Your Gov. Has Already Sold You Out To Enslavement By The United Nations. Rebel Call 9-23-2024 - IT'S ALL COMING TO AN END & ITS HAPPENING JUST LIKE WE ALL SAID IT WOULD! - 10,462 views September 23, 2024 REBEL CALL - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@REBELCALL2024

This is so sad....

“It’s not like getting to the South Pole." The post ‘Tommy’: The concept album Ray Davies has never heard first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, have a rivalry that stretches back twenty-five years. In this showdown, Kamala has won, leaving Newsom deeply resentful. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Egotistical and occasionally impulsive when his ego is threatened, Newsom responded to Kamala’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate by mocking the Democratic insider–led coronation. “We went through a very open process, a very inclusive process,” he said on the Pod Save America podcast in August. “It was bottom-up, I don’t know if you know that. That’s what I’ve been told to say!” Newsom would feel less aggrieved if anyone but Kamala Harris had beaten him out. This article is taken from The American Spectator’s fall 2024 print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. The roots of this rivalry trace back to a 1999 fight over Newsom’s then-girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. Once she and Gavin began dating, Kimberly was eager to relocate from Los Angeles to San Francisco to be with him. That’s where things got messy. Guilfoyle was the ex-girlfriend of Newsom’s best friend, Billy Getty, with whom Newsom was having escalating conflicts over their joint business ventures. That year, Billy had married Vanessa Jarman, who was close friends with Kamala Harris. It seemed that, as Billy and Vanessa grew closer to Kamala Harris, they correspondingly grew further apart from Newsom. Tensions peaked when, according to Newsom and Guilfoyle’s version of events, Harris tried to stop Guilfoyle from getting a job at the San Francisco district attorney’s office because of her loyalty to Billy and Vanessa. The couple did not want Billy’s ex to come back to town to date his increasingly estranged business partner. Newsom’s relationship with his best friend was entirely severed, a sad circumstance that Newsom likely saw as stemming from Kamala Harris’ machinations. By 2003, Newsom and Harris had reached a similar junction: each was attempting to make his or her first major ingression in politics. Newsom, then the golden boy of San Francisco’s elite, was seeking the San Francisco mayor’s office while Harris was seeking to unseat the city’s incumbent district attorney. Both were in a position to compete for these roles because of one man: then–San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. Brown picked Newsom to succeed himself as mayor, lent him his endorsement, and did everything he could to get him elected. The Associated Press even branded Newsom “Mayor Willie Brown’s hand-picked successor.” Brown’s support stemmed from the fact that Newsom was the son of his longtime friend, William Newsom. In Kamala’s case, Brown propped up her run against the incumbent district attorney because he and Harris had previously dated (when he was 60 and she was 29, and while his divorce with his then-wife was still pending, no less). The media awkwardly avoided acknowledging this likely motive for Brown’s elevation of Harris, and he insisted that he had done so because of her talent and abilities. (Brown had additionally appointed Harris to two state commissions.) Harris, for her part, tried to claim that Brown’s support was not aiding her in the district attorney race and that he was an “albatross hanging around [her] neck.” She told a local news outlet: “His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing.” Both Newsom and Harris won, thanks in large part to Willie Brown. In 2010, Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom, their careers still in parallel, each won election to state positions. Harris was elected California’s attorney general, and Newsom was elected lieutenant governor. This was an imbalance that made Newsom bitter and jealous. The budget for the lieutenant governor’s office allowed Newsom just three full-time employees, which looked pitiful in comparison to his rival Harris’ staff of 4,700 and budget of $735 million. Newsom spent much of his tenure as lieutenant governor raging against the smallness of his office. After Newsom and Harris secured reelection to their respective positions, public speculation immediately turned to which higher office each of these ambitious politicians, who occupied roughly the same center-left position on the political spectrum, would seek. It was widely speculated that, if the two rivals went up against one another in an election, it would end their political careers because they shared so much of the same political base, which would create a lane for a third challenger to have a breakout win. One political insider, for example, said that a face-off between the two would be a “murder-suicide” because they were “political twins.” When California Senator Barbara Boxer announced her retirement soon thereafter, it was up to Harris and Newsom to decide who would get that office, and who would get the governor’s mansion. Newsom seized on to the governor’s mansion by calling Harris to tell her that he would not be seeking Boxer’s seat, essentially handing the race to her. Harris announced that she would seek the Senate seat, and Newsom said shortly afterward that he would create an exploratory committee to run for governor. Both hoped that these moves would position them to achieve their shared political ambition: the presidency. *****  In a cooling of the tensions, Harris lent Newsom her endorsement for governor and briefly joined him on the campaign trail. Politico wrote that the two “presented a unified front,” even as their feud was publicly known. Willie Brown said of their longtime rivalry: “They have to work that out.” And they seemed to. In 2019, when Harris was waging her own presidential campaign, Newsom likewise lent her his endorsement and held a fundraiser for her. Alas, before he was able to head a scheduled campaign event for her in Iowa, she dropped out of the race.  