The week began with a donor to Elizabeth Warren with a Biden–Harris bumper sticker on his truck allegedly hiding in the bushes for 12 hours with an SKS rifle hoping to blow off Donald Trump’s head as he golfed. In response to the second such attempt on the former president’s life this summer, a majority of Democrats answered “not sure” (25 percent) or “yes” (28 percent) to the question of “Would America be better off if Donald Trump had been killed last weekend.” Their leaders gave them the green light. Hillary Rodham Clinton described Trump to Rachel Maddow on Monday as a “danger to our country and the world.” This over-the-top judgment cast so soon after the attempted murder of the former president seemed as though part of a concerted effort by party panjandrums to counter what happened in the polls the last time someone tried to assassinate Donald Trump from happening again. “And you hear this ‘fight, fight, fight’ chant, which you heard Trump do right after the shooting in Butler,” Jen Psaki said to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, adding: “That does scare me a little bit.” Warren, the author of A Fighting Chance, This Fight Is Our Fight, and Only Righteous Fights, expressed an epiphany, at least when it comes to Donald Trump using such language, in calling his a “very, very different kind of approach.” She added that Trump, nearly murdered by one of her small-dollar donors through an unkind in-kind contribution to Democrats on Sunday, “puts us all at risk.” Or does life-or-death rhetoric such as Warren’s do that? A University of Chicago poll found a far greater number of opponents than supporters of Donald Trump supporting violence to prevent the opposing side from taking power. The Maine and Colorado secretaries of state who sought to delete Trump’s name from ballots, the hectoring lawsuits designed to bankrupt the former president both financially and reputationally, and the politicized indictments that threatened the Republican nominee with 717.5 years in prison (show that to anyone saying Democrats are soft on crime) all sought what Ryan Wesley Routh sought: the disenfranchisement of all Trump supporters. “How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump other than ‘threat’?” Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday. The White House press secretary, who referred to Trump as a “threat” during the briefing, responded by labeling his question “incredibly dangerous.” Peter Baker wrote in the New York Times Monday, “At the heart of today’s eruption of political violence is Mr. Trump, a figure who seems to inspire people to make threats or take actions both for him and against him.” Liberals once called such rationales “blaming the victim.” They cannot fathom a political opponent they so despise as a victim, so they depict Trump as always and everywhere the perpetrator — even when a nutter tries to kill him. If Ryan Wesley Routh had succeeded, would the New York Times someday judge it a suicide? One could see the sizable pro-assassination segment of the Democratic Party cheering it on. This all seems deranged. It’s not new. In 1963, when a Marxist murdered the president of the United States, the Communist Party frantically sought to obscure Lee Harvey Oswald’s communications with its leadership by releasing “Who Really Killed Pres. Kennedy?” nine days later. “Who really was he?” it asked of Oswald. “An adventurer who was made the ‘fall guy’ by higher ups? A dupe? Or an innocent victim? What is the truth?” The pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Illinois claimed that “only the Ultra Right and the Southern Racists” benefitted, and pointed out “Dallas is the stronghold of the Ultra Right” and “the John Birch Society.” It said nothing of Oswald receiving literature from the CPUSA, requesting its lawyer John Abt serve as his lawyer, or that the assassin had lived in the Soviet Union from 1959 until the previous year. The pattern continued because it worked so well in the case of Kennedy that many self-described conservatives eventually parroted it. A Nation of Islam hit squad did not murder Malcolm X, insisted his votaries; the CIA, the FBI, and other shadowy groups did. More than a decade ago when Jared Lee Loughner murdered six people and severely wounded Rep. Gabby Gifford, the likes of Paul Krugman, Joan Walsh, and Keith Olbermann reflexively blamed the Right. “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” a former classmate, Caitie Parker, tweeted. She later described him as “a political radical.” Ultimately, Loughner’s mug shot, in which he looked like a cross between The Wall’s Pink and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’s Billy Bibbit, offered more fertile ground than did politics to find root cause. A Rorschach Test quality colors the politics-on-the-brain Left’s response to violence, political or otherwise. The facts rarely guide their assessments. Their ideological hatreds do in almost all instances. Donald Trump ultimately does not threaten democracy or the world. He threatens whether Democrats control the White House. The politically obsessed cannot distinguish between the latter and the former. READ MORE: A Troubling Preview of Harris’ Housing Policies Harris’ Truancy Crackdown Comes Back to Haunt Her Trump Assassination Attempt With GoPro in Tow The post Will the Real Threats to Democracy Please Stand Up? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a ‘Time for Choosing.’ While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket.”  So insists a group of 17 individuals who worked for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.  “The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery,” insist the signers, “and the choice must be Harris-Walz.” The group’s announcement was released as an exclusive and ballyhooed as some sort of political bombshell by the biased CBS News. I would rather ignore it, but unfortunately — and predictably — the Left is seizing it with wild abandon to promote Kamala Harris. I’m personally and particularly struck that the same angry ilk attacking our new Reagan movie — and more specifically, denouncing the positive Ronald Reagan presented in that movie — are suddenly embracing the Reagan in this Kamala endorsement.  