Search Results

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, don’t put the cart before the horse, don’t measure the drapes in the White House before receiving keys to the front door, and, when it comes to planning your administration, don’t start making contingency lists for the transition before the votes have even been counted after the polls close on Election Night. Or so the thinking has been in the past. Taking something for granted usually results in unpleasant circumstances for those who do too much planning before something even happens, but in the case of devising a new administration, it’s definitely never too soon to start.   Both presidential candidates have apparently begun the process, with vice president cackling Kamala Harris enjoying a huge head start, mostly because her “team” is already largely doing damage. No doubt that Kamala would desire a good deal of turnover as well – surely at the top -- but at least the Biden appointees who are in place would not necessarily be antagonistic to the new faces greeting them come mid-January.   This is only a hunch, but Democrats usually accept the new direction of the country and aren’t likely to make too many waves as long as it’s one of their own   But the potential newcomers for the Trump 2.0 administration are different. Whoever accepts a position or appointment to work for Trump must not only ready themselves for an incredibly demanding and impatient boss, they must also be prepared for institutional barriers, the ones no one ever talks about. This isn’t campaign work any longer. Getting Americans to vote for you is one thing; actually moving the proverbial needle on policy is quite another.   In an article titled, “Trump delaying transition efforts despite 2016 ‘disaster’”, Mabinty Quarshie reported at the Washington Examiner last week :   “Should former President Donald Trump win the 2024 election, he would be more prepared to lead the government than he was before his first victory in 2016, when he was a political novice who upended conventional norms. An outside group aligned with Trump has compiled the resumes of candidates for the thousands of political appointments needed to fill out the government, and strategists see the 2024 campaign as far more disciplined than the team that helped Trump win eight years ago.   “But just weeks before Election Day, his campaign has yet to tap into federal resources available for both candidates’ transition teams. Trump’s campaign says there haven’t been any ‘formal discussions’ about who will be in his Cabinet during a second administration. “However, there are plenty of highly qualified lawmakers jockeying to serve in his administration, including his former Republican presidential rivals. ‘President Trump announced a Trump Vance transition leadership group to initiate the process of preparing for what comes after the election,’ Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told the Washington Examiner in a statement. ‘But formal discussions of who will serve in a second Trump Administration is premature. President Trump will oversee a smooth transition and choose the best people for his Cabinet to undo all the damage dangerously liberal Kamala Harris has done to our country.’”   It's a gargantuan task, no question. The matter of going from one administration to the next has been complicated by contemporary politics, modern communications, social media, and the realities of interest groups who contributed generously to the candidate’s campaign. They all want a cut of the say-so.   As Abraham Lincoln famously observed when commenting on patronage seekers wanting something from him in the 1860s, there were “too many pigs for the teats.”   I’m not part of the loop that discusses such things, but to me, Cheung’s statement sounded a lot like what Trump said prior to Election Day in 2016. Back then, if you recall, Trump regularly boasted about how prepared he’d be to take over, suggesting that he knew all of the mavens of private industry, the movers n’ shakers, the folks who made the American economic engine hum.   This was certainly true, as Trump’s business credentials put him in touch with a who’s who of private leaders who knew the nuts and bolts about their respective industries, stellar credentials in just about everybody’s book. But did they know  politics and government?   Witnessing the transition back then and the individuals Trump originally tapped to lead his administration, it was evident the men and women who understood business and markets were clearly not prepared for the way the executive branch worked. If you recall, the department heads faced roadblock after roadblock in terms of getting things done quickly.   Starting with senate confirmation, nothing ever moves swiftly in Washington, particularly with working appointments through a highly partisan, emotionally charged and pigheaded political system populated by people who couldn’t give a squat about whether you (Trump) succeed or if you fail. In fact, it was obvious Democrats didn’t want Trump to do well, for if Trump brought about immediate downsizing and efficiency improvements, a lot of bureaucratic heads would roll.   And if Trump was impatient about getting started eight years ago, the urgency will be that much greater this time around.   Quarshie’s article contained a number of tidbits on Trump’s current transition motives, the new team in charge (who wasn’t in place in 2016) and an awareness of what needed to be done to be more prepared when noon on January 20 (Inauguration Day) arrives this time. You may recall there was turmoil from the start eight years ago, with aides such as co-Chief of Staff Steve Bannon being inherently suspicious (no doubt, with good reason) regarding working with the party establishment to get things running.   There’s much less tension in 2024, as it’s Trump’s party now. Even the GOP congressional leaders are mostly Trump loyalists, though we can definitely count on resistance to a lot of what Trump advocates due to small (if any) partisan majorities and the entrenched faction of RINOs who will demand their share of favors in order to lend their support for the overall effort.   Democrats may not agree, but Donald Trump, in 2017 after taking office, was dead set on keeping his campaign promises to the letter. From Day One, his executive orders and presidential actions were directed at some of his most earnest vows to the American People, starting with making sure that NATO members began paying their fair share, something most incoming presidents have repeatedly said in the past but always with a wink and a gesture indicating they never really meant it.   Trump wasn’t that kind of man. And when the pace of Washington wouldn’t allow for him to do what he said he wanted to do, it caused issues.   One of Trump’s initial difficulties was staffing his own White House. While Trump had done an extensive set of interviews regarding cabinet positions and settled on qualified people to be the “name” talent heading the agencies, the undersecretary jobs often went unfilled. The outgoing Obama personnel who were in place until the new Trump appointees arrived to take over weren’t exactly cooperative, either.   The political atmosphere in the capital wasn’t much better back then than it is now, but it’s almost a sure thing that Biden leftovers won’t be anxious to help their Trump administration replacements come in anxious to undo and change just about everything senile Joe’s DEI crew have implemented in the intervening time.   Be particularly prepared to hear about how the career lifer staff at places like the State Department resign or retire en masse, their delicate sensibilities unable or unwilling to handle being ordered around by the likes of a Trump appointee who they view as unqualified to understand the intricacies of diplomacy or international relations. Here’s thinking the Biden holdovers will be actively hostile to the new regime. Will anything get done?   Perhaps I’m making too much of the divided political environment, but Trump and his new appointees will represent a dire threat to “The Swamp” and the way things have always been done in Washington. Seeing as Trump has “only” one more term left, he must be determined to make the most of every day. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Trump’s fourth year was diverted and ruined by the COVID farce, so he’s even more itchy to rack up accomplishments.   Further, Trump may have a hard time finding people to serve because he is, in effect, a lame duck the moment he takes his oath of office.   There is some good news, however. Though the campaign won’t elaborate on who (if any) is being looked over for cabinet-level positions, Trump himself is a lot different than he was in 2017. While I wouldn’t exactly call him naïve back then, he had a view that he could run the government kind of like he oversaw his companies. You know, he would ask for something and people would actually do it.   Quarshie’s report suggested that Trump saw himself more as the head of government or state, kind of a prime minister who set policy and Congress would implement his wishes. He rapidly discovered that he’d have to fight for everything he got, and the art of persuasion was needed to fill gaps. And, let’s face it, he took way too long to purge not only the deadwood in government, but also those around him who sought to ruin him.   Loyalty to his agenda will be a prerequisite for employment in the Trump administration this time. The firm he placed in charge will have done a lot of the legwork in terms of pinpointing individuals to fill a great many of the appointed positions.   The rest will take time to get done. Here’s thinking Trump did a fantastic job in finding J.D. Vance to be his running mate, a man who’s not only loyal to the movement, but also imminently articulate and capable of filling holes in the personnel roster. So he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.   The problem of who gets to plan the next administration will presumably be resolved on Election Day, or hopefully, soon thereafter. While it’s never good to get too far ahead of oneself, the task of putting together a new government is too large to be accomplished overnight. Trump will be much more prepared to do it right from the get-go this time. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