Even after Biden picked Harris to be his vice presidential nominee, Newsom had every reason to believe that he would come out on top in their long-running race to the summit of the political ladder. While Newsom would be able to make waves as the executive of the most populous state in the union, Harris would be consigned to secondary status. Moreover, Harris’ performance in the 2020 Democratic primary — not to mention the disaster that was her first year in the vice presidency — boded poorly for her chances at ever attaining the presidency. Political insiders reported to California newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, that Newsom was glorying in Harris’ struggles. Later, sources told those papers that Harris had loved watching Newsom squirm when he faced a recall election.  While Harris was stuck playing Biden’s loyal deputy, Newsom took every opportunity to elevate his political profile. This included a pseudo-campaign tour of red states, a debate against then-presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, and high-profile international trips. Speculation abounded nationally that he was setting himself up to take over for Biden in the 2024 election should the president decide to withdraw. Indeed, Newsom was actively preparing for that eventuality. Here’s how Newsom went wrong in that endeavor: He played it too conservatively.  In the face of relentless questions in 2023 about whether he intended to replace Biden, Newsom felt compelled to deny them for fear of being seen as overly ambitious and power-hungry. Those were critiques that he had previously faced in his political career — and they had cost him greatly. When Newsom launched his first bid for the governor’s mansion in 2009, San Francisco political leaders, led by the Board of Supervisors, were angered by his prioritization of his political ambitions over his job as mayor. They waged an attack against him that culminated in the destruction of his gubernatorial campaign.  In the case of 2024, Newsom feared that Biden’s allies would blockade his future ambitions in reaction to his positioning himself as Biden’s successor. It was certainly the case that Biden’s people were upset by the California governor’s naked ambitions. Additionally, Newsom feared that Californians were becoming increasingly alienated by his centering of his national ambitions. After all, his approval ratings were reaching all-time lows, and the common explanation for this was that Californians felt they were being sidelined by Newsom’s designs on higher office.  In reaction to these fears, Newsom went all-in for Biden. He became the president’s most vocal advocate and adamantly defended him on cable show after cable show. To further quash speculation that he was positioning himself as Biden’s replacement, Newsom declared that Harris should replace Biden were he to step down. In hindsight, Newsom should not have done any of this. Had he pledged support for Biden without devolving into sycophantic servitude or completely renouncing his own presidential ambitions — even to the point of endorsing Harris — he could have kept himself in a prime position to seize the nomination when Biden’s cognitive decline inevitably became too obvious for him to continue in the race.  When Biden’s cognitive decline was made glaringly apparent in the June 27 presidential debate, it was not too late for Newsom to reconsider his sycophantic stance. He could have signaled hesitation with Biden’s continuance in the race or claimed ignorance of the severity of the president’s decline. Instead, driven by fear, he remained locked in a state of groveling subservience. He was more supportive of Biden’s presidential bid than any other Democrat. Newsom even embarked on a three-state tour to campaign for the president. Newsom’s stubbornness caused him to cling to his narrative that Biden had delivered a “masterclass” in governing and was the best choice for the presidency.  Another reason Newsom clung to his support for Biden was Kamala Harris. He feared that, should Biden step down, she would be his successor. This prospect was unacceptable to him both because of their longtime rivalry and because of the fact that her election would derail his chances at the presidency until at least 2032 — by which time he would have been out of office for six years. Alas, the one-man show of Newsom begging the public to disbelieve their eyes and ears failed to prevent Biden’s ousting from the race. When Biden announced he was withdrawing, Newsom still had an opportunity to enter the race. He could have acted before Biden endorsed his vice president, or after the endorsement but before the party’s major figures rallied behind her. Harris’ disaster of a vice presidency and lack of political talent called out for a rival to jump in. Newsom likely determined, however, that his repeated claims of having no presidential ambitions and his position as Biden and Harris’ top supporter would make an entry into the race appear disingenuous and manipulative. Fearing that overt ambition might damage his future prospects at higher office, he felt trapped by his own statements. With Newsom out of the race, Kamala walked, not ran, to the nomination.  