Justin Trudeau May Be Running Out of Time

Yes, Some Democrats Are Tired of the Hitler Comparisons Too

The New York Times published a think piece last week strategizing how leftists might be able to thwart the will of American voters and rescue democracy from President Donald Trump should he win on Nov. 5. Using the term "democracy" euphemistically for a state of things in which Democrats or leftists of other stripes are in power, the authors — a pair of Harvard University professors hostile to Trump, the Constitution as written, and the Electoral College — recommended "societal mobilization" should the powers that be fail to get their way. Daniel Ziblatt and Steve Levitsky's call to action, which critics have noted sounds a lot like color revolution, appears to be the desperate finale following a series of failed efforts by Democrats to remove Kamala Harris' opponent from the ballot or to kneecap him with lawfare. The duo, working under the assumption that Trump would "dismantle" the republic's electoral system of which they themselves are critics, identified "five strategies that pro-democratic forces around the world have employed" against so-called "authoritarian threats." The first four are as follows: laissez-faire — the "self-correcting power of electoral competition," which the Harvard authors say is "distorted by an 18th-century institution, the Electoral College"; militant or defensive democracy, whereby public officials who self-identify as pro-democracy censor supposedly undesirable speech, outlaw undesirable groups, and criminalize opponents — a tactic Germany's leftist establishment is presently bringing to bear against the popular right-leaning populist party Alternative for Germany; partisan gatekeeping, whereby establishmentarians neutralize popular candidates deemed "antidemocratic" or prevent their ascent through the ranks; and containment, where establishmentarians form coalitions across party lines to deny voters the option of a choice deemed "antidemocratic" by the ruling elite. Ziblatt and Levitsky, convinced that these four strategies have failed, noted that there is yet a fifth way by which supposed champions of democracy could rob the electorate of their desired outcome: "societal mobilization." "Democracy’s last bastion of defense is civil society," wrote the duo, who made no mention of the antidemocratic provenance of Harris' candidacy. "When the constitutional order is under threat, influential groups and societal leaders — chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials — must speak out, reminding citizens of the red lines that democratic societies must never cross. And when politicians cross those red lines, society's most prominent voices must publicly and forcefully repudiate them." 'It was always a Color Revolution.' The Harvard duo's German and Brazilian examples suggest that they are advocating far more than for Americans simply to "speak out." These examples, when coupled with their other other coercive strategies, call to mind violent demonstrations — not just those of yesterday, such as the Black Lives Matter riots, but the bloody roundup executed by the republican radicals ahead of the Spanish Civil War. The duo wrote, The U.S. establishment is sleepwalking toward a crisis. An openly antidemocratic figure stands at least a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have abdicated their gatekeeping responsibilities, and too many of America’s most influential political, business and religious leaders remain on the sidelines. Unable to rise above fear or narrow ambition, they hedge their bets. But time is running out. What are they waiting for? Jeffrey Tucker, president of the Brownstone Institute, said of the piece, "That is one chilling article: abolishing democracy to protect it. Amazing. Harvard. Notice how at the end, they tip their hand and call for a defense of 'the U.S. establishment.' Every single one of the cases they mention concerns a populist movement against elites." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the Times piece, writing, "Once again, NYT publishes something fundamentally un-American." "This op-ed is advocating pure authoritarianism under the guise of guarding against authoritarianism," wrote Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. "It's amazing how far Harvard's Government department has fallen that it would have professors express such views." The Federalist's editor in chief, Mollie Hemingway, noted, "I just read a bat guano insane NYT op-ed that said four ways to stop MAGA had failed (hoping it loses, banning the GOP/Trump from ballot, having GOP overturn its voters, establishment resistance) and now recommends what sounds like a color revolution." "It was always a Color Revolution," wrote Blaze News senior editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford. Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004 — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes. Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, the revolutionaries appear to have been afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by non-governmental organizations. Christopher Rufo noted in April, "The West's favored methods of supporting Color Revolutions include fomenting dissent, organizing activists through social media, promoting student movements, and unleashing domestic unrest on the streets." New Hampshire state Rep. Mike Belcher tweeted, "Communist have no qualms about a (any) solution to the paradox of toleration. Our republic tried, but failed to solve for this problem re: Communist subversion about 80 years ago and failed. Recognize that, even in a Trump victory, we are still counter-revolutionary to the established Marxist Regime." In June, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck detailed the seven conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tens of thousands of people reportedly attended the campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas, on Friday night in hopes of seeing Beyoncé perform, but many left very disappointed. The Harris campaign estimated that 30,000 attended the rally at Shell Energy Stadium in Houston, the hometown of the popular R&B singer-songwriter. 'They booed the hell out of everybody. They thought she was going to perform.'“We are at the precipice of an incredible shift, at the brink of history," Beyoncé told the crowd. "I’m not here as a celebrity. I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live, a world where we have freedom to control our bodies, a world where we are not divided — our past, our present, our future meet us here.”MSNBC and other outlets cited a campaign source to report that Beyonce would be performing at the rally, but she instead only spoke for a few minutes and left. After she walked off the stage, the audience appeared to turn on Harris. A Blaze News review of Harris' speech available on YouTube confirmed that the Democrat was constantly interrupted by large portions of the crowd booing and shouting. Videos posted to social media captured some of the moments when outraged attendees interrupted Harris, but it's unclear if those were edited. Former President Donald Trump mocked and ridiculed Harris over the apparent debacle. "Beyoncé went up and spoke for a couple of minutes and then left, and the place went crazy," Trump said at a rally in Michigan. "They booed the hell out of everybody. They thought she was going to perform. What happened was my opponent got up and started speaking, and they booed the hell out of her. It’s crazy." