"You're not expecting that." The post “He takes things even higher”: The Elvis Presley song Tom Petty called heavenly first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

We do not dislike Kamala Harris. Rather, we despise her.  But why? Republicans obviously always have opposed liberal Democrat candidates opposing GOP standard bearers. Often, the opposition was quite strong. But very few of those Democrats generated a visceral emotion we can call “despising.” Look back three-quarters of a century, post FDR. Most Republicans cannot fairly be described as having despised Harry Truman. Or Adlai Stevenson. Or John Kennedy. Or Lyndon Johnson. Hate? Maybe. But visceral despising? No. Nor Hubert Humphrey. Nor George McGovern. McGovern was more pathetic, not despicable in his gut. The man was a WWII air force fighter. Jimmy Carter? That was disgust, not hate per se. Walter Mondale — pitiful. Michael Dukakis — pathetic. Bill Clinton — slick and slippery. Al Gore — loathsome. John Kerry — imperious, narcissistic, arrogant. Even Biden — simply beneath contempt. But this past decade has presented the first time in a century or so that a Democrat opponent could be termed “despicable.” There were: (i) Obama (If you don’t adore him and worship him, you despise him.); (ii) Hillary, (whom no one adored or worshipped, but was impossible not to despise), and (iii) our present focus, Kamala Harris. No fair Republican despises the likes of more worthy Democrat presidential contenders, whose views are anathema to true conservatives, like Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, or others of that ilk. But Harris, for those who do not worship her, leaves no middle ground other than to be deeply despised. But why? Many of us were reared with certain values that we were told and still like to think are “American values.” They are as simplistic but powerful, captured by the meme associated with the 1950s episodic Superman TV show: Truth, Justice, and the American Way. No, we Americans are not perfect; no one is. On an individual basis, we all have encountered our share of jerks, American jerks. But we Americans have a certain pride, a certain sense that, yes, by golly, we are better. And, by golly, we are. We may not be as proper as the Downton Abbey / Upstairs, Downstairs British. We may have fewer centuries-old traditions than they have, ranging from the mace that may not be removed from Parliament to the George Washington wigs their attorneys, judges, and others of the upper crust wear. We may be more direct, frontal, perhaps even a bit more crude (e.g., failing to set our dinner tables with a fish fork). But we accept no second status when compared to our two-centuries-long close Albion ally (especially now that we have gotten over their burning down the White House, and they have made their peace that we not only grabbed the 13 colonies from them but even threw them out of the Oregon Territory). As for all the others — the French, the Germans, etc. — the less said, the better. Lee Greenwood sang it best — and still does, G-d bless him: “I’m Proud to Be an American.” And not only because that’s “where at least I know I’m free.” But because our society was built on bedrock principles, was capable of and successful in obliterating the horrific “peculiar institution” of slavery, and even saw at least 360,000 men give their lives to extinguish slavery. No reparations ever were paid to their families or descendants. It was an American value for which to give one’s life, as would happen 75 years later when fighting Hitler and the true Nazis. We are a great country, a great people, to the degree that we are a “people” anymore, as we were as late as the 1980s and then briefly again after the Twin Towers fell. And, whether left or right, black or white, rich or poor, Christian or Jew, Northeastern or Dixie patriot, we taught our children certain somewhat uniquely American values: Work hard. Study hard. A penny saved is a penny earned. Another day, another dollar. In America, even someone from the most humble roots can access the American Dream. No royalty here. No institutionalized off-limits lineage. Anyone can be president, although the nature of the thing means that fewer than a dozen or so will make it out of hundreds of millions in a lifetime. But anyone will have a shot. Otherwise, you can become a union head or gainfully employed breadwinner, a doctor, a judge, an attorney, an Olympic athlete or professional in the sport big leagues, a successful entertainer, a publisher or editor or writer, a high-tech magnate, and so much else. Brooks and Dunn sang it well: In America we all get a chance; everybody gets to dance. And that is why — in the half of the country that we, the non-Taylor Swift/Cardi B crowd, populate — we despise Kamala Harris. There are societal rules of the game. The rules are rudimentary but foundational to our nation of equal opportunity and civilization constructed on an even playing field. Consider competitive sports: Before the baseball game, the umpires review the ground rules with the competing managers. Referees are on hand to ensure no cheating and to penalize even inadvertent perpetrators of infractions. Even the disappointed know that, if their team was “cheated” by a wrong referee call, the outrage emanated from the umpire’s incompetence, not the purposeful bending of rules defining the competition. In America, too many politicians have been exposed over the years for sexual indiscretions and infidelity — even while they were in office, like Wilbur Mills, Wayne Hayes, Bill Clinton — all indelibly inscribed in our national consciousness: But it is hard to recall an American politician who literally slept his or her way into political prominence. That is the way of Eva Peron and a place like Argentina. It is not America. In former generations, American political parties nominated their presidential candidates at the national conventions, with backroom bargaining and deal-making. As far back as Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, there were allegations of “corrupt bargains.” It is probable that Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 for the 19th presidency, not only in popular votes but also electoral votes, yet was cheated out of it. Over time, the system evolved into a primaries system. Each major party’s candidate comes to the convention with delegates won during the statewide contests. If he or she has accrued the majority present, the nomination is ensured. If not, the system still may result in old-fashioned horse trading, but among legitimately elected delegates. Back in 2020, amid a large contest of Democrats vying for their party’s nomination, Kamala Harris competed. Rapidly, she burst into the lead with enormous early fundraising and an initial Trump-sized public rally. Yet, she fizzled quickly like a birthday balloon pricked with a pin. Harris essentially came in last, compelled by reality to drop out before the Iowa caucuses. She did not attract a single solitary delegate or even a voter. She disappeared, fair and square. Soon after, the winner, Joe Biden, pulled a DEI variation on Nixon selecting Spiro Agnew in 1968: select the weakest, most detestable vice presidential candidate in the marketplace, thereby guaranteeing that Congress and the American people will not dare risk impeaching or ousting you afterward. It worked brilliantly for Nixon. Despite the Watergate scandal allegations, no one would risk removing him, lest Agnew become president. Therefore, the media and Democrats (same thing) first had to catch and destroy Agnew (who totally deserved it). Only when Agnew “nolo contendered” himself did the Democrats feel safe to force Nixon out next. And thus Kamala Harris: a DEI insurance policy for Biden to avoid impeachment, despite (i) his receding into the sunset even in 2020, and (ii) knowing that, sooner or later, the law would catch up with the Biden Crime Syndicate. Harris was — and remains — so unworthy that no one dared push for Biden to be brought to justice or subjected to the 25th Amendment. Harris, who had slept her way into political view, suddenly slithered into the vice presidency without winning a single vote in the Democrat 2o20 primaries. And then the coup de grace — if not the just-plain coup — she next was anointed, as in dictatorships and medieval European monarchies, to be the Democrats’ official 2024 candidate for president without having contended in a fair and square competition as everyone else does. How not to despise? There is more. Not only is she not worthy — but, remarkably, her handlers know she is not worthy or capable. Even more remarkably: she knows. Consider: You, the reader, are your party’s candidate for president. (Cool, huh?) It is weeks and weeks — more than seven, as of this writing, with the election soon approaching — and your handlers continue telling you: “No Press Conferences, honey! [or “buddy!”]”  Honestly, if it were you running, what would you understand your advisors are saying to you? It is obvious: “We badly want you to win, so we all can get highly placed government jobs. But, the only way you can pull it off  — pardon us for saying this — is if you shut your mouth for two more months. Just shut the [ ] up, Kamala. We will feed you words to read. Don’t ask us what they mean. Don’t tell us that you don’t believe in the policies we are giving you to read. Just shut up and read. And that is the only way you will get the highly coveted “Bubblehead Vote,” the last remaining body of ‘Undecideds.’ Shut up and read, and we’ll get you the reigning Queen of the Bubbleheads, Taylor Swift. She will tweet ‘Vote for Kamala’ to her 800 million billion trillion quadrillion followers, and those of them who can read will try to stay off drugs long enough to check the right box on their mail-in ballot (if they have not already lost it or rolled it up), and maybe also will sign the forms, and maybe even date them, and then hand them to the harvester.” This is why we despise Harris. She slept her way in. She is a candidate who won no votes. There is so little time, from the night of her rapid coronation, to expose her record or who she is or what she is. She won’t expose herself to a press conference. Even for a simple interview, she needs Walz to sit near her at the table like a court-ordered officer accompanying a divorced abusive parent at a supervised monthly visitation. This is not the way it is supposed to work. In a true democracy, candidates are supposed to vie fairly against competitors contending for votes. They are supposed to appear at press conferences and give unsupervised interviews with a range of quasi-fair interviewers. If they must cheat on spouses, egregious as that is, it is not the “American Way” to do as Evita Peron and sleep your way into power by finding a local Juan Peron, married and 30 years your elder, who has the keys to the palace. Name one other American presidential candidate whose political prominence began