The 2024 presidential election is rapidly becoming the most polled election in Pennsylvania history. As the most important battleground state political observers scour every poll taken in Penn’s woods for some hint as to the status of what again is likely to be a very close battle for the commonwealth’s 19 Electoral votes. All else being equal, which of course it is not, these three sets of numbers must be causing great angst in the Harris campaign. Almost without exception every poll has Donald Trump and Kamala Harris within the margin of error. As such, the drama that surrounds every point or half point change in the polling has made for interesting parlor speculation. But, polling is so imprecise and the race is so close that the polls are in fact meaningless in terms of discerning who is winning the horse race. (READ MORE: Where Did All the Yard Signs Go?) There are three other sets of numbers that carry far more significance than polling and these numbers should be watched far more closely than opinion polls. One of the key predictive factors as to how a person will vote is their party registration. At one time there were over 1.1 million more registered Democrats than there were registered Republicans statewide in Pennsylvania. By the November 2020 presidential election the Democrat voter registration advantage had shrunk to 685,818 voters. Fast forward to September 2024 and the Democrat voter registration edge has been sliced in half since the 2020 election — down to just 338,396 voters. Tellingly, 48,618 Democrats have switched their party affiliation to Republican; two and a half times more party switches than Republicans to Democrats. Although Democrat registrations gained steam after the party switched out Joe Biden for Kamala Harris Republican registrations climbed even faster. Putting a cherry atop the registration sundae for Republicans both Bucks County in the Philadelphia suburbs and Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania flipped from blue to red. No county has flipped from red to blue. Democrats have dominated Republicans in mail-in balloting since the advent of no excuse mail-in voting in 2020. Here too Democrats are underperforming. As of September 23rd there are 360,101 fewer Democrat applications for a mail-in ballot than at the same time in 2020. Republican mail-in ballot requests are down by 60,963 giving the GOP almost a 300,000 voter net advantage. Another major change is the GOP’s approach to mail-in balloting. While the party fought and attacked mail-in voting in 2020 it is embracing the practice in 2024. In 2020 many Republicans — 141,000 — who applied for and received mail-in ballots failed to follow through and vote. It is likely some number of those voters instead went to the polls in person, but there is no doubt that a large number of GOP votes were literally left lying on the table. There are concerted efforts to ensure those votes are cast this year. Projects like the Pennsylvania Chase have deployed an army of 120 full-time paid door knockers who are fanning out across the commonwealth to make sure voters send in their ballots. Green Party at the Polls Finally, there is the impact of the Green Party. In 2020 Democrats successfully convinced the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to strike Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein from the November ballot. The Green Party’s nominee for state Auditor General received 78,588 votes in the 2020 General Election while the Green Party nominee for state Treasurer received 81,984 votes. (READ MORE: Save the SAVE Act: A Necessary Solution to a Real Problem) Keep in mind Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes. Making the plausible assumption that most of the Green Party presidential votes ended up in the Biden column with Stein off the ballot and that decision alone contributed significantly to the Biden victory. All else being equal, which of course it is not, these three sets of numbers must be causing great angst in the Harris campaign. Further, polling shows that inflation/the economy and illegal immigration are the top concerns of voters — and Trump consistently leads when pollsters ask who can best address those issues. Most polls are subject to a margin of error of at least +/-4% which means that any lead of four percent or less is essentially meaningless. But registration and mail-in ballot requests are not subject to a margin of error and therefore represent a far better snapshot of where the election stands. Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly American Radio Journal and Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org. The post Forget the Polls: Here Are the Numbers That Matter appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Britain is floundering, there’s no getting away from it. As to why, you could write an encyclopedia on the subject: The critical absence of conservatism since Thatcher, to the extent that a third of the electorate mistook Keir Starmer for a viable political option outside of North Korea; insane virtue signals like Net Zero, which sees Britain playing “Save the Planet” while the rest of the world wisely gives Greta the finger, and laughs all the way to the bank; an Exchequer bankrupt to the tune of 3 trillion quid, while the Chancellor dithers over rounding errors like the Winter Fuel Allowance. Being forced to fund your own destruction on the basis of a stupid lie is damning in so many ways. Then there’s the world’s most significant exodus of millionaires — aka taxpayers, courtesy of the highest tax burden since the Blitz (notably lacking an air force capable of lighting up the Luftwaffe); a criminal amnesty excused as “diversity,” because any deeper analysis would prove to be “racist”; the willful destruction of everything British, in favor of absolutely anything else — no matter how repugnant; two-tier policing, justice and indeed society — where white Brits are persona non grata in their own homeland etc, etc. A smorgasbord if ever there was one, but at its heart the fall of Britain can be distilled down to one single word: Immigration.  