Kamala’s race card — though powerful — was not necessarily a trump card, and yet Newsom had let her win this hand. *****  Since Kamala’s seeming victory in their long-running feud, Newsom’s position on the political stage has been significantly diminished. While Newsom was Biden’s top surrogate, he’s hardly acted as a surrogate for Harris. He criss-crossed the country campaigning for Biden, but he has only held a fundraiser for Harris. Newsom has acknowledged his diminished role, saying, “At the end of the day, it will be swing states that will be determinative, and if I can fill a void that others can’t, then I’ll be there.”  Newsom did not even speak at the Democratic National Convention apart from ceremonially delivering California’s delegates. Instead, he appeared bitter over Harris’ success. The week of the convention, the Los Angeles Times described Newsom as having “the tight smile of a disappointed runner-up; the kind you see at the Oscars when they flash on the best actor nominees just before pulling away to show the winner take the stage.”  If Harris wins the presidency, she will blockade Newsom’s future ambitions and deny him a Cabinet role. Yet this political rivalry may have another decade in it. If Harris loses, Newsom could go on to beat her in the next round. Ellie Gardey Holmes is Print Editor of The American Spectator and author of Newsom Unleashed: The Progressive Lust for Unbridled Power. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine. The post How Kamala Bested Newsom in Their Decades-Long Feud appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If there’s anyone who doesn’t need the grief that surrounds running for president, it would be Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As he has noted himself, Bob Kennedy has been around the chaos of these campaigns since childhood, having attended his first Democratic Convention at the ripe old age of 6. As someone old enough to vividly remember his father and uncle, those of us of that certain age can recall vividly their campaigns for office and the two decidedly vivid tragedies that overtook his father — then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy — as well as, five years earlier, his uncle President John F. Kennedy. Not to date myself, but in 1968, I was a 17-year-old decidedly enthusiastic supporter of RFK Jr.’s dad. I had written to the Kennedy campaign for a bumper sticker, in response receiving both the blue and orange sticker and the official Kennedy campaign button. (Both today carefully framed and preserved long ago.) When the shocking assassination of his father took place, my Nixon-loving Mom got on a bus with me for a ride to New York City (from our home in Pennsylvania) so that I could stand in line for a couple hours on a hot June day so I could get into St. Patrick’s Cathedral and touch the casket where my teenage hero was resting before being taken on to Washington for a final rest near his brother the president in Arlington National Cemetery. Then there was this amusing side note. Geeky kid that I was, sometime after RFK Sr.’s death, out came a couple long-playing record albums that were collections of RFK’s speeches. My teenage self quickly snapped them up and spent hours listening to them — memorizing them. Now for the humorous part of the story. Nineteen years later, my young and professional self, thoroughly Reaganized, was serving in the Reagan White House as an associate White House political director. It was September 1987. In the news was the conclusion of the controversial hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee of Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork. The hearings were hot, and chaired by a senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. Biden was also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. And in that campaign, Biden had been called out by rival Massachusetts Democrat Gov. Michael Dukakis for plagiarizing from then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Biden campaign denied it was deliberate.  And then… Earlier that year, although I had said nothing about it at the time, I had watched Biden on C-SPAN delivering a speech in which, lo and behold, I realized he was plagiarizing from the late Sen. Robert Kennedy. Watching the telecast, I was astonished to realize I was getting to the end of his sentences before he was. This time around, my hero being plagiarized, I had no hesitation that September in picking up the phone and calling a New York Times reporter to report what I knew. Astonished, the reporter asked if I could document it. I could.  After quick trip home to Pennsylvania over the weekend to retrieve my carefully preserved RFK records, it was back to Washington, where I hand-delivered them to the Times Washington Bureau. That was on a Monday. By Wednesday, the Times ran a front-page story about questions being raised about Biden’s speeches, citing the Kinnock and Kennedy speeches. Among others, it quoted me by name with my findings.  