearing glasses would indicate a disability concerning sight but no one really sees wearing glasses as a disability. But clearly some disabilities are not readily apparent. What is the effect on a person’s self-esteem? (As a side note, I have always admired how Israel incorporates autistic individuals into the military. Thus, a disability is turned into an asset.)

Kamala Harris’s First Policy Proposal Is Economically Illiterate Noah Rothman

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harriss-first-policy-proposal-is-economically-illiterate/

On policy, Kamala Harris is starting to put some meat on her campaign’s otherwise bare bones. Her earliest attempt at setting policy involved brazenly appropriating Donald Trump’s plan to eliminate taxes on income derived from tips, which enthused neither progressives nor anyone else who understands how broad-based income tax relief actually works. But the vice president’s first real effort to expound on her own economic thinking is no less vacuous. Ahead of what her campaign is promoting as an economic policy speech on Friday, Harris previewed her plan to reduce consumer prices. So far, it seems her plan consists of simply ordering prices to be lower.

“Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will call on Congress to pass a federal ban on price gouging as part of her economic platform to lower grocery prices and everyday costs,” Politico reported on Wednesday night. This float is light on details, but the dispatch indicated that Harris would enforce her plan to impose price stability on the market by decree via the Federal Trade Commission, which would be empowered along with state attorneys general “to investigate and levy penalties on food companies that violate the federal ban.”

That sounds a lot like a series of proposals Joe Biden outlined in his February State of the Union address, during and after which the president attacked companies that raise prices in response to macroeconomic conditions or attempt to meet demand by reducing the amount of product available for the same price — what Biden deemed “shrinkflation.” You remember that, right? Of course, you don’t! Because nothing at all came of it. It was a rank pander to the economically illiterate. And despite the presence of many who fit that description in the federal legislature, there are enough members of Congress who understand that allowing the executive branch to functionally set prices is a braindead idea that would only hurt consumers in the long run.

Republicans Must Make a Laser-Focused, Issues-Based Case to the People If Republicans can successfully frame the 2024 election as boiling down to the actual issues—the economy, inflation, immigration, and crime—then they stand a strong chance of prevailing. By Josh Hammer

https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/16/republicans-must-make-a-laser-focused-issues-based-case-to-the-people/

One of my favorite bits of ancient wisdom, which I have quoted many times over the years, is the Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu’s adage that a battle is won before it is fought because it is won by choosing the terrain on which it is fought. Accordingly, as I noted in a column a few months ago: “If former President Donald Trump and other Republicans on the ballot this fall want to win, they must choose the proper terrain.”

He who controls the narrative and framing necessarily controls the result. Every good trial lawyer knows this. And so should every good politician.

Although recent days have been more focused and suggest a possible turning of the tide, the electoral terrain for Republicans has generally been rather shaky ever since the bloodless Kamala Harris coup of Joe Biden a few weeks ago. Asking whether Harris—the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants—actually counts as “Black” for U.S. demographic purposes is fair substantive game, but it is certainly not fertile swing voter terrain. Even less compelling, and certainly less propitious, is incontinent friendly fire directed at the popular governor of a crucial swing state, Georgia.

Early voting begins in Pennsylvania, arguably this election’s single most decisive battleground state, on Sept. 16. That is just around the corner. Can Republicans pull it together in time and successfully define the electoral terrain?

Republicans are not entirely themselves to blame for the current state of the race, which has seen the GOP squander much of its momentum from the former president’s heroic survival of an assassination attempt and the party’s successful nominating convention. The corporate media has aided Democrats every step of the way. After pretending to be real journalists for a few weeks and holding Biden accountable for his palpable senility, the Washington press corps immediately returned to regime-apologist form after party elites succeeded in their coup. Thus, the present spectacle of Harris not answering a single real question from the press for nearly four weeks. Funny how quickly the media went from probing to outright laconic.

Under a Harris Presidency A Harris administration would likely implement a Middle East policy that would be openly hostile to Israel and even more willing to appease Iran than the Biden administration. By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/16/ominous-signs-of-what-us-middle-east-policy-might-be-under-a-harris-presidency/

During his recent discussion with Elon Musk on X, Donald Trump said Kamala Harris would be even worse for Israel and the Jewish community than Joe Biden. Although there are many unknowns about what Kamala Harris’s positions would be as president on Middle East security if she wins the 2024 presidential election, several disturbing signs support President Trump’s belief.

Harris’s foreign policy record has been roundly criticized. She was ridiculed in 2022 for a pollyannish explanation of the Ukraine War when she said, “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong.”

