Politics Trump Is Still the Pro-Life Candidate Harris threatens to upend every piece of progress the cause of life has made in the past 20 years. Credit: image via Shutterstock When Rudy Giuliani ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he had already flip-flopped on abortion once. Having switched from pro-life to pro-choice in his first New York City mayoral campaign, he didn’t think he could plausibly change back for the Republican presidential primaries. Still basking in the glow of being “America’s Mayor” on 9/11, Giuliani sought the presidential nomination of a pro-life party as a pro-choice candidate. But he did make a few modifications to his position: He defended the partial-birth abortion ban, which he had opposed during his short-lived 2000 Senate campaign in New York, backed parental-notification laws, and vowed to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court who might someday vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Giuliani sat atop the national polls for most of 2007, making him the Republican frontrunner. But his pro-choice position ultimately proved fatal, as it informed his disastrous political strategy of skipping the early states. Iowa and South Carolina were too socially conservative for a New York abortion rights advocate. New Hampshire might have more fertile ground, but he feared losing to Mitt Romney, then of neighboring Massachusetts. Romney switched from pro-choice to pro-life and was rewarded with the Republican presidential nomination four years later. (He would later have to switch states from Massachusetts to Utah to continue his political career, but that’s another story.) So did Donald Trump four years after that. Unlike Romney, Trump was elected president. And unlike Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, the judges Trump appointed did overturn Roe v. Wade. If both Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas had been confirmed, it might have happened 30 years earlier—but it didn’t. All this history comes in the context of the first post-Roe presidential race. Trump is panicking about abortion. And pro-lifers are panicking about Trump. Trump has gone too far in using phrases like “reproductive rights” to describe abortion (though he might have meant IVF, which is different, though it raises its own set of pro-life ethical issues). He excessively diluted the pro-life plank of the Republican platform, making it the weakest it has been since 1976. He still takes credit for Roe’s reversal, but is clearly rattled by recent Republican electoral setbacks on abortion, especially now that he is running a more competitive race against a female opponent. Much as was the case when Trump’s pal Rudy was the GOP frontrunner all those years ago, Republicans who don’t care much about abortion are telling pro-lifers to shut up and fall in line if they want to win.  While I have defended Trump for not wanting to rush headlong into where the pro-choice position is strongest, his backsliding on abortion has become excessive. And like his ditching of Project 2025, it risks shifting from a strategic retreat from movement conservatism’s excesses to reinforcing one of Trump’s worst tendencies: treating loyalty as a one-way street. It would still be disastrous to the pro-life cause for Vice President Kamala Harris to be elected president. Her Justice Department would continue the persecution of pro-life activists and pregnancy centers, which are now more important than ever. If Harris ever got to govern with a Democratic Congress, the Senate filibuster would probably be gone and she would sign into law a bill that would usher in a worse national abortion policy than prevailed for most of the final 30 years of Roe. The health exception would make most existing abortion restrictions toothless, and she would move to promote taxpayer funding of abortion. Regardless of whether Trump was the most sincere pro-life president, he was the most successful one during his first term. The power of pro-lifers to enact their preferred policies at any level of government hinges at the moment on this election. The fact that they cannot do so in many states has more to do with the weakness of their current position than with Trump’s lack of pro-life fervor. The question is how to improve that position. Defeating Giuliani to ensure the GOP remained a pro-life party advanced the cause. But that was during the Republican primaries, while abortions were declining and after years of intermittent pro-life gains both legislatively and in public opinion, and ahead of a general election that was probably unwinnable for any Republican after Iraq and the Great Recession. This by contrast is a winnable election against a candidate who supports federally funded abortion on demand as well as measures that codify the most permissive reading of Roe and packing the Supreme Court to topple its current anti-Roe majority. Even if Trump lost because he did not motivate pro-life voters to turn out for him, there is a strong chance Republicans would reach the opposite conclusion—that he was defeated because of his role in undoing Roe—and run further away from abortion. That is what they will hear from donors, and the media. It’s also what Republicans have done after losing elections the past, even when there has been fairly strong exit-polling evidence to the contrary. Trump is a unique figure who isn’t influenced in the same ways as a normal politician, and he is limited to a single term. He has chosen a running mate who is more pro-life than he is, even if J.D. Vance currently has to follow the boss’s line (as Dick Cheney once did on gay marriage). It’s possible that pro-lifers could luck out, and Harris won’t have the congressional support necessary to enact the most radical pro-abortion policies. Even the worst-case scenario in November suggests Republicans could hold 51 Senate seats next year. An election forecast by the Hill and Decision Desk gives House Republicans a better chance of retaining their majority than Trump winning the White House. Then maybe Harris is unpopular again and Democrats have a bad midterm election. The 2026 Senate map looks favorable to the GOP. But have politics for the past decade really been that predictable? These are the dilemmas that face a pro-life movement that no longer has meaningful bipartisan support. The future is hard to predict. The past track records and current positioning of the two major-party candidates shouldn’t make this a close call for prudent pro-lifers, especially those living in battleground states. Trump delivered the biggest pro-life victory in 50 years. Harris wants to take it away. The post Trump Is Still the Pro-Life Candidate appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, Fascist U.K. Nurses Set To Deny Healthcare To Anyone Opposing Unlimited Illegal Immigration, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) A registered trade union for those in the profession of nursing in the U.K. has just issued new guidelines on situations where they can refuse to treat and withdraw care from patients and this includes clients who would oppose illegal migration because they deem them “racists.” The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) indicated in the … Continue reading Fascist U.K. Nurses Set To Deny Healthcare To Anyone Opposing Unlimited Illegal Immigration ...