It’s akin to the hateful Left’s sudden embrace of Dick Cheney because of his Kamala endorsement. For over two decades, Cheney was a kind of Count Dracula to liberals, the fanged monster from the hills of Halliburton who conspired with George W. “Bush-Lied-Kids-Died” to bloody the world.  But alas, now the despised Dick Cheney is the toast of the Left, as is Ronald Reagan; or at least, this deceased Reagan claimed as a Kamala supporter. There’s so much that’s striking about this CBS News story, beginning with the revealing headline: “Ronald Reagan’s former staff back Harris-Walz ticket.” Zounds! Reagan’s “staff?” The whole damned thing?  In truth, the letter was apparently signed by 17 various individuals who worked for Reagan in some capacity in the 1980s. I can’t find a full list of the 17. The only one whose name I recognize among the handful listed by CBS is former arms negotiator Ken Adelman. As the CBS piece notes, however, “Adelman had endorsed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, as well as President Biden’s 2020 run.” So, for Adelman to endorse the Democrat candidate again in 2024 is no surprise. Other than Adelman, the other names listed by CBS are “Reagan” folks I’ve never heard of. What does “staff” mean? White House staff? Department heads? Cooks, cleaning ladies? Actually, one staff member listed is a photographer: Pete Souza. He was the chief White House photographer, including for other presidents, such as President Barack Obama. It seems quite a stretch by CBS to dub this group “Reagan staff.” Do a Google search of other news outlets that picked up the story, such as the Daily Beast, the Hill, CNBC, and the Daily Mail. Most referred to the signers as “officials” or even “Reagan alumni.”  But let’s get to the heart of the claim by this group. Note the astonishing assertion: “[W]e who worked for him [Reagan] … know he would join us.” That is, he would join them in supporting Kamala Harris. They “know” this. Ladies and gentlemen, short of communicating with the ghost of The Gipper, that is something that plainly cannot be said. I would dissuade such declarations, much as I would dissuade, say, the use of Ouija boards. I’ve written eight books on Ronald Reagan, and I would never hazard such claims. In fact, I wouldn’t dare such a claim about Reagan endorsing anyone, whether Harris–Walz or Trump–Vance. It would be more reasonable to attempt to claim that Ronald Reagan, if alive, would not endorse Donald Trump because of the aforementioned matter of “integrity” versus “demagoguery.” Even then, I don’t know what great integrity these individuals discern in the cackling Kamala Harris and weird Tim Walz. But granted, they feel that Donald Trump lacks the character to be president. Okay, fine. That’s why a lot of Republicans won’t for Donald Trump, at least not enthusiastically. But not endorsing Trump is altogether different from endorsing Kamala Harris. Worse, claiming with certainty that Ronald Reagan, who died 20 years ago, would endorse Kamala Harris is a ludicrous leap. The 40th president might abstain on Nov. 5, 2024. But why insist he would openly join them in voting for a radical leftist like Kamala? Allow me to be a bit more analytical about this. I do teach political science. Yes, Poli Sci really isn’t science — a gripe that I’ve bellyached about for decades (especially as a former pre-med student who majored in biochemistry/biophysics). But perhaps I could offer some specific parameters for a more sophisticated assessment. In our next print edition of The American Spectator, which literally came off the press this past week, I have an article titled, “Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well.” What I say there can add some light to this claim about the dead Reagan allegedly endorsing Kamala over Trump. In 2014, I published a book titled 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. It has gone through several printings, with the latest version being released this fall. The Young America’s Foundation has a special edition that it has given out to students nationwide by the thousands. In that book, I delineate 11 principles of Reagan conservatism, namely: Freedom, Faith, Family, Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, American Exceptionalism, the Founders’ Wisdom and Vision, Lower Taxes, Limited Government, Peace Through Strength, Anti-Communism, and Belief in the Individual. I can’t detail each of these 11 principles here. I need not do so for readers of The American Spectator. But here’s the crucial takeaway as it relates to November 2024. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, could check the box on pretty much all 11 of those Reagan principles. At the least, the policies that Trump pursued as president align with most to all of them. Here’s the crucial contradistinction: How many of those boxes could Kamala Harris check? Yes, you answered obviously and correctly: zero. (That would include the principle of freedom, which Ronald Reagan understood in a way fundamentally different from how a left-wing progressive like Kamala Harris or Tim Walz understand it.) It is the height of folly to assert — with certainty — that Ronald Reagan would support Kamala Harris. Go ahead and argue that he wouldn’t back Donald Trump for reasons of character and temperament. But to knowingly insist he would endorse Kamala Harris is absurd. READ MORE: The Weekend Spectator Ep. 10: Reagan Critics Shut Down By Audience My Response to the Reagan Critics and Haters A Moment of Unity: Reagan United the Country Like No Other The post The Absurd Claim That Reagan Would Endorse Kamala appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’m not sure why I think this, but Good Lord This Has Been A Long Week. I suppose it’s because I’m busy as hell right now — I’m writing From Hellmarsh With Love, which by the way is serializing here at The American Spectator with new installments dropping every Saturday, and it’s a little bit of a compressed writing schedule. That probably accounts for all the late nights. There are other things, of course. You don’t really make a career as a writer and pundit unless you’re one of those lucky souls who gets the network talking-head contracts, and I doubt that’ll ever be me. So I have different irons in fires — I’m running a PAC, two websites, this column, there