RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump

Despite the fact that he is coarse, rude and humorless, Donald Trump is attractive to millions of Americans. Most are religious and believe in their families and communities; they are patriotic, diligent, and endowed with an uncommon level of common sense. But what accounts for this attraction? While I don’t pretend to have all the reasons, simply addressing the question is instructional. He is despised by those who have made service in government their life’s work. He is despised by those who find vulgar his ravaging of the English language. He is despised by those who cannot stand his orange hair and red ties. On the other hand, he is loved by those who represent what Franklin Roosevelt once referred to as the “Forgotten Man” – America’s working men and women at the middle and lower end of the economic scale. His acolytes are those who do not neatly fit into an elitist identity – meaning they are largely white, working class people from fly-over states, those who Barack Obama once derided as clinging “to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” In other words, he is attractive to America’s broad middle class.

These people have watched as Democrat-led, Washington’s establishment divided people into identifiable sectors – women, people of color, proponents of LGBTQ, etc. – those seen as victims of white oppressors. His fans, the so-called oppressors regardless of social position or economic status, love that he is nemesis to progressive politicians; to administrative lawyers who feed off government; to university professors and administrators who rely on public grants; to private sector union leaders (but not union members); to school boards who protect predators and approve schools dispensing tampons in boy’s bathrooms; to spoiled college students who want their student loans paid off; to a media enriched by political ads, and to those enthralled with a sense of their own virtue; and to an entertainment industry that lacks any moral sense.

Using data from Statista and OpenTheBooks, spending on federal elections (President, Senate and House) compounded annually at roughly 14% between 2000 and 2020, while government spending compounded at about 7.5% over that same time. However, over those same twenty years median household income only compounded at two percent. The consequence is that lower and middle-income families have been left behind, as government bureaucrats, bankers, and media people have grown fat. Has this increased spending helped the middle classes? Last week, The Connecticut Mirror reported that United Way estimates that 40% of Connecticut’s households faced poverty in 2022. Keep in mind, Connecticut ranks eight when states are measured by median household income. Also donors, be they individuals, corporations or unions, expect a return on their investment. Remember Solyndra, the California-based solar panel company that in September 2009 received $535 Million from President Obama’s Energy Department and two years later filed for bankruptcy.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/14/the-strange-mythological-campaign-of-kamala-harris/

Increasingly, little if anything remains real about the Harris campaign.

Take ideology and the issues.

It is now well known that Kamala Harris was rated as the most left-wing of all current senators, including Bernie Sanders—according to GovTrack, a non-partisan compiler of evaluators in Congress. The Voteview project found her voting record the most liberal of all senators of the 21st century, except for radical Elizabeth Warren.

Harris as vice president in a 50/50 Senate has proven the decisive passing vote on more deadlocked bills than any other vice president in history—all thirty-three of them proudly progressive legislation. She has done more to ensure left-wing government at the national level than any prior vice president.

Indeed, Harris, as both a California state official and its senator, and as vice president, has for some thirty years championed almost every issue dear to the left—Medicare for all, an end to private health care plans, banning fracking, mandatory EV requirements, unrestricted abortion, wealth taxes, income and inheritance tax hikes, defense cuts, price controls, open borders, ending the border patrol, stopping all deportations, opposition to a border wall, mass amnesties, free transition surgeries for illegal aliens, and mandatory buyback of semi-automatic firearms.

In most of these cases, Harris not only voiced support but did so proudly and emphatically in front of hard-left constituencies. She has declared that she is a radical and woke.

During the 2020 Antifa and BLM riot after the death of George Floyd, Harris unabashedly helped to raise bail for arrested violent demonstrators in Minnesota. Indeed, she went on national television to warn the nation that the protests were a “movement” that would not and should not stop.

Given such a long record, Harris should have been proud of her politics, which had done so much, especially over the last four years, to change the very nature of the nation. Why, then, is she not campaigning on the allegedly superior record of the Biden administration, the innate advantages to voters of the progressive project, and the need to implement a further left-wing agenda? Rather than promising “change,” should she not be advocating “four more years of the same?”

Answer—Joe Biden has proven to be one of the most unpopular presidents in history. His approval ratings hover around 40 percent, and less on the very left-wing policies he and Harris implemented.

So, Harris is not proudly boasting of her past efforts to open wide the southern border, to support defunding the police, or to call for reparations. Instead, she has renounced most of her prior radical agendas and embraced their antitheses. In eerie examples of projection, whatever particular unpopular policy is most associated with Biden-Harris, she claims Trump, out of office since January 2021, was responsible for the fiasco.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/13/one-year-after-oct-7-american-voters-face-stark-foreign-policy-choice/

Within minutes of Hamas jihadists breaching the Israeli border on Oct. 7, 2023, and commencing the largest slaughter of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Western leftists and other defenders of the genocidal Palestinian-Arab cause rallied around a talking point: “This did not occur in a vacuum.” The claim, blithely offered by armchair revolutionaries without even acknowledging the many hundreds of butchered babies, sadistically tortured families, raped women, and young music festivalgoers taken hostage, was that Israel had somehow impelled the horrific rampage on its own civilians. Those with a functioning moral compass recognize this as obvious terror apologia.

Reflecting back one year later on the Hamas massacre and the current Middle East imbroglio in which Israel is now fighting a seven-front war, however, I wonder whether the terrorist apologists may have had a point. That is not to suggest that these moral monsters were in any way whatsoever correct to justify, defend, or praise a pogrom so barbaric that it would have made Heinrich Himmler blush. But the mini-jihadists were correct to suggest there was a broader geopolitical context to the massacre—just a totally different one than what they had in mind. The actual relevant context was the weak, failed, and Iran-emboldening foreign policy of former President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris.