Yuck - parasites and who knows what other chemical poisons are in those so called corn chips...

"A voluntary evening lockdown has been enacted in four Massachusetts towns amid a potentially fatal mosquito-born disease." UTL COMMENT:- Bill Gates, anyone?? ? ⏯ @RealWorldNewsChannel ✳️ @RealWorldNewsChat

A later moment. The post The best Rainbow song, according to Ritchie Blackmore first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

By all accounts, Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech at the conclusion of the Democrat National Convention last week was well-written and well-delivered. It did what it was designed to do: complete the wondrous transformation — achieved in record time by the Democrat Party elite with extensive help from the mainstream media — of a ridiculed and unpopular sitting vice president into a charismatic candidate for the presidency. (READ MORE: The Democrat Party is a Cult) Kamala Harris also benefited from that most subtle of advantages: the blessing of low expectations. Lampooned for years for her inane word salads, she stood and delivered with the sudden skill of a pool shark finally playing for money after previously demonstrating clumsiness on the felt. Those who would poke holes in the speech whether as not her words, as nearly empty of actual content, as unnecessarily nasty to her opponent, or as consisting largely of platitudes, miss the point. A huge swathe of the American electorate today forms its opinions of candidates on totally different grounds from how past generations evaluated whom they would vote for. A politician’s actual ideas, intelligence, record, or character count for little if anything. From a People of Reason to a People of Feeling That is because, as a society, we have largely transitioned from a people of reason to a people of feeling. And when it comes to important political speeches, the combination of packaging and feelings (cue all the DNC references to “joy”) easily overpowers statements of fact or appeals to logic. Political analysts often fail to see the societal wood for the electoral trees. The wood in which this election is being fought is a fundamentally changed America. One in which past political assets are no longer relevant, replaced by new must-haves in the battle for the nation’s hearts (and not so much its minds). (READ MORE: Märtha and Durek Cash In on Their Wedding) It’s not just feelings instead of facts. It’s very much identity (what you are, not who you are) over substance. Emotion over policy. Newness over experience. Positivity over pragmatism. Niceness over abrasiveness. Brevity over length. Memes over depth. It’s all about the “vibes.” The Democrat Party understands this. And they have been very quick to realize that, suddenly blessed with all the hardware advantages (woman, bi-racial, attractive, relatively young) that neither Biden nor Trump possess, all they had to do to make Kamala Harris very much electable was to write — quite literally — the right zeitgeist software on which she would operate. Republicans Should Engage In the Democrat Campaign Game Of course, software programs are not the same as ChatGPT. They can’t adapt to new situations, answer queries, and elaborate on statements on the fly. And given Harris’ unhappy experiences with off-the-cuff public and media speaking in her current position, the input — the speechwriting — thus becomes not just a valuable element in her campaign, it becomes her campaign. Hence the rigorous avoidance of press conferences, media interviews, or unscripted public events. The teleprompter is in a sense the real candidate, Kamala Harris its human form. The debate in September will indeed at long last put Harris on a stage fully exposed to the elements. But here too one can imagine Harris — intensively and ably coached by Team Obama talent — maneuvering the battle to terrain favorable to her, that of personality and emotion. After all, who can remember what was said in the Reagan–Carter debate of 1980 except Reagan’s devastating dismissal of Carter taking point with his genial, “There you go again…” If the Republican Party can start fighting fire with fire — countering effective words with even better words — and focus on emotions, symbolism, values, and on painting a convincing picture of a more promising future (which is what Trump was able to do with disaffected “flyover country” voters in 2016) it has a chance to make this, at the very least, a closely contested election. (READ MORE: When It Comes to Israel, These People Are Idiots) Words have always mattered in politics. But the ears receiving them are different now. Clarity, brevity, positivity, projecting likeability, and speaking the new language of persuasion will be key to winning this election. Carefully written and rehearsed speeches are now the key players, in and of themselves. The Democrats just proved that. Can Trump and the Republicans now figure out that they must not just walk the walk, but also talk the talk? The post To Win in November, Republicans Need to Talk the Political Talk appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There are a million reasons to vote for a candidate, but my generation needs a better