in the manner of Evita Duarte sleeping with Juan Person. Please cry for me, America. Her cackling laughter is staged, reminiscent of Hillary’s coaching. Her policies today are the opposite of the policies she advanced all her public life until a week ago. Her years in the Senate were rated to the left of Bernie Sanders. Her brazen denial that her dozens of flip-flops are exactly what they are reflects the same shamelessness, in pursuing power without principle, that she manifested when posing eagerly for media cameras in suggestive nighttime attire when she drank champagne with Willie Brown, while his wife had to see the photos next day in her newspaper. If Harris gets in, G-d forbid, such an American majority of qualified and invalid voters will get what they deserve. Taylor Swift and the Hollywood and Wall Street crowds somehow will continue being able to afford three meals daily, private gyms and clubs, ample gas and electricity for seasonal home comfort, and will continue being able to afford whatever home mortgage rates unfold from Malibu to the Hamptons. Harris, though despicable and contemptuous, may cackle and slither her way to the top, G-d forbid. Taylor Swift’s fans on TikTok will find their dreams come true. And so will Kim Jung Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi of China, and the mullahs of Iran. Subscribe to Rav Fischer’s YouTube channel here at bit.ly/3REFTbk  and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi to find his latest classes, interviews, speeches, and observations. To be invited to attend his three weekly Zoom classes, send a request to rabbi@yioc.org Rav Fischer’s latest 10-minute messages: (i) “There is No Palesine” (here) and (ii) “Jewish Campus Students Need to Stop Whining” (here) The post Why We Inherently Despise Kamala Harris appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Back in July, when Democrats still pretended that Joe Biden was functioning as president, his administration released a proposal for judicial reform. It would specify that presidents are not immune from prosecution, create a code of conduct for the Supreme Court, and set 18-year judicial terms. A large majority of Americans backed these ideas, though a majority of Republicans feared the measures would pose a “major threat to democracy.” The general public’s instincts were good. The increasingly bitter judicial wars undermine the rule of law as well as judicial institutions, and risk real, perhaps irreversible damage to the Constitution. Moreover, Biden was right to insist: “This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.” Too bad his other policies have contradicted this claim. Nevertheless, give Biden credit, he appears to genuinely oppose court packing and other legal atrocities, such as so-called “disempowering reforms,” proposed by lefties who gloried in the golden age of judicial activism during the 1960s and 1970s. Were the stakes not so high, their hypocrisy would be charming. During the Trump administration, political liberals, today mostly calling themselves progressives, were shocked to discover that the heretofore sainted judiciary could overturn their laws and regulations too. Hence the Left now stands with the people and for democracy against judicial rule! A Democratic sweep in November would leave the issue of legal “reform” to those same lefties. Although they would undoubtedly make all the right noises about empowering the people, they could be counted on to distinguish cases and enforce their belief that the Constitution means whatever the looniest progressives are teaching in the most avant garde classes at the wokest law schools. After all, back when progressives still called themselves liberals, they enthusiastically lectured the American people on why judges were the new legislators, tasked with building the good and beautiful society. Never mind elected legislators and presidents. The people who were supposed to rule American life were jurists, tasked by the living and breathing Constitution with ferreting out the new meanings of old legal provisions, recognizable only by those admitted to the legal priesthood and its mysterious ways. Conveniently, winning a Supreme Court case is easier than fighting legislative battles to change policy in Washington and 50 states (plus the District of Columbia). Legal lefties, by mindset if not partisan affiliation, filled many Republican as well as Democratic appointments — consider Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. Hence “the Constitution means what we the chosen say it does” school long controlled the Supreme Court. Celebrating the judiciary’s willingness to make policy, not law, what are now progressives defended the sacred doctrine of judicial review. Only independent justices, sheltered from political Neanderthals, whether in the public or Congress, would possess appropriate ideological enlightenment and lead Americans to the collectivist nirvana that Gaia, our mother earth, always intended. Alas, the world has changed. In the Left’s view, the inmates took over the asylum. According to Michael Avery, onetime head of the radical National Lawyers Guild, the transformation of the judiciary is the fault of “the Federalist Society, the most powerful legal organization in the country, over the past four decades to drive American law and public policy to the extreme right.” By that he presumably meant that no longer did Supreme Court majorities believe their duty was to drive all levels of government