Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

?????????: Bike crash scandal involving former Victorian Premier and COMMUNIST TYRANT Daniel Andrews, a second, previously unreleased 000 emergency call audio recording from an eye-witness has been made public!!! The caller named ’Martha’ told the operator “?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????.”

Huge respect for all of the Aussie Freedom fighters who stood at the governor general’s gates at the weekend. And for those who have maintained the vigil for nearly 3 years now. ?????? Thank you for your service. Do you think enough people really even care is my question? We need 100's of thousands of people there not 20 or 30!! Please leave a comment. ??‍♂️???

Updated November 3, 2024 How do the 2024 presidential candidates compare when it comes to foreign policy? With tensions high across the globe, foreign policy is front and center of this year’s presidential race. A majority of Americans support Ukraine against Russia, but isolationism has resonated with a part of the electorate who believe that aid will only fuel a conflict that appears to have no end in sight. Both Trump and Biden agree on seeing China as a world competitor, but...

"So it changes, depending on the situation.” The post “They deserve to have their fridge full of beer”: Eddie Vedder on the one band that should sell out first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The Black Vote Slips In 2016, one of the first signs Hillary Clinton might be in trouble was weak polling among Black voters. Shortly before the election, during an interview on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” Barack Obama issued this warning: “The overall vote is up. But the African-American vote, right now, is not as solid as it needs to be.” Clinton ended up winning 89 percent of the Black vote — six points down from the 95 percent Obama won in 2008. But her tepid support among Black voters is a nationwide phenomenon that includes the so-called “blue wall” states. In 2020, the slippage continued when Joe Biden garnered 87 percent. Most Democrats assumed that Kamala Harris would improve on that performance but various polls have shown her drawing far less support among Black voters than they expected. This reality has manifested itself in early turnout. In Georgia, for example, Democrats typically need 30 percent of Black voters to cast early ballots to offset robust Election Day turnout by Republicans. In 2024, early turnout in the Peach State has been strong but the percentage of ballots cast by Black voters was low enough to alarm Georgia Democrats according to a report in the Capital B Atlanta: “State Rep. Carl Gilliard, D-Savannah, joined an emergency Zoom call with about 70 other Black Georgia faith leaders Monday night to discuss their concerns about the state’s latest early voting figures.” As early voting ended last Friday, their percentage was only 26.5 percent. Politico describes a similar story in North Carolina: As of Wednesday, Black voters make up 18 percent of the electorate in early voting, and some Democratic operatives said they must bump that up to about 20 percent for Harris to be competitive statewide. In 2020, Black voters were 19 percent of the electorate, when Donald Trump narrowly won the state. And Democrats acknowledge that without a swing in their favor in the last days of early voting or on Election Day, it may not be good enough … Harris is expected to win a majority of African American voters in North Carolina, and nationally, but any slippage with this group would be a blow to the vice president. As early voting ended Saturday evening, the percentage of Black voters who cast early ballots in North Carolina had stalled at 17.8 percent. Moreover, as is usually the case in Georgia, turnout in the Tar Heel State on Election Day will likely favor Trump. Meanwhile, The Carolina Journal reports, “According to ad tracking firm AdImpact, the Harris-Walz presidential campaign has changed much of its remaining ad spending in North Carolina in the last week of the election, pulling millions of dollars worth of ads from the major North Carolina media markets.” Trump held rallies in the state on Saturday and Sunday. He will return Monday to close the sale while the DNC tries to rouse Black rural voters with a new ad campaign. Georgia and North Carolina are, of course, among the seven crucial swing states in which the election will probably be decided. The RCP Top Battlegrounds average, shows Trump leading in Georgia by 2.3 percent and ahead in North Carolina by 1.4 percent. If he wins in these two states, Harris will be left with only one plausible route to victory in the Electoral College. Because Trump also enjoys modest leads in three of the remaining five swing states, she will probably need to run the table in the Rust Belt — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. But her tepid support among Black voters is a nationwide phenomenon that includes the so-called “blue wall” states. A recent report in the New York Times explains her dilemma: Much of the erosion in support for Ms. Harris is driven by a growing belief that Democrats, who have long celebrated Black voters as the “backbone” of their party, have