I don’t mean selective immigration, which most countries take advantage of according to need. By all means, let’s have the debate about the flow-rate and precise form such policies ought to take; no issue there. But mass, unchecked, illegal immigration (or “invasion” as it was referred to prior to 1997) has been the grim reality sovereign nations have honestly negotiated for millennia. In the case of Britain herself, the English Channel and the North Sea have long-proved a sufficient deterrent to all but the most persistent forces; the majority of whom soon changed their minds once introduced to the persuasive qualities of the stiff upper lip, and the even more persuasive bayonet at the end of it. The idea that in 2024, the capacity to enforce our borders is suddenly beyond us, is so moronic a lie, it should have been laughed out of court on its first outing.  And yet, Britain it seems can no longer defend her honor against the sperm-like dinghy ejaculations emanating from Calais; at least, according to Westminster. As disgusting a charade as this is, it’s not the worst part. Infinitely more egregious is the connivance that has sprung up in order to justify the obvious invasion as an unquestionable civic “benefit,” “If anyone needs to integrate, it’s the far-right,” claims race-baiter extraordinaire David Lammy; “If white Britons learned more from the Muslim community the UK would be a better country” wrote a particularly gin-sodden Anna Soubry, who has never fully regained her sobriety after the trauma of Brexit. “We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none” writes The Guardian with its customary balance. The establishment is nothing if not united in their calumny. If the topic of unchecked, mass immigration must be broached, the emphasis is always on the requirement of the racist white population to adapt to their own replacement; which of course Liberals simultaneously deny is happening and approve of in the same breath. (READ MORE: America’s Immigration Implosion) As media outlets grudgingly acknowledge the Birmingham walls daubed with astute political commentary such as “No Whites” and “No Whites Allowed,” Britain is now so anti-British, it could just as easily be the BBC mission statement or Labor Party slogan, rather than mere unedifying graffiti.  It’s time to put this farce to bed once and for all: principally, the nature of who precisely is in the boats. They’re not women and children, despite what UNICEF claims, neither are they “refugees,” “asylum seekers” nor fleeing “warzones” (although granted, Gay Paris ain’t what it once was). Even the Home Office admits that 90 percent of the small boat arrivals are male. That fact alone is game, set, and match for the pearl-clutchers and the left-wing NGOs. The implication that warzones are so bad only women and children can be expected to brave them, would not pass muster in a kindergarten. At best, the illegals flocking to Britain are on the cadge — courtesy of successive governments, three times more likely to grant their “asylum” claims than the rest of Europe, while simultaneously furnishing them with a wealth of social security benefits. At worst, they’re here for nefarious purposes — which is why two-thirds of unaccompanied “minors” when questioned about their age, turn out to be adults; why 98 percent of Channel migrants mysteriously lose their passports en route, and why Britain will soon boast a higher Albanian prison population than Albania itself. Britain is the softest of soft touches, and everyone inside Westminster (with precious few exceptions) knows and denies it. Given that the scam of mass immigration is so self-evidently ridiculous, every government since Blair has felt the need to talk tough (while willfully delivering net zero in terms of border security). In order to explain their ineptitude, they have cited everything from the intricacies of international law, the ECHR, the need to maintain the goodwill of the French (how much more “goodwill” do we need after half a billion quid’s worth?), and even the moral obligation of Britain as an excuse. The solution of course is simple, vouchsafed not just by history but by Tony Abbott in Australia. For me, the first 24-hours of a genuinely conservative administration would look something like this: install the Navy in the Channel, and tow any stray dinghies back to France. Who cares whether the French like it — what are they going to do, invade us? Honestly?! (READ MORE: The Virtues of Immigrant Assimilation) All illegals in Britain would start being returned to their country of origin as a matter of urgency, no ifs no buts. If the ECHR doesn’t like it, they can kick us out — we’re inevitably going to leave anyway. Anyone within the chain of command who refuses to enact the will of the people, can simply be replaced by those who will. Naturally such action would be anathema to a Starmer administration, but they could comfort themselves by pretending the illegals had committed serious crimes like espousing the wrong opinions on FaceBook, shouting at the Old Bill, or attending a Tommy Robinson rally, (rather than merely breaking international law, raping the elderly, or butchering little girls).  