to new levels of power, degrees of intrusiveness, and paroxysms of intolerance. No doubt, the Federalist Society proved to be a formidable adversary. The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer made a similar if more general point: “The current makeup of the Roberts Court is itself the outcome of a partisan battle that has spanned decades, one in which the conservative legal movement has won a tremendous victory that is certain to shape American life for generations to come.” Yet this campaign occurred despite the legal Left’s dominance. Elite law schools raced portside, Democrats long ran Congress and a majority of state legislatures, and Republican judicial appointees rarely did much more than slow the progressive juggernaut. Ultimately the reversal could not have occurred had Americans not seen the world shaped by judicial tyranny and decided that it was not good. They especially disliked the Left’s belief that judges knew better than the rest of us what laws we should live under and what policies should shape our lives. Roe v. Wade was the capstone, deciding that the public had nothing to say about what was and remains a complex balance between life and liberty. More broadly, it became evident that, for many progressives, the Constitution had surprisingly little to do with constitutional law, which increasingly was determined by judicial fiat. Some intellectually courageous left-liberals once disagreed with their ideological brethren. Barely three years after seven Supreme Court justices, five of whom were Republican appointees, magically discovered a constitutional bar to state abortion restrictions, my redoubtably progressive constitutional law professor, Paul Brest, who went on to serve as dean of Stanford Law School, indicated his disquiet with the decision. It was something that he would support if a legislator, he explained, but even he found the high court embedding abortion in the Constitution to be an extraordinary reach. One of Roe’s most trenchant critics was John Hart Ely of Yale Law School (who later went on to also become Dean at Stanford Law). He denounced the Supreme Court decision as “simply not adequate,” “very bad,” and a “dangerous precedent.” He criticized the opinion for lacking “even colorable support in the constitutional text, history, or any other appropriate source of constitutional doctrine.” Indeed, he wrote, the ruling “is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” That was then, however. Today a legal lefty stating such an opinion would be burned at the academic stake, with his or her ashes scattered to the wind. If the Dems gain an opportunity to pack the court, one hates to imagine what the next legal frontier will be. Instead of ceding the legal reform field to those who would destroy the judiciary as an independent branch, Americans congregating under the classical liberal banner should respond with their own initiative. Surely the president should be held accountable for his actions. The Constitution’s framers never would have imagined giving a president broad and absolute immunity, or probably even something as broad as that decided in Trump v. United States. True, the Supreme Court’s decision, though widely reviled, was not as radical as oft portrayed. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and Thomas Jipping complain that “Biden is jumping on the propaganda bandwagon without even knowing how this case will play out.” True enough, but that is best exposed by Republicans responsibly confronting the issue. The claim that Trump and his Supreme Court appointees are in cahoots, scheming to expand the imperial presidency at Trump’s pleasure, has fueled the Left’s assault on an independent judiciary. It would be good to explicitly reject precisely the sort of monarchical power that America’s revolutionaries successfully challenged and to do so in a constitutional amendment. Similarly, there is good cause for an ethics code. Fair or not, the conduct of some justices appears to be careless at best. This, too, has given aid and comfort to lefty lawyers. Indeed, “reform proposals” based on appearances are particularly dangerous, since an emotional reaction to even modest abuses could lead to dangerous substantive changes. Spakovsky and Jipping worry about the “kind of manipulation and harassment, which the Left excels at,” that could hamstring right-leaning justices. To prevent that, judicial conservatives should take the initiative, developing standards and processes that could create ultimate accountability through careful oversight. Separation of powers may require such a rule to be imposed through a constitutional amendment. Even if not, a constitutional amendment would provide legitimacy for such a significant change in established procedure. Most important is the case for judicial term limits. The U.S. is the only country that allows jurists to serve for life. (Moreover, only three states do so, and two of them set an age limit for holding office.) The significant increase in life expectancy also has transformed the legal impact of life tenure. Judicial term limits have gained support from across the political spectrum, in total from roughly two-thirds of the electorate. Most often proposed is a term of 18 years, with staggered appointments, two per presidential term. Reappointments could be allowed. The issue is not partisan: Next time it might be a Democratic rather than a Republican president who gets to make three appointments in just four