failed to deliver on their promises … Ms. Harris’s problems with African American voters rest on the same issue that her struggles with other constituencies do: the economy. Nearly three-quarters of Black voters rated the economy fair or poor, and the economy and abortion were rated their most pressing concerns. More than seven in 10 Black voters said they had cut back on groceries because of cost; 56 percent said they had cut back often. It’s Not Only the Black Vote Another phenomenon that has affected lower than normal Black turnout percentages for Harris involves the record-breaking number of early ballots cast by Republican voters. In swing states that report voter registration data, GOP voters outnumbered Democrats. In North Carolina the Raleigh News & Observer reports, “Registered Republicans slightly outnumbered Democrats in early voting and mail-in totals, currently accounting for 33.3 percent of votes cast so far, compared to Democrats’ 32.4 percent.” In Nevada the Reno Gazette Journal reports, “After the final day of early voting, registered Republicans have cast almost 50,000 more votes than Democrats statewide, according to Secretary of State data released at 9 p.m. Friday.” This more or less mirrors what has been happening in most of the seven swing states. Unfortunately, considering their importance to the outcome of the 2024 election, most have clunky election websites that provide incomplete and often incoherent information on early voting. The good news is this: In every state that provides coherent data, the Republicans appear to be ascendant and the Democrat coalition is disintegrating. Black voters are the most obvious defectors, but they are by no means alone. As former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer put it on Sunday, “30 of 31 states that register voters by party have become either more Republican or less Democrat than they were at the time of the 2020 election.” When the Democrat-run states are finally forced to stop creating … er … counting votes, it will already be obvious who will be taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025. READ MORE from David Catron: Whoever Yells ‘Fascist’ First Loses In Georgia, GOP Districts Dominate Early Voting The post Early Turnout: Harris Falters Among Black Voters appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I never shared the awe of fantastic screen heroes forged by Star Wars and its legacy, though I appreciated the return to nobility after a decade of murky antiheroes. At least you knew where Han Solo and Indiana Jones stood against clear-cut evil like the Empire and the Nazis, which appealed to the kids. Maybe because I was an older movie afficionado, I found both characters and the actor who played them just okay. Harrison Ford was no Sean Connery, Steve McQueen, or Clint Eastwood, but a likeable enough successor. Then, 20 years behind him came a renaissance of superheroes culminating in the asexual Avengers. Their portrayers’ cringeworthy endorsement of cackling empty pantsuit Kamala Harris last week lowered my original opinion of the lot of them. Heroes of Hollywood’s Golden Age Hollywoke, I knew, was a far cry from classic Hollywood. During the four years between 1942 and 1945, there was also a dearth of familiar heroes. Because the actors who embodied them weren’t on the screen, they were in the War, in real combat. When the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, almost every top male star took a huge pay cut to share hardship and mortal danger with nameless grunts. They included Clark Gable — aerial gunner, five missions over Germany; James Stewart — fighter pilot, 20 missions over Europe; David Niven — British Army Lieutenant-Colonel, D-Day Normandy landing; Henry Fonda — Quartermaster 3rd Class on a Navy Destroyer. “I don’t want to be in a fake war in a studio,” Fonda said before he enlisted. Yet even his peers who did fight in the fake war served a patriotic purpose: inspiring men into military or homefront service, and women to cherish them. Audiences cheered John Wayne in The Fighting Seabees and Back to Bataan, Errol Flynn in Desperate Journey and Objective, Burma, Cary Grant in Destination Tokyo, and Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca and Across the Pacific. At the end of Across the Pacific, Bogie watches a group of eastbound U.S. warplanes and says to Japanese spy Sidney Greenstreet, “Any of your friends in Tokyo have trouble committing hara-kiri, those boys’d be glad to help them out.” (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Last Halloween for Democrat Witches) While making They Were Expendable in 1945, honoring the brave PT Boat warriors in the Pacific theater, the brilliant yet combative director John Ford constantly tormented star John Wayne for ducking the war still in progress. Wayne was the sole superstar for Republic Pictures, which got him a deferment in order to save hundreds of studio jobs and continue the morale-boosting movie product. Wayne’s costar Robert Montgomery, a genuine naval war hero, chewed Ford out, telling him to cut the crap. Ford complied for the rest of the shoot. Fall of the Hollywood Hero I loved all those guys and their films growing up — even contemplated enlisting myself. Only