On Wednesday evening Kamala Harris sat down with Bret Baier for what was supposed to be a half hour unscripted interview on FOX News, and the surprise was not that she went on the Republican-leaning network, but that she was worse than our already low expectations of her could have predicted. We’re not talking about the predictable social media memes taking down Harris, even though we love them. We’re talking about the substance of her answers – or nonanswers – to Bret Baier’s civil and fair-minded questions. Harris really only had one job in this interview, and that was to come across as capable of running the country while politely disagreeing with Baier if he came at her with conservative or pro-Trump talking points.   And she couldn’t do it.   "More than 70% of people tell [pollsters] the country is on the wrong track," Baier asked, referring to a new Marquette Law School national survey. "If it's on the wrong track, that track follows three and a half years of you being vice president and President Biden being president. That is what they're saying — 79% of them. Why are they saying that if you're turning the page? You've been in office for three and a half years."   "And Donald Trump has been running for office," said Harris.   "But you've been the person holding the office, Madam Vice President," responded Baier.   "Come on," said Harris, smiling. "Come on. You and I both know what I am talking about. You and I both know what I am talking about."   Baier, genuinely confused as to Harris' meaning, responded, "I actually don't. What are you talking about?" Harris then floundered through a rehearsed talking point about former President Trump’s personality rather than address the question – which (even though we conservatives know it’s BS) had a simple positive answer: “I get things have been tough, but they are turning around, our policies are working, inflation is down, jobs are plentiful, we are turning the corner…”. Likewise, when Baier asked, “How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years?” Harris couldn’t provide a positive answer.   Or any real answer at all. What she said was, "I'm glad you raised the issue of immigration, because I agree with you, it is a topic of discussion that people want to rightly have… And you know what I'm going to talk about."   "Do you think it's 1 million, 3 million?" said Baier.   According to Blaze Media, U.S. Customs and Border Protection data indicates that over 2 million illegal aliens have so far entered the country in fiscal year 2024.   "Bret, let's just get to the point, okay? The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired," said Harris.   Baier, who wasn't buying what Harris was selling, as Blaze Media’s Joseph MacKinnon put it, noted that the vice president was referring to the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. The bill, which failed despite a federal Democratic trifecta, would have both provided a path to citizenship for tens of millions of illegal aliens and weakened various immigration policies.  When the interviewer began to highlight the nature of the bill, Harris cut him off and resumed talking around the question. However, the interview really blew up when Bret Baier asked Harris about taxpayer funding of transgender surgeries for illegal aliens and federal prisoners. And Harris, knowing she was in a box just plain lied about it, even though she must have known her lie was easily disproven. Our friend Margot Cleveland was also quick to post a link to an article from Chicago’s ABC 7 Eyewitness News, Dateline April 20, 2022: Former Illinois inmate to be 1st federal prisoner to get gender-affirming surgery To wrap up we will give our new X friend @TorstenProchnow the last word on Kamala Harris’s October Surprise. 2024 Election Kamala Harris campaign Kamala Harris Brett Baier interview October surprise Donald Trump campaign wrong track polls illegal immigration U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 transgender surgeries

Internal Battleground State data released October 13th to CHQ and other select media by the Trump campaign has revealed a significant disparity in the polled favorability of Vice President Kamala Harris from prior to her recent media blitz and a flurry of ad spending by Democrat SuperPACs and the current state of her campaign. According to the release , during the month of July Harris’ favorability spiked by a 15 point margin and in heads up balloting against President Donald Trump she closed the gap from seven points behind to just one. The internal data from Trump’s team showed that after this initial bump, the Haris campaign made few meaningful gains in the categories of favorability or ballot standing. The campaign stressed that Harris “largely treaded water” throughout the month of August up until Labor Day. Curiously, though the ballot position of Harris against Trump closed to a deadlock, her favorability only saw an increase of two points. But as the campaign noted, a presidential race is frequently viewed as not beginning in earnest until after Labor Day, and the changes reflect it. The campaign provided a “State of the Race” analysis from September 3rd ,and October 11th giving a comparison between the two moments in time. State of the Race – September 3, 2024: *         “The RCP national polling average was Harris +1.8 – on the same Day in 2020, Biden was +7.2 – Trump running 5.4 points better than 2020. *         Also, according to the RCP Battleground State polling averages, Harris was leading with 270 electoral votes to Trump's 262, with 6 EVs tied (No Lean or Toss-up States). Since Labor Day, the Harris campaign has spent $241,407,417 on trackable media spend compared to only $104,774,939 paid by the Trump campaign – nearly a 2.5 to 1 spending advantage.“ State of the Race – October 11, 2024: *         “The RCP national polling average is still Harris +1.8 – on the same Day in 2020, Biden was +10.3 – Trump now running 8.5 points better than 2020. *         Also, according to the RCP Battleground State polling averages, in a dramatic turn, Trump is now leading in 296 electoral votes to Harris's 242 EVs (with no Lean or Toss Up states included).” The disparity between the Harris’ campaign’s ad spending more than doubling the Trump campaign’s and the seemingly frozen nature of her overall polling numbers since September after a precipitous decline suggest that the national opinion is already locked in to Harris’ disadvantage and the outcome may now be unavoidable. The Trump campaign noted the stunning result in the release saying, “Given the vast amount of money her campaign has spent and the willingness of the MSM to give her a pass at every turn, how is it possible that she's gone backward in our internal and public polling?” In a more drilled-down series of policy questions the differences become even more apparent with Trump making marginal gains or holding while Harris takes marginal losses or remains locked. In estimation of whether Trump or Harris would do a better job as President, from Sep. 5th to Oct. 9th Trump gained a single point polling at 49%, while Harris remained in place at 45%. A similar result played out in whether each candidate would “Deliver change America Needs,” with Trump gaining a point to reach 47% with Harris locked in at 43%. On fighting inflation and rising costs, an issue Harris has attempted to pin on companies engaged in “ Price gouging ,” to little avail, Trump gained a single point bringing him to 50% while Harris backslid to 40%. Both candidates ability to “Improve the Economy” remained immovable over the last month with Trump remaining at 50% while Harris trailed by 9 points. On the issue of job creation Trump’s six point lead eroded to five points at 47%, but Harris didn’t enjoy a gain from it. Under the vital issue of improving voters’ personal financial situations the results were unchanged with Trump enjoying a stark 12 point advantage at 48% to Harris’ 36%. Border Security, another key issue, proved a steady gauge for Trump at 55% both months while Harris took a one point hit bringing her down to 28%. However, the single greatest lost for Harris over the month of September came from whether she would “Fight Crime and Make Neighborhoods Safer.” As violent illegal immigrant gangs  ravage Colorado and New York, the American voter has been watching. On this issue, Trump enjoyed a two-point gain while Harris lost bringing the result to 49% to 38%, an 11 point gap. The Battleground state results speak for themselves, showing that the glacially locked figures, when they do drift by one or two points, are moving in Trump’s favor. Hearkening back to Exit Poll figures from 2020, the Trump campaign pointed to four key results that demonstrate Harris’ inability to appreciably change the election outcome at this point. *         Trump is presently enjoying a 13 point edge over where his campaign polled in 2020 among independent voters. In 2020, he lost this cohort of voters by 8 points, today he leads by 5. *         Among Black voters Trump is now 20 points ahead of his 2020 result. Comparing the two he lost Black voters in swing states by 81 points, today he’s eroded Harris’ lead to 61. *         With Hispanic voters Trump’s 2024 gains are even more pronounced with him polling 32 points above his finishing mark in 2020 when he lost by 25 points. Astonishingly today he leads by 7 points. *         Finally, among younger voters aged 18-44, Trump has gained 11 points over his 2020 result, closing the gap from 15 points to 4. Simply put, in the battleground states, the 2024 election is not shaping up to be a repeat of 2020, and month over month polling indicates that significant movement for either candidate is unlikely beyond a 1-2 point change notwithstanding the blistering endgame spending the Harris campaign applies. Matthew Holloway is a contributor for  Conservative HQ .  Follow him on X  for his latest stories, or email tips to  Matthew@theconservativefreelancer.com . 2024 Election polls internal data Kamala Harris polls Kamala Harris favorability Donald Trump favorability Trump campaign Real Clear Politics Kamala Harris campaign spending public opinion inflation economy job creation crime black voters Hispanic voters