years. No longer would a justice’s tenure be determined by “strategic retirement” and legacy be shaped by longevity. No longer would a president’s influence over the court be so arbitrary and unpredictable. While an early death might still occasionally yield an extra appointment for a president — an alternative would be to provide for retired or specially chosen senior justices to temporarily fill in — that term would be limited and no chief executive would end up without any appointments. With the process regularized, partisan obstruction likely would carry a higher political price; with the norm set as two appointments per term, compromise would more likely bridge divided government. No longer could the high court be attacked for being completely disconnected from the political process. Spreading appointments to more presidents would likely result in broader representation on the Supreme Court. Most important, though the selection of a new justice would remain important, it would no longer be considered potentially cataclysmic. Explained the Brennan Center for Justice’s Alicia Bannon and Michael Milov-Cordoba: “Shorter terms would lower the stakes of each nomination, while regularized appointments would both encourage compromise and allow for public accountability in the event of confirmation impasses.” Nevertheless, there are critics. Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute backs life tenure, explaining, “We don’t want the justices looking over their shoulder at what their next job is going to be.” Another concern is that more rapid court turnover might speed doctrinal change, upending stare decisis. However, granting life tenure to legal mediocrities or progressive extremists is a high price to pay to keep jurists looking ahead. Just as liberals celebrated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, conservatives reviled her. Right-leaning legal mavens might like the three Trump appointees, but even among them some criticisms have been heard. And consider previous GOP appointees who did so much to disappoint, and in some cases betray, the trust placed in them. Even Ronald Reagan fell short with his appointments of Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Life tenure also allows persuasive but misguided justices to shape the law for decades, spreading their malign influence throughout the legal realm. Moreover, incremental change is unsatisfying in the face of grotesque legal error, whether Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Roe v. Wade. It took decades to reverse the latter two, which were treated as sacred writ by their supporters. As a result, after Roe’s overthrow, the public expressed its support for Roe as a symbolic, moderate ruling, nothing like the radical reality. Perhaps most important, given the rarity of appointments and general length of service, Supreme Court nominations have increasingly become the political equivalent of nuclear war. The approval process undermines the high court and degrades public confidence. Moreover, it is a vicious conflict in which the Left has a decided advantage. On the legal front, at least, conservatives seem less willing — to their credit — to follow a strategy of personal destruction. At least, the mainstream media is less inclined to magnify their claims. One other reform might prove helpful: make it easier to amend the Constitution. Doing so should not be a near impossibility. The very difficulty in changing the nation’s founding document has encouraged litigants and lawyers to look for a shortcut, in this case treating the Supreme Court as a continuing constitutional convention able to simultaneously propose and ratify amendments as desired. Amid a tight presidential race, constitutionalists shouldn’t allow the legal Left to have all the fun. The American people should be asked to decide what they believe the appropriate role of a judge entails.  Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and D.C. bars. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington. The post Constitutionalists Should Use Biden’s Judicial Proposals to Thwart the Legal Left appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

American Business Women’s Day, which will be commemorated on Sept. 22, honors the accomplishments of businesswomen across the nation. It is our day as female entrepreneurs and business owners to be recognized for our contributions to the landscape, enterprise, and economics of our nation.  Of U.S. businesses, 90 percent of women-owned shops are nonemployers, so most are solopreneurs. Women own 39.1 percent — about 14 million — of overall U.S. businesses, and women-owned businesses of all stripes generate $2.7 trillion in revenue for the U.S. economy. Should Vice President Kamala Harris ascend to the presidency, these numbers will be severely impacted, and the potential for new female startups will be significantly stalled. (READ MORE: Shut the Corporate Transparency Act Trap) At the Sept. 10 presidential debate, Harris claimed that she would create “an opportunity economy, investing in small businesses.” She added, “I love our small businesses.” But Harris’ record has reflected less “love” for small businesses and more resentment.  