I was too young for one ongoing war. Everything about the Vietnam War appeared ugly, especially the movies, TV shows, and news referencing it. On Hawaii Five-O, for example, it seemed every other psycho killer was a deranged Vietnam veteran. And America showed little respect for real-life returning servicemen. Students and hippies protested to their faces. By contrast, screen “heroes” were all societal misfits like The Graduate, Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy, Bonnie and Clyde, and the M*A*S*H medics. I didn’t much like them either. The return to the heroic male tradition begun by Star Wars, Superman, and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the late Seventies exploded with the rise of Ronald Reagan. Recognizable macho men and vets were back — Rambo, Thomas Magnum, Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon), Chuck Norris, even Dirty Harry. Not by coincidence, the stars who embodied them — Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck, Mel Gibson, Norris, and Eastwood are conservative Republicans. Harrison Ford hung with them through the Nineties, concealing his progressivism until the 21st Century, when the pull to the Left became too much for him to mask. In 2002, he began dating Ally McBeal Calista Flockhart, whom he married in 2010 at a wedding officiated by Bill Richardson, the liberal Democratic then Governor of New Mexico. Soon, Ford went full woke, offscreen and on, turning his two legendarily masculine characters into loser weenies, diminishing their stature and his. In 2015’s Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens, Han Solo suffers the stupidest, most ignoble death imaginable. He doesn’t go down fighting. He enables his villainous son to commit fratricide. But The Force Awakens is Cyrano de Bergerac compared to Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Indy spends the entire picture as a worn-out old man bested by his cleverer Girl Boss goddaughter (the inescapable Phoebe Waller-Bridge). Last week, Ford dropped one more career embarrassment — a video ad for Kamala Harris. The video is so artificial and phony: black-and-white photography, dramatic cuts, somber tone, painful overacting, and total BS. “When dozens of former members of the Trump Administration are saying, “For God’s sake, don’t do this again, you have to pay attention.” Would that be anything like 51 former intelligence operatives signing a letter ascribing the Hunter laptop story to Russian disinformation, Professor Jones? (READ MORE: To Be or Not to Be America — After Election Day) Then comes the seppuku thrust. “The truth is this,” Ford says. “Kamala Harris will protect your right to disagree with her.” Which must be why she picked Tim Walz as her Vice-President. “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” Walz told MSNBC. “Especially around our democracy.” Good call, Indy. This Tuesday, we don’t have to storm Normandy Beach like David Niven did or land a shot-up bomber like Jimmy Stewart did. But we can sure as hell ignore the sad likes of Harrison Ford and the Avengers actors. We can vote for someone who got shot at for real, unlike them, and stood up in defiance. And we can save America. We can be heroes, just for one day. __________ “If you appreciate Lou Aguilar’s column, Washington, DC intrigue, and film noir mystery, you will also enjoy The Washington Trail. It is a true page turner.” —Leonora Cravotta, The American Spectator, on my new political thriller, The Washington Trail, the perfect Christmas read. Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever exciting mysteries are sold. The post We Can Be Heroes for One Day — Election Day appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In his appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, former president Trump said that the biggest mistake of his first term was choosing “bad” and “disloyal” people to be part of his administration. Some of those he lumps into that category were neither bad nor disloyal. Former senator and then attorney general Jeff Sessions and former director of national intelligence — and retired SEAL vice admiral — Joe McGuire come to mind. I knew them both and they deserved better fates than they suffered under Trump. And then there’s former FBI director James Comey and former CIA director Gina Haspell. Comey should have been fired as soon as Trump took office. Haspell — who Trump had been warned against — should never have been chosen as CIA director. A reader who remembered my columns from years ago asked me to review what I wrote then and give my take on the new information that is coming out thanks to whistleblower revelations. Here goes. I’m sure I’d written about Haspell and Comey before, but the only columns I could find were the following. One explained how Haspell ran a big part of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and his campaign while she was CIA station chief in London. Another was about the Comey-Brennan conspiracy to violate Trump’s civil rights to interfere in his 2016 campaign. If the whistleblower’s allegations are true … they will have thoroughly ruined the FBI’s already shot-to-hell reputation. Gina Haspell is not a disloyal person. To the contrary, she is entirely loyal