By now everyone who is paying attention knows that Vice President Kamala Harris intends to be elected president without saying anything other than, “I’m not Donald Trump.” She won’t answer questions about the policies she would pursue as president because she — and they — are so radical that American voters would reject her. Harris is a radical even among progressives. We need to remember that on Election Day. Her CNN interview, which was a set-piece without substance, was not a statement of policy, but an attempt to show — falsely — that Harris has moved to the center and is no longer the radical progressive she has been throughout her political career. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden’s Phantom Truce) Her media minions are responding with praise for her that is entirely over the top. She’s proclaimed to be a “moderate” despite the fact that everything she and Biden have done is high on the radical progressive agenda. Perhaps the worst reaction was from ABC’s Jonathan Karl who compared Harris to Ronald Reagan. That calumny is a slander to everything the Gipper said, stood for, and accomplished. Perhaps Trump can tie her down in a debate but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that she’ll be almost as slippery as Hillary. Harris isn’t as smart as Clinton but she can duck and weave as any politician can. Even a New York Times article asked questions Kamala should answer but won’t. The American people are entitled to know what a presidential candidate will do after he or she is elected and Harris is determined to hide her cards. Query Kamala Harris So what are we left with? There are questions Harris should be compelled to answer. Here are a dozen of them that the media — if they weren’t in the bag for her — would be asking. In your CNN interview you said that there should be consequences for anyone entering the country illegally. Yet, less than a month ago, you said that America should create a legal path to citizenship for the illegals. How, precisely, would you stop or even reduce the flow of illegal aliens into the U.S.? At another point in your CNN interview, you said of Bidenomics, “There’s more to do. But that’s good work.” Bidenomics has caused the highest level of inflation in forty years. It’s a tax on the middle class and the working poor both of whom you claim to favor. What parts of Bidenomics do you believe were “good work” and what else comprises your statement that “there’s more to do” on the economy? What policies will you pursue to fight inflation? You have repeatedly said that Israel has a right to defend itself but you always qualify that by saying there have been too many civilian casualties in the Gaza war. What conditions would you impose on U.S. aid to Israel to reduce the number of civilian casualties? Biden has done nothing to pressure Hamas to release the U.S. hostages it holds. At least one — Hersh Goldberg-Polin — was murdered by Hamas a few days ago. What will you do to get the few remaining U.S. hostages released? Perhaps the only thing that Trump did that Biden hasn’t undone is Trump’s revocation of the 2015 nuclear weapons deal former president Obama made with Iran. Would you seek to renew that agreement? If so, why? Iran is on the brink of developing and being able to deploy nuclear weapons. Biden, along with most of his predecessors since George H.W. Bush, has said Iran will never be permitted to have nuclear weapons. Would you join in that vow and how would you enforce it? If China attacks Taiwan or the Philippines would you defend either with U.S. military forces? How would you bring the Russia-Ukraine war to an end? How much more aid would you give to Ukraine? Biden has, on more than one occasion, such as his student loan forgiveness program, defied the Supreme Court’s rulings. Will you ever defy the Supreme Court’s rulings? Biden’s “woke” policies have made our military less able to fight. You said in 2017 that everybody should be “woke.” Will you do anything to relieve the military of the burden of the “wokeness” ideology? The platform you are running on says, “Democrats believe the measure of our security is not how much we spend on defense, but how we spend our defense dollars and in what proportion to other tools in our foreign policy toolbox and other urgent domestic investments. We believe we can and must ensure our security while restoring stability, predictability, and fiscal discipline in defense spending. We spend 13 times more on the military than we do on diplomacy … We can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less.