Within days, Biden dropped out of the race. Message: Don’t plagiarize my teenage hero! All of this I recalled as I watched RFK Jr. race around America doing something he decidedly didn’t need to do — run for president. While he picked up criticism from his Biden-supporting siblings, he, in a fashion that reminded of his father’s decided determination to stand up for principle in 1968, plowed on. Now, with considerable boldness, he has endorsed former President Donald Trump. With the 2024 campaign now mere weeks from ending, it is more than reasonable to believe that the former president can win. And like RFK Jr. — not to mention millions of Americans in the “Trump base” — that win would rest on the belief that things have gotten offtrack in “the Swamp.” That the mess needs to be cleaned up, and the system cleared from being a Swamp of special interests that is all about preserving itself instead of serving the American people. And in the case of RFK Jr., it is more than reasonable to suspect that a Trump victory would bring a serious role for Bob Kennedy in the Trump administration to help with the major task of, as the saying goes, “draining the Swamp.” So. We shall see. But make no mistake. The presence of RFK Jr. in this race, and his alliance with the former president, is a signal that there is major support from the American grassroots for serious change in Washington. And the message from Trump — and RFK Jr. — is that change is on the way. Good for them. READ MORE: Teamsters Expose Fatal Harris Weakness The World, Israel, and Our Diplomacy of Dunces The post RFK Jr.’s Fight for Principle appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Letters that begin “Dear World” generally foreshadow something ominous. Ryan Wesley Routh imagined his note detailing why he plotted to murder Donald Trump as the explanation of something glorious. And that, in a nutshell, explains 90 percent of the evil committed on behalf of any political cause. People generally do not commit atrocities, a la Dr. Evil, because they sadistically enjoy harming others. They do so because they trick themselves into believing that the small horror they unleash serves a broader, better cause. Communists murdered to establish heaven on earth. Nazis murdered to create a more perfect human race. Ends so glorious generally yield to means that horrific. Though we never approach the glorious ends promised, humanity periodically endures the horrific means practiced. Do-gooders endanger us all. In a letter that begins “Dear World,” Ryan Wesley Routh wrote: This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you know to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job. Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know[s] that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a US president. U.S. presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity. Trump fails to understand any of … The indictment includes a picture of that page, which ends there. One gets the gist of his grievances in this abridged version of Routh’s manifesto. He wants to murder. More so does he want you to believe that he wanted to murder for a righteous cause. He’s not like all those scary, mean murderers. He’s a benevolent, humanitarian murderer. Such indicate the hallucinations unleashed by the addictive, mind-altering drug politics. Is trying to blow off the head of a father, husband, and hero to millions “kind,” “caring,” “selfless,” or standing “for humanity”? To invoke such beatitudinal virtues in preparation for murdering another human being indicates that some people just do not get their own irony. Ideologues rarely do. The letter, according to court papers filed Monday arguing for continued detainment of Routh, further reasons that Trump “ended relations with Iran like a child and now the Middle East has unraveled.” Again, one encounters rationalization above reason. Why did the Middle East not unravel during Trump’s presidency but instead did so toward the latter part of his successor’s? It is not as though he blames the former president for the Hindenburg disaster of the sinking of the Titanic. Nonetheless, it comes across as a grasping for straws as so much of what extremists profess does. The terrorist attacks of Oct. 7 and what followed — pager bombs and all — occurred not just on Joe Biden’s watch but long after Donald Trump left the White House. Nothing like it happened when Trump presided over the government. Routh does not strike as crazy or stupid based on this one page of his writing. He does seem, like millions of Americans, deluded by politics, which currently feeds a Manichean view among those already predisposed to it. Routh voted in North Carolina’s Democratic primary in March, affixed a Biden–Harris sticker on his truck, and donated numerous small donations through ActBlue designated for various Democrats, to include Beto O’Rourke, Tom Steyer, and Elizabeth Warren. He became so exercised over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that he traveled there and tried to organize foreigners to fight on the beleaguered nation’s behalf. He self-published a book in which he pointed to Trump’s jettisoning the nuclear deal with Iran as justification for his murder. The man of weak judgment held strong convictions. Given his business, which he described as “not about making money but rather providing economical simple shelters for our housing crisis for those that need