Hispanic audiences are polite. And serious. And appreciate straight answers. Those were the impressions I gathered from the Univision town hall on Wednesday evening featuring Donald Trump, the second of two such forums featuring 2024’s presidential candidates. Trump appeared a little more than a week after Democrat cackling Kamala Harris had her turn on Univision, which, on balance, I think ended up being an advantage for Trump.   Both forums were made up of audience members posing questions to the candidates (with translation where needed). Trump, like Kamala did the week before, stood the entire time, opting not to sit on what he joked was the “most uncomfortable chair possible.” Being mobile and upright allowed Trump the chance to appear strong and capable as well as the ability to look directly at his questioners to try and win their votes.   For a one-hour program (including several lengthy commercial breaks), I thought there was a good mix of subject matter with questions on immigration (of course), climate change, gun control, abortion (a woman asked the candidate if he supported wife Melania’s recent announcement that she believed in the “right” to an abortion), and finally, to try and name three things that he admired about his opponent.   As I’ve observed a number of times, Trump’s business, entertainment and media background provided an excellent foundation for this type of event. The moderator and the questioners were exceedingly polite, thanking the candidate for taking their query and listening intently to his answers.   Why Trump continues to do well with Hispanic voters   Or why Trump continues to earn the support of Hispanic male voters, specifically. Polls throughout the cycle have indicated that Trump does much better with Hispanic folks than he did in 2020 or 2016 – or his “moderate” GOP establishment predecessors enjoyed with the group. This success flies in the face of establishment media commentators who’ve speculated that Trump’s harsh rhetoric concerning illegal immigration would turn this group off.   It doesn’t. News flash, liberal pundits: Hispanics don’t appreciate illegal immigration, either. Democrats like the potential to turn newcomers into votes, but the “legal” Latinos don’t enjoy the “migrants” taking their jobs, committing crimes or competing with them for housing or legitimate government benefits and services that they’ve earned along with everyone else who did what they were supposed to.   As has been argued before, the term “Latinos” encompasses individuals from different countries. They aren’t just Mexicans or El Salvadoreans or Hondurans or Nicaraguans. There’s no reason to believe that all Latinos favor illegal immigrants breaching the border and being allowed to stay through government policies designed to make it easy for lawbreakers to come and remain here.   Trump touted his business background and his ability to bring jobs to the economy, which is exactly what these people are searching for. Because he was already president for four years, Trump bragged about his being “the greatest economy in history” and indicated that everything was going great until COVID came to throw a wrench into the humming economic engine.   Trump promised to cut taxes for businesses – what he calls “positive taxation” -- but also to help American companies compete through tariffs and favorable treatment. Whereas Democrats offer lucrative but costly government goodies, Trump takes more of a whole of economy approach. Jobs will come through making the economy stronger, which will benefit the most people.   Similarly, Trump said he would reduce inflation through producing more energy. “We have more liquid gold underneath our feet than any other country”, and he intends to use it.   Meanwhile, on the “climate change” question, Trump explained that the best way to combat environmental ruin was to ensure that there was clean air and water and allow companies to create jobs. Basically, that it does no good to place shackles on the economy, especially when polluters like China spend little or no money on battling “climate change” (which Trump called global warming).   Eliminating government waste and fraud will be a major emphasis under Trump   Trump also took a question on what he intended to do to bring down the growing national debt, a subject rarely brought up these days. At least someone is worried about it – it turned out to be a young Hispanic woman who is about to enter the workforce. The candidate talked about economic growth being the best way to fight the debt monster, a solid, common sense strategy. Then, Trump mentioned Elon Musk offering to come in and lend his expertise on how to make government more efficient.   I’m not sure if everyone in the room perked up at that point, but clearly Trump’s friendship and time spent with Musk has done some good. Can you imagine Musk being placed in charge of making the government bureaucracy more accountable and competent?   They must be terrified!   In the process, Trump didn’t pander to the audience. He answered their questions directly, including a gentleman who asked about harvesting vegetables – if we don’t have illegal immigrants to do the work, who will do it? Trump responded that he is in favor of immigration, but it must be legal  and comply with the country’s needs.   This reply probably won’t satisfy Democrats, the Republican establishment or even the Chamber of Commerce, but likely resonated with a populace that is sick to death of millions of people flowing in over the border without any control whatsoever.   What about all the Republicans who won’t support you?   Kamala Harris likes talking about it and mentioning the seemingly big group of former Trump staffers who no longer support him – including former vice president Mike Pence – so, what do you say to those people Mr. Trump?   The establishment media makes a big deal about former Republicans like Liz Cheney who are now in the other gal’s camp and doing rallies talking about how awful Trump is. Trump’s reply? 97% of Republicans back him now, and he earns enemies by liking to fire people. Pretty simple, no?   Trump said he’s drawn animosity through purging the deadwood of the Republican Party, and one of the things he learned from already being president was to be more careful in who he hires the next time around. Democrats rally around their nominee no matter who it is, whereas Trump seeks people who will work for the MAGA mission. Is that so unreasonable?   In all of this, Trump has become a much more complete candidate than he was eight – or even four – years ago. Be it through being prosecuted relentlessly or being shot at (as a target for assassins), but there’s a much humbler man who’s running for president in 2024. Trump still does his share of boasting, but in this type of town hall environment, he’s deferential and modest.   It seemed like the Hispanic audience appreciated Trump’s candor and straightforward answers.   Finally, a question on gun control   “What would you say to families of kids who were victims of school shooters”?   Trump responded by not only defending a citizen’s right to bear arms, but also pointed out that the places in the country that have the worst gun violence are the ones with the strictest gun laws. Would you ever hear Joe Biden or cackling Kamala Harris or Tim Walz admit such a thing?   Trump reasoned that most guns involved in crimes are illegal, so proposing to restrict the rights of legitimate gun owners would not result in fewer shootings, killings or a more secure population. Owning a gun for self-protection is a necessity in many places, and if there weren’t any guns – anarchy would ensue.   The most humorous moment came at the end when a woman asked Trump to name Kamala Harris’s three virtues… and Trump struggled to think of any, which elicited chuckles from the onlookers. Trump said it was the “hardest question all night”, but did manage to say something nice about his opponent. Kudos to the Republican for being able to come up with anything.   Trump “won” the evening. His final response only sealed the deal.   Trump meets with Hispanics in Miami and women – only  – in Georgia   Ladies first.   Earlier in the day on Wednesday, Trump appeared in another type of town hall “debate”, this time hosted by Harris Faulkner of Fox News. This forum was unique in the sense that it was basically an interview between Faulkner and Trump before a live audience of only  women (it was pre-recorded the night before).   It took place in Georgia before what appeared to be a mostly supportive group (one woman wore a Republican delegate hat) who presented questions to Trump in such a way as to elicit real responses from the candidate rather than having him try to slant his answers towards a particular targeted group. Not that Trump would try to do that! Yes, these were women voters, and almost all of them seemed to like Trump, but the format and semi-intimate setting in a reconditioned barn with soft lighting was such that the one-hour time allotment was more like a one-to-one conversation with each person than adversarial question and answer session.   Trump was asked about his plan for bringing prices down, which, as he’s indicated numerous times before, all comes down to working to bring energy prices lower. Whereas cackling Kamala Harris almost immediately delves into price gouging and going after businesses that are supposedly taking excessive profits, Trump instead jumps into the root of the problem, the prices themselves.   Trump also spent several questions talking about immigration, including how he planned to prevent migrant crime and make America safer immediately (Georgia nursing student Laken Riley’s case was brought up). Trump replied that he intended to do away with sanctuary cities entirely if he is elected, and he will do so by executive order if necessary. He also plans to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to gain the authority for such an executive action. Will this bring constitutional challenges?   Another anticipated concern from the all-female audience involved abortion and the potential availability of IVF, which has garnered more discussion and concern than I envisioned the subject ever would. Trump said, correctly, that abortion has divided the country ever since Roe v. Wade  was decided in the early 1970’s. This is true. But he reasoned that the Supreme Court took the issue away from the federal government, which “everyone wanted and agreed with.”   I don’t think everyone agrees on the topic, and therein lies the problem, however. Trump has bent over backwards to try and accommodate the abortion advocates on the issue, most likely in hopes of picking up a few percentage points of the women’s vote. I’m not sure this strategy will work, since his newer, more “moderate” stance could just as well alienate pro-life advocates. There are single-issue voters on the Pro-life side as well. It’s a delicate balance, but Trump has his stance, pretty much, take it or leave it.   On the whole, the program was fairly similar to the type of presentation Trump has done so many times before. Quite simply put, Trump excels in this environment. He leans forward in his chair when speaking, which conveys comfortability and familiarity for the audience. His frequent light-hearted comments put people at ease as well, and his answers, though occasionally repetitive, are not rehearsed.   Kamala Harris tends to say the same thing over and over again in responses memorized pretty much word for word. Trump doesn’t do this. Though he regularly returns to his themes of immigration enforcement and community safety (definitely with an all-female audience in mind), his off-the-cuff answers never sounded canned.   This spontaneous quality is what has allowed Trump to retain his popularity throughout his political career. If he doesn’t sound like a politician, it’s because he isn’t one. Even the most capable of office seekers must keep him or herself from lapsing into politician-speak. Trump doesn’t ever fall into the memorization trap. His answers contain some of the same elements – “I had the safest borders” or “I had no wars during my term in office”, but it all seems fresh and new when he words it differently.   Harris is trying to win over men’s votes by pandering to them. Trump hopes to improve his standing with women by relating to them, something Kamala certainly can’t ever do with men who aren’t ashamed of being men. Trump’s decades of doing real-life interviews taught him how to talk to people person-to-person. Trump’s appearance with Harris Faulkner demonstrated why he’s so effective in that setting. Does it work with everyone? No. But the people who like Trump will remain loyal to him.   Summing it up   Both the Univision town hall and the program moderated by Fox News’s Harris Faulkner brought out the best in Donald Trump. The longtime real estate developer and tabloid celebrity knows how to “work a room”. In this setting, he’s much more effective at connecting with voters than Kamala Harris is. Trump would do well to do as many of these town halls as he possibly can. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