“ How much will you cut from the defense budget to spend more on diplomacy and “urgent domestic investments”? It would be shocking if Harris answered any of these questions in the course of her campaign. She won’t because any truthful answers will doom her candidacy and because the media will protect her from having to answer them. (READ MORE: Is Israel Deterring Iran?) The late great columnist Robert Novak once told me that a presidential vote is as personal to Americans as the choice of a spouse. Harris is a radical even among progressives. We need to remember that on Election Day. The post Questions for Kamala Harris appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In October 2012, from the pulpit of the traditional Catholic Church I attend, our priest posed a timely question: Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a Mormon? All things being equal, the priest advised against such a vote. But, he added, when the Mormon is running against the “Archbishop of Satan,” a Catholic not only can vote for the Mormon, but should. Trump has never postured as a moral leader, but he is a fighter. The Mormon, of course, was Mitt Romney, the Archbishop Barack Obama. The priest saw Obama not as Satan himself, but rather as his representative in the here and now, the shepherd of Satan’s intersectional flock, the harvester of the culture’s lost souls. (READ MORE from Jack Cashill: ABC Exposes Kamala Harris’s J6 Achilles Heel) In 2024, as it happens, Donald Trump has emerged as “the Mormon,” the candidate whose commitment to Christian orthodoxy voters are not quite sure of. On the issue of abortion, this uncertainty has pro-lifers justifiably troubled. And puzzled. Although never known for his piety, Trump was the first sitting president to appear at the annual March for Life, the first to single out Planned Parenthood for defunding, and was quick to reinstate policies prohibiting the funding of abortions overseas. Of more lasting importance, Trump succeeded in placing three conservatives on the Supreme Court, enough to overturn the “settled law” of Roe v. Wade. In overturning Roe, the Court honored the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and returned the power to make abortion law back to the states and to the people. Ah yes, the people. Sovereign they may be but sinless they are not. As Solzhenitsyn reminded us, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.” The U.S. Constitution, as John Adams understood, is as fragile as the human heart. The republic was less than a decade old when then President Adams expressed his concern in a letter to a friend. “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” wrote Adams. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Freed from the implied constraints of Roe, abortion advocates turned evangelist. From the moment the Dobbs decision was leaked — the first such breach in Supreme Court history — they have used Planned Parenthood’s money and the media’s mindless clout to seize American hearts and minds. The pro-life movement has had no effective counter. “It’s a tragedy that pro-lifers don’t have a true standard bearer in either party,” said Marc Short on X. Short was the chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence. Pence reposted Short’s quote. Right below Short’s post on Pence’s X feed is a post that shows a solemn Pence beside the quote, “I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it.” Yes, and Achilles may have been pro-Greek, but as long as he remained brooding in his tent, the Trojans ruled the battlefield. Pence knows who the enemy is. His X feed is filled with attacks on Kamala Harris and the Democrats, but from his perch on the team bench he attracts pathetically few readers. Like the other pro-lifers on the sidelines, Pence watched the Democratic National Convention. Had John Adams seen it, he would have pulled out his few remaining hairs. The convention was a parade of horrors, from the pop-up abortion mill to the prancing abortion pills to the cavalcade of lies propping up the whole unholy affair. As was evident to anyone with eyes to see, the overturning of Roe unleashed the Democrat id and has turned the party into a full blown death cult True, if Satanism is a religion, that condition set by Adams might have been perversely satisfied, but no moral argument could be made for Planned Parenthood’s demonic boast of 25 dead babies in just two days. Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich, who shamelessly delivered the invocation at the convention, chose not to notice. Although Cupich seemed to be auditioning for the spot, Kamala Harris had already been installed as the new Archbishop of Satan. If elected with a majority in both houses, Harris will make pro-lifers pine for the good old days of Roe v. Wade. Yes, Trump is being too cute by a half on a subject that defies cuteness. His positions change daily and seem as fruitlessly calculated as Kamala’s position on fracking, but unlike Pence and others he is in the arena. That bullet hole in the ear provides ample proof of the same. Why Trump Must Win No war is more worthy than that for life, but Trump has a more immediate battle to fight, and that is the battle for the rule of law. If he loses the election, that battle is lost. A ruling elite that now imprisons pro-life protestors and indicts even reporters like David Daleiden with impunity will feel free to criminalize pro-life speech, indeed any protest that might displease. (READ MORE: Obama Still Accusing Trump of ‘Completely Ignoring Science’) For the last three-plus years the Department of Justice has given America a preview of coming attractions with its treatment of the January 6 protestors. In my book, Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6, I profile ten women who participated in that