RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=f3d8e605f3

With a radical far-leftist in serious contention for the presidency in our upcoming election, it is worthwhile to check in on the record of leftism and socialism in other countries.

It so happens that pretty much every country to our South in the Western Hemisphere has a long history of some variety of leftist/socialist politics. With a few exceptions here and there, when there has been an election in Latin America in my lifetime, the winning strategy has been to run against the “Yanqui imperialists” and advance a program of “social justice” and redistribution. Particular policies vary from country to country, but the usual playbook includes such things as massive government intervention in the economy, government ownership of major companies (starting with the energy industry), central planning, requirements of multiple licenses and permits to start any business, and many more such.

Recent elections have continued or returned leftists to power in all but one of the most important countries — Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile. (The exception is Argentina, which elected a non-leftist President in late 2023; it is too early there to see any meaningful economic results, so I will leave it out of this discussion.) The next tier of countries has it as bad or worse. In Venezuela the current head of a 25 year old socialist regime apparently just lost an election by a 2-1 margin, but he refuses to release the vote tallies, and hangs on to power while his opponent has fled into exile. In Bolivia a socialist party (MAS) has hung on since 2006 through a disputed election and getting the courts to abolish term limits. There are many other such examples from smaller countries. And then, of course, there is Cuba.

How has all of this worked out?

Overall, the countries of Latin America have a shockingly bad and indeed inexcusable record of economic failure.

https://vinnews.com/2024/09/16/screenshots-of-alleged-affidavit-of-abc-whistleblower-revealed-accusing-moderators-of-rigging-debate/

Journalist Kyle Becker, a former Fox News producer, re-posted screenshots of a document on X, claiming to be an alleged affidavit signed by a whistleblower ABC employee.

According to the images (see below) shared by Becker and several other online reporters and Trump supporters, the whistleblower is accusing Kamala Harris’ campaign of ‘instructing’ the ABC debate moderators to ask and avoid certain questions, and there was an agreement that they would fact-check only Trump but not Kamala.

Here are the allegations:

1. Kamala Harris allegedly received sample or similar questions in advance of the debate.
2. The Harris administration allegedly prevented ABC from questioning Joe Biden’s health.
3. They reportedly blocked inquiries into allegations against Kamala Harris’s brother-in-law, accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.
4. ABC employees are said to be fearful of potential retribution from Trump.
5. The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings proving the Harris administration pressured moderators to fact-check Trump.
6. ABC was allegedly instructed on which questions to avoid during the debate with Kamala Harris.

According to Becker’s post, the “ABC News whistleblower swears under penalty of perjury that the Kamala Harris campaign dictated the terms of the questions during the presidential debate.

“Furthermore, the Harris campaign insisted upon live “fact checking” of Donald Trump during the debate. ABC News “fact checked” Trump at least five times and did not fact check Harris once, despite the Democratic candidate telling provable lies, such as the “fine people hoax” and the ‘bloodbath’ hoax.”

“The whistleblower signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, the notarized document states.

“The unnamed individual states that he or she is in possession of secret recordings that will prove that ABC News rigged the presidential debate.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4878880-recession-october-surprise-election

Could a recession be the October surprise that changes the election outlook?  

It would be bad news for Kamala Harris. The economy, as always, is the top issue for voters, and a further jump in unemployment, which has already bounced up to 4.2 percent from 3.7 percent this year, would not help her chances of winning.  

It would certainly be a surprise, because investors and economists today are almost unanimous believing we are in for a “soft landing.” The betting is that the Federal Reserve will manage to bring interest rates down and continue the push to reduce inflation, all while avoiding a recession.

The problem is that that has almost never happened. 

Even ISI Evercore’s Ed Hyman, who has been warning of a downturn for more than a year, has thrown in the towel. Over the last couple of years, Hyman has been on the lookout for a recession, citing an inverted yield curve, declining leading indicators and, of course, rising interest rates.   

Hyman has been ranked the No.1 economist by Wall Street for 43 of the last 48 years. He has earned that astonishing distinction by being right more than wrong, and also by responding to incoming data by updating his forecasts. That is what he is doing now, and he is doing so reluctantly. 