There’s one crucial question that has decided many of America’s presidential elections, and it bodes ill for Kamala Harris. By a 16-point margin, most voters answer “no” to a question famously asked by Ronald Reagan in 1980: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”   The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 40% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are better off than they were four years ago, while 56% say they’re not better off. (To see survey question wording, click here. ) The Gallup Organization  also found that three separate measures of party performance on issues favor the Republican Party by at least a modest margin.   By 46% to 41%, Americans say the Republican Party is better able than the Democratic Party to address what they think is the most important problem facing the country. The top issues Americans currently name as the most important are ones that tend to favor the GOP, including the economy (24%), immigration (22%), the government (17%) and inflation (15%).   This measure has been highly predictive of election outcomes in Gallup trends dating back to 1948.   A recent Pew Research survey of voters asking which issues were most important to their vote also found results that were similarly bad for Harris with 81% of all voters listing the economy as "very important" to their vote. Interestingly, only 69% of Harris supporters listed the economy as “very important,” while 93% of Trump voters said the economy was very important to their vote.   In more good news for President Trump, Rasmussen found Republicans more trusted than Democrats on the question of which political party voters trust more to handle the economy, 51% say Republicans and 41% say Democrats. Among voters who say they’re not better off than they were four years ago, 80% trust Republicans more to handle immigration and 79% trust Republicans more to handle the economy.   While 66% of Democrats say they’re better off than they were four years ago, that opinion is shared by only 10% of Republicans and 29% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans, 51% of unaffiliated voters and 28% of Democrats say they’re not better off. On the question of which party is most trusted to handle the economy, 88% of Republicans trust the GOP more and 83% of Democrats trust their own party more. Among unaffiliated voters, 51% trust Republicans more, while 29% trust Democrats more and 20% are undecided. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of whites, 42% of black voters, 55% of Hispanics and 63% of other minorities say they are not better off than they were four years ago.   Older voters are more likely to trust Republicans to handle the economy, Voters ages 40-64 are most likely to say they are not better off than they were four years ago. A September YouGov poll likewise older respondents painting a bleaker picture of their finances than younger respondents. One-quarter of 18-25-year-olds said they were better off, compared to 12% of those 65 and older. And in contrast, 16% of 18-29-year-olds said they were worse off, while 36% of those 65 and older said the same.   Breaking down the electorate by income categories, voters earning more than $100,000 are most likely to trust Democrats to handle the economy. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters in the top bracket – with annual incomes over $200,000 – say they’re better off than they were four years ago, but more than 60% of those earning less than $50,000 a year say they’re not better off.   Among voters who say America is on the wrong track, 73% trust Republicans more to handle the economy, while among those think the country is headed in the right direction, 85% trust Democrats more on the economy.   On the crucial question of immigration Rasmussen found 53% trust Republicans more to handle immigration while 38% trust Democrats more on the issue, and 10% are not sure.   On the question of which party is most trusted to handle immigration, Republicans (90%) are significantly more likely than Democrats (79%) to trust their own party more, and unaffiliated voters favor the GOP by 56% to 25% margin.   Women voters are significantly more likely than men to trust Democrats on both the economy and immigration, but majorities of both men and women voters say they’re not better off than they were four years ago.   Black voters are most likely to trust Democrats more to handle the economy and immigration, however voters of all ages trust the GOP more on the immigration issue.   The survey of 1,050 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on October 1-3, 2024 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. 2024 Election Kamala Harris campaign Military Readiness Cultural Marxism Hispanic male voters Male African-American voters Democrat contributions price gouging price controls first-time home buyers 25th Amendment public housing ActBlue donations Donald Trump campaign Kamala Harris campaign Kamala Harris senate record

October 24th is United Nations Day and our friend Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center  (APC) has called on Americans to change that to “EXIT UNITED NATIONS DAY” as a means to demand the U. S. government end its membership in the United Nations.   Said DeWeese, “The United Nations is the most dangerous source of evil in the world. And the United States is its main target to plunder and control. If ever we are to regain the vision of our founders, U.S. membership in the United Nations must be ended.” DeWeese went on to say, “The world is in chaos, and it’s the UN’s fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. And it gives a voice to international terrorists. Global Governance, that’s the UN’s goal to dictate every aspect of how we will live. And the people don’t get a single vote to help make those decisions.”   Citing the recent UN Summit of the Future (our Common Agenda) held in New Your City, DeWeese said, “Of course, it covered all the usual drivel including Climate Change, and to ‘lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order…’ Yep, we’ve heard all of that before, as we already live under UN agendas with more wars, more hunger, and more misery than any time in human history.”   Another part of the compact, called the Global Digital Compact, calls for “the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation and AI Governance!” Said DeWeese, “that really translates to a non-human process!”   “And the UN calls all of this “Democracy Without Borders!” That is the true goal of the outrageous invasion by millions of illegals over our border!”   For over thirty-five years, the American Policy Center has been a leader in opposing the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, which the UN has labeled a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”   In the late 1990s, APC worked with former Congressman Ron Paul as he produced a bill to get the U.S. out of the UN. APC organized a national mail program to build support for his bill. Finally, on September 7, 2000, APC sponsored a national news conference on Capitol Hill, calling for U.S. exit from the UN. The news conference featured Rep. Paul, the late Rep. Helen Chenoweth, and Tom DeWeese, as it was reported live on CSPAN.   To support that position, APC presented 350,000 signed petitions in support of Rep. Paul’s bill. They weighed more than one and a half tons. The multiple boxes of petitions served as the backdrop behind the speakers during the news conference.   In 2006, DeWeese was invited to Cambridge University in England to debate the issue of the UN before a 200-year-old debating society called the Cambridge Union. The opposition to my anti-UN position was Lord David Hanney, the former UK Ambassador to the UN, also, Simon Hughes, the head of the Liberal Democrats in the British parliament, and Solil Shetty, then head of the UN’s Millenium Project. DeWeese ended his opening statement, saying, “The United Nations is not ‘dysfunctional’ as some ‘reformers’ have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate, let alone perpetuate.”   Today, after more than 30 years leading the fight to end U.S. membership in the UN, the American Policy Center is calling for a new action to bring public attention to the threat to national sovereignty posed by the United Nations and to demand that the U.S. government take action to end it.   With millions of people around the world feeling the effects of the growing UN agenda for global control, APC believes now is the best opportunity ever to make the case to get the United States out of the United Nations and preserve and defend our national independence and sovereignty.   October 24th is officially on the calendar as “United Nations Day.” APC is declaring that day to be EXIT UNITED NATIONS DAY! APC is calling on American from across the nation to celebrate October 24th as EXIT UNITED NATIONS DAY!   Said DeWeese, “Be creative; here are some peaceful actions that can be taken in every community:   *         Make signs to place in your yard; or wear a tag to work that says EXIT UN DAY. *         If you’re a truck driver, put signs on the back of your truck, perhaps pull to the side of the road for a few minutes. Imagine if 20 trucks join you. *         Right there in your community, on Main Street, at 12:00 noon on October 24th – you, family, friends, and co-workers hold a rally to celebrate EXIT UN DAY!  Make flyers with details as to why the UN is a danger. Contact the news media. Tell them what you’re doing. Write letters to the editor. Get the word out. Let’s make October 24 a disaster for the United Nations on its own day!”    For more information contact Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center ( americanpolicy.org ) email: contact@americanpolicy.org 2024 Election UN Day Exit United Nations Day US membership in UN UN Summit of the Future Climate Change Sustainable global order UN agendas Global Digital Compact Agenda 21 Agenda 2030 Congressman Ron Paul American Policy Center