but to the wrong people. As I wrote in 2019, she was a protégé of John Brennan, a past CIA director and a hyper-partisan anti-Trumper. As CIA station chief in London Haspell had no problem with Comey’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign and Trump himself. She ran the overseas part of it. We have to remember that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was based entirely on the fraudulent “Steele Dossier,” which no part of the intelligence community (IC) ever verified. It was the means by which the IC declared war on Trump. Both Trump and the IC have been at odds ever since. Oblivious to all this — and despite warnings he received from intelligence community veterans — Trump nominated Haspell to be CIA Director. That was clearly Trump’s worst personnel decision. Not only was she loyal to the wrong people, Haspell ensured that the intelligence community continued to oppose Trump during her tenure. There is no excuse for the IC to be politicized, though it very much is. The IC still holds a big grudge against Trump. If, as we hope, he is reelected tomorrow, he’ll have to deal with that quickly because it is a real crisis within the government. If any president cannot rely on the IC for accurate information, foreign policy is mere guesswork. We’ve had enough of that under Biden/Harris. It must not be allowed to continue. Former FBI director James Comey was an anti-Trump partisan from the start. If you need any proof of that you need only remember that in July 2016 he gave Hillary Clinton a pass for obvious, serious crimes while he served in the top FBI job. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: What Great Allies We Are) Clinton had, for the four years she was Obama’s secretary of state, used her unsecured email system — “Clintonmail.com” — to discuss with her staff and others (including Obama) secret and top secret information. Included among the top secret information was an unknown amount of “SITK” — “Special Intelligence Talent Keyhole” satellite intelligence — which is some of the most closely-held intelligence data, equal in sensitivity to information received from spies in enemy governments. The only other classified information that is as closely held is the information about Presidential Directives, which was another subject of conversation on “Clintonmail.” Presidential Directives are top secret documents which give presidential authorizations of covert operations, some of which leave blood on the walls. Anyone could — and some foreign governments must have — tapped into those “Clintonmail” conversations. Hillary and her staff communicated regularly — hundreds or thousands of times — about those subjects over the “Clintonmail” system. Every time they did this it was a serious felony, and they did it — hundreds? thousands? — of times. Nevertheless, in his big press conference that July day, Comey said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Clinton for the classified information on her unsecured emails. It was an enormous dereliction of his duty. Comey’s decision was entirely political, meant to help Clinton’s campaign. Trump fired Comey in May 2017. And now we have evidence that Comey ran a “honeypot” operation to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign. According to a Washington Times report, Comey ran that operation personally. According to the whistleblower, two female FBI agents were planted in Trump’s campaign to act as “honeypots.” During the Cold War we referred to Russian female spies who were willing to have sex with a target “honey traps,” and “honeypots” are no different: the method and the objective are the same. How many female FBI agents were willing to prostitute themselves to help James Comey spy on the Trump campaign? The whistleblower said there were two. If the whistleblower’s allegations are true, and however many there were, they will have thoroughly ruined the FBI’s already shot-to-hell reputation. So what can Trump do if he’s elected tomorrow? First, he needs to have a conservative experienced in personnel matters at the helm of presidential nominations and appointments and a staff to match. As president he can appoint over 8,000 members of the government from cabinet members on down. As I learned from more than one friend who went through the Trump process the first time around, Trump had the worst presidential appointments staff ever. As the First Law of Governance says, personnel is policy. Someone who has that as his or her guiding principle — and their like-minded staff — will be essential this time around. Second, Trump needs to clean up the IC. That’s an enormous task but there can be a few steps taken immediately. Trump needs to appoint someone in each federal agency — every one, including the Defense Department, State Department, the IC agencies, and White House operations such as the National Security Council — who has the clout to remove people who are loyal Democrat operatives. (READ MORE: The Real Forever War) As for DoD, that will also require firing all the generals and admirals who have bought into Biden’s “woke” policy that is destroying our military. Most senior IC members and cabinet members such as Hillary keep their security clearances for years after they