protest, virtually all of them pro-lifers. The eight who survived that day have all been incarcerated. The worst real crime any of them committed was to break a window, and that woman, a mother of eight, is now serving a four-year sentence. More typical is the case of Christine Priola. An ardent pro-lifer, Priola walked into the Capitol through an open door carrying a sign, reading, “The Children Cry Out for Justice.” In October 2022, during her sentencing hearing, Priola got the sense that the recently decided Dobbs did not sit well with Judge Tanya Chutkan. “Is this about abortion?” Chutkan snapped in the middle of Priola’s allocution. Priola’s lawyer pleaded for mercy. He argued that she had done no harm in the Capitol, had no negative interactions with law enforcement, had cooperated with the authorities, and had zero chance of reoffending. Having lost her home and her job with Cleveland schools, Priola, now fifty and living in her mother’s basement, had suffered enough. Not so, said Chutkan, who sentenced Priola to fifteen months in prison, part of that time shared in a cell with a man pretending to be a woman. For too many Americans, Solzhenitsyn’s world has already become their own but with a perverse twist even a Stalin could not have imagined. Today, the fight for justice precedes the fight for life. The two cannot be separated. Trump has never postured as a moral leader, but he is a fighter. That said, America needs moral leaders. As the battleground moves to the states, leaders like Mike Pence will be invaluable but only if they acknowledge the enemy and embrace their allies. For conservatives to fight among themselves is to make the Archbishop of Satan smile. On particularly disputatious days, I’m told, her cackles can be heard echoing all the way down to hell’s ninth circle. Jack Cashill consults regularly with Kansans for Life and co-produced the film Thine Eyes, which documents the 2009 March for Life. The post Donald Trump v. The Archbishop of Satan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, a California Democrat, has been rather quiet about gun control of late, but as a senator, she touted a “mandatory gun buyback program.” Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, a Minnesota Democrat, wants to “make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” The American people deserve a hard look at both these policies. The Nazis used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to deny access to firearms to anyone not an adherent of National Socialism. Gov. Walz never carried weapons “in war” but he is obviously referencing the AR-15 rifle. The version of that weapon available to the public is not military grade and requires a separate pull of the trigger for every shot. The civilian AR-15 is no different from many semi-automatic rifles available to people in calibers from .22 on up. (READ MORE: America Waited 39 Days for This? The Blah-ness of CNN’s Kamala & Tim Show) No firearm has ever posed a threat all by itself, without human agency, something Gov. Walz and many others fail to make clear. In a similar style, Vice President Harris’ mandatory buyback program dodges a key reality. Blame the Shooter Not the Gun The firearms that so trouble the vice president are not purchased from the government, even in the case of military surplus rifles such as the M1 carbine, restricted to semi-automatic operation. The government, therefore, cannot “buy back” the guns in any meaningful sense, and a mandatory buyback would seem to violate the people’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms. Those troubled by Harris’ plan might check on her record as attorney general of California. On Dec. 2, 2015 at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik gunned down Robert Adams, Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal, Harry Bowman, Sierra Clayborn, Juan Espinoza, Aurora Godoy, Shannon Johnson, Larry Daniel Kaufman, Damian Meins, Tin Nguyen, Nicholas Thalasinos, Yvette Velasco, and Michael Wetzel. In both a Dec. 17, 2015 statement and a statement one year later, Attorney General Harris failed to condemn the mass murderers or name a single victim. The dead and wounded included African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and immigrants but Harris failed to call the mass murder a hate crime or even “gun violence.” For Harris, that designation seems to depend on the identity of the shooter. An Unarmed People Have Faced Tyranny Before The current election campaign has seen the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Anti-Semitism is surging and candidates have taken to calling their opponents Nazis and so forth. That invites a look at the actual gun-control policies of the German National Socialist regime, detailed in Stephen Halbrook’s Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and “Enemies of the State.” The Nazis used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to deny access to firearms to anyone not an adherent of National Socialism, even veteran groups such as the Stahlhelm. In the Nazi view, nobody needed a firearm for self-defense when the police protected society and sport shooting and hunting were not a “need,” as determined by the government. German Jews were a primary target. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Who Lies About Working at McDonald’s?) In 1896, Albert Flatow won first place in gymnastic events at the Olympic games in Athens. In 1932, Flatow registered three handguns, as required by the Weimar Republic. On Oct. 4, 1938, the Nazis arrested Flatow for possession of the firearms he dutifully registered in 1932. His arrest report stated that “arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.” Flatow died of starvation in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp in Dec. 1942. Consider also the tyranny in France which Halbrook covered in Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, the first scholarly work on the subject. Prime Minister Pierre Laval decreed the registration of firearms in 1935, focusing on firearm owners at large, not those indulging in violence. After the Nazi occupation, the French government issued a decree demanding the surrender of all firearms and radio transmitters, on penalty of death. Those failing to denounce gun owners were subject to the death penalty. On June 10, 1944, Nazi forces surrounded the village of Oradour-sur-Glane and ordered the people to assemble in the village square. The attackers killed 245 women and 207 children, including six infants. The 196 men killed included seven Jewish refugees from other parts of France. As the late P.J. O’Rourke might say, this is what happens when the people with all the power have all the guns. To say that such a thing could not happen here is to ignore cases such as Kent State, Ruby Ridge — where FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Vicki Weaver as she held her infant child — and Waco, where military force was deployed against the people. For Halbrook, the lesson is clear. (READ MORE: The Trump Revolution) “A disarmed populace that is taught that it has no rights other than what the government decrees as positive law is obviously more susceptible to totalitarian rule and is less able to resist oppression.” By contrast, “an armed populace with a political culture of allowed constitutional and natural rights that they are motivated to fight for is less likely to fall under the sway of a tyranny.” In 2024 moving forward, that is something candidates of all parties need to understand. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Should the People With All the Power Have All the Guns? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court humbled public sector union officials accustomed to taking advantage of the public employees they were supposed to serve. In Janus v. AFSCME, the court overturned a decades-old precedent that once forced public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. After Janus, more public sector employees exercised their constitutional right to associate freely. Since 2018, the four largest government unions — the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have lost more than 380,000 fee payers and 320,000 members. Government unions still have ample resources emboldening executives at the expense of individual workers. These huge membership drops have hit the big four’s bottom line. Collectively, lost members and fee payers cost AFT, AFSCME, NEA, and SEIU an estimated $106.8 million annually. (READ MORE from David R. Osborne: Unions’ Hypocrisy on Progressive Income Tax Hikes) Government unions may be down, but you can’t discount their influence. Moreover, since Janus, public sector unions have campaigned to regain ground. For nearly a decade, the Commonwealth Foundation has tracked state-by-state changes in labor laws. Every two years, the Commonwealth Foundation releases its research on the ever-changing legal landscape for public sector unions, assessing each state’s efforts to promote public employees’ rights or cave to unions’ entrenched influence. This fourth edition examines government unions’ attempts, following Janus,  to hold onto and expand special legal privileges under state laws. The research also highlights the states reining in government unions’ power and influence by empowering workers. Down But Not Out Though Janus landed a well-deserved punch, government unions are not down for the count. Union executives — especially those who flood state legislatures with endless campaign donations — remain focused on rebuilding membership numbers by securing legislative permission to pressure public employees. As a result, public employees in states like Illinois, Maryland, and Michigan are more exposed than ever to overreaching government union officials set on building their power and influence — even at workers’ expense. What follows are some recent legal changes threatening worker freedom nationwide. Right to Collective Bargaining During the 2022 midterms, Illinois voters passed Amendment 1, with 59 percent supporting it. This amendment created a constitutional right to collective bargaining. The Illinois Constitution now prohibits any new law that “interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety.” Amendment 1 provided everything union executives needed to solidify their power. The amendment helped them make the case for