Harris was strongly condemned in Ukraine and the U.S. for laughing and appearing clueless during a 2022 press conference in Poland when a reporter asked her a question about Ukrainian refugees. This response led Senator Marsha Blackburn to tweet, “It seems the only thing Kamala Harris knows how to do is laugh off her responsibilities.”

Harris praised Biden for an “extraordinary amount of courage” concerning his disastrous decision to abruptly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021. She has argued that increasing nuclear deterrence is “dangerous” and called for reducing the defense budget and redirecting military funding to domestic programs. In dealing with Russia, China, Iran, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Harris usually favored appeasement over tough policies and American strength.

These and other indications of Harris’s foreign policy incompetence raise questions as to whether she can handle the complex security issues America faces in the Middle East.

There are already two indicators of this.

The first are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel statements by Harris during her career driven by the thinking of the progressive left. She has consistently portrayed the Palestinians as victims, voted against legislation supporting Israel’s security, and voted in support of the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

Joshua T. Katz Going Off the “Gold Standard” The American Association of University Professors, long relied on to champion academic freedom, can no longer be trusted to do so.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/american-association-of-university-professors-academic-boycotts

As students, professors, and administrators get ready to return to campus for what events both in the United States and abroad suggest will be another tumultuous year, the American Association of University Professors has decided to add fuel to the fire by announcing that it no longer categorically opposes academic boycotts. The decision by the once-august and respected organization is not surprising. After all, the AAUP is now led by a professor of journalism and media studies who a week ago used his official platform to call J. D. Vance “a fascist” and to claim that America’s colleges and universities are not in fact “ideological indoctrination centers.”

The AAUP was founded in 1915, in large part to “define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education.” In December of that year, in the first volume of its Bulletin, the AAUP promulgated a “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” which Keith E. Whittington in his outstanding new book You Can’t Teach That!: The Battle over University Classrooms describes as “provid[ing] the philosophical basis for a more robust understanding of academic freedom in the United States.” Twenty-five years later, the AAUP issued what remains to this day—after a few “interpretive” footnotes added in 1970—the most influential brief document on the subject: the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” which, to quote Whittington, “stripped away the philosophical discussion that dominated the 1915 Declaration and honed in on a small number of key commitments that universities should make to their faculties.”

In late April 2005, the British Association of University Teachers voted to boycott two institutions of higher education in Israel, Bar-Ilan and Haifa Universities, a move that would bar all Israeli scholars who did not denounce “their state’s colonial and racist policies” from participating in conferences or engaging in joint research with British colleagues. Scholars around the world were outraged—even Jon Wiener, writing in The Nation, called it “a mistake”—and within just days, the AAUP’s “Committee A,” charged with watching out for academic freedom and tenure, released a strong statement, “The AAUP Opposes Academic Boycotts,” that warned of the “damage [to] academic freedom.” By the end of May, the AUT had reversed its position, and the following year, the AAUP published a piece titled “On Academic Boycotts” that states clearly, “In view of the Association’s long-standing commitment to the free exchange of ideas, we oppose academic boycotts” and “On the same grounds, we recommend that other academic organizations oppose academic boycotts.” The lead author of the piece was Joan Wallach Scott.

The Lies of Tim Walz Is he guilty of “stolen valor”? by Scott Hogenson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-lies-of-tim-walz/

The flap over military service involving Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz marks the biggest controversy of its kind in 20 years. Two decades ago, there was intense scrutiny of John Kerry’s service in the Navy’s swift boat fleet during the Vietnam War, an issue that arose in his 2004 presidential bid. I remember it well after working on President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign that year.

Questions and accusations swirled around Kerry’s Purple Hearts and his Bronze and Silver Star medals. Much of the attention focused on whether Kerry actually deserved his decorations. The circumstances involving Kerry’s three Purple Hearts, awarded to those wounded in action against the enemy, did not result in him ever being taken off duty for medical treatment. His wounds were minor and superficial, but they were wounds nonetheless.

Bronze Stars were commonly awarded to officers in Vietnam; a highly decorated Army colonel once told me that any officer who came home alive got one. As for Kerry’s Silver Star, the third highest military award, some argued his actions did not meet the standard of gallantry required for receiving that medal.

The Swift Boat controversy of 20 years ago hurt Kerry politically, but there’s a big difference between his situation and that of Tim Walz. John Kerry received those medals, and the citations for them are of record; he did not lie to voters. Walz did.

Walz previously claimed to have retired from the Army National Guard as a command sergeant major, designated by the rank of E-9, which is false. He never completed the rigorous requirements to deserve that rank and retired as a master sergeant, an E-8. He simply lied about his rank many times and over many years.