The great question re mass immigration is not whether it is deliberate, but why? It’s also the question we’re least likely to ever get an answer for. In Tony Blair’s day, we knew the answer: “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” But with immigration so out of control even Blair is criticizing it, you might need another explanation. Whatever truly lurks behind the unstoppable dinghies (imported voter base, white replacement, an attempt to influence the birth rate, or the simple destruction of Britain), we are going to require an explanation — because this lie is utterly unsustainable. Until such time as the government of the day, or at the very least the “opposition,” A) acknowledges the issue of mass immigration, B) outlines and adopts the simple solution or C) comes clean on precisely what outside interference is being exerted on them, Britain cannot be classified as a sovereign nation, leaving its people bereft of a homeland.  Being forced to fund your own destruction on the basis of a stupid lie is damning in so many ways. Not only does it make fools of us all, it makes all-out civil war inevitable. Thus far, (short-lived riots notwithstanding) the public response has in no way been commensurate with the scale of the crime committed against them. That dam will not hold forever, and even an ideologue like Starmer should have the wit to realize it.   The post Britain’s Mass Immigration Scam appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I recently had the opportunity to interview actress Jennifer O’Neill who plays Nelle Reagan in the film Reagan which is based on The American Spectator Editor-in-Chief Paul Kengor’s volume  The Crusader: Reagan and the Fall of Communism. [T]he multi-talented Jennifer O’Neill is still making a difference by lending her powerful voice to improve the lives of others. Like many people, I first became acquainted with Jennifer O’Neill via the 1971 coming-of-age film Summer of ’42  where she plays Dorothy, the older woman with whom teenager Hermie (Gary Grimes) becomes infatuated. O’Neill’s portrayal of  Dorothy is so memorable that it is hard to believe she is only on the screen for fifteen minutes. More than fifty years after the film’s release, Summer of ’42 remains the film for which she is most recognized. The actress speaks of meeting women who described their husbands as being in love with the Dorothy character. However, in recent years the conversation has shifted to their sons being in love with her, demonstrating the film’s continuing popular cultural relevance. O’Neill who made over thirty films was blackballed in Hollywood after she found her faith at age 37. During our interview, she talks about how faith transformed her personal and professional journey. She also discusses the regret that she experienced about having an abortion as a young woman and how that remorse served as a conduit for her becoming a voice for the pro-life movement. O’Neill’s empathy has long tentacles. She is the founder of Hope and Healing at Hillengade, an organization that deploys equine-assisted therapy to help mitigate PTSD for veterans, active duty service members, and first responders. O’Neill is also the author of over twenty books. We also discuss her involvement in Reagan, a project that was 18 years in the making. Apparently producer Mark Joseph first asked her about playing Nelle Reagan in 2004. More than 50 years after she first graced the silver screen, the multi-talented Jennifer O’Neill is still making a difference by lending her powerful voice to improve the lives of others. Watch the video here. READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: Critics Be Damned: The Reagan Film Is Wonderful The Road Well Traveled: Exploring the History of Literary Journeys The post Catching Up With Actress and Author Jennifer O’Neill appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

College students will do just about anything to make a quick buck. Not long ago, I was in that exact spot, working various on-campus jobs at my alma mater, Arizona Christian University. The Arizona Republic recently released a report about football players from Arizona Christian who were caught in a migrant smuggling scheme two years ago. The report tells the story of two student-athletes who were paid — one made $1,000 — to drive “migrants from border towns to metro Phoenix” and were later arrested for doing so. A whole chapter of the Republic’s investigation is devoted to explaining what Arizona Christian is purportedly all about. It should go without saying, but there are many ethical and lawful ways college students can make money. This is a cautionary tale about avoiding schemes that promise quick money but hide the dangers associated with these activities.   The Republic’s report shines a light on an underreported issue happening in Arizona and other border states: migrant smuggling, which is when illegal aliens are snuck into the U.S. either knowingly or with reckless disregard.  Migrant smuggling is difficult to track due to the nature of the crime. The migration data portal reports that a “minimum of 2.5 million migrants were smuggled in 2016” for a profit of $5 billion.