Are you feeling confident about the 2024 election results?   I’m not talking about the fairness of the election. A little less than three weeks ahead of the big day there’s no way to determine whether the vote count will be fair or accurate, so it’s fruitless to speculate what will transpire on November 5, the day after – and the ensuing days/weeks after that. From what I’ve been hearing from most sources, the outcome of a few states may very well go down to the proverbial wire, which, if the Electoral College count is close, will result in unprecedented lawyering, spinning (by the establishment media), lies, conspiracy theories, threats, protests… and a whole lot of frustration by millions of voters.   This is the worst-case scenario where everyone loses. Even the election winner (most likely Trump) will have to contend with know-it-alls from the opposition who won’t ever give up or give in. Democrats suggest this was Trump in 2020, but it’s more like Al Gore in 2000, where the losing side litigated “hanging chads” and whether single votes counted in Florida. Imagine this happening across several states. “Ugly” doesn’t begin to describe how damaging this circumstance would be.   The only way to truly alleviate this probability is to ensure a Trump victory outside the “margin of fraud” in a healthy number of states with differentials large enough that even a Democrat couldn’t lie his or her way into making gullible people – translation, the hosts of “The View” – believe there’s reason to conclude cackling Kamala Harris and Tampon Tim Walz were cheated out of their political birthright.   Americans have made headway into securing elections since 2020, but serious doubts still exist. It will take several elections cycles and passing sane voter integrity measures to truly bring a semblance of trust in the voting system back to average people. A resounding Donald Trump victory would restore confidence in future elections, but this appears to be a generational problem that won’t disappear overnight.   We don’t have time to worry about that now, however. We’ve still got an election to win and most of the votes have yet to be cast – or mailed. Donald Trump has been keeping up his usually vigorous campaign rally schedule, attempting to assure that the MAGA millions turn out when they need to. The recent hurricanes and disaster recoveries will burden the folks of those impacted regions, but after all that’s gone on “down there”, one would think that voting for the next round of federal leaders would be front of mind and a high priority for the victims.   What we’re talking about are things that could still knock the election off course. Democrats are notorious for dredging up or inventing an “October surprise” to upset the balance as Election Day nears. The concept was made famous in the satirical 1997 movie “ Wag the Dog ”, where the campaign brains of a losing candidate invented a means to help pull him even with his opponent at the last moment.   Expect the unexpected should be the mantra for everyone in the closing weeks.   Unfortunately, in some respects, this may include surprises from our own candidate. In an article titled “ Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV: Trump calls on Harris to take cognitive test ”, Tom Howell Jr. reported one such potential trip-up at The Washington Times the other day :   “Former President Donald Trump says Vice President Kamala Harris should take a cognitive test, calling her ‘slow and lethargic’ in how she answers media questions.   “His challenge to Ms. Harris, 59, mirrors his critique of President Biden, who is 81 and dropped out of the presidential race because of questions about his mental acuity and stamina. ‘I believe it is very important that Kamala Harris pass a test on Cognitive Stamina and Agility,’ Mr. Trump posted Monday on Truth Social. ‘Her actions have led many to believe that there could be something very wrong with her.’   “Mr. Trump did not specify who believes that about Ms. Harris. Still, his decision to lean into cognitive ability is familiar terrain. Throughout his political career, Mr. Trump has boasted about his mental abilities compared to his rivals, dubbing himself a ‘very stable genius’ during his presidency and bragging he got a perfect score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.”   Okay. Americans understand this is most likely just Trump being Trump again – perhaps a kneejerk reaction to cackling Kamala obsessing over his medical records -- but why here, why now? If the standard practice is for candidates who presume they’re in the lead to kind of lay low, concentrate on the themes and issues that brought them this far and play out the string until the establishment media news breakers have turned out the lights on their coverage in the wee morning hours of the day after Election Day, what possible good could it do for Trump to re-broach the subject of cognitive tests  in late October?   Besides, the cognitive test thing was a legitimate concern where president senile Joe Biden was concerned because the Delawarean’s visibly deteriorated for the past decade and, by saying so, Trump planted the seeds of doubt in Americans’ minds, so much so that even Biden’s party poohbahs started assessing just how much the man’s brain rot had advanced since he ran in 2020.   The pressure to perform and demonstrate that he wasn’t a living, breathing vegetable became too much for poor ol’ senile Joe, who was forced to remove himself from consideration before he’d even had a chance to celebrate his legacy at his last party convention in August.   Meanwhile, cackling Kamala was always notorious for her utter lack of talent involving articulating and analyzing ideas. Harris’s infamous word salads are a big part of why political observers, myself included, speculated that her rise to popularity was temporary, and she’d be hitting rock bottom at about the time voters were making their decisions on who to vote for this year.   Not everyone thought this way, since Democrat base voters have demonstrated over the course of decades that they would vote for dead people, criminals, swindlers, race baiters, hustlers, senile old coots (Biden, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein, etc.) over legitimate, or at least semi-legitimate Republican challengers just to hold onto power.   But for the middle portion of the electorate, the five to eight percent of “undecided” voters who seem to hold the power in every closely contested election, it’s best to stick to the issues. Trump hasn’t had to work very hard to convince his supporters that Kamala is a special kind of moron, so, calling her “stupid” and “slow”, “communist” and certain kinds of insane was all part of branding the woman who many predicted would be Biden’s replacement nominee if and when he ever self-removed himself.   It goes without saying Trump’s primary focus in the remaining campaign time is to sustain his GOTV efforts while attempting to reinforce the doubts wavering voters may have about Kamala’s weak record and close association with senile Joe Biden. Let her speak. In fact, allow her to say anything she wants, because the more Harris talks in public, the more she helps Trump by defining herself as incapable to perform the job of president of the United States.   Whether Kamala would pass a cognitive test is immaterial at this juncture. Even if she could be convinced that such an exam is necessary – and she fails it – there’s no way she would be removed as Democrat nominee with so little time left. The other side of the coin is even worse – what if she assented to the test and passed it .   Or rigged a trial so as to ensure she got a sufficient score. It’s my understanding the Montreal Cognitive Assessment has a pretty low threshold for “normal” adults to attain. Kamala will turn 60 years old in less than a week (on the 20th) and hasn’t had any episodes that would make people question her ability to function as a politician. Unlike senile Joe, she hasn’t been shaking hands with phantom admirers, exiting from the wrong side of the stage, falling off bikes or talking to people who aren’t there.   One can understand why Trump would want to make Harris’s smarts and brain function a potential issue in the campaign, but he’s playing with fire here. Why would he distract voters from the authentic issues at a time when he’s clearly putting distance between himself (and J.D. Vance) and “the enemy”?   I don’t get it. Democrats don’t require any more excuses to label Trump “unfit” or “unpresidential” or “racist” or “sexist” or “deplorable” or “unstable” or unduly judgmental.   Trump would be wise to drop the subject.   There are other topic areas that should be taboo from now until (or after) Election Day as well, which includes allusions to the 2020 vote count and “winning” over senile Joe Biden. It’s definitely more than defensible for him to keep plugging for election integrity, highlighting the potential for illegal voters, calling for volunteers to watch the polls and to be vigilant in guaranteeing that MAGA voters turn out.   But let 2020 go. No one who isn’t already voting for Trump this year cares about reopening the can of worms that can’t be resolved one way or another. Elections are about the future, not what happened four years ago. And while there are millions of diehard Trump fans who still want answers about 2020, there are millions more who don’t like Trump but will vote for him anyway because his agenda is a winner with them.   Don’t give people an excuse to stay home from the polls. As conservative bomb thrower Kurt Schlichter wrote this week, conservatives shouldn’t be overconfident about victory . We should treat this election as though we’re way behind and need to catch up. Who knows, we just might actually trail Harris in places.   Other topics Trump should stay away from: Kamala’s ethnic self-identification; UFOs; Barack Obama’s birth certificate; Trump’s wealth; crowd sizes; whether the Great Pumpkin exists (sorry, I had to put that one in for myself); any Democrat woman’s looks or waist size, and anything having to do with abortion that would draw the immediate focus of the establishment media.   Conservatives are feeling more confident about the 2024 election now than they were a month ago. Trump’s steady message as well as a number of Kamala flubs have contributed to the new optimism. Trump must not take away from the important issues in this election. A cognitive test for Kamala? Leave it alone, Mr. Trump. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

