Actual MSM headline:
Former President Trump sidesteps his role in Afghanistan exit in trying to link Vice President Harris to chaos
This is the level of lies we’re dealing with – in the MSM’s lie, Trump is trying to pin his failure in Afghanistan on Harris. The hook they’re using is an allegation that what Trump did in office made the Afghan failure happen. This is, of course, nonsense. Whatever Trump did to 1/20/2021, Biden and Harris had until 8/20/2021 to fix it. And that is presuming that Trump did something wrong. He didn’t but it is no use arguing the point – the people in charge when the catastrophe happened were Harris and Biden…with Harris asserting in olden times (like a year ago) that she was the last person to advise Biden on it.
The reason I bring this up is not to show yet another lie but to remind you that they are lying – about everything, including their polling. What we’re being treated to in 2024 is an effort to make people vote based on something 180 from reality. It has never been done quite like this before – even the most egregiously dishonest campaigns in the past at least tried to deal in the situation as it was…here we’re getting people trying to secure your vote by saying “black is white”. It will naturally work with the most dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. Will it work on anyone else? We’re going to find out. I believe it will not work – and, in fact, will prove counter-productive as people get pissed off when someone so brazenly lies to them.
The real state of the race is this: all through the 2024 cycle Senator Rosen (D-NV) has steered away from any mention that she’s a Democrat, has refused to appear with the Democrat nominee and has burnished her image as a non-partisan problem-solver. This is just a pack of lies and according to polling it is working…supposedly she has a comfortable lead over Sam Brown, her Republican challenger. But this morning I saw a new Rosen ad – it explicitly attacks the Democrats for harming blue collar workers with tax increases. Naturally, the ad concludes with her pledge to fight against that but think about the state of her internal polling if she feels the need for that sort of ad. This race is not going as the Narrative says. Not even close.
They’re going to keep it up – they won’t stop. They’ve committed to it – the BS will continue to 11/5. But we live in a world where 46% of middle class workers have cut their retirement plan contributions because of the rising cost of living. That is the reality. That is what people will remember. That is what they will vote on.
Blogs For Victory 
Amazona, first let me know when this country was last governed with strict adherence to the Constitution? I would like to know that. I’m a realist, not an idealist, and in my lifetime, strict adherence to the Constitution has never happened. Even under Reagan, who circumvented Congress with the Iran/Contra issue, as well as cutting an Amnesty deal, which would have been an incremental win had Democrats been honest.
We at war with a Mafia who has already shown us they will burn businesses and prosecute their opponents to win. We need to match that intensity and then take it up a notch. This is not a battle of ideologies. If we win, then we can discuss strict Constitutional governance. If we lose, there will be no Constitution to discuss.
Elements of our government have been trying to circumvent the Constitution since almost before the ink was dry on the original document. Quite frankly, it’s amazing that we still follow it to the extent that we do. If we could elect a couple of generations of Angels, we could probably get back to some semblance of governance that the Founders would recognize. No one wants to get back to the Founders’ vision of a national government of, by, and for the people, limited in both scope and power more than I do, but the corruption just runs too deep. Those of us who desire that outcome are not in the majority, and many of the people we DO elect have no desire to achieve that outcome either.
I know we always say this next election is the more important in history, but I think that’s no longer hyperbole. Regardless of who wins this one, things are going to come to a head. If Trump wins, the Left is going to burn the country down, and if Harris wins, half the country is going to give her the middle finger and tell her to bring it on. Just my opinion, NSA, so don’t get your shorts in a knot.
As Spook points out in his post, there have always been challenges to the limits of the Constitution. The first I can remember reading about was when there was an effort to have the government help the families of men lost at sea, to which Madison responded
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” The thing is, we were pretty committed to following the Constitution for about 100 years, until Wilson started nibbling at it and then FDR really did some damage, and it’s been downhill since then.
I do understand this. But I also understand that failing to have the goal of allegiance to Constitutional governance and a sincere effort to achieve that goal means we might as well give up and admit it is just a collection of rather sentimental suggestions.
What I don’t understand, and what you have failed to explain here, is exactly what parts of the Constitution you think should be sacrificed to gain any of these “incremental wins” you want? Instead of some abstract complaints about “too rigid an ideology to win even incremental victories” I don’t see any specifics. What, exactly, do you think “we” need to do to start winning some incremental victories and in what way would any of these demand rejecting the “rigid ideology” of the Constitution?