Hyman recently wrote to clients: “History and experience say to stick with a hard landing outlook. However, the hard math that our team has reviewed says flip to a soft landing outlook.” But he doesn’t sound entirely convinced: “To say this is a difficult decision is an understatement. It feels like a bold moment to go soft landing.” 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harris-spits-up-word-salad-all-over-her-lapels/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=second

EXCERPT THANKS TO  JEFFREY BLEHAR

TAFF: At the debate the other night you talked about creating an “opportunity economy” — what if we can drill down on that a little bit. When you talk about bringing down prices and making life more affordable for people, what are one or two specific things you have in mind for that?

HARRIS: Well I’ll start with this. I grew up a middle-class kid. My mother raised my sister and me, she worked very hard. Um, she was able to finally save up enough money to buy our first house when I was a teenager. I grew up in a community of hardworking people, construction workers, and nurses and teachers, and I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience, you know, if, but, a lot of people will relate to this, you know I grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn. [smiles and nods with hands upheld] You know? And, um, and I was raised to believe and to know that all people deserve dignity. And that we as Americans have a beautiful character. You know, we have ambitions and aspirations and dreams. But not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions. So when I talk about building an opportunity economy, it is very much with the mind of investing in the ambitions and aspirations and the incredible work ethic of the American people, and creating opportunity for people, for example, to start a small business. Um, my mother, you know, worked long hours, and our neighbor helped raise us. We used to call her, it was, I still call her, our “second mother.” She was a small business owner. I love our small business owners, I learned who they are through my childhood, and she was a community leader, she hired locally, she mentored, our small businesses are so much a part of the fabric of our communities, not to mention, really, I think the backbone of America’s economy.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/15/tim-walz-maos-missionary/

According to one of his students, during their 1995 trip to China, vice presidential candidate Tim Walz sought out copies of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book to give to American friends.

Anyone who, in 1995—two decades after the Great Helmsman’s death and the truth about his unconscionable tyranny over the Chinese people had become widely known—wanted to pass on copies of the Little Red Book is not intellectually fit to execute the office of vice president under the Constitution of the United States.

For those who did not live through Mao’s Cultural Revolution or who don’t remember his Little Red Book, let me fill you in.

I have a first edition of the Little Red Book from 1966 with Lin Biao’s introduction, purchased in Hong Kong. The book contains quotations from Chairman Mao’s many writings. The small book of 311 pages, each 3X5 inches, had a plastic red cover. Millions were printed and handed out. The purpose of the book was to indoctrinate all Chinese with correct Maoist thinking, to make them “Red,” as the saying was, in mind, heart, and spirit, dependent on the Chairman and his Chinese Communist Party as their thought leader.

As Lin Biao wrote in his introduction to the Little Red Book (before he turned against Mao and died when his airplane was shot out of the sky as he was trying to escape to Russia): “The most fundamental task … is at all times to hold high the great red banner of Mao Zedong thought and to arm the minds of the people throughout the country with it.”

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/16/an-anatomy-of-the-post-debate-detritus/

While Harris initially appeared to win the September 2024 presidential debate by sticking to prepped strategy and benefiting from biased moderation, she’s failed to gain a lasting boost in the polls.

After the September 10, 2024, presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the Harris campaign became giddy.

And why not?

Pre-debate conventional wisdom had assured the country that underdog Harris would shock the nation with her endless wash/rinse/spin word salads of repeated phrases and memorized sound bites.

She supposedly would prove as shaky as Trump—the veteran of several presidential debates—would prove merciless in eviscerating her.

That did not happen. Post-debate polls of the first 24 hours showed clearly that the public felt Harris had won.

Why?

She stuck religiously to her pre-debate prep. It was not difficult to anticipate what her tripartite script would be. Joe Biden’s failed debate with Trump offered a model, along with the need to avoid Harris’s own known linguistic and cognitive liabilities:

One, Harris was told to bait the touchy Trump with smears and slights about his failed rallies, his racism, and his shaky businesses. That way she could trigger him to lose his cool, go off-topic, rant, and turn off viewers.

And he did just that and often. Trump clearly did not prepare detailed answers, was not ready to be insulted, and was not reminded to relax—and smile, joke, and in Reaganesque fashion sluff off her certain slurs.

Two, she was not supposed to try thinking on her feet, no matter what the question asked.