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports that smuggling is a daily occurrence in the Rio Grande Valley and that most smugglers “don’t take into account personal safety or comfort.” Those who make it across the border through smuggling can find themselves “at risk for assault and abuse such as rape, beatings, kidnapping, and robbery.”  Smugglers, often affiliated with transnational criminal organizations, have turned to social media to promote their business. The Border Report found social media accounts of smugglers on TikTok, enticing migrants to cross the border. The videos advertise their services as easy by using trendy audio clips and stating that their service is “100% guaranteed.”  John Modlin, Tucson’s chief patrol agent, told the Republic that high school and college-aged drivers are recruited by ads found on social media. “A lot of kids, to them, their first thought is, ‘Hey this is kind of like Uber. Like this is a rideshare thing. I’m just going to go and pick somebody up,’” Modlin said.  The report revealed that the two arrested football players were released without prosecution. Drivers involved in the scheme are often released without prosecution due to probable cause issues, the lack of witnesses willing to testify, or the “sheer caseload” of smuggling instances.  In response to the Republic report, Arizona Christian University condemned the incident. “Our goal, consistent with our Christian witness, is to ‘restore and redeem,’” Arizona Christian said in a statement. The university suspended the students involved from the football program and placed “disciplinary requirements” for them to continue their education.  Following the report’s release, former students and peers contacted me with concerns about how the story portrayed the university in a negative light. Former Arizona Christian football players I spoke to about the incident recalled it and insisted that it hasn’t happened since.  Arizona Christian University also claimed in a statement that the story was being used to make the school look bad. “To be clear, the conduct at issue in this report was and is unacceptable at ACU. No one turned a blind eye to it or acted like it was not a big deal,” the university said in its statement. “But it is truly unfortunate that this news story takes the actions of a handful, who were dealt with expeditiously by ACU, to tarnish an up-and-coming University known for the character and quality of its graduates.”  A whole chapter of the Republic’s investigation is devoted to explaining what Arizona Christian is purportedly all about, noting the university’s Christian identity that the football players supposedly represent. As an alumna of Arizona Christian, I can attest to my college’s commitment to having every student learn Christian beliefs and values. The statement of faith and the chapels students must attend are just a snippet of the university’s experience.  Arizona Christian caught national attention last year when the university filed a lawsuit against the Washington Elementary School district. The district’s board stopped a long-time partnership to train and hire teachers from Arizona Christian due to the university’s Christian values. Arizona Christian held no hatred or ill-manner toward the school board, and the board later reinstated the partnership, which allowed the university to drop the lawsuit.   While the “broke college student life” can be challenging, one shouldn’t need to turn to committing crimes to escape it. READ AND WATCH MORE from Lyrah Margo: ‘The Democratic Party Left Me’: A Fireside Chat With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Spectator P.M. Ep. 78: US Government Makes Move to Prevent China From Blowing Up Cars   The post Migrant Smuggling Is Not a College Pastime appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Friday, September 27, the Israel Airforce (IAF) eliminated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and a number of other Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders while they were meeting in an underground headquarters in the residential Dahia neighborhood of Beirut. Israel will act, alone if necessary, … and … a decisive display of force is the only way to defeat the enemy and ensure survival. The strike was carried out by a small fleet of F-151 jets from the IAF 69th Squadron out of southern Israel’s Hatzerim Airforce base acting on months of intelligence gathered by the IDF and Israeli Security (ISA). The aircraft flew undetected over southern Beirut and dropped 83 tons of explosives that penetrated the underground headquarters and leveled six buildings. Video footage shows billowing clouds of black and orange smoke covering the entire neighborhood. “Everything we planned was executed precisely,” noted the commander of the 69th Squadron (known only as Lt. Col. “Mem”), “with no errors, both in intelligence, the planning, with the planes, and the operation itself.” The airstrike can be viewed as the culmination of Israel’s covert pager bomb episode from September 17. Having successfully dismantled Hezbollah’s wireless communication network, top Hezbollah and IRGC officers were forced to meet in person causing the perfect scenario to locate and eliminate top brass during a single meeting. In addition to Nasrallah, more than 20 other officers have been reported killed, including the commander of Hezbollah’s southern front, Ali Karki, Hezbollah intelligence commander Hassan Khalil Yassin, and a number of IRGC officers including Quds Force commander in Lebanon, Abbas Nilforoushan. Nasrallah’s death was confirmed by the IDF on Saturday in a statement that ended with a pledge to “operate against anyone who promotes and engages in terrorism against the State of Israel.” The targeted killing ended Nasrallah’s 32-year reign as Secretary General of Hezbollah. He had been hand-picked by Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei in 1992. Under Nasrallah’s watch, Hezbollah effectively built a global network of terrorist proxies and expanded a world view of violent resistance and terrorism beyond the Israeli-Palestinian theater to include anti-US and anti-Western dictators as far as Latin America. Reckless repercussions to Nasrallah’s death soon followed. Overnight on Friday and into Saturday, 22 large rocket barrages covered the skies in northern Israel. Ironically, many of the rockets intended for Jerusalem either fell short or were intercepted over Samaria (the northern part of the West Bank) resulting in severe damage to several Arab towns, such as Umm-al-Fahm and Hwara, known to be hot beds of Palestinian terrorist activity. Surface-to-surface ballistic missiles from Hezbollah and the Houthi in Yemen also entered Israeli airspace targeting the highly populated central area of the country. The unpredictability of these high-altitude missiles put most of the country on high alert with many spending the Sabbath in bomb shelters. In response to Nasrallah’s assassination, the Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree pledged: “We will carry out more military operations against the Israeli enemy in victory for the blood of our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon.” The Houthi missile launch was timed with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s arrival at Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport on Saturday from New York. The missiles were downed by Israel’s “Arrow” long-range missile defense interceptors. Debris from one fell in the Palestinian districts of eastern Jerusalem, and as far as the outskirts of Jericho, while another missile, intended for Eilat, was intercepted outside of Israeli territory with debris falling in Jordan. The Houthi has fired over 220 ballistic missiles and drones in over 11 months with relatively little Israeli retaliation, save the IAF strike on Yemen’s Hodeidah port in July. On Sunday morning, September 29, however, the chatter on Israeli and Arab news outlets began confirming successful IAF strikes on the Hodeidah port facilities, power stations, and oil depots. In early August, after the targeted killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Israel boasted of having more surprises and capabilities, leading many to presume this to be solely in context of an allusive nuclear arsenal. Over the past week, however — from pager bombs to precision strikes — Israel has shown that they keep their intelligence cards close, striking only at the opportune moment with conventional tactics that surprise the world. Within a day following Nasrallah’s assassination, the IDF hacked into the communication networks at the Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport control tower and broadcasted to an approaching Iranian cargo plane (Qasem Air, Flight QFZ9964) that it was not permitted to land. The aircraft subsequently turned around and returned to Iran. The Lebanese Transport Minister confirmed in the newspaper An-Nahar that the IDF intercepted radio frequencies and warned: “If the state of Lebanon allows it [Iranian civilian planes to land], the IDF will act.” Iran has been transferring weapons and personnel via civilian aircraft to Beirut. Israel declared a “no fly zone” over Beirut this weekend and ordered Beirut airport air traffic control to issue a “Notice to Airmen.” In continued airstrikes over the Dahia neighborhood, the IAF successfully penetrated a second underground facility on Saturday, September 28, destroying a massive arsenal of anti-ship missiles intended to threaten international maritime traffic and IDF naval vessels. To date, Israeli news outlets are reporting that more than 50 percent of Hezbollah’s military has been dismantled and 90 percent of its top brass eliminated. Additionally, one million residents have been displaced in Lebanon — 600,000 fleeing south Lebanon, and 400,000 from Beirut. Cities across Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are on high alert, expecting an expansive wave of IAF strikes, while three reserve battalions have been activated in Israel. Mixed responses came from Israel’s allies in the international community following Nasrallah’s death. Many in the Biden administration and across Europe called the killing a mistake and touted the scripted policy line that a cease fire, rather than a decisive win, is the only measure for peace. Jared Kushner however took to X and spoke for many who see Nasrallah’s death as a positive step forward in dismantling Iran’s stronghold in the Levant and maintaining Israel’s security. The son-in-law of former President Trump stated: “Anyone who has been calling for a ceasefire in the North is wrong … the right move now for America would be to tell Israel to finish the job. It’s long overdue. And it’s not only Israel’s fight.” Israel has shown over recent weeks that appeasement will only work to the enemy’s advantage. The bold independence in recent days by acting without green light assurances from the White House is a reminder that Israel will act, alone if necessary, to protect its citizens and that a decisive display of force is the only way to defeat the enemy and ensure survival. READ MORE from Bennett Tucker: Unprecedented Operations and Attacks