are the books, and here and there I’ll do speechwriting and consulting stuff. And then there’s all the radio and podcast talking-head stuff. Plus I’m still doing research for the next political book, which will be The Revivalist Agenda. That one was going to come out right about now, but I ended up parking it until after the election. I don’t know what kind of book it’s going to be, is why. Should Trump win, The Revivalist Agenda is going to be an exhortation for the new president and his congressional allies to impose transformative, disruptive change on the administrative state and literally break the power base of an out-of-control, fiscally incontinent, and grossly out-of-touch federal government. But if he doesn’t win, the book is going to have to focus on what red states can do to save what’s salvageable of the American constitutional republic. That means openly defying the federal government at turn after turn. Either way, The Revivalist Agenda is about Republican politicians ceasing to be conservatives and learning to be revivalists. The difference? Having the courage to go on offense. One of the key points in my first book in the revivalist series, The Revivalist Manifesto, was that conservatism is far too timid a political movement, and it has lost fight after fight to the Left as a result. It’ll take a Republican Party— which is what we’re stuck with as a political vehicle to save the country — worthy of the power the majority of the country would like to take away from the Democrats. But they aren’t worthy. Maybe that’ll change. It actually has to. When? Beats me. The SAVE Act mess on Capitol Hill is an example of where we are. 1. Everything About This Is Stupid You probably heard what happened on Wednesday in the House of Representatives. It wasn’t good. The House shot down a temporary spending deal that would extend government funding for the next six months, sending lawmakers back to square one with less than two weeks until a scheduled shutdown and lapse in federal funding. Lawmakers rejected House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) proposed continuing resolution that would extend current government spending levels into late March, leaving it for the next Congress and White House administration to negotiate. As an incentive, Johnson sought to appease hardline conservatives who are generally against continuing resolutions of any length by attaching the GOP-led SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voter registration. However, that effort failed in a 202-220 vote as 14 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in rejecting the spending package, falling short of the majority needed to advance the lower chamber. Johnson knew the bill was likely to fail well before it came to the floor as several of his GOP colleagues publicly opposed the package and he was forced to pull the vote last week. Because of his slim majority, Johnson can only afford to lose four GOP votes on any given piece of legislation — a margin that was far surpassed on the floor on Wednesday. However, the speaker was adamant to hold a vote, calling it crucial to tackle election integrity concerns ahead of the November contest. Johnson also framed it as a way to put Democrats on the record after nearly House Democrats voted against the SAVE Act when it passed the House earlier this year. We shouldn’t be in a position where the House is trying to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government at a $2 trillion deficit. The vast majority of that $2 trillion does more harm than good. That $2 trillion pays for the Biden–Harris administration to send planes to Port-au-Prince to pick up Haitians and bring them to places like Springfield, Ohio, and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, where they’re displacing American workers at food-processing plants and other workplaces. And somehow House Republicans, who are supposed to control the purse strings, can’t eliminate that funding. Which is reason enough to be disgusted with the process. Then you get — once again, as it’s been practically every single year this century — to the point where a gun is put to the head of each member of Congress, and they’re told they have to vote for a continuing resolution rather than a budget that contains literally trillions of dollars in harmful government spending — funding agencies that have been weaponized against their constituents — or else the world will literally end with a government shutdown. This government needs to be shut down. It does more harm than good. It has gone septic. And yet the hard reset it needs isn’t possible because Republicans lack the stones to shut it down. I’ll include my friend Mike Johnson in this, and that makes me sad. It’s a failure of Johnson’s to break out of this vicious cycle. But give Johnson his due that he at least included the SAVE Act, which would put some teeth into the prohibition against illegal aliens voting in our federal elections, into the continuing resolution. And 14 Republicans in the House are so disgusted they wouldn’t vote for it. So now one of two things will happen. Either Johnson will strip the SAVE Act out of the continuing resolution, which means a surrender and it will pass with a few Republican votes and every single Democrat, or there will be no continuing resolution from the House side and the Senate will pass one that is almost certainly going to be even worse, and the House will either have to pass it or be solely responsible for a government shutdown about a month before a federal election. Which might actually be more of a plus than a minus given how awful all of this has become. But nobody in D.C. wants to take that risk. This is an atrocity. The only solution is to drain as much power out of Washington, D.C., as possible, which Congress will not do. The states have to fix this. Having Trump in the White House to help will certainly be an asset, but particularly red states have got to start exerting sovereignty again. 