Harris can’t rely on identity politics this election, as wokery becomes a luxury belief By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/opinion/identity-politics-wont-save-kamala-harris-in-this-election/

When did you last test yourself for COVID-19?

There was a time when plans were cancelled at the first sign of a sniffle.

Four years later, the strange spell of COVID has lost its potency: The fever has broken.

Life continues as it did pre-pandemonium, but now with the lingering memory of how the pursuit of blind emotion — fear, in this case — clouds our judgment and compels obedience.

Identity politics is a different type of virus, one that was seeded by the far left to win the 2020 election.

Tailored to satiate fears during a period of social unrest, “progressives” convinced us that all society’s problems could be solved by bowing to the demands of social justice warriors.

Their carefully curated media image — as a balm to heal Trump fatigue with the Democratic Party’s compassion — facilitated their victory.

But with victory came contempt for at least half the electorate.

President Biden has repeatedly used the phrase “MAGA Republicans” to stereotype Trump supporters as dangerous authoritarians.

Democrats’ political consultants seem to have settled on this strategy to conceal their divisive and destructive policies of the last four years.

Millions of dollars feed this machinery — ads, focus groups, curated polls and an army of people knocking on doors — to create the illusion that with Kamala Harris, the party has great momentum.

Olympic Fool’s Gold Follies Algerian boxer Imane Khelif files “criminal complaint” against J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk. by Lloyd Billingsley

https://www.frontpagemag.com/olympic-fools-gold-follies/

J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk have been named in a criminal complaint to French authorities over “acts of aggravated cyber harassment” against Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, NBC reports. The complaint centers on “bullying” over Khelif’s gender, which allegedly “greatly affected” the boxer, who won a Gold Medal in the women’s 66 kg class. The bullying refers to online comments from Rowling, that men beating up women had become an Olympic sport; Riley Gaines stating that men don’t belong in women’s sports, and Donald Trump saying that he would keep men out of women’s sports.

Nabil Boudi, Khelif’s attorney, told reporters that the lawsuit “could target personalities overseas,” and that prosecutors dealing with “online hate speech has the possibility to make requests for mutual legal assistance with other countries.” As Boudi helpfully clarifies, this is all about punishing free speech.

Female impersonator bullies like Khelif seek to force compliance with their reality dysphoria by creating offenses such as “misgendering” for simple recognition of biological truth. If someone criticizes gender fakery, the parties in question are not the target of “hate speech” and not “oppressed” in any fashion. The gender benders are the bullies and oppressors, and another dynamic is in play.

Men who beat up women are gutless cowards, what previous generations called “chickenshit” without the slightest embarrassment, and they also qualify as underachievers. For example, the former William Thomas was mediocre at best on the men’s swim team at Penn. Against women, with his rudder still intact, he does much better, and the NCAA sanctions the fraud. When swimmer Riley Gaines attempts to make her case, she becomes the target of outright assault.

It would be interesting to see how Imane Khelif would perform against men’s Olympic lightweight champ Erislandy Alvarez of Cuba, or the USA’s Omari Jones, who won the bronze, the only boxing medal for the USA in the Paris games. If anyone thought the American would smack the fertilizer out of the Algerian it would be hard to blame them. So put it to the test, or take it to another level.  Khelif failed a chromosome test with the International Boxing Association, so he might want to take on the professionals.

The Climate Of Lies Keeps Getting Hotter

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/08/16/the-climate-of-lies-keeps-getting-hotter/

The New York Times recently published a long story warning that the planet’s climate tipping points are frighteningly near. The “great systems in the natural world,” the reporters say, “might be pushing toward collapse” due to man’s use of fossil fuel. Maybe so. Or the changes we’re seeing in the climate might be entirely natural.

But that won’t sell papers to a readership that suffers from a chronic and intellectually stunting case of confirmation bias.

The Times wants us to worry about the mass death of coral reefs, the abrupt thawing of permafrost, the collapse of Greenland ice, the breakup of West Antarctic ice, a sudden shift in the West African monsoon, loss of the Amazon rainforest and the shutdown of Atlantic currents.

And ​​when might disaster be visited on all these hot spots? Well, says the Times, it depends on a number of variables and in some cases the timeline is just “hard to predict.”

Or maybe impossible. But again, a story with that angle won’t stir up the true believers who beg to be stirred up. Only alarmist articles will do that.

We pick on the mighty New York Times here, but it’s the legacy media’s great pleasure to spread misleading information and conjecture about the climate. 

About the only truth we can know about the claims surrounding anthropogenic global warming is that it’s “political, not physical, science.”