It’s that “rigid ideology’ that is still fighting to preserve freedom of speech as well as the 2nd Amendment, for example. Do you want to cherry-pick the parts you want to remain “rigidly ideological” and just weaken or abandon others? Please be specific.
What I don’t understand, and what you have failed to explain here, is exactly what parts of the Constitution you think should be sacrificed to gain any of these “incremental wins” you want?
I know this wasn’t aimed at me, but I lay awake for quite a while last night thinking about this question, and I think Cluster and I are pretty much on the same page. I’m not saying, (and I don’t think Cluster is either) that we need to ignore or set aside parts of the Constitution in order to return to Constitutional government. That’s as idiotic as “we need to destroy Democracy to save it.”
As you note, the Left has been overtly subverting the Constitution since the dawn of the Progressive era, and their momentum has only accelerated with the help of Rino/Neocon Republicans. We’re not going to undo in a couple of election cycles the damage the Left has accomplished over the course of a century, but if the Constitution can be undone incrementally, then it can be restored incrementally. If the other side played by the rules, it would be a difficult task, but doable. We’ve got adversaries that are willing to do “whatever it takes,” including blatant election cheating, weaponizing departments of government to persecute/prosecute their opponents, assassinate their opponents, and gaslight 24/7 about what they’ve done and what they intend to do.
I was apprehensive about Trump the first time around, but in spite of being a novice at national politics and fighting political headwinds like nothing any of us have seen in our lifetimes, he proved that my vote was not wasted. I imagine a second Trump term in which he’s learned some valuable lessons about who to trust, and I think he represents that best chance to begin to push the Constitutional pendulum back the other way. If he loses, not only are we not going to get any incremental wins in the near future; we’re going to be lucky to survive as a nation.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, but it didn’t really clear anything up for me. I am referring specifically to what Cluster said:“Conservative pragmatism is accepting incremental wins and being flexible. Conservative ideology is often rigid and ineffective. In the last 20 years our country has amassed $30 trillion in debt while quality of life has demonstrably declined. Right now we need less philosophers and more street fighters.
When you combine frustration at the Left’s continuing to rack up “incremental wins” with the statement that “Conservative ideology is often rigid and ineffective” there is certainly the implication that he thinks “Conservative ideology” is part of the problem and also that to start winning we have to change from that to “being flexible”. My question is “what parts of ‘Conservative ideology’ do you think need to change, or be ignored, in the pursuit of ‘flexibility’?” And I think we are getting into a discussion of semantics, more than of strategy.
My argument is that “Conservative ideology” is just fine. In fact, it is essential, it is necessary, and without it the nation will fall into even more chaos until it crumbles. “Conservative ideology” is, basically, that of governing according to the Constitution, period. It has to be rigid. It is our framework, and as such has to be immovable. The struggle has been, since 1786, to keep that ideology intact as people keep wanting to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government, to shift it from a function of national identity and an umbrella of protections under which the states can be sovereign and still be part of the United States and under which people can enjoy personal liberty and pursue their independent goals to a government focused on “taking care of” its citizens and solving all their problems. The fact that they have succeeded to some extent is hardly, to me, a justification for us doing the same thing, which is what I think is implied by the repeated challenge to point out a time when we DID govern according to the Constitution.
It seems to be an assumption that if the Left has been winning by violating the Constitution then we have to be willing to do the same to stop them. Leading to my question: what parts of the Constitution should we be willing to violate to accomplish this?
This challenge is not a denial that we need to change our strategies—it is, instead, an observation that the ideology of the Right is not the problem, it is the people and the lack of focus and backbone in too many who claim to be conservatives. And I contend that a lot of this goes back to an unclear concept of what it means to be a conservative. The ideology is not in the way but is, in fact, the reason for being there in the first place.
In other words, I think we are talking about semantics, about the definition of terms. And that takes me back to the same thing I have been arguing for years now, which is that we need to focus on the ideology, focus on comparison of the two competing systems of government, and instead we focus on the superficial identities associated with each.
My argument is the apparent confusion between what we are fighting FOR—-the ideology—and HOW we do it. There is nothing in the ideology of the Right that precludes identifying our weaknesses in the political struggles and making necessary adjustments, and I agree wholeheartedly that we need to make those adjustments. I also think we need to be specific in those adjustments. I understand the general sense of outrage and frustration as we see “incremental victories” mount up, but we need step back and acknowledge that what makes them incremental victories is that they ARE “incremental”. And that is how to fight them .