2. Trump Did a Lot Better at the NABJ Than Kamala Did We really don’t need to say much about this, do we? She’s abysmal in every possible way. She’s so terrible that the fact that she’s a puppet of an unaccountable, out-of-touch managerial elite that will run the country with her as a mere figurehead the way they’ve done with Biden as their front man is… …actually a plus. How did we get here? How did this imbecile, who couldn’t win a statewide contest for secretary of state or insurance commissioner in any purple state, get to be the top of the Democrats’ ticket? Yes, I know the answer. It’s still hard to process. Do you think anybody at the National Association of Black Journalists is willing to concede that at least with Trump they got honest answers with a little bit of thought behind them and Kamala gave them this show of disrespect? I keep telling yall about Kamala! Now look for yourselves. Kamala at the end of her interview with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ). She couldn’t get out of there fast enough. Kamala left frowning (She’s a mean woman). I swear they were limited in their… pic.twitter.com/VbLEvUb8dh — Vernon Jones (@VernonForGA) September 19, 2024 3. Willie From Slidell I wrote about this Thursday at the Hayride, because unfortunately my state is responsible for this piece of filth: Holy Sh*t: Democrat C-SPAN caller says quiet part out loud — gets cut off for praising Trump’s would-be assass*ns: ‘Take That Shot!’ pic.twitter.com/3iQxlxZYOD — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2024 What I said was this: Most of them aren’t dumb enough to show their asses on C-SPAN, but it doesn’t take very long to smoke out the animus these people have – not just for Trump, but even more for his supporters. Who are generally speaking a bunch of people who would rather be American citizens rather than citizens of the world, who think there is such a thing as a national culture, which derives from Christian Western civilization, that is worth keeping, and who think there should be places our government shouldn’t go in our daily lives if we aren’t hurting our fellow man. Modern Democrats might say they’re for those things, but they only really say that because they think they’re supposed to. They don’t believe in free speech or the freedom of religion or the right to bear arms. They don’t really believe in “democracy,” unless it’s this new formulation of “Our Democracy” the Democrats have cooked up which is more like an oligarchy and a bureaucratic tyranny than a democracy. And what they really don’t believe in is the idea that their power or ideas should be challenged. To them, government is God. God doesn’t really exist. So the idea that their side wouldn’t hold political power is abject apostasy. It can’t be tolerated. 4. Trump on Gutfeld Was Good Stuff Nick Arama at RedState had a good summary of Trump’s appearance on Gutfeld Wednesday night with lots of great video clips. None of them were better than this, though. It’s Trump telling the story of giving RFK Jr. and his family a ride on the Trump jet while the latter was suing him. Trump on Gutfeld ~ Hilarious story about him and @RobertKennedyJr ! WAIT FOR IT . . . pic.twitter.com/c2RcLkLW6m — God's Girl (@Rachel22Queen) September 19, 2024 Trump drives me crazy at times because I see holes he can easily fill. But then I have to stop, because for all his flaws he’s a real human being. Most politicians are not, which is why they can’t fix anything. 5. The Fraudsters Fight Louisiana’s Abortion by Fraud Act Earlier this year in my home state of Louisiana, the legislature passed a bill that  reclassifies two common abortion drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, as Schedule IV Controlled Dangerous Substances. In case you haven’t heard, taking these to kill a fetus carries some risk of complications. You actually do need a doctor’s supervision if you’re going to terminate a pregnancy with this stuff. So the Louisiana Legislature passed, and Gov. Jeff Landry signed, a bill making sure a doctor is involved and you can’t just get mail-order abortion drugs that can cause adverse medical side effects. Oh, but that’s not good enough for the abortion-addicted Left, which can’t stop regulating the hell out of every other form of human activity but the act of killing children. We pick up the story from the radical-left radio station WWOZ in New Orleans: Under the city council’s motion, the health department would be tasked with investigating the impacts of the law by surveying doctors and pharmacists and working with hospitals to review medical records. They would also look into the possibility of launching a complaint system for patients and health care providers, Moreno said in a statement. She said the goal is to gather enough evidence to get lawmakers to overturn the law. “We have to push back somehow,” Moreno told WWNO/WRKF. “We want to push back with information and push back with real data, and I think this gives us our best shot for them to reverse this very dangerous law.” Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office accused “the media, political organizations and candidates, and pro-abortion organizations” of creating “confusion and doubt” around Louisiana’s anti-abortion laws. In a statement on Tuesday, she argued that nothing in Louisiana’s near-total abortion ban and the new controlled dangerous substances law “stands in the way of a doctor providing care that stabilizes and treats emergency conditions.” Louisiana Right to Life has also argued the law will not harm women’s health. The Moreno in this story is Helena Moreno, who’s a limousine leftist former TV newscaster and state representative now sitting on the City Council in New Orleans and a decent bet to be the city’s next mayor. She’s a never-ending fountain of political attention-whoring, and she’s trying to get the City of New Orleans to essentially refuse to comply with state law. There’s a very easy way to handle this. Landry’s the governor, and he can simply issue a statement that New Orleans’ health department is an organ of state government, and it will not be allowed to defy state law. If it attempts to, it will have its funds impounded by the state and next year it will be disbanded by the Legislature. A city is a direct subsidiary of a state. It doesn’t have the same relationship to a state government that the state has to the federal government. In our constitutional system, the state is sovereign. That we have failed to make that clear is something we must atone for. But one thing that is especially true of