leave office. Trump could — and damned well should — cancel all of those clearances immediately for Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris, and everyone who worked for them. He may not be able to cancel the clearances of former presidents or vice presidents but he can cancel all the rest. Those steps are just the beginning. If Trump can come to understand that personnel is policy, his second term — if there is one — will be a lot more successful than his first. The post For Trump, Personnel Decisions Will Be Crucial appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The other day, former Wyoming congresswoman and member of the January 6th Committee Liz Cheney called on former President George W. Bush to endorse Kamala Harris for president. Cheney and her father Dick Cheney (who served as Bush’s vice president) have endorsed Harris and joined the choir of never Trumpers who claim that Trump is a threat to democracy. Bush 43, some may recall, was a strong proponent of NATO enlargement. Up to now, Bush 43 has been publicly silent, though his daughter Barbara has endorsed and is actively campaigning for Harris. “I can’t explain why George W. Bush hasn’t spoken out,” Liz Cheney said, “but I think its time, and I wish that he would.” But while a George W. Bush endorsement of Harris would make headlines, it is doubtful that it would help her win the election. (READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: The Garbage Election) Bush: A Good Man and Flawed Leader By all accounts, Bush 43 is a good man, and his leadership during the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks will always be something to admire. Of course, those attacks happened on his watch and he can no more escape responsibility for preventing them than Franklin Roosevelt can escape responsibility for failing to prevent the Pearl Harbor attack or John F. Kennedy the Bay of Pigs debacle. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops at the president’s desk. And Bush eventually sullied his response to the 9/11 attacks by launching an ill-fated war in Iraq and an even more ill-fated global crusade for democracy that had this country and its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines fighting in endless peripheral wars that distracted us from the real geopolitical threat that was emerging in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, many of those supporting Harris are the same crowd that used to chant “Bush lied and people died” about the Iraq War. There are even some never Trumpers who claim that Bush’s lies about the Iraq War created a “blueprint” for Donald Trump’s presidency. In fact, Donald Trump has said “Bush lied, people died.” Donald Trump has for eight years been consistent in his criticism of the “endless wars” prosecuted by the Bush 43 administration. A major theme of his “America First” approach to foreign policy is to avoid wars of choice that are at most peripheral to U.S. national security interests while deterring great power threats like China’s. Trump sees the Ukraine-Russia war as one of those peripheral conflicts that is draining our resources even as China becomes ever more threatening in the western Pacific. What is more, Trump seems to understand that the war hawks promoting escalation in Ukraine are simultaneously pushing Russia closer to China and risking the outbreak of a global war between nuclear powers. Bush 43 supports the Ukraine war and America’s support for a Ukrainian victory. Like Biden, Harris, and others Bush has invoked the specter of Munich to justify U.S. support for Ukraine. He has called Ukrainian President Zelenskyy the “Churchill of the 21st Century.” He also thinks we should still be in Afghanistan. (READ MORE: 46 Years Ago, the Soviet Empire’s End Was Set in Motion) Bush 43, some may recall, was a strong proponent of NATO enlargement. During his presidency, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Romania joined the alliance. In 2008, he spoke publicly about having Ukraine and Georgia join the alliance, despite warnings from Russia experts that such a move would infuriate the Russians and possibly lead to conflict. So at the same time that Bush 43 was fighting wars to attempt to transform Middle Eastern countries into democracies, he was pledging on behalf of the American people to wage war — including if necessary nuclear war — to defend the independence of all of those countries that were admitted to NATO. It is a sorry record and should place him among the ranks of our worst presidents because leaders should be judged by the consequences of their policies, not their “good” intentions. The voters who reject an America First approach to foreign policy are not going to vote for Trump in any event. And an endorsement of Harris by George W. Bush is unlikely to change any minds at this late stage in the campaign. But in the intellectual political bubble where Liz Cheney resides such an endorsement would be a confirmation that she has tread the right course in joining the very political forces that once called her father a war criminal. Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. The post Would Bush’s Endorsement Help Harris? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.