Intensify the Israel–Hezbollah Conflict Military Raids in the West Bank Help Thwart Terrorists   The post Nasrallah’s Death: Israel Takes Step Toward Victory appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Eric Weinstein is an interesting man. He has an impressive academic background with BA and MA degrees in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from Harvard University. He described AOC as a straight-up Marxist and Kamala Harris as somewhere in-between crony finance and Marxist. Weinstein also has an accomplished business background having served as managing director of Thiel Capital, a venture capital firm owned by billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel, from 2013 to 2022. For the past several years, he has served on the research team of The Galileo Project at Harvard University and in 2019 he started his own podcast, The Portal. Politically, Weinstein is a bit of an enigma. He describes his own family as “far left” and it seems that he has been a life-long liberal Democrat. However, one of his closest friends and former boss, Peter Thiel, has been a big-time donor for Republicans, including Donald Trump, over many years. In addition, he describes Trump running mate J.D. Vance as a friend and someone he admires. Perhaps, then, it is fair to describe Weinstein as a non-ideologue who keeps an open mind on political issues. On September 22nd, Weinstein sat down for an extraordinarily riveting, in-depth interview with popular British podcaster, Chris Williamson, to discuss a wide range of topics. Some of the most fascinating moments over the course of the interview came when Weinstein made comments about Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party in general. During the interview, Williamson asked Weinstein about Kamala Harris’s weird, often-repeated speaking phrase, “What can be, unburdened by what has been.” In his response, Weinstein was clearly uncomfortable providing his answer, but, after a long pause, he replied that it was “a line from Marx.” He continued his answer by saying that AOC (Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) uses the phrase “We have a world to win,” which Weinstein explained is written (in German) at the end of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. “What can be, unburdened by what has been” Weinstein continued with his answer about Harris’s phrase: “It basically means you have to wipe out what has been to arrive at the new … it occurs in Karl Marx (writings) … if you think about what Mao had to do to wipe out Chinese history, what Pol Pot had to do [to wipe out Cambodian history], you’re trying to wipe out memory, because the memory has all of this burden … you’re looking for a blank slate.” Later in the interview, Weinstein responded to Williamson’s curiosity about the background of Harris’s father, Donald J. Harris. Williamson read from an internet search that Harris’s father is an economics professor emeritus at Stanford University known for applying “post-Keynesian ideas.” Both raised the question of what comprises post-Keynesian economic ideas. Weinstein offered that there was “a lot of Marxist thought” in post-Keynesian economics. Weinstein elaborated that as a man who’s family comes from the far left, there are certain sorts of recognizable commonalities, presumably referring to communist thought. He commented that the Democrat Party is not communist, but it has welcomed in a lot of neo-Marxist thought. He described AOC as a straight-up Marxist and Kamala Harris as somewhere in-between crony finance and Marxist. YouTube link: Eric Weinstein describes the Democrat Party and Kamala Harris as neo-Marxist The interview Chris Williamson conducted with Eric Weinstein helped expose the veiled Marxist ideology of Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats such as AOC. It revealed that the weird phrases that they use repeatedly may be a deliberate signal indicating their support of Marx’s communist ideology to like-minded followers in a way not obvious to the general public. It is a reminder of the long-term Marxist strategy outlined in a prescient speech given by Alexander Trachtenberg, a member of the Central Control Committee of the Communist Party USA at its national convention in Madison Square Garden, New York City, in 1944: “When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label of socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been smeared too much. We will take the United States under the labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under (the labels of) liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will.” READ MORE from Steve Dewey: Massive Tax Hikes Coming Without GOP Sweep in 2024 Elections New York Businesses Are Fleeing Wall Street. Blame Bad Policy. Steve Dewey is a retired federal financial regulator and founder of GeoFinancial Trends, LLC (www.geofinancialtrends.org) and writes on Substack (stevedewey.substack.com).  He can be reached at steve@geofinancialtrends.org   The post Scholar: Kamala Harris Borrows From Karl Marx appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from X22 Report: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by David Ng, Breitbart: A new poll shows that Taylor Swift’s popularity has dropped overall among voters following her endorsement of Kamala Harris this month. Taylor Swift’s overall favorability among all registered voters fell from last year, decreasing from 40 percent in 2023 to 33 percent this year, according to an NBC News poll released Friday. While […]