blue cities in red states is that state sovereignty must be enforced downward, and then upward toward the feds. Hopefully, if this political virtue-signaling out of the communist politicians who run New Orleans continues, Landry will deal them a very harsh lesson that can serve as an example for others to follow. READ MORE: The Spectacle Ep. 147: Netflix’s Rebel Ridge Calls Out the Injustice of Civil Asset Forfeiture Trump and Vance Need to Articulate the Stakes of the 2024 Race Florida’s Investigation of the Trump Assassination Attempt Could Yield Frightening Results The post Five Quick Things: The SAVE Act Mess appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Six weeks out from Election Day, the presidential race isn’t the only one that’s heating up. Republicans aren’t just campaigning to secure a second Trump term — they’re also hoping to win enough Senate seats to flip the upper chamber and secure a congressional majority. Too Close to Call After the much-hyped “red wave” failed to materialize in the 2022 midterms, Republicans need a win. With a third of Senate seats on the ballot this November, the GOP can count safe wins in Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.  Florida, too, will likely remain red, though Sen. Rick Scott is facing a close race against Democrat challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, whose campaign has received funding from the Democrat’s “$25 million push for voter outreach in Senate races.” Mucarsel-Powell, a one-term congresswoman who served in the House of Representatives from 2019 to 2021, lost in the 2020 election to Trump-endorsed Republican Carlos Giménez. Trump currently leads Harris in Florida polls by 4 points.  Republicans are looking to easily flip the West Virginia senate seat previously held by Sen. Joe Manchin. Recent polls show Gov. Jim Justice leading his Democrat opponent by more than 30 points.  On the other side of the ticket, Democrats are expected to win easily in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. In Maine and Vermont, independent candidates who caucus with Democrats show significant leads over their respective Republican challengers.  The Senate majority comes down to a handful of more competitive races across the nation. Less than two months away from the election, Democrats are worried. The Atlantic explained:  Democrats are struggling to keep their 51-49 lead in the Senate … Democrats likely need to re-elect all of their vulnerable incumbents in order to control 50 seats and retain the majority (and win the White House, given that the vice president is the tiebreaker). Incumbent Democrats Face Republican Challengers In Montana, incumbent Senator Jon Tester has fallen behind Republican challenger Tim Sheehy in recent polls. Sheehy leads by a narrower margin than Trump, who is up by 14 to 20 points against Harris in the state. In previous elections, Tester has defeated Republican candidates by narrow margins: less than 4 points in 2018 and 2012, and less than 1 point in 2006. Yet, he maintained his seat in 2012 even though Mitt Romney comfortably won Montana’s popular vote. Montana is one of the GOP’s best opportunities to flip a seat. Sen. Steve Daines, Montana’s junior senator, is the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and has been working to address the fundraising disparity between Republican and Democrat campaigns in battleground states. Though Democrats plan to spend $348 million on Senate races across the country compared to the $255 million spent by the GOP, Republicans are outspending Democrats in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.   Ever the battleground state, Ohio is home to one of the most prominent Senate races in the country. While Trump is enjoying a comfortable lead in the Buckeye State, Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno continues to trail incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. This week, Republicans boosted spending in the state by more than $40 million, according to Axios.  In neighboring Pennsylvania, Republican candidate Dave McCormick is seeking to unseat Democrat incumbent Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. After losing a primary race against Mehmet Oz — who was then defeated by Sen. John Fetterman — McCormick is neck-in-neck with Casey. A poll by the Washington Post shows the two candidates even, while others show the sitting senator with a slight edge over McCormick. Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin is facing a close challenge from Republican candidate Eric Hovde. Baldwin hasn’t lost a single election in her 38-year political career, but Hovde is within striking distance. Polling shows the incumbent leading by 3 to 7 percentage points, though the race is too close to call.  In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Sen. Jacky Rosen is leading Republican challenger Sam Brown by a handful of points. Support for Rosen mirrors Harris’ polling data in the state, with both candidates hovering around 45 to 50 percent support. But the polling gap between Trump, who is receiving 44 to 49 percent according to recent polls, and Brown, who hovers closer to 40 percent support, is cause for concern.  Republicans have been burned in Nevada before. Though Republicans had hoped that the promised “red wave’”would flip the seat in 2022, incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto beat Republican Adam Laxalt by fewer than 8,000 votes Trump could provide an additional boost to Brown when ballots are cast, but Rosen has been favored by nearly every major poll since the primary election.  Republicans Look to Win Open Seats Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema’s decision not to run for reelection gave 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake an opportunity to run for the open senate seat. Facing off against Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, Lake is currently trailing Gallego — but barely. Polls conducted in September show Gallego leading by 4, 6, or 8 points.  