RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-trump-harris-debate-scorecard

Yes, the moderators of ABC’s debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were egregiously biased in favor of Harris. Yes, Harris recycled patent lies about Trump without the slightest pushback from the referees—that Trump has embraced the supposedly infamous Project 2025, that he supports a national abortion ban, that he called the anti-Semitic and racist demonstrators in Charlottesville in 2019 “fine people,” that he refused leases to black would-be renters. (The New York Times lauded the ABC team as a “model for real-time fact-checking.”)

But a low-information voter who, incredibly, still has not made up her mind about the election could easily decide for Harris on the basis of Tuesday’s debate. Trump put all his worst traits on display—his narcissism, his gratuitous nastiness, and above all, his penchant for using hyperbole as a substitute for argument.

Conservative commentators have been busy collecting examples of ABC’s shocking partiality. The following set-up, from the worst offender of the two moderators, David Muir, is particularly hilarious in its sycophantic delivery to Harris of a soft pitch over home plate:

[Trump] said he didn’t say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election. That was won by President Biden and yourself. But I do want to ask you about something that’s come up in the last couple of days. This was a post from President Trump about this upcoming election just weeks away. He said, “When I win, those people who cheated,” and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says “Will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.” One of your campaign’s top lawyers responded saying, “We won’t let Donald Trump intimidate us. We won’t let him suppress the vote.” Is that what you believe he’s trying to do here?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fair-debate-moderators-would-have-fact-checked-harris-on-these-misleading-claims/

The ABC anchors never disputed any of Vice President Kamala Harris’ claims.

Guns

On gun control, the vice president claimed, “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away” and pointed out that both she and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, are gun owners.

In late 2019, though, Harris publicly claimed, “We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program.” Neither moderator probed deeper into her sudden policy shift on the position.

As a senator in 2019, Harris signed onto a bill that would have banned so-called “assault weapons,” a category that encompasses the most commonly owned rifle in America, the AR-15. And at a rally just a month ago, Harris vowed to sign into law a ban on such weapons if she’s elected in November.

The moderators failed to raise Harris’s record in the Senate and the positions she’s taken on the stump this cycle.

Abortion

The moderators also passed up an opportunity to drill down on what, if any, abortion restrictions Harris supports, allowing her to simply deny that abortions were ever performed in the final trimester.

“I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Harris when asked if she would support any restrictions on abortion.

Although Trump remained uncommitted on vetoing a prospective national abortion ban, Harris refused to oppose abortion in “the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month” when challenged directly by the former president, simply replying, “C’mon.”

“Under Roe v. Wade, you could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month,” Trump said. Harris interrupted him: “That’s not true.”

Roe v. Wade requires a “health exception” up until the point of birth. But the definition of “health” under that framework extends to “mental health, financial concerns, and familial circumstances,” according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/12/a-forgettable-warped-debate/

The September 10th presidential debate went down as expected. Summed up, it was Sappy and the Blob pile on Grouchy.

The swarmy and evasive Kamala Harris preened, posed, and proffered empty platitudes.

The ABC moderators proved they were predictably and shamelessly biased.

And an irate Donald Trump confirmed that he was too touchy and easily triggered.

Harris’s instructions were not to explain her agenda. She never defended disowning policies that she had embraced as a lifelong, self-confessed, “woke” “radical.”

Instead, Harris’s threefold strategy was simple enough—and it mostly worked.

One, goad Trump as a coward and racist. Then smile and call for unity, kindness, and an end to such name-calling.

Harris’s orders were to zero in on hair-trigger irrelevancies that would incite and sidetrack the thin-skinned Trump.

So, Harris claimed his massive rallies were failures, crackpot—and worst of all, boring!—as she falsely added that weary attendants left early.

All that was missing from her adolescent putdowns was Barack Obama’s earlier convention speech obscenity that Donald Trump supposedly suffered from undersized genitalia.

In Harris’s upside-down, projectionist world, ex-president Trump caused the Biden-Harris disastrous skedaddle from Afghanistan.

He was accused of being mostly responsible for the effects of the global COVID-19 plague that killed over 100 million.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/09/12/absolutely-no-chance-cheney-and-other-never-trumpers-would-have-supported-reagan/

Liz Cheney – who recently endorsed Kamala Harris, a person Cheney described as a “radical liberal” just four years ago – now says there is “absolutely no chance” that Ronald Reagan would support Donald Trump.

She has it exactly backward. It’s people like Liz Cheney and the cabal of other never-Trumpers who never would have supported Reagan when he ran in 1980.

“Donald Trump doesn’t stand for any of the things that Ronald Reagan did,” Cheney said. “It’s another place where I would urge my Republican colleagues … to really look at Donald Trump’s policies, to really look at the danger that he presents,” Cheney said in an interview on ABC News’ “This Week.”

Cheney’s claim that Reagan didn’t support Trumpian policies is demonstrably false.

In his first term, Trump enacted pro-growth tax cuts, started eliminating regulations, and built up the nation’s military after years of neglect by Democrats. He appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court. He championed the working class.

In Reagan’s first term, he did likewise.

Reagan called the Heritage Foundation’s 1980 “Mandate for Leadership” – a massive guide to conservative policymaking – the bible for guiding his administration and handed it out to every Cabinet official. Trump enacted two-thirds of the recommendations contained in Heritage’s 2016 “Mandate.”

https://nypost.com/2024/09/11/opinion/heres-the-fact-check-that-abc-didnt-give-kamala-harris/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=mail_app

During Tuesday night’s debate, ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis interrupted Donald Trump five times to “fact-check” his answers.

They did the same to Kamala Harris … never.

The vice president was allowed to skate through the debate without substantive follow-up questions or pushback on some of her obviously false claims.

So since ABC didn’t do its job, here are some of the fact checks they should have made:

Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris listens as former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024.AFP via Getty Images

Kamala claim: “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.”

Fact check: Our troops in Middle East are absolutely in a combat zone, under attack from Iran, which the Biden-Harris administration has allowed to grow more aggressive in its use of proxies. In January this year, three US soldiers in Jordan were killed by a drone attack from an Iran-aligned group, and dozens of others have been wounded in similar strikes.

Kamala claim: “What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again.”

Fact check: The Heritage Foundation, an independent think tank, produced Project 2025, not the Trump campaign. Trump has repeatedly said he wasn’t involved in its writing, does not believe in its policies and won’t implement it.