unrestricted collective bargaining, placing labor contracts above the law. The Chicago Teachers Union has already taken advantage, making contract demands that were previously untenable. Amendment 1 also served as a template for union executives in other states dominated by public sector union influence. Similar amendments with similar language have popped up in Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. Thus far, these copycat amendments have yet to become law, but union executives will prioritize this approach based on the results in Illinois. Trigger Laws and Fair Share Fees Janus prohibited government unions from forcing employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, in Michigan, union executives secured a first-of-its-kind “trigger law” that would go into effect if something ever happened to Janus. Michigan would immediately revert to the unconstitutional scheme where union officials could force government employees to pay “fair share” fees if they declined to join. Unfortunately, the law also allows union executives to include confusing provisions in workers’ contracts that make these fees appear compulsory. This deception may mislead employees into becoming members, believing union payments are inevitable, even under current law. Gathering Personal Information Since Janus, 14 states passed legislation allowing government unions to gather government employees’ personal information. This invasive strategy provides executives with unprecedented access to employees. Now, union executives can more easily pressure employees to support their bargaining or political objectives. While this tactic may benefit union executives, it risks employee privacy. In 2017, California enacted Chapter 21, permitting government unions “meaningful access to their represented members.” Seven years later, criminals hacked into a California union’s database, which housed government employees’ social security numbers and home addresses. (READ MORE: Public Sector Unions Aren’t Doing Well) Despite these obvious security risks, states continue to expand union executives’ access to employees’ private information. Tax Incentives for Union Dues Union-friendly legislatures have also enacted favorable tax incentives for union dues. Maryland and Delaware now allow union members to deduct their dues. While Delaware caps the benefit at $500, Maryland union members can deduct the full amount from their state taxes. California offers a tax credit for union dues, a far greater benefit than a tax deduction. These tax policies incentivize membership, removing cost as a barrier. However, taxpayers end up paying the tab. This pattern will spiral downward, where union executives can raise dues amounts — without immediate consequence to membership — by pushing any increased cost of union membership on the public. Unionizing New Workplaces Several states have expanded the number of workplaces eligible for unionization — and they aren’t exactly blue-collar professions. California allowed legislative staffers to unionize. Washington added management employees and student workers at public universities. Michigan and Maryland extended the right to certain supervisory employees. These expansions, which would have been unthinkable to unions decades ago, distort the incentives for public officials and employees alike. The biggest winners are union executives collecting more in membership dues. Don’t Call It a Comeback While union executives have found favorable conditions in states like Maryland and Michigan, other states — such as Florida, Kentucky, and Arkansas — have countered with legislation that enhances union accountability and worker freedom. Paycheck Protection Union officials love direct access to members’ paychecks. This way, collecting dues and fees is easier. Michigan union executives successfully lobbied to repeal the state’s paycheck protection law. Now, Michigan government unions can collect dues and political action committee deductions via the public payroll. Fortunately, more states went in the opposite direction of Michigan. Since Janus, seven states have passed paycheck protection legislation, restricting or outright prohibiting unions’ use of public payrolls for dues and fees collection. Florida’s law, for example, offers the most protective version. In addition to prohibiting any dues and fee collection via the public payroll, Florida lawmakers also added an accountability measure, requiring union recruiters to provide crucial information to employees and to secure their “affirmative consent” before they join. Kentucky passed a similar measure, but Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed it. Thankfully, the state legislature overrode the veto. Arkansas and Tennessee targeted teacher unions. Both states now prohibit school districts from deducting union dues and fees. Despite this setback to the unions, Arkansas and Tennessee teachers still received pay increases. By cutting off this direct access, paycheck protection laws spare taxpayers the cost of something unions should do on their dime. Union Recertification Recertification imposes democratic standards on unions. This practice proved successful in Wisconsin, where