approach. Even after the Democratic National Convention, Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign still depends on online chatter to boost her appeal. Many social media users, especially from Gen Z, have adopted Harris’s laugh, her comments on coconut trees, and singer Charli XCX’s “Brat” album as innovative ways to brand her campaign. And they are swooning for her, big time. (READ MORE: The Democrat Party is a Cult) While virtual rhetoric does not indicate reality, the Harris camp uses these assets in their official messaging beyond the internet. The approach is working, as news outlets promote the campaign as a “joyful” alternative to today’s divisive atmosphere. Impressions Count More Than Policies The memes that Gen-Z Kamala supporters push are information shortcuts — bite-sized identifiers that help voters decide their candidate. You’d hope that, after getting a taste of what Kamala is like online, young voters would look into her political positions and decide if she truly represents their interests. But that’s not how my generation operates, and Harris’s campaign managers are taking advantage of that. To my generation, impressions are now more important than policy — and this campaign cycle is proof. Democratic Party elites ousted Biden for being “too old” to run. To some, Trump is “low energy” and a “dictator,” while progressive Kamala is “queen.” This branding tries to form the basis of public discourse surrounding the candidates and how it perceives them to govern. While internet trends are valuable in defining candidates’ priorities, they lack detail on how they would each perform as the president of the United States. This works in Kamala’s favor. If young voters are content to follow the “vibes,” she doesn’t have to prove she’s the best person for the job. That’s why Harris’s campaign website doesn’t even have a policy section. Trump had to do it for her. Gen Z Has Little Riding on the Election. They’re Still Voting. Unlike older Americans, Gen Z doesn’t have home ownership fees, healthcare or insurance plans, or other tangible goods that could be affected by bad policy. Hence, Gen Z’s vote is more risky and emotionally driven — they can afford not to vote solely on policy. But like any new consumer or voter base, Gen Z does not know what it wants. As a voting bloc, we understand the significance of our vote more than its rationale. We have consistently high turnout in midterms, special elections, and referendums, rivaling other generations in turnout. We are politically active and tend to favor Democrats by wide margins. (READ MORE: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 71: Does Vance Have a Moral Duty to Support a Federal Abortion Ban?) But Gen Z’s motives for voting Democrat are shallow, swayed by Hollywood factions that exert enormous influence over political life. Entertainment personalities quickly rallied around the Harris campaign, performing at her rallies and hosting fundraisers. When my peers repost “Kamala is brat,” they feel included in a larger coalition that captures the moment and trajectory of America’s values. The Harris campaign capitalizes on our fascination with celebrity culture to pave their way to the White House. It’s why they offer substantial sums of money to influencers to back the Democratic ticket. This discreet tactic, called astroturfing, creates the false appearance of grassroots support to form public opinion and woos Gen Z to partake in remix culture and digital activism to promote a platform we don’t fully understand. It’s moves like this that have turned the most unpopular vice president in recent history, weighed down by ineffective leadership, into a “femininomenon” overnight. So why is this working? Why does my generation seem to lack any interest in real policy discussion? The answer is in Gen Z’s attitude toward American life. Most of my peers feel aimless. They are prone to anxiety due to the overwhelming negativity of world affairs and reflect a top concern of emotional well-being above all else. Spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, they feel lonely and yearn for social connection — emotions offset or intensified by social media. My generation’s hope lies in what originally made politics interesting. By becoming policy-minded, Gen Z can enhance their civic knowledge, understand their vote’s magnitude, and restore their life outlooks. Maybe one day, none of my peers will care what Kenan Thompson says about Project 2025. But today, it’s a welcomed distraction from the more pressing stakes of this election. (READ MORE: American Campuses Threaten Students and the Nation) Our politicians owe it to us to tune out the noise and detail their visions for America. Only then can our youth escape the vice grip of optics and truly become the next generation of powerful and educated voters. Alex Rosado is a Gettysburg College alum, a Research Fellow for Horizon Info Consult, and a Contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter/X at @Alexprosado. The post Gen Z is Clueless When It Comes to Voting appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Message Biden Should Have Sent to China

Let's Stop Negotiating With Terrorists