RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nysun.com/article/will-kamala-harris-ever-explain-any-of-her-extraordinary-policy-flip-flops
So we’ve been through an entire debate, and Vice President Harris hasn’t explained any of her extraordinary policy flip-flops.

I’m sorry, a person can’t just wake up one morning and abandon their entire worldview without an explanation. I mean, they can try, but no sensible person would take them seriously. Sure, politicians have been calibrating and triangulating their positions since Pericles.

Most have been compelled to explain their ideological evolution — or have the decency to lie about it. None has ever relied on an army of anonymous campaign flacks to erase a lifetime of positions.

Well, not until Ms. Harris.

We all understand Democrats are desperate to shield voters from their candidate’s mind-numbing tautological rhetoric. Who can blame them, right? “Kamala Harris” is an empty vessel to be filled with the aspirations and dreams of gullible partisans. And allowing her to speak extemporaneously in public would kill all the joy, quicky.

These swirling platitudes and nervous laugh, however, don’t suggest that Ms. Harris isn’t bright. They suggest that she has no genuine philosophical or ethical belief system — other than, perhaps, obtaining and using power. Indeed, there’s little chance she will coherently expound on her sudden policy U-turns because they make zero ideological sense.

Let’s remember that Ms. Harris hasn’t merely been tinkering with the top marginal tax rate in her economic plan. She’s on the record championing, often quite passionately and definitively, a bunch of completely harebrained extremism.

“Will you fully endorse the Green New Deal tonight?” an Iowa voter asked Ms. Harris in 2019.

Yes, she answered. Fully.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/what-would-make-the-perfect-democratic-candidate/

Kamala Harris happens to possess none of the requisite characteristics.

Imagine an American time traveler from a century ago showing up unannounced in 2024. After he spends a few days marveling at the giant, rotating logs of meat that Greek restaurants use to make gyros, you tell him there’s a presidential election going on and that the Republican candidate incited a violent attempt to overturn the results of the previous election — oh and he’s also a convicted felon.

“Well, I guess the election is over, why even bother with the voting?” he asks.

“No, it’s actually a tie,” you respond, as he gives you a confused look similar to the one he directed at the sweaty, spinning meat.

Of course, in order to win a presidential election, a candidate doesn’t have to be ethical or even felony-free. He or she simply has to be one electoral vote better than the other person. And if the other party can’t field a plausible candidate, it’s not like both lose. The least worst one wins the nation’s grandest prize.

That is how, in 2016, Donald Trump ended up beating Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only candidate less likeable than he is. And a lack of likeability in the Democratic candidate is why, despite his significant shortcomings, the former president is now tied with the current vice president.

As if shopping for candidates at an outlet mall, Democrats for the last three elections have pulled their nominees off the “irregular” pile. All their candidates had significant flaws: Clinton was picked because she was seen as the heir apparent after Democratic primary voters passed her by in 2008. In 2020, elderly Joe Biden won the nomination because panicked Democrats saw the unelectable Bernie Sanders racing toward the nomination. And in 2024, unpopular Vice President Kamala Harris wrested away the nomination because panicked Democrats saw Joe Biden racing toward cognitive decline and thus certain defeat.

But imagine there was a universe in which Democrats could start fresh and pick the perfect candidate. Say there was no existing infrastructure that favored incumbents and insiders, and progressives were instead free to choose whoever they thought gave them the best chance to win. What would that perfect candidate look like?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-crime-numbers-dont-help-david-muirs-assertion/

In the debate Tuesday:

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Crime here is up and through the roof. Despite their fraudulent statements that they made. Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime. It’s called migrant crime. And it’s happening at levels that nobody thought possible.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country, but Vice President the…

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: use me, the FBI — they were defrauding statements. They didn’t include the worst cities. They didn’t include the cities with the worst crime. It was a fraud. Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud.

There are new updated numbers from the National Crime Victimization Survey released this week. The NCVS is a useful tool, because while the more widely discussed FBI crime figures can only count crimes reported to the police, the NCVS surveys a large sample of Americans — around 240,000 people — and extrapolates from that. Some crimes, like murder, are almost always reported to the police, but other crimes, like assault, aren’t always going to be reported, for a variety of reasons.