A middle-class man who grew up on Detroit’s iconic 8 Mile has written a poignant letter to Vice President Kamala Harris, expressing his frustrations with the impact of current political policies on everyday Americans. The letter, now featured in a compelling video, draws sharp contrasts between Harris' claim of being from the middle class and the reality middle-class families are facing today.   The man, who chooses to remain anonymous in the letter, recalls the pride of his working-class upbringing in Detroit, highlighting values like hard work and family. But as an adult, he shares how the policies of the current administration have devastated his ability to make ends meet. From skyrocketing gas and grocery prices to the collapse of traditional factory jobs, the letter speaks to a growing sense of disillusionment among middle-class families. Quote from the Letter: " I too grew up a middle-class kid, and unlike you, I am now a middle-class adult. My father worked overtime at the plant, and we took modest vacations. Today, those factories are gone, and I'm barely making it under your policies ." The letter, directed at Harris, touches on topics such as: *         The closure of American factories and outsourcing of jobs to China. *         The rise of crime and drug issues in former middle-class neighborhoods. *         The struggle to keep up with rising costs of living, including gas, groceries, and energy bills. *         How Harris’ push for electric vehicles and climate policies are out of reach for most middle-class families. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, the video is resonating with many Americans who feel ignored by politicians. The man’s message is clear: while Kamala Harris may speak of her middle-class upbringing, she no longer represents the people living that reality today.   The video, available on YouTube and Rumble, is part of a growing grassroots effort to amplify the voices of the middle class before the November election. Watch the video here:   You Tube Link :  Kamala Harris, You Don’t Speak for Us, or Know Us: A Middle-Class Man’s Blunt Letter.   Rumble Link : Kamala Harris, You Don’t Speak for Us or Know Us: A Middle-Class Man’s Blunt Letter. About the Video: The video was produced by Stand Up Michigan, an organic grassroots movement made up of We The People  whose vision is to reclaim and defend the rights and liberties of Michiganders. Their Mission is to equip and empower We The People  to stand up for sacred values, citizen rights and constitutionally-protected freedoms. 2024 Election Kamala Harris campaign Military Readiness Cultural Marxism Hispanic male voters Male African-American voters Democrat contributions price gouging price controls first-time home buyers 25th Amendment public housing ActBlue donations Donald Trump campaign Kamala Harris campaign Kamala Harris senate record

As our friend Robert Romano pointed out in a recent column for Americans for Limited Government, overall consumer prices since President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office have increased more than 19 percent since the beginning of 2021 according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and inflation has averaged more than 5.6 percent a year under Biden-Harris. What’s more, the rising prices show no sign of stopping or even slowing. Prices are STILL rising, with overall prices up  20.5% , electricity up  31.3% , rent up  22.9% , and groceries up  22.1%  since Kamala took office. And it gets worse, as this chart recently released by the Trump campaign demonstrates.   Under Kamala, real average weekly earnings are down  3.4% .  Under President Trump, real average weekly earnings increased  8.2% . Under Kamala, gas prices have  averaged  $3.49/gallon.  Under President Trump, gas prices  averaged  $2.48/gallon. In Kamala's first three years, Americans saw a  1.3%  increase ($1,050) in median household income.  In President Trump's first three years, Americans saw a  10.5% boost  ($7,690) in median household income —  seven times larger . In Kamala's first three years, the  personal savings rate  fell from 19.3% in 2021 to 2.9% in 2024 — an 85% decrease.  In President Trump's first three years, the  personal savings rate  rose from 5.3% in 2017 to 19.3% in 2021 — a 264% increase. Under Kamala, the average  30-year fixed mortgage rate  increased by 120% between 2021 and 2024.  Under President Trump, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate decreased by 32% between 2017 and 2021. Under Kamala,  credit card delinquency  skyrocketed by 54% between 2020 and 2024.  Under President Trump, credit card delinquency fell by 11% between 2016 and 2020.   Vice President Kamala Harris recently told ABC News’ “The View” that she would not change anything from President Biden’s term of office, “There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of — and I’ve been a part of — of the decisions that have had impact,” said Harris. Kamala's inflationary  policies   sent   prices   soaring  in the first place — and she'd  double down  if she's elected in November with the  largest   tax hike  in history, a Soviet-style  price control scheme , and a  housing plan  that will only drive home prices  higher . Which may be why Kamala Harris has pretty much stopped talking about the economy, jobs, and anything else where objective metrics can be applied to her performance in office. Given Harris’s commitment to “more of the same” Biden economic policies, the only way back to economic prosperity and opportunity for all Americans is by re-electing President Donald J. Trump in November. 2024 Election Consumer Prices Inflation rate Biden Harris administration gas prices grocery prices rent prices Wages personal savings rate mortgage rates credit card delinquency

Have you ever wondered whether Democrat fill-in presidential candidate cackling Kamala Harris could lie effectively in two languages? Such was the salient conundrum heading into the Univision town hall featuring Harris last Thursday night in Las Vegas . The Spanish language television network invited both Harris and Republican Donald Trump to take part in separate events where allegedly “regular” Hispanic American citizens would have the opportunity to pose questions to 2024’s candidates, and to receive their answers with as little filter as possible.   Trump’s Univision town hall was originally scheduled for Tuesday, October 8, but was postponed until this week (tonight) because of the approach of Hurricane Milton in Florida. Trump is set to meet with an audience of presumably similarly undecided Hispanic voters in Miami this evening, hear their concerns and stories, and respond directly to their questions.   These are issues that supposedly concern Hispanic voters as a group, but the queries they posed, at least to cackling Kamala Harris, were very much the same ones you’d get from any ethnicity or background. The only difference being some of the language necessitated translation.   Overall impressions   Kamala Harris has been doing quite a few establishment media softball-type interviews lately, sitting down with woke liberal pod cast hosts, CBS’s obnoxious idiot late night talker Stephen Colbert, 60 Minutes, the hags at The View and others specifically selected to allow her to drone on endlessly about her background and experience as vice president and also California Attorney General, all designed to make her sound as though she’s qualified to be president.   But this was the first town hall style forum I’ve seen Kamala take part in. The one-hour program went by rather quickly and she was asked about a number of salient topics including hurricane response, healthcare, “reproductive health” (fancy term for abortion) and the high cost of living, within the context of real people who often relayed their own observations and primarily wanted to know what Kamala would do to alleviate these problems.   Harris looked contented in the environment, more comfortable than I thought she’d be. She produced her usual quantity of non-answers, outright lies and word salads, but didn’t completely botch the forum. For example, the first question of the evening, from a man who worked in construction in Tampa, Florida, concerned the administration’s rejoinder to the hurricanes, and how there was some disagreement among Americans that things were handled properly.   Kamala recited the Biden administration’s standard reply, blaming Donald Trump for spreading “misinformation” about the situation, and then injected herself into the picture by recalling her experience as a prosecutor and how she’d handled matters impartially. “I never asked anyone if they were a Republican or a Democrat. I just asked if they were okay.” What the heck does that matter?   Here's thinking Kamala can’t respond to a topic like hurricane disaster recovery because she doesn’t know anything about the topic, yet has to convey that leadership matters. Or something like that. Nor does Harris appear at ease with the subjects of immigration – she sidestepped a question on what she might’ve done differently than her boss on the border – cost of living, how and why the Democrats kicked out senile Joe Biden without explanation, etc…   The fact Kamala isn’t used to this type of format definitely revealed itself. Her elitist background doesn’t exactly give her the aura of a “regular gal”, no matter how many times she insisted that she came from the “middle class” and relates to real problems from ordinary people.   The most telling (or revealing) exchange of the evening came from a mom from Los Angeles who asked a rather drawn-out question regarding rent increases and cost of living, asking what Kamala, if elected president, planned to do to bring prices down.   As she often does, Kamala admits that rates are too high and she will work to bring them down, primarily through taking on price gougers and corporations, a solution in search of a problem. Harris used the hurricanes as examples of price gouging, like there aren’t already laws in place to take care of this contingency. And if so, such a practice is only temporary.   