One of the leading ladies of the MAGA movement, Lake’s fate is closely tied to the outcome of Arizona’s presidential election. Current polls show Trump and Harris in a near tie, with the former president leading by 0.6 points. Though former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan was recruited heavily by Republicans to run for the state’s open Senate seat, he is currently trailing Democrat candidate Angela Alsobrooks. As the popular Republican governor of an otherwise liberal state, Hogan’s ability to generate split-ticket voters was part of his appeal to Senate Republicans hoping to flip the seat.  To his credit, Hogan has succeeded on this count. While September polls by Emerson College and Morning Consult show Harris leading Trump by 28 or 32 points, respectively, the same polls show Alsobrooks leading Hogan by a much slimmer margin — only 6 or 7 points. For a chance at victory, Hogan needs to convert more moderate voters even as Maryland Democrats emphasize the national implications of the state’s Senate race.  Following the retirement of Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan seat is up for grabs this November, too. Republican Mike Rogers is facing off against Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who currently represents Michigan’s 7th District. Trump has endorsed Rogers, who is somewhat of an underdog in the race. Slotkin has led narrowly in polls throughout the election cycle. And, despite Trump’s 2016 victory in the state, Michigan has only elected one Republican senator since Jimmy Carter’s presidency — and he only lasted for one term.  If Republicans can only flip Manchin’s West Virginia seat, the Senate will be evenly split between parties, increasing the stakes of the presidential election. But if a Republican challenger can unseat one incumbent Democrat — or win another seat left open after a retirement — they’ll finally regain the congressional majority that eluded them in 2022.  Mary Frances Myler is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:  Harris and ABC Lied About Late-Term Abortions As Students Return, So Do Pro-Palestinian Protests ‘Missionaries of Evil’: Africa Is the New Frontier for LGBTQ Activism The post Can the GOP Win Back the Senate?  appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In Aug. 2012, a left-wing MSNBC aficionado named Floyd Lee Corkins armed himself with a handgun and extra magazines. He drove to the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the socially conservative Family Research Council, planning to shoot it up. Corkins, who later cited the Southern Poverty Law Center for the proposition that the FRC is an “anti-gay” organization, was also carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which he hoped to stuff in his dead victims’ mouths. Corkins, who served as a volunteer at a local LGBT community center, was stopped by an unarmed security guard. In June 2017, a left-wing MSNBC aficionado named James Hodgkinson armed himself with a rifle and handgun. He drove to Alexandria, Virginia, in hopes of assassinating the Republican team practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. He severely wounded then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who thankfully survived after receiving multiple blood transfusions and surgeries. Five others were also injured. Hodgkinson was a 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign volunteer who, in a Facebook post three weeks before the shooting, wrote: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” In June 2022, a young Californian named Nicholas Roske flew to the nation’s capital. Roske attained a handgun, zip ties, a tactical knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, a crowbar, duct tape, and other burglary tools. At 1:38 a.m. local time, about a half hour after a taxi dropped him off in front of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Chevy Chase, Maryland, home, Roske had second thoughts and called 911. After his arrest, Roske told police he was angered by the leaked draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Roske had written in a private chat: “Im gonna stop roe v wade from being overturned.” In March 2023, Audrey “Aiden” Hale, a transgender individual, slaughtered three children and three adults at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee. A former pupil at the Christian school, Hale took precious time during the rampage to divert and unload seven rounds into a stained-glass depiction of the biblical character Adam in a church next door. As this column asked last year: Why, exactly, would a transgender former student of a Christian school return to that school to murder innocent Christian children and shoot up a stained-glass representation of no less symbolic a biblical figure than Adam? We don’t necessarily need Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out. Leaked excerpts of the murderer’s manifesto corroborate Hale’s sinister, anti-Christian motive. This Sunday, former President Donald Trump survived an attempted assassination for the second time in a span of roughly two months. The first would-be assassin, the mysterious Thomas Crooks, donated $15 to ActBlue, the well-known Democratic fundraising platform. The second would-be assassin, the considerably less mysterious Ryan Routh, has a prolific public record. Routh, a convicted felon and supporter of Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, had an over-the-top, creepy obsession with Ukraine — one of the defining causes of the contemporary Left. Routh’s social media accounts were rife with de rigueur left-wing platitudes about the alleged unprecedented threat posed by Trump to America’s democracy and constitutional order. Murderous political violence in the United States today is not an all-of-the-above phenomenon. Yes, such violence must be condemned by all responsible political and civic actors, as we inch ever closer to an irrecoverable national abyss. But MSNBC’s daily on-air histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding, all sides are not equally culpable for the terrible situation America finds itself in today. Trump may not always be the most circumspect rhetorician, but he has never actively called for his supporters to physically assault their political opponents — including on Jan. 6, when he called for his throng of supporters gathered at the Ellipse to “peacefully and patriotically” demonstrate at the Capitol. The same cannot be said for Trump’s opposition, such as when Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said earlier this year on MSNBC that Trump is “unfit,” “destructive to our democracy,” and “has to be eliminated.” According to a poll released on Wednesday, a whopping 28 percent of Democrats said America would be better off if Trump were assassinated — and another 24 percent of Democrats confessed uncertainty. This is unconscionable. The Left has had a violent streak going back at least as far as Karl Marx’s calls for a global revolution of the proletariat — and the French Revolution even before that. And in today’s post-truth world, an expedient narrative often trumps cold facts. But Trump is not a “fascist” or “dictator.” On the contrary, Trump’s first term was, if anything, marred by excessive deference and an unwillingness to fire insubordinate bureaucrats. If MSNBC talking heads and their left-wing confreres fail to tone down the rhetoric, reasonable observers will conclude they agree with the 28 percent of Democrats who want Trump dead. To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: Trump Assassination Attempt With GoPro in Tow The Real Reason Democrats Fear Losing in November The post Why Are the Nutjobs Trying to Kill Political Opponents All Left-Wingers? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Whose fault is it? If you ask Vice President Kamala Harris, it’s former President Donald Trump’s fault. After all, Donald Trump was the one who appointed the U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, which allowed Georgia to pass laws restricting abortions, which led Amber Nicole Thurman to take supposedly “safe” abortion pills to kill her twin infants, which did the job but left her in an Atlanta hospital with a severe infection that the attending doctors reportedly didn’t treat fast enough. (READ MORE: Harris and ABC Lied About Late-Term Abortions) According to ProPublica, which investigated Thurman’s death, it’s the “first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed ‘preventable,’ is coming to public light.” The New York Times agreed. Thurman died because Donald Trump is a horrible person who wants to pass a federal ban on abortion — and don’t you dare suggest that Thurman died because the abortion pill is unsafe. Two Georgia Women Die After Taking the Abortion Pill According to ProPublica, Thurman discovered she was pregnant with twins in the summer of 2022. Just past the six-week mark and no longer able to receive an abortion in Georgia where a six-week abortion ban had just gone into effect, the single mom decided she couldn’t handle twins and drove four hours to North Carolina to an abortion clinic. Thurman missed the appointment due to traffic, and the abortion facility offered her a chemical abortion as an alternative way to end her pregnancy. But after taking both pills, Thurman’s body was unable to rid itself of her unborn children and she ended up in the emergency room at Piedmont Henry Hospital with an acute septic infection. By the time the medical staff initiated surgery, it was far too late, and Thurman’s heart stopped on the operating table. At this point, it’s important to note that ProPublica’s investigation admitted that “[i]t is not clear from the records available why doctors waited to provide a D&C to Thurman.” The dilatation and curettage (D&C) surgery was necessary to remove the remains of the children from her womb. It also admitted that “[d]octors and a nurse involved in Thurman’s care declined to explain their thinking and did not respond to questions from ProPublica.” (READ MORE: Pro-Life Women Are Disappearing) In other words, we don’t know that Georgia’s six-week abortion ban played a role in the decision that Piedmont’s medical staff made to delay surgery. The fact is, as the account Secular Pro-Life pointed out on X, Georgia’s abortion law didn’t prevent doctors from intervening because there was no heartbeat and it was clearly a medical emergency. It’s hardly fair to claim, as the New York Times did, that “abortion bans killed someone.” It would be better to admit that the abortion pill killed someone — in fact, it killed three people: Thurman, and her unborn twins. Of course, Thurman isn’t the only one. ProPublica also released its investigation into the death of Candi Miller, who also died after a septic infection following a chemical abortion. An autopsy also discovered that she had used “a lethal combination of painkillers, including the dangerous opioid fentanyl.” Miller’s family has alleged that she hesitated to seek medical aid due to Georgia’s abortion ban, but the article also admits that “her family has no idea how she obtained them [the painkillers] or what was going through her mind — whether she was trying to quell the pain, complete the abortion or end her life.” Again, a woman (and her unborn child) were killed by an abortion pill that we’re told is “safe and effective.” Stories Like These Should Deter Women From Medical Abortions, Not Encourage Them The timing of the story, the headlines liberal media organizations are writing to describe it, and the speech Kamala Harris plans to give on Friday in Georgia are all rather perniciously timed. As of the end of August, 10 states had some form of a ballot measure addressing abortion confirmed for their 2024 ballots, the majority of which would enshrine abortion in their state constitutions. This means that the message that “abortion bans kill women” will be blaring loud and clear just as voters head to the polls for early voting. It all leaves hardly enough time for pro-lifers to point out that it wasn’t the abortion ban that killed Thurman or Miller, but the abortion pill. What should be stories that deter women from considering medical abortion as a “safe” way to get out of a difficult situation will instead be turned into a political weapon to ensure radical legalization of abortion on a state-by-state basis. (WATCH: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 68: Women Are Partying and Packing Abortion Pills) Whose fault is it? Certainly not Trump’s. He’s suggested that he has no intention of taking federal action against abortion, much less the abortion pill. It’s a states’ issue, he says. And he intends to leave it at that. When it comes to the deaths of Thurman, Miller, and women like them, we should blame the abortion pill itself. We should blame the politicians and medical professionals who told those women that everything would be fine and that complications were rare. But even more so, we should blame a society that has told women for decades that, if a pregnancy is an inconvenience, they can simply end the precious lives of the children entrusted to them. READ MORE: Harris and ABC Lied About Late-Term Abortions Tim Walz’s Message on Murdering Babies: ‘Mind Your Own Damn Business’ Every President Swears to Protect the Unborn The post Don’t Blame Trump For Amber Thurman’s Death. Blame the Abortion Pill. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Following the failed assassination attempt against Donald Trump, his campaign released a list of the many instances when the Left labeled Trump as a threat that needed eliminating. On this episode of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay analyze how the Left has called for violence on the former president for years. 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. 148: The Left Continues to Incite Violence Against Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Over there at a site run by “Catholics for Catholics” is this amazing headline: Largest Billboard Company in US Cancels Catholic Group with Message Supporting Donald Trump  You read that right. The story reports:   This week Catholics for Catholics (CforC) announced that it had become the latest victim in a nationwide trend to censor the messages of conservative organizations.  CforC says it signed a contract with billboard provider Lamar Advertising, one of the largest billboard companies in the country, to place several billboards to promote Catholic values in the public square. The billboards, referenced further in this release, show a recreation of the iconic picture of former President Donald Trump, bloodied after an attempted assassination, accompanied by words from the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel. This billboard is part of the National Campaign that CforC has undertaken to place dozens of this image on billboards all over the battleground states. The story goes on to report:  After signing a contract with an initial representative of Lamar, who had previously received the artwork, CforC was notified that such artwork had been denied by Lamar’s corporate office because the concern was that “it plainly could be taken as a Catholic endorsement of Trump.” CforC was told that the requirements to continue its advertisement were to remove their logotype, website (cforc.com) and use the abbreviation “CforC” on the sponsor disclaimer (paid by Catholics for Catholics). In other words, they asked CforC to renounce to their Catholic identity in order to run the billboards ads. CforC fearlessly rejected their arbitrary suggestion and took their business elsewhere. … It is interesting to note that CforC volunteers have identified the actual billboard location that was canceled, as being in heavily Catholic Milwaukee, Wisconsin and have put eyes on the boards, only to report back that the opposite sides of the agreed upon boards contain pro Kamala Harris advertisements paid for by the Democrat Party. What continues to amaze is the brazen openness with which those opposed to Trump will use their supposedly professional, nonpartisan businesses to lash out at Trump and his supporters. The other day, the Scientific American, the 179-year-old publication devoted to science, drew the attention of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which headlined this:  The Political Scientific American A very unscientific Harris endorsement shows why voters don’t trust scientific elites. The Wall Street Journal wrote, in part, this:   The scientific clerisy fret about eroding public trust in science, but what do they expect when they act like political partisans? The latest exhibit is an editorial this week endorsing Kamala Harris by the formerly esteemed publication Scientific American. … The magazine has a rich 179-year history of highlighting emerging technology and scientific debates in ways the lay public can understand. So it’s sad to behold its transformation into another progressive mouthpiece, broadcasting opinions on such subjects as gun violence, climate policy and identity politics that masquerade as science. Its Harris endorsement is a classic of this genre. … The more scientists and their magazines imitate an MSNBC roundtable, the more Americans will distrust anything they say. Bingo. In the case of the “corporate office” of the Lamar billboard company, the same game is in play. Lamar is transforming from a professional billboard company into just what the Wall Street Journal labeled the Scientific American. Lamar is now just “another progressive mouthpiece.” Using their professional business to target Americans — their own customers specifically included — because the denizens of the Lamar corporate office hold a contemptuous view of their own customers. And in the case of Lamar and those Catholics for Catholics sponsoring the pro-Trump billboards, there is also the decided whiff of religious bigotry, in this case anti-Catholicism.  Time, as always, will move on. The 2024 election will soon recede into the distance. But what will not recede is the vivid image of a major billboard company showcasing what can easily be seen as religious bigotry alongside its Trump Derangement Syndrome and open contempt for its own customers. Too bad. And decidedly not good. The post Largest US Billboard Company Cancels Catholic Pro-Trump Ads appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Robert Malone MD MS, Who Is Robert Malone: Never forget what the CIA did to us. On September 15, 2024, the American people witnessed another attempt on the life of Donald Trump, a former President and a current presidential candidate. A candidate who the deep state, the administrative state, and the globalists profoundly fear. […]

from State Of The Nation: SOTN Editor’s Note: Who knew that the Zionist state of Israel would perpetrate such a heinous and nonstop crime wave of terrorism against an entire nation. First is was exploding pagers; then it was walkie-talkies and other hand-held radios; right now it’s home security and solar energy systems. Apparently no one ever […]