state lawmakers passed sweeping labor reforms in 2011. The Sunshine State also stepped up. Florida now requires unions to stand for election when membership drops below 60 percent of union-eligible employees. Unpopular unions — many representing workplaces with less than 30 percent union membership — are already losing their certifications. Right to Resign Since Janus, labor reformers have strived to statutorily recognize workers’ rights to resign their membership. After all, if you can’t resign your union membership, it’s hard to exercise your right not to subsidize union political activity. Since 2022, five states — Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, and Pennsylvania — have introduced right-to-resign legislation. However, only Florida signed its version into law. Currently, six states statutorily recognize this right. Florida: The Gold Standard Florida has become the gold standard. Not since the days of Wisconsin’s famous Act 10 in 2011 has there been a state so successful at reining in government unions’ power. Florida’s Chapter 2023-35, signed on May 9, 2023, is a true win for public employees and taxpayers. In addition to recertification, paycheck protection, and the right to resign, this sweeping Florida law requires union executives to notify workers of their rights. Moreover, it benefits taxpayers by making unions responsible for due and fee collections rather than the taxpayer-funded public payroll system. Because of these sweeping reforms, the Commonwealth Foundation boosted Florida from a “C” two years ago to an “A” in our recent report. Other states should look to Florida as an example of how to stem government union overreach, while protecting workers and taxpayers. Navigating the Post-Janus World Though it changed the legal landscape, Janus was not a panacea. Government unions still have ample resources emboldening executives at the expense of individual workers. Lawmakers cannot rest on their laurels. Safeguarding workers and taxpayers begins with several reforms, such as payment protection and recertification. Moreover, limiting and prohibiting other activities — leveraging tax incentives for dues, collecting personal information, and unionizing new workplaces — is of the utmost importance. As these nationwide efforts evolve, American workers and taxpayers depend on our laboratories of democracy to safeguard their rights and enhance accountability and transparency. David R. Osborne is the Senior Fellow of Labor Policy and Andrew Holman is a Policy Analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank. The post Government Unions are Down — But Not Out appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s increasingly difficult to understand why any straight white male could remain a Democrat. Happily, there are fewer of these as time goes by, most being nimble enough to recognize aggravated misandry when they see it. But the remnant doesn’t seem to understand that the donkeys blame straight white males for every bad thing that’s ever happened or is happening on Earth. History’s scofflaws.     The only way these two clowns should be allowed into the White House is if they get in line with the rest of the tourists. Or perhaps these remaining clueless schlubs do understand and this is simply an example of masochism in its purest form. A kind of political self-flagellation for those who enjoy feeling guilty. BDSM without the black leather.     Today’s Democrat Party (I can’t bring myself to call it the Democratic Party as there’s nothing democratic about it) is increasingly dominated by what The Washington Times’ esteemed opinion editor, Charlie Hurt, calls macho feminists. These harridans are well along in their campaigns to have “In God we trust” on the coins replaced by “Yes, dear,” and to have testosterone added to the federal list of toxic substances. Some, enchanted by the anti-scientific transsexual delusion, believe they can now, at long last, keep us barefoot and pregnant. No wonder guys who prefer their Sunday afternoon with a football game, consider beer to be the game’s natural solvent, and watch Steve McQueen’s Bullitt (the best real-guy movie ever) at least once a year, celebrate the Democrat’s decision to offer free vasectomies at their recent convention. These being provided by the spectacularly misnamed Planned Parenthood. (Should it not be called Planned Non-Parenthood?) I don’t know how many got the “Big Snip” in Chicago’s mendacity rally and sob-fest. There couldn’t be that many candidates available. The sessions I saw resembled a very big girls’ night out. But every bit helps in this cleansing of the shallow end of the gene pool. I very much regret the children who were deprived of life in the adjoining abortion tent. But two thumbs up on the vasectomies. I hope the procedures came with a warning: Keep this bunch in power, Sunbeam, and they’ll soon be back for the rest of it. (If you have to ask, “rest of what?” then you clearly dozed through sex education class and I won’t draw you a picture.) Most of the coverage of the four-day Chicago séance focused not on these medical procedures, but on substance-free presentations from the podium by the usual suspects. Okra Windbag set the tone, retailing what we are learning to call good vibes. We’re to feel warm all over at the prospect of electing a woman as president who’s dumber than a bag of hammers and a #2 who is thoroughly in touch with his feminine side and is at least as economical with the truth as the current occupant of the Rehoboth Beach White House. Put these two hairballs up against the apex predators of our very dangerous world, and they’ll be eaten alive.    