Did Kamala get an F for her town hall performance? I wouldn’t say so. She clearly has trouble framing arguments and synopsizing issues, but, from the looks of the audience, they weren’t completely unconvinced. Did she win more votes as opposed to “woke” matters? Probably not from the audience members who were concerned about economics issues. She was averse to saying anything detailed, and I doubt the questioners appreciated elements from her standard stump speech in place of actual, concrete proposals.   And she didn’t address why her “plans” weren’t already being implemented, either.   You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all the time. That’s Kamala Harris in a nutshell.   Lies, damned lies and (no) statistics   Kamala Harris, like most Democrats, relies on what I would refer to as Democrat urban legends about what Donald Trump actually said vs. the establishment media’s spin and twisting about a statement.   During one of her rambling answers in the second half of the program, Kamala dipped deep into her bag of tricks and pulled out the utter falsehood that Trump plans to be a dictator, because he indicated one time that he would be a “dictator on day one.” Well, technically speaking, Trump did admit that he’d dictate on his first day of his second administration, but only  concerning energy production, which he would greatly expand – and that he would order the border closed.   Kamala always omits the “on day one only” part of his statement. She also said Trump admires dictators, which is a common media distortion about his true beliefs and associations. She and senile Joe are much closer to real despots, since they have plenty of plans regarding gun confiscation and regulation, energy (fracking) bans, Electric Vehicle mandates, outlawing gas stoves, etc. They’re the real tyrants.   Democrats’ entire campaign revolves around making Trump into a real, living, monster, who people, particularly Hispanics, should fear.   In the process, she claims the inflation rate is down (which it is, but still higher than when Trump was in office), jobs were created (which they were but essentially constituted COVID positions that came back after the government allowed the economy to reopen), that Trump tried earnestly to get rid of Obamacare (which he did, thinking it would be replaced by something with more consumer choice and would be cheaper), etc.   Where is the evidentiary support for these wild claims? Trump, unlike Kamala, sometimes gets in trouble by speaking in too many concrete examples (cats and dogs being eaten by Haitians in Ohio?) and loses the point by telling the truth (such as hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens who came across the border).   Kamala, in this town hall, relied on the ignorance of her audience, all the while seeking their votes by offering government giveaways (building three million new homes), tax breaks ($6000 child tax credit in a baby’s first year) and outright lies (that abortions are essentially banned after Roe v. Wade in much of the country). Without demagoguery, Kamala would have nothing at all.   On abortion, she attempted to make it a citizens vs. government argument, basically that the government shouldn’t have a say in decisions regarding what a woman can do with her body. The Democrat still can’t or won’t name a cut-off point for legalized abortion and instead cites incredibly isolated cases of women who were harmed by an inability to get an abortion .   Statistically speaking, these instances are very rare as compared to abortions themselves, which aren’t rare at all. Nothing is ever said about the infant’s life being terminated, much less the damaging psychological effect on a “birthing human” who kills her own child and has to live with it for the rest of her life.   Distortion – and lies – is what Democrats do. And they think Hispanics in particular are too simple and don’t know any better to recognize the distinction. Condescension at its best.   “Mama-la” talks a lot about her life experience, and more specifically about her mother   Ask Kamala a specific policy-oriented question and chances are she’s going to talk about her own experience – about her mother – and bypass the gist of the matter.   Kamala was asked by one woman about healthcare for non-citizens, and Kamala started blubbering about how she had to be the caregiver for her own mother towards the end of the woman’s life, and it’s all about “dignity” and the ends rather than the means. Republicans, and Donald Trump, aren’t about making people die alone and penny-less. It’s about finding a more effective way to cover people without going bankrupt.   Harris would rather just throw open the doors of the treasury, including safeguarding people who are here illegally. Kamala’s never met a federally funded welfare program she didn’t favor, while never elaborating on how it would be paid for. At one point cackling Kamala even suggested she would put Medicare in charge of paying for home health care if/when she has the power. Another hopelessly expensive entitlement with enormous potential for fraud and exploitation, with taxpayers footing the bill.   Throughout the entire event, I don’t believe she talked about budgeting, etc. Budget is a dirty word to Democrats.   And stories about her mother and upbringing don’t humanize her, either. “Mama-la” is phony and so is her family story.   Democrats preach the immigration problem didn’t exist prior to April of this year   As would be expected, Kamala received a couple questions about immigration being out-of-control and what she planned to do about it. Here, as in other places where the topic has come up, Harris raised the senate’s “bipartisan” immigration compromise bill as the catch-all solution that failed because Donald Trump “wanted to run on a problem rather than allow a solution.”   It’s common knowledge the bill was dead before Trump ever weighed in because House Republicans recognized that it was a Chuck Schumer driven show-bill designed to have Republicans vote it down (allow in as many as 4500 illegals a day without being declared an emergency?) and thus be blamed by Democrats for being against “fixes” to the issue.   No statistics here, either. Yes, the bill did contain money for more border patrol agents and would’ve helped alleviate fentanyl importation, but Republicans opposed the legislation because it was a “steaming pile of crap” (somebody said, don’t remember who).   Democrats are selling a bill of goods here, too, counting on the Hispanic audience to either believe Republicans are racists, or under the influence of the evil Donald Trump, who controls everyone out of fear. Remember how many struggles Trump had with members of his own party in Congress? Some dictator.   I can’t help but think Kamala never convinces anyone that Biden and her performed well on the issue. Illegal entries and treatment were ignored at best and aided at worst. All air and no substance. Kamala is a practiced liar, but not even she sounds credible talking about the administration’s record.   Summing it up   Kamala Harris deserves some credit for showing up at an event like the Univision candidate town hall. In the process of answering – or not  answering – the questions, she revealed why so many Hispanics are wary of giving Democrats their votes again. Democrats have used them for advancing their own political prospects. It won’t work in 2024. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

Our friend Elaine Donnelly and her team at the respected non-partisan Center for Military Readiness asked this essential question in their recent newsletter: Will Americans rescue our military from wokeism? It’s decision time, and the future of our military is at stake, Ms. Donnelly noted in the introduction to CMR’s quadrennial report on the national security positions of the parties and their candidates for President. Voters in several states already are voting in the 2024 Presidential Election, and Congress soon will be voting on one of the most consequential defense bills in years.   The Center for Military Readiness has posted its quadrennial CMR Report  on the Republican and Democratic Parties’ National Platforms. CMR’s report also compares actions taken by the presidential candidates that support what they are saying now and what they have actually done in the past.    In reviewing the report one thing is crystal clear: The Republican and Democratic Platforms reveal stark contrast between the parties.   The Center for Military Readiness is non-partisan and does not endorse candidates, so we are going to pull the key points from the Democratic Party Platform and Kamala Harris’s record to warn CHQ voters about just how dangerous Harris and the Democrats are to our national security.   Number #1: Military/social issues are matters of national security.  They require careful consideration at all times, but especially in presidential election years.  America is not defended by weapons, ships, aircraft, and missiles alone.  Our national Security depends on military/social policies that are essential in maintaining high morale and readiness to defend America.   Americans are looking for a new President of the United States who will act with common sense and leadership to restore morale and meritocracy in the only military we have.  CMR has prepared this article to assist in the process of electing a new Commander-in-Chief. WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SAYS . . . AND DOESN’T SAY   The 92-page Democratic Party National Platform , which retains numerous inexplicable references to “President Biden’s second term,” proclaims, “The United States has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.”  In a one-page “Strengthening American Leadership Worldwide” section of Chapter Nine, which touches on defense and foreign policy, the platform praises the various branches of the military as “the envy of the globe.” (p. 90) Chapter Nine notes that President Joe Biden has made “historic investments in America’s industrial base” to “support U.S. and allied forces in combat zones such as Ukraine.” It also points to pay raises for military personnel, “over $10 billion to enhance health care services for veterans and active-duty personnel,” housing improvements, support for military spouses, childcare, and increased funds for “education and employment opportunities” that“[underscore] the critical role that families play in the strength of the armed forces.” (pp. 90-91) Afghanistan The platform states, “President Biden has never and will never turn his back on our military,” (p. 90) and includes another jarring reference to Afghanistan on page 88: “President Biden ended America’s longest war, bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and facilitating the resettlement of over 120,000 Afghan partners and their families in the United States, the largest resettlement effort since the Vietnam War.” The families of 13 American servicemembers killed on August 26, 2021, at Kabul Airport’s Abbey Gate certainly would disagree.  