Harris appears to be on an unrelenting quest to not just be Commander-in-Chief, but Regulator-in-Chief. A Harris presidency would be death by a thousand regulations for small businesses, entrepreneurs, solopreneurs, and independent professionals like myself. As an investigative journalist, writer, and solopreneur, I am a multihyphenate who contracts with mid-sized and larger businesses to write articles and op-eds and do radio and media appearances about various topics. The variety of my work makes up the larger tapestry that creates my brand and intellectual property. Over the past three-and-a-half years, the Biden-Harris administration has increased economic costs by $1 trillion through burdensome growth-limiting regulations. This is triple that of the Obama-Biden administration, and 30 times higher than the Trump-Pence administration. Increased Regulation Costs Women-Owned Businesses Dearly Vice President Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote on the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). ARPA subjects small businesses to increased IRS 1099-K paperwork. The 1099-K Form used to be used by large corporations and mid-sized businesses to report payments to an independent contractor or freelancer, or for individuals who purchase goods and services through online and mobile payment providers like Venmo and Zelle. Before ARPA, unless you made over $1,000 annually from any client, there was no form required. Now any transaction of $600 or more (whether payment or goods and services) requires a 1099-K Form. This new requirement takes precious time away from income generation, networking, and collaborative endeavors. As a solo female shop, this negatively impacts my ability to earn. Because accounting is far from my wheelhouse, it also opens me up to costly mistakes. Small businesses and solopreneurships’ fluidity and ability to pivot to the next opportunity is what contributes to our growth and success. (READ MORE: Can the GOP Win Back the Senate? ) Then, there is the U.S. Department of Labor’s Independent Contractor final rule. This rule tells independent professionals that we have no right to be an independent contractor unless we meet a set of arbitrary standards that are seen through a government lens — not the lens of our varied industries. The new rule rests on a totality-of-the-circumstances standard that injects confusion and ambiguity into determining work status, inevitably leading to the loss of that independent status.  Even though enforcement of the rule has been muted thanks to various lawsuits by independent professionals and the independent trucking industry, just like the 1099-K policy, this rule is in effect and hampers the ability to solicit new earning opportunities and will penalize any attempts toward advancement. This has a chilling effect, which stymies female entrepreneurship and businesses like mine. Regulations like the 1099-K paperwork requirements and the DOL Independent Contractor rule are Harris’ economic legacy. These regulatory barnacles have a chilling effect that has hampered growth and opportunity for women who wish to become entrepreneurs and build businesses. (READ MORE: Kamala Harris Embodies the Subjective Reality of America’s Left) At the debate, Harris proposed a $50,000 tax deduction incentive plan that relies heavily on more regulatory oversight, government loan incentives, and tax credits. The greater problem: It does nothing for existing businesses that are currently struggling. Second, it will do nothing to keep a new startup or small business viable and thriving, especially with the burden of launching after three-and-a-half years of Bidenomics. We have already experienced how massive cash injections into the economy only trigger more inflation. This has been devastating to small businesses like mine, which run on slim profit margins. While the siren song of electing a “first female Black president,” is enticing, symbolism and vibes will not contribute to the growth of my business or my ability to earn and provide for my family. Jennifer Oliver O’Connell is a small business owner, entrepreneur, independent contractor, and visiting fellow with the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org/CEO). The post Kamala Harris’ Approach Would Destroy Women-Owned Enterprises appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Israelis have managed to simultaneously set off hundreds of Hezbollah pagers to explode, leaving over 2,000 wounded across the Middle East. (READ MORE: Terrorists Used to Lose Their Heads. Today, It’s Their Balls.) On this episode of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay discuss the incident and the potential of innovative weapons being used upon innocent lives or Americans. Tune in to hear their discussion! READ Melissa and Scott’s writing here and here. Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post <i>The Spectacle</i> Ep. 149: Israel’s Exploding Pagers Send a Warning Message About Future Weaponization appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Olivia Rondeau, Breitbart: Establishment media coverage of former President Donald Trump was found to be 95 percent negative following the second attempt on his life, according to a Media Research Center (MRC) analysis. ABC, CBS, and NBC News all broadcasted overwhelmingly negative commentary on the Republican presidential candidate after Sunday’s thwarted shooting at the […]

from Sputnik News: On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said at a press briefing that the United States had no foreknowledge of the Israeli pager attack against Lebanon and claimed that the United States was collecting information about the attack “in the same way journalists are across the world,” despite its close ties to […]