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former President Donald Trump has pulled ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris in New Hampshire, according to a New Hampshire Journal/Praecones Analytica poll released Sunday. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won New Hampshire was over two decades ago, when George W. Bush was running in 2000. Trump has managed to gain momentum in the longtime blue state, polling at 50.2% while Harris trails at 49.8%, according to the poll. Although Trump's lead is slim, this poll may sound the alarm for Democrats who have otherwise dominated the state in seven of the last eight presidential elections. 'She's on defense and knows President Trump is on the path to victory.'Trump previously lost the state to President Joe Biden in 2020 by 7.3% and to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 0.3%. In 2012 and 2008, former President Barack Obama won the state by 5.6% and 9.6%, respectively."There's a reason Kamala Harris has been spending money in New Hampshire," Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman and New Hampshire native, told the New Hampshire Journal. "She's on defense and knows President Trump is on the path to victory."Nearly half of adults in New Hampshire, 44%, self-identify as Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters, while just 35% self-identify as Republican or Republican-leaning and 20% self-identify as having no partisan leaning, according to a Pew Research study. Despite having more Democratic-leaning voters, Trump is pulling ahead of Harris, likely due to a growing favorability among independents. "To my fellow Granite Staters who want to keep our beautiful state safe, business-friendly, and free — get out and vote for President Trump," Leavitt told the New Hampshire Journal. "Kamala is a radical liberal who would destroy New Hampshire and America forever." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Abortion is the biggest issue that the Democrat Party is running on, but Democrats never tell you how dangerous the procedure really is. Which is why when young mother Amber Thurman died after taking the abortion pill, the mainstream media went after the abortion laws in Thurman’s home state of Georgia rather than the pill that killed her. “She left Georgia, where she could not get an abortion at the time of her pregnancy that she was in, she went to another state, got abortion pills, took them, came back, was told everything is going to be fine, no big deal,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” explains. “She took them, had a very, very big deal, and she wound up going to the hospital. They didn’t treat her for a long time, and she wound up dying. Now, she didn’t go to the hospital because of the Georgia abortion law. She went to the hospital because the pills she was told were going to be totally innocuous wound up putting her in a situation where she needed to go to the hospital,” he adds. The babies in her womb were already dead from the abortion pill, so no abortion laws would have applied to her situation when she went to the hospital. The poor infants were not evacuated from her system, so that’s when sepsis set in. While the Democrats jumped on this story because they felt they could mess with the truth and pin Thurman’s death on abortion laws, one story they ignored was the case of Eliana Dickson. Dickson, a Nevada woman, also died of sepsis after taking abortion pills. “You might note that Nevada does not have the Georgia abortion law,” Stu says, commenting that these women are sold a much different idea by doctors, politicians, and the media — so they have no idea what they could be getting themselves into. “If you have a woman in your life that, God forbid, has gone down this road and is having these problems, please let them know, because the media is not going to do that. They’re going to do the exact opposite of that. They’re going to try to hide that information from them because they want political points. It’s disgusting,” he adds. And they don’t just hide that information, but they lie about it. CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins even compared the abortion drug mifepristone’s “safety” to being “on par with those of common over-the-counter pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen.” “Forget for just a moment all the stats I’m about to bring up and just, does that pass the sniff test to you? Have you ever had Tylenol? Have you ever had Advil?” Stu asks, disturbed. “Do you think that has a safety profile equal to the abortion drug? Do you think that? But no, experts are telling you it, so it must be so.” Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"The View" host Whoopi Goldberg issued a crazed warning about what will happen to interracial couples under a second term of President Donald Trump, whose re-election prospects look high.On Monday, Goldberg said Trump will split up couples in which one spouse is an illegal immigrant and reassign the white "guy" to another woman.'These are the final hours.'"He is talking about you. It’s us. He’s not going to be — he’s not going to, you know, say, ‘Oh, you’re with a white guy, I’m going to keep you from being deported.’ No, he’s going to deport you and put the white guy with someone else. The man is out there," Goldberg yelled.Goldberg and the other hosts of "The View" were in hysterics on Monday following Trump's massively attended rally in New York City at Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Guest Mika Brzezinski added to the hyperventilating over the rally, calling it a "Nazi-type" gathering, even though minorities and Jewish supporters were at Madison Square Garden for the event."It was everything that you need to know about Donald Trump in one weird, white nationalist, Nazi-type rally and, of course, there are historic parallels to where and when this happened," she continued. "I come with such dire warnings, and I mean them from the bottom of my heart!""These are the final hours. We need you, we need you, you, you, you, and all of you to vote," Brzezinski added.The prospect of mass deportations has become more stark with Trump leading in the polls against Vice President Kamala Harris. Tom Homan, who was the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under former Trump, said if there are concerns about families being split up because some are in the country illegally, then "families can be deported together."Trump has proposed using the National Guard and local law enforcement to help ICE officers track down and remove illegal aliens since that population has grown exponentially under the Biden-Harris administration. Democrats and open-border advocates have claimed the deportation process will be too costly and will do more harm than good.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I have to admit I’m a little scared of Sulfur. I’m a fan of classic FPS games like Doom, ARPGs like Diablo, and roguelikes like Shattered Pixel Dungeon. So a game that combines aspects of all three types of game into one seems dangerous to me. It feels that if I dare play it I’ll become lost, forever sucked into its world. That threat is now very real, as Sulfur is out now in Steam Early Access and ready to be played. Continue reading Sulfur is an FPS RPG hybrid with a gorgeous art style, and it’s out now MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best FPS games, Best RPGs, Best roguelike games

It's (D)ifferent When THEY Do It: George Lopez Makes Fun of Mexicans and the Left Is Silent About It

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin Plans Dem 2028 Narrative by Finding Somebody 'Much More Dangerous Than Trump'