They are painfully aware that no one has resigned or been fired  for their role in the chaotic retreat from Afghanistan. Due to the setting of a politically motivated “date certain” evacuation goal and misplaced trust in the Taliban, the Biden/Harris Administration abandoned Bagram Air Base and evacuated troops first.  According to a House Foreign Affairs Committee report titled Willful Blindness , “The Biden-Harris administration prioritized the optics of the withdrawal over the security of U.S. Personnel on the ground.” (p. 17)  “When the last military aircraft departed Kabul, approximately 1,000 Americans were left behind and over 90% of eligible Afghans were still in the country.” (p. 22)  Kamala Harris, now the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, claims to be the “last person in the room” when these inexplicable decisions were made. Gold Star family members also have spoken  about President Biden’s callous failure to reach out to them, his watch-checking behavior at the airport transfer ceremony, and his false claim that no military personnel had died on his watch. Weakness Invites War   The Democratic platform statements quoted above do not reflect the actual record of the Biden/Harris Administration on national defense issues.  Despite the one-word admonition “Don’t,” stated by Biden and several high-level officials, Americans have witnessed a series of foreign policy failures with adversaries emboldened by the Afghan debacle.  For example: *         After Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia invaded Ukraine , triggering a war that is still raging, and North Korea has resumed threats  of missile attacks on South Korea and other Pacific allies. *         China got away with conducting electronic surveillance  with a spy balloon floating over the United States in February 2023, and has stepped-up its belligerence against Taiwan. *         Biden/Harris Administration efforts in pursuit of a dubious nuclear weapons deal have enriched Iran , which has financed its proxy terrorist group Hamas, which launched the vicious October 7, 2023, attack on American ally Israel. *         Iran also funds Hezbollah, another proxy terrorist group, as well as Houthi forces that have launched relentless attacks  against the U.S. Navy from Yemen and the Red Sea. *         At the same time, the Navy has suffered numerous failures of leadership  and the troubled Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) pier project for delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza became a costly embarrassment.   Military/Social and “Anti-Extremism” Taken to Extremes   In the early months of the Biden Administration, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin initiated a massive “anti-extremism” campaign involving full-day stand-down sessions worldwide.  Despite the hype, a 2021 DoD investigation to find extremism  in the ranks reported fewer than 100 such cases.   Nevertheless, according to a study conducted by the Center for American Institutions at Arizona State University, the DoD requested more than $68 million, $86.5 million, and $114.7 million in 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively, for divisive critical race theory and DEI programs focusing on an apparently minuscule problem.   Other sections of the platform explicitly promote controversial goals  such as a “single-payer” government takeover of America’s health systems, federally-controlled elections, and draconian “climate change” penalties on “carbon emission” offenders.   The platform heavily promotes LGBTQ+ activities  in civilian schools and institutions, mentioning them 37 times in Chapter Six alone. (pp. 56-57) Significantly, the word “climate” appears 81 times – 39 of them in Chapter 9 on defense.   The Democratic Platform does not mention several anti-military Executive Orders , which imposed wokeism on the military regardless of the harmful consequences.   *         Biden’s February 2021 Executive Order , for example, imposed the most radical DEI mandates ever imposed on government agencies, including the Department of Defense. *         With several strokes of his pen, President Biden abolished President Trump’s 1776 Advisory Commission and imposed discriminatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) practices and critical race theory (CRT) indoctrination programs.  These leftist instructions, incorporated in the curricula of military service academies and DoD Education Activity (DoDEA) schools,  divide individuals into racial groups and treat them differently. *         According to the organization Open the Books, when a furor arose in 2023 over the placement of self-identified woke activist Kelisa Wing  to run DEI programs in DoDEA schools Pentagon officials reassigned Wing but continued her CRT programs in a DoD Steering Committee. The Open the Books report, titled “ Schools for Radicals ,” presented evidence of parents being denied information  about DoDEA CRT programs as well as transgender indoctrination beginning with students as young as four years old. The LGBTQ+ Agenda The Democratic platform does not mention: *         The Biden Administration’s compulsion to celebrate and impose  on the military every element of the “LGBTQ+” agenda.  These include accommodation of military personnel who identify as transgender, including lifelong treatments or surgeries that attempt to change sex by changing physical appearance. *         Annual “LGBT Pride Month observances in June, which have included outlandish drag queen performances which demean women, for adults and children attending DoD schools on military bases. *         Mentions of controversial hormone treatments and irreversible surgeries on military dependent children.  The Biden Administration (and Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz) have pressured to lower age limits  for such treatments, established to offer minimal protection for vulnerable children under age 16. *         During her ill-fated 2020 presidential campaign, in response to a questionnaire from the  American Civil Liberties Union , backed spending taxpayer dollars on gender reassignment surgeries for prison inmates, decriminalizing drugs, and ending US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers for illegal immigrants accused of crimes.  (Harris affirms her “values” have not changed.) *         Arguments that the Biden/Harris Departments of Justice and Defense presented before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of racially discriminatory policies at the military service academies.   The DoJ took this position in litigation brought before the U.S. Supreme Court by students who successfully challenged such discriminatory practices (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of N. Carolina, 2022), and in new litigation filed against the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy. *         Detailed DoD directives and pronoun mandates that force commanders and medical practitioners to approve or participate in reality-denying speech, “sex transition” surgeries, and lengthy time-off options that harm readiness and morale. *         Any mention of meritocracy as the paramount consideration in all personnel decisions. What Democratic Candidates Kamala Harris and Tim Walz Are Saying Elsewhere The Democratic Platform mentions President Biden, but not Vice President Kamala Harris, his replacement as presidential nominee.  The American Principles Project has tracked Harris’s longstanding “obsession” with gender identity issues , specifically those involving children.   Harris’s running mate Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota has raised eyebrows for several reasons, including his longtime associations with China.  The Daily Caller has reported on Walz’s determined efforts to cut most age requirements  for genital surgeries on children.  Walz also signed a “Trans Refuge” law enabling children from other states to receive state-funded genital surgeries in Minnesota.                                      Conclusion:   Our military is governed under principles of civilian control.  Voters have the ultimate responsibility to choose the next Commander-in-Chief and members of Congress who will put national security first.   In view of the many extremely liberal social mandate planks that appear in the Democratic Platform and policies advocated or implemented by the candidates themselves, it is reasonable to expect that a Harris/Walz Administration would continue and expand current policies that have made military life more difficult and more dangerous. The Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues. CMR does not endorse or oppose specific legislation or candidates and any conclusions or recommendations to that effect in this article are the opinions of ConservativeHQ.com , not CMR. For more information and to support the work of CMR go to https://www.cmrlink.org/ 2024 Election Kamala Harris campaign Military Readiness Cultural Marxism Hispanic male voters Male African-American voters Democrat contributions price gouging price controls first-time home buyers 25th Amendment public housing ActBlue donations Donald Trump campaign Kamala Harris campaign Kamala Harris senate record

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, took to the fields for Minnesota’s opening day of pheasant hunting season, with Walz inviting members of the press to document the occasion. To say that the hunt did not go well would be an understatement. The first indication that Walz was unlikely to bag a pheasant, or any new voters for the Harris-Walz ticket, was the Governor’s struggle to load his expensive Beretta shotgun. In addition to the hilarious reactions to Walz’s handling of his shotgun many pointed out a $2,000+ imported gun was kind of an odd choice for retired teacher and old “aw shucks” Midwestern bird hunter like the Governor. And then there was the commentary focused on Walz’s possible violation of firearms and hunting laws. Even cringier was Governor Walz’s lame foray into “bro culture” talking about “pounding” a Diet Mountain Dew. However, there was one good part of Walz’s hunt – the memes that came after, such as this one.  And this one. But the best one may have been this one from @Ted_Howze on X Oh, and there was one other hilarious thing. To make a bad day even worse, not only did Walz not bag a bird, he never even fired his gun. 2024 Election Tim Walz hunting trip Kamala Harris campaign pheasant hunting load shot gun hunting laws firearms laws