Leave the actual ideology alone. It is fine. It is the best form of government ever devised and it deserves to be admired and protected and held up as the reason for fighting. And don’t conflate the trappings of political infighting as “ideology” because they aren’t. The seemingly pervasive weaknesses on the Right in our inability to adequately protect and defend our ideology are not, in and of themselves, “ideology” but rather a lack of coherence and confidence and above all of focused intent. It’s not a philosophy as much as a lack of philosophy. And hair-on-fire unfocused fury at its impotence is not a strategy to change it.
So I say, make a list of those “incremental wins” of the Dems, and then of the actions that (1) would have prevented them from occurring and (2) how to reverse them. I’m betting that such a list would not include one single thing that calls for tweaking the “ideology’ of the Right, just of developing focus and will and determination and strategy.
And I agree, part of that—a big part—-is getting rid of the “conservatives” who are in the way, wringing their hands and fretting about being too mean or not collegial enough and not understanding that there is a difference between “compromise” and “capitulation”.
You admit “and in my lifetime, strict adherence to the Constitution has never happened.”. Has it occurred to you that the very “incremental wins” of the Democrats are the direct results of that failure? Which would mean that getting back to such strict adherence would strip them of the ability to have these ‘incremental victories”. Not absolute adherence—it is too late for that. For example, we are stuck with Social Security and Medicare.
And should we address a violation, like the ones you mentioned, as an indication that “oh, well, it’s been done so we might as well keep doing it”, or as “that was wrong and we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again”?
You say This is not a battle of ideologies. Wrong. This IS a battle of ideologies. It is a battle of how the nation will be governed. It is a battle between a federal government where the president can issue edicts and mandates for everyone in the country, without benefit of legislation, controlling things like forcing people to use certain drugs or drive certain kinds of cars or get electricity from certain sources, or if we are going to have a government based on individual liberty and the free market system.
My sense is that your have a personal interpretation of the word “ideology” that is far different from mine, or for that matter of most people. Because I haven’t heard a thing from you that doesn’t fit into ISSUES and IDENTITY much more than in actual ideology.
Has it occurred to you that the very “incremental wins” of the Democrats are the direct results of that failure?
Yes that has occurred to me, hence my current position. They win more than we do, and that’s the problem. Spook and I are on the same page on this issue so read his post, because he said it better than I can. But let me give a football analogy here … whenever Democrats have the ball, they move forward methodically, running the ball for a yard or two, picking up a few first downs and then punting if necessary, only to play tough defense to get the ball back. When Republican have the ball, we throw long bombs every play, sometimes go for it on fourth down, and then when on defense, we actually help them pick up a first down or two, all in the name of bi partisanship. In other words, we are fools.
We need to fight and win incrementally, and slowly bring back a more Constitutional Government and if that means aligning with disaffected Democrats to win this current battle, I’m all for it. What’s sad is that Kamala Harris is, without question, the dumbest person to ever run for POTUS. No brains, no experience, no charm, no nothing. She is a Deep State construct and we still might lose. How the f**k does that happen?
Here’s how that happens. The Democrats impeached Trump over a phone call. James Comer and Jim Jordan have receipts of foreign money, and videos, texts, emails, and phone calls of illicit money laundering, drug abuse and sex trafficking, all detailing illegal influence peddling of the Biden family, and NOTHING happens. Additionally, Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence that was under subpoena, and yet nothing happened. Mark Zuckerberg detailed the pressure he received from Democrats to censor speech to help them politically, and what is our GOP doing??? NOTHING. I thought Comer would be tough. I was mistaken.
She is a Deep State construct and we still might lose. How the f**k does that happen?
I realize that’s a rhetorical question, but we need to shout the answer from the rooftops all day/every day. We might still lose because (1) the referees (the media) are paid off to run interference; (2) the Democrats cheat with impunity; (3) The donor class has undergone a political re-alignment in the last couple of decades, and the Democrats simply have a LOT more money at their disposal; (4) our own government is already covering up the facts behind the attempt to assassinate Trump; (5) Democrat gaslighting has reached levels that I would not have thought possible. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
That’s it exactly, and you just described what an authoritarian State looks like. Sadly, there’s just not a lot of difference right now between America, and countries like Venezuela. In fact there is a story out there now about a Venezuelan gang that has taken control of an apartment complex in Aurora, CO. They are collecting rent and intimidating tenants, and police are doing nothing. What I would like to see is an American posse form up that would go and kill every single gang member, and brutally. Americans need to send a message. We are back in 1776 and we may need to fight to keep this country the way it was founded. Buckle up.