Speaking of Tiny Tim, after more than a half century as a writer, editor, and teacher of writing, I can tell you with absolute confidence that saying you’re a combat veteran when you aren’t is NOT an error in grammar. It’s a ball-faced lie, and one of the most despicable. Only men, and an increasing number of women, who’ve been in combat know what this crucible is like. And their valor should not be stolen by pathetic creatures who run for the hills when combat is a real prospect. (Those awful guns — they’re soo loud.) (READ MORE from Larry Thornberry: Will Wearisome Kaepernick Ever Leave?) To the extent policy was mentioned at all in Chicago it was the two principals backing away from their bat guano leftist political positions of the past. On these they turned on a dime, giving us nine cents change, and presenting themselves as the very definition of political moderates. The new Democrat definition of moderate now seems to be someone who doesn’t actually wear a Mao jacket to work more than two days a week and has removed the portrait of Che Guevara from the office wall.   There was much retailing of the idea that the Democrat Party is the party of freedom. As near as I can make out though, in watching and talking to Democrats, this only extends to the freedom to kill unborn children and the freedom to smoke weed. As for the rest of our traditional freedoms, Democrats consider them so 20th Century. This includes freedom of speech, the lynchpin of any free society, which Democrats seem to consider little more than a fount of “misinformation” (anything a Democrats disagrees with or considers a threat to Democrats power) or hate speech.   At least Democrats are occasionally allowing themselves to use the word abortion these days. More often though, they style this barbaric practice “reproductive health.” The late, great writer Florence King called euphemisms “verbal stool softeners.” Rim-shot please! And reproductive health is one of the finest examples of the form. (For a treat, consult our authors section and read some of Florence’s columns and reviews. You’ll be glad you did. It’s spicy and high-protein stuff.) By and by, the Democrat convention ended, neither with a bang nor a whimper. And that’s how America will end if we install a pathetic woman who’s not competent to serve on the East Nowhere City Council at 1600.  The only way these two clowns should be allowed into the White House is if they get in line with the rest of the tourists. Finally, on a personal note, I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that I’m opposed to the idea of a competent, tough, patriotic, conservative person of the female persuasion as my president. I’d vote for such a woman any day over a leftist squash-bag like Tampon Tim. To illustrate, please indulge an anecdote from my past. In the eighties, when the Gipper was dozing in the White House and the Republic’s arrow was pointed up after the depredations of President Malaise, I was press secretary to a Florida congressman. As conservative as my guy was, some of the lower level functions of the office were performed by young, energetic, and comely women, all of whom held black belts in feminist indignation. They considered me, almost 40 then, to be a mustache Pete with all the old and benighted views of social arrangements. (READ MORE: Flags Unlimited — Zebras on Steroids?) One day the office conversation centered on who would replace Ronnie when his second term expired. I told them I had considered the question and they would be happy to know that my choice was a woman. They brightened. Perhaps I wasn’t such a dinosaur after all. I took a beat and added: “But we’d probably have to give the Brits several high draft picks to get Maggie Thatcher.” The smiles disappeared and they threw stuff at me. But as they all threw like girls, I wasn’t badly injured.  The post The New Democrat Male — Barefoot and Pregnant appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from NEM721:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk: The lone San Francisco Denny’s holdout has finally shut it doors. You probably know why. The San Francisco Gate reports the SF Denny’s that was once California’s most expensive has closed The 24-hour diner chain’s 816 Mission St. location closed Aug. 1, franchise owner Chris Haque told SFGATE. As of Aug. […]

Even more disturbing than all the pro-Hamas Muslim and Far Left student agitators supporting the Islamic terrorists at this university, are the pro-Hamas, self-hating, Jewish students who are protesting against Israel. FYI: Washington University has a very large Jewish student population. Out of 8,100 undergraduates currently attending Washington University in St. Louis, approximately 24% (about […]