it,” he clearly regarded himself as a do-gooder. Murdering the Republican nominee, like building a tiny house for a homeless person, relied on this philanthropic impulse as catalyst. We know Ryan Wesley Routh for allegedly lurking in the bushes for 12 hours with an SKS rifle, a GoPro, and makeshift ballistic shields in an effort to murder a man beloved by millions of people. That falls under misanthropy, not philanthropy. Many, like Mr. Routh, mistake the one for the other. The post Ryan Wesley Routh, Do-Gooder appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe that Kamala Harris has flipped her positions but kept her values. So confusing are Harris’ claims that she has reversed her fundamental positions but retained her foundational values that Sen. Sanders has been forced to come to the aid of his fellow lefty. While Sanders may have cleared up the question about where Harris stands (unchanged), he has only added to those about who she is. Make no mistake, Kamala Harris is a green extremist. When she was in the Senate and running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, she co-sponsored the gargantuan Green New Deal and advocated banning fracking. Yet now, as she runs for president four years later, she claims that she would not ban fracking — a crucial issue in battleground Pennsylvania. Without a doubt, Kamala Harris is an open-borders champion. She not only supported decriminalizing illegal immigration, but as a senator visited the southern border to excoriate the Trump administration’s attempts to close it. She also bought into the border patrol whipping hoax. Yet, now as she runs for president four years later, she claims that she supports a tough border policy. This leftist leopard’s claims to have changed her spots elicited questions during her first interview after becoming the Democrats’ second-choice 2024 nominee and later in her debate with former President Donald Trump. When interviewer Dana Bash raised her changed positions on fracking and illegal immigration, Harris disputed both: “No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking… As president, I will not ban fracking.” And on illegal immigration, she said: “[W]e have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequence.” Still pushing at the discrepancy between Harris then and Harris now, Bash asked: “Generally speaking, how should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made — that you explained some of here — in your policy?” Harris again sought to evade by contrasting positions with “values”: “Dana, I think the — the — the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.” When the same discrepancy between Harris and her claims to have reversed previous positions was noted by Linsey Davis of ABC News in the Sept. 10 debate, Harris again resorted to her “values” dodge: “So my values have not changed.” Having heard Kamala’s first attempt at a bait and switch between her positions and values, Bernie Sanders felt compelled on Meet the Press to step in and translate Harris’ linguistic legerdemain to the Left: “No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” Kamala Harris’ attempts to try and be “pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election” have produced layers of duplicity worthy of an onion. Peeled down to its center, the question is: Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Was Harris telling the truth when she was a leftist extremist from her time in the Senate to when she ran for president in 2019? Or is Harris telling the truth now when she claims that primary components of her leftist tenets are now reversed? And is she somehow telling the truth when she claims that, despite reversing her previous positions, her “values” — which her positions are supposed to reflect — are somehow still intact even though the positions themselves no longer are? Apparently only Sanders, given his “she’s trying to be pragmatic” comment, can manage to tell the truth about Kamala’s contortions over her record. This, of course, is a politically polite way of saying that Harris is being untruthful. Harris’ attempt to change her positions should leave America wondering. In the next two months, what other positions will she reverse while still maintaining her “values?” If elected, which positions will she re-reverse back? If a leopard can change its spots once, then it can change into anything that suits it again and again. Harris is a uniquely unscrutinized candidate for someone who has already attained America’s second-highest office and now seeks its highest. In 2020, she did not face a single presidential voter, yet she became the vice president. In 2024, she did not face a single presidential voter, yet she has become the Democrats’ nominee. Now with less than two months to go before the election, she has not done a single press conference. Harris claims she has reneged on her fundamental positions, while also claiming that she has not — while steadfastly refusing to explain how this oxymoronic situation can exist and dodging all settings in which it could be examined. In the end, America should be asking itself: If Bernie Sanders does not believe Kamala Harris, why should we? J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000, served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004, and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023. The post Kamala Harris’ Bait and Switch on Positions and Values appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.