I read that story about the gang taking over, essentially, the suburb of Aurora, Colorado. One thing that struck me is that—get this—Venezuela “won’t accept” Venezuelans deported back there. Since when do we need permission to send illegals back to their own country? This ought to be a good campaign subject though—countries taking advantage of Border Czar Harris’s incompetence/policy to get rid of undesirables by dumping them here and refusing to take them back.
Here’s the story … I know what I would like to do
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamalas-border-failure-strikes-again-new-terrifying-video/
What a weak ass response from the Aurora PD. These perps need to be confronted and killed, not reasoned with.
We are aware that components of TdA are operating in Aurora. APD has been increasingly collecting evidence to show the gang is connected to crimes in the area. However, as we have said previously and as the DEA similarly stated, it would be improper at this time for the city and APD to make any conclusory statements about specific incidents or provide details about law enforcement strategy and operations.
Remember, Aurora is in Colorado, currently in a death spiral thanks to Democrat rule. It is its own city but is essentially, geographically, a suburb of Denver.
In other words we are in agreement except for semantics. You know me—I am a bug on accurate definitions of words.
I, too, have been furious watching “Republicans” hand over victory after victory to the Left. Our confirmation of judges and Supreme Court justices is an example—they fight tooth and nail, as viciously and unethically as possible, against every nomination of ours, and then we turn around and after asking enough questions to establish the deficiencies in theirs we meekly confirm them anyway. Because after all they should be able to choose their own “side”—WTH? Since when is the judiciary supposed to consist of people whose personal belief systems reflect those of a certain party, instead of the Constitution? This cockamamie idea of being “fair” by letting Democrats appoint judges and justices that echo the Left’s approach to government is just plain stupid, and suicidal as well.
As for “aligning with disaffected Democrats” I think it is brilliant strategy. ( I would like to see their former Democrat allegiance challenged by asking them if they still believe we are best governed by consolidating power in the hands of a few who then rule by edict and mandate from a powerful Central Authority (that is, by the way, a summary of Leftist ideology) because I think many of them would argue no, they have never believed that they just believed in the issues and the promises. But then I think every Democrat should be asked this same question.)
Remember, I have been scolding the Right for years now about its rigidity in defining ISSUES and VALUES as the ideology of Republicans, instead of the simple framework of governance that constitutes the only real ideology we should have. I have been arguing for, and promoting, the old Big Tent policy for a long long time, frustrated by the various social and cultural artifacts erected to qualify as a “conservative” when in fact only belief in Constitutional governance should be the criterion. I cringe every time I read a new “platform” that addresses all sorts of cultural and social elements and in so doing tells people that if they don’t conform they are not welcome and should go vote elsewhere.
In other words we are in agreement except for semantics.
I really think we are. Now we just need to convince 100,000 million Conservatives, Independents, and politicians what needs to be done. Easy-peezy.
And…here we go again, gearing up the Identity Politics rant—we do that by emphasizing that we are not asking people to vote for PEOPLE, we are asking them to vote for the system they want to run the country. They don’t have to LIKE Trump to vote for him, because this is not a dating game, it is a job interview.
She is a Deep State construct and we still might lose. How the f**k does that happen?
Because the Left controls the media, and therefore the narrative.
You can’t drive the bus if you don’t have the keys.
Gotta love The Babylon Bee. I’m still laughing at #6.
#6 is hilarious, and according to CNN, Democrats are hoping to attract Low T men. They already have Casper
Loved it, and you are right about #6.
Alexander Vindman Represents Everything That’s Wrong With Our Officer Class
In a list of shameful examples of moral and ethical rot in the upper levels of our military there are these: emphasis mine
No wonder the analysis is that if we got into a shooting war (with pretty much anyone, I think) we would lose.
Our mutual retired Navy Intelligence friend and I have had the discussion about how different today’s military is than when we served. Neither of us would do well in the modern, woke Navy.
Yep.
The rot, though, has been building for a very long time and I still date it to the firing of MacArthur – in the end, he was fired because he simply could not accept that he was to command an army forbidden to win. That blood was to be shed – on both sides – for something other than victory. That started the process which then built, decade by decade, an officer corps committed to career uber alles…whatever it took to get that star, that’s what was done. Didn’t matter if war fighting capacity suffered or how many troops died in forlorn battles with ROE that prevented victory. Just get that star. By the time Clinton came in and started being explicitly selective in promoting only Democrats the writing was on the wall…my view is that everyone O-6 and above needs to be cashiered and the entire military sent back to school to learn how to be solders, sailors, airmen and Marines.