Overall, the NCVS indicate that in 2023, the rate of nonfatal violent victimization in the United States was 22.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, which was similar to the 2022 rate of 23.5 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Violent victimization includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Ironically, the NCVS had lower numbers for violent victimizations for 2020 and 2021, despite the widespread perception that crime got significantly worse during the pandemic. In 2018 the figure was 23.8, in 2019 it was 21, it was 16.4 in 2020 — remember, lots of people were stuck at home, and fewer people on the street means less street crime — and in 2021 it was 16.5.

We can argue whether going from 23.5 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons to 22.5 violent victimizations is enough of a decline to argue, as Muir asserted, that “overall violent crime is coming down in this country.” But we can all agree that it’s not much of a decline. And note property crimes are up very slightly, from 101.9 incidents per 1,000 households to 102.2.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/09/the_american_horatius.html

Donald Trump has been in America’s headlights for decades.  By now, we know he’s impulsive, brash, boastful, proud, successful, charismatic, irreverent, and retaliatory.  We also know he’s foresightful, confident, bright, obstinate, entertaining, self-assertive, tenacious, and independent.  This admixture of characteristics couldn’t be more useful in our zeitgeist. 

What isn’t Trump?  He isn’t a utopian.  He isn’t anti-Caucasian.  He isn’t a secularist.  He isn’t unpatriotic.  He isn’t anti-populist.  He isn’t a globalist.  He isn’t a socialist.  He isn’t an ideologue.  He isn’t anti-tradition.  He isn’t anti-police.  He isn’t anti-family.  He isn’t anti-nation-state.  He isn’t a progressive.  He isn’t a deep-statist.  He isn’t anti-heteronormative.  He isn’t an insurrectionist.  He isn’t a vegetarian.  And he isn’t perfect.  

Trump’s natural metapolitical vibe is a spanner in the works of the administrative state, that oligarchy of scalawag bureaucrats and experts who believe themselves entitled to play with America’s past, present, and future.  Trump is a force unto himself, and for that, the left and their media allies ceaselessly malign him, claiming he’s a demagogue, an authoritarian, a threat to democracy.  Humbug!  There’s no greater threat to America than progressive Democrats and their “transformative” ideology.

Trump represents a nascent centripetal power engaged in the necessary and long overdue contraction of leftist ideologies and programs.  He possesses an authentic ineluctable resistance to prevailing postmodern delusions.  Such a person cannot avoid becoming the bête noire, the Nosferatu of the American left. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/you-hate-trump/

A great many Americans claim that they cannot vote for former President Donald Trump because they loathe him.

That was also their argument in 2016 and 2020.

That argument was childish in 2016 and 2020, and it remains childish in 2024.

I say “childish” because mature people don’t vote on the basis of whom they like. They vote on the basis of which candidate is best for their country. As I asked both eight years ago and four years ago, other than friends and a spouse, whom do you choose based on how much you like a person? Do you choose your surgeon on that basis? If you or a loved one had cancer and were presented with a choice of two surgeons, one known to be an honorable man and loyal husband, the other known for his abrasive personality and for being a womanizer but also known as one of the best cancer surgeons in the country, which would you choose?

We all know the answer. So, why would you choose a president based on marital fidelity or personality traits?

Though they always mention Trump “the liar” (as far as truth-telling is concerned, Trump is Abe Lincoln compared to President Joe Biden), Trump “the adulterer,” Trump “the mean,” and now Trump “the felon” (although no one can tell you what he was charged with), Trump haters would respond that those are not the only reasons why they would never vote for Trump. He is, they constantly tell us, a threat to democracy.

Trump haters have to say that — because they know that merely listing his alleged and actual obnoxious personal traits makes them look foolish. The problem, however, is that the claim that Trump would end democracy in America is baseless. He was already president for four years, and he in no way threatened democracy. Of course, Trump haters will point to Jan. 6 — and only to Jan. 6, because they have no other example from all four years of the Trump presidency of Trump allegedly threatening democracy.