As Americans get ready to select our next commander-in-chief, the stark contrast between the failed foreign policy of successive Democratic administrations and the successful foreign policy of the interregnum Republican administration, that of former and perhaps future President Donald Trump, is instructive.

The basic Obama-Biden-Harris foreign policy doctrine is simple: Reward America’s enemies and punish America’s friends. Obama famously sought to create “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, America’s most dependable and national interest-aligned Middle East ally. He removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office—a symbolic slap in the face to the United Kingdom, with which America has (had?) a “special relationship.” He emboldened the Islamist fanatics in Tehran, bamboozling a skeptical American public with his wretched nuclear accord and even secretly sending $400 million in wooden pallets of cash to the mullahs. The Biden-Harris administration has doubled down on every count: It has been the most anti-Israel administration since Israel’s founding in 1948, it has lavished the mullahs with billions in ransom payments and sanction waivers, and it has continued the Obama-Biden administration’s mollycoddling of America’s Chinese Communist Party civilizational arc.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/13/fake-crowds-fake-ads-real-ridicule-a-week-of-failures-for-harris-walz/

If I may start with an understatement:  It has not been a good week for team Kamala Harris.  First, there was the scandal of her interview on the CBS program 60 Minutes.  Asked about US influence on Israel, Harris delivered one of her signature, zero-calorie word salads. We know this because the network released a preview of the interview on social media, where it was promptly pounced upon and mocked.  But when the entire interview aired, the interview was edited so that Harris’s original answer was replaced by a brief answer lifted from another part of the interview.

That bit of techno-fraud was instantly pilloried and deposited a lot of unsightly egg on the corporate face of CBS. I have not seen anything resembling an apology or even an acknowledgment from the network.  As of this writing, calls for an unedited transcript of the whole interview to be released have gone unanswered. As the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway wrote, CBS’s refusal is “a huge scandal” that, among other things, “suggests that much of the entire finished product was manipulative and deceitful, and not just the one horrible example that was discovered.”

Bad though the episode is for CBS, it is also humiliating for Harris. As Macbeth noted in another context, “When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions.”  The 60 Minutes débâcle was only the advance guard assaulting team Harris last week. Then there was a disastrous “town hall” meeting in which, again, multiple humiliations were assembled. First, some attentive scribe noticed that Harris was reading her replies off a teleprompter. Remember that was supposed to be an open forum in which Harris could connect with voters personally.  But here she was, repeating scripted replies to pre-formulated questions.

And that was not the worst of it.  A little digging revealed that the audience, too, was scripted.  As one commentator noted, “Kamala Harris’s disastrous Univision town hall featured a ‘fake’ audience. 50% of the attendees were handpicked from across the country and flown to the town hall and were allowed to ask questions. The other 50% of the attendees were hired by an ‘audience-for-hire’ company and weren’t allowed to ask questions. The event was completely stage-directed and fake.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doug-emhoff-dismisses-domestic-violence-allegations-as-distraction-doesnt-deny-report/

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff says claims that he “forcefully” slapped his then-girlfriend in 2012 are a “distraction” – but did not deny the allegations in a new interview that aired Friday.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough gave Emhoff an opportunity to respond to several “tabloid stories about your personal life.” Reporting from the Daily Mail has claimed Emhoff slapped his then-girlfriend during the Cannes Film Festival more than ten years ago, with sources telling the outlet he hit the unnamed woman so hard that she “spun around.” The story, which is based on claims from several of the unnamed women’s friends as she declined to speak with the outlet, suggested he may have hit her in a moment of jealousy after he believed she had been flirting with a valet.

Other reporting from the outlet indicated he was “inappropriate” and “misogynistic” during his time working at a Los Angeles law firm.

“We don’t have time to be pissed off,” Emhoff told Scarborough. “We don’t have time to focus on it. It’s all a distraction. It’s designed to try to get us off our game.”

While Emhoff did not deny the allegations, a spokesperson for Emhoff previously told Semafor that the report was “untrue.” “Any suggestion that he would or has ever hit a woman is false,” the spokesperson said.

Vice President Kamala Harris began dating Emhoff in 2013 and the pair wed in August 2014.

Emhoff in August publicly admitted to having an affair during his first marriage after the Daily Mail reported that he cheated on his first wife and got their nanny pregnant.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/10/09/let-the-economy-roll/

Maybe the primary complaint against Kamala Harris is that voters don’t know who she is nor where she stands on issues, given her flip-flopping-for-votes campaign. But we can be sure that her instincts are to bridle the economy rather than unleash it.

Not many weeks ago, we argued that Harris’ Marxist roots, from both her mother and father, inform her economic positions. It should be kept in mind whenever looking at her economic proposals.

Without giving her economic positions a label, Harris, who has spoken appreciatively of the impact her parents had on her, is definitively, though not necessarily nominally, a Marxist. She insists that public policy objectives have ‘to be about’ ensuring that everybody ends ‘up in the same place.’ She favors ‘equitable distribution’ and ‘giving resources based on equity.’

…

How is this different than the socialist creed ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ that Karl Marx popularized?

This is the opposite of letting the U.S. economy, the most powerful force on Earth when not bound by ideological chains, roll freely.

It is not a radical position to support a free market economy. The moral and material benefits of an open economy are enormous. No other system can match its dynamism and positive outcomes. (We must emphasize that the free market, or capitalism, as not a system but instead the natural human interaction.)