And then some major reforms. We currently have 42 four star officers on the books – to give you an idea, the Army had 14 four stars in WWII…and 11 of those were promoted in the last months of the war to honor the senior commanders who had lead the army to victory. To me, we shouldn’t even have a peacetime four star – highest rank should be Lt General (Vice Admiral for the Navy) and only four of those: Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Army and Air Force Chiefs of Staff and CNO of the Navy. Marines can be commanded by a Brigadier – and he should be the only general officer of the Corps during peacetime. Proportional reduction of rank for other officers…we have Major Generals doing work done by majors prior to WWII. Get rid of this over-promotion. And get rid of all this over-decorating…they pass out Bronze Stars like penny candy these days. Make the military professional warriors…not dimwits hoping for a nice salad bar and another star on their shoulder.
That is the great thing about the president being the Commander in Chief—things like this can be done with the stroke of a pen. I want to think that there are some lower-ranking officers qualified to move up if necessary.
I recently read “The Generals” about Patton, McArthur and Marshall, and it was fascinating.
Get rid of this over-promotion.
In a somewhat similar vein, get rid of lingering classified authority. There is no reason for people to retain this into retirement. Hillary Clinton, of all people, still has her top secret classification.
We all love Kurt Schlichter’s way with words, but Stephen Kruiser ain’t bad..
Biden Senility Fatigue—-what a great phrase!
Sometimes lately, I really hate this country. Our government is imperialistic and corrupt as hell. What in the hell are we doing interfering with other countries elections??? Particularly when we put the thumb on the scales for government control. That is completely unAmerican
Joe Biden’s CIA director, William Burns, and National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, both traveled to Brazil to meet with senior Brazilian officials and warn them that Bolsonaro should stop casting doubt on his country’s electoral process. It was the opening gambit in a quiet campaign by Washington to replace Bolsonaro, the popular people’s candidate, with the socialist tool Lula da Silva.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/mike-benz-us-state-department-funded-censorship-ecosystem/
It’s just another page in the same book, like Harris “dealing with” American border issues by going to South and Central America to try to uncover (and presumably affect) the “root causes” of people fleeing those countries.
I hope Sullivan was told to not let the door hit him in the donkey on his way out……
I just remembered when Obama sent campaign staff to Israel to help Netanyahu’s opponent some years back. This has to stop
Our State Department trying to control the electoral decisions of other countries is just a different aspect of shooting wars to control the same basic thing.
If they do it there, they do it here
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/huge-us-state-department-pushed-voting-machines-prior/
And now X is banned in Brazil because Elon spoke out
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/30/brazil-orders-suspension-of-elon-musks-x.html
People will still be able to get his tweets, or whatever they are called now, underground, and the effort to ban him will just make everything he says more important
This is so good
https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1829291690277966165
Outstanding!
This is an interesting Twitter thread about Newsom’s efforts to deal with Musk, and if you go to the link and scroll down there is a sexually graphic but very funny post by MiamiBoy76 about White Dudes for Harris that I didn’t try to post here, out of respect for the blog, but which I found very appropriate.
There are several references to Professor Suggon Deeznutz, who has rapidly become a hero of the revolution.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTovjNmbIAAi0gg?format=jpg&name=900×900
(Check out the strap-on elbow patches)
I go out to dinner every Thursday night with another widower who lost his wife several years back. We went to a local downtown restaurant last night, and we both wore Trump assassination T-shirts. I lost count of the people who stopped by our table to say how much they loved our shirts. Not one negative comment.
How much “homelessness” is related to political agenda?
Sacramento Clears Self-Governed Homeless Camp, Ending a Pilot Program Once Seen as a Model
In other words, “homelessness” was the goal. The most obvious question is “why?” And if it is a choice, and “permanent housing” is rejected, then why consider it a problem and why subsidize it with government funding? Why continue acting as if the “homeless” are merely passive victims needing our help, when they have chosen this lifestyle?
There are people who experience what I call “situational homelessness”, who have lost their permanent housing due to circumstances but who want to get back to that way of life and who have not chosen to live, as the Left has started calling it, “unhoused”. I am fully in favor of helping these people, but helping them regain homes and more normalized lives, not helping them continue to live in camps, under bridges, etc.
I thought this was overheated hyperbole, till I read the story:
What Will Pro-Life Voters Do Now That Trump Has Stabbed Them in the Back? [Updated]
I am so tired of Trump’s bizarre “three steps forward two steps back” erratic behavior.