Yahya Sinwar, leader of Hamas and architect of the October 7th attacks that killed 1,200 in Israel, was killed in a firefight with Israeli soldiers in Gaza. How will recent hurricanes in the Southeast…

The Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has threatened to sic the Justice Department on social media platforms that “profit off hate.” That was in 2019. Her vice presidential running mate,…

Did you know that Chelsea Handler bought a house in Brentwood, California, from RFK Jr., and his wife Cheryl Hines? This was news to me. Insiders have known it for months, but the late-night talk show…

The leaves are falling in Washington—and so is the spell of Kamala Harris’s inevitability.  Whether this is merely the latest gust in the hurricane of shifts that has defined this race since…

But we need to do so much more.

Politics Democrats Are a Major Threat to Free Speech; Trump Isn’t The Republican presidential nominee occasionally says some anti–First Amendment things. The entire Democratic party is on a mission to regulate speech. Credit: image via Shutterstock The Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has threatened to sic the Justice Department on social media platforms that “profit off hate.” That was in 2019. Her vice presidential running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has said that “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” That was in 2022. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has said that the government needs to figure out how to “rein in the media environment.” That was in 2021. Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, has suggested that Americans who share misinformation should be criminally charged. That was a month ago. The former Secretary of State John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has worried about the First Amendment being a “major block” to stopping “disinformation.” That was two weeks ago. When you bring up top leaders in the Democratic party openly calling for government censorship to the average Democratic voter, you usually immediately hear about the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s many affronts to free speech. Trump has threatened to jail those who burn the American flag. He has threatened to deport pro-Palestinian protesters. Trump recently said that CBS News should lose its broadcast license for biased and deceptive reporting. You can find Republican voters and some leaders who might agree with Trump’s anti-free speech stances. It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court agreeing with any of them. Still, it’s Trump at his worst, and his critics are right to highlight his attacks on the First Amendment. But there’s also this Trump, who said in September, “I will bring back free speech in America…. I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.” He was describing precisely the kind of government censorship that Harris, Walz, Ocasio-Cortez, Clinton, and Kerry say is now needed. Trump campaign surrogates and former Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have made pushing back against the Democrats’ much-desired censorship regime a primary part of their efforts. The former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and X’s billionaire owner Elon Musk have said they joined Team Trump in part over the same free speech worries. In the only 2024 vice presidential debate, Walz doubled down on his stance that “misinformation” or “hate speech” is not protected speech, comparing it to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH), the Republican vice presidential nominee, replied, “Governor Walz mentioned yesterday you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. That line is from a disgraced Supreme Court opinion, one that has been overturned.” “It’s used to justify censorship,” Vance correctly added. “I genuinely think this is one very big difference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump,” Vance said. “I will die fighting to defend their right to speak their mind, even if I disagree with it. Every single person in this room agrees with that because we believe in free speech.” “A lot of Americans are sick of the censorship,” Vance continued. “They’re tired of being told by their government to shut up. We believe in persuading our fellow Americans, not silencing them.” Vance’s remarks and sentiments in defense of free speech do not exist in today’s Democratic party. If progressives of old once prided themselves as “card-carrying ACLU members,” most mainstream Democrats today either are trying to find workarounds to the First Amendment or simply pretending that its protections somehow don’t apply to their more recent imaginings of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “hate speech,” despite the Court ruling that such speech is protected. Somewhere between Trump’s victorious campaign in 2015 and 2016 and now, Democrats decided that the old liberal concept of free speech was too dangerous in the age of MAGA. They quickly switched gears, and today you won’t encounter many Democratic leaders or voters who find the notion of the government censoring speech they don’t like bothersome. Columns are now regularly written by left-wing writers and intellectuals disparaging free speech as “right-wing” and condemning the Constitution and the First Amendment as “dangerous.” Despite Trump’s anti-free speech rhetoric, which deserves attention and condemnation, his 2024 Republican coalition is largely a pro–First Amendment bulwark against a Democratic party eager to erase that particular constitutional protection. Not perfectly, but institutionally, today’s Republican Party is the free speech party. Institutionally, today’s Democratic Party is the party that is against free speech in the way Americans have historically understood it. It’s not me, a writer, telling you this. Democrats themselves, from the very top of their party, as cited here, keep telling us this, over and over, and few to none in their constituency find this position the least bit controversial. It’s been normalized. That’s scary. All attacks on free speech should be taken seriously. But particularly those made by those in power, with the will to wield it, and little concern for the most basic precepts of American liberty. The post Democrats Are a Major Threat to Free Speech; Trump Isn’t appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Lots of Character A modest proposal for the American abodes of fleeing celebrities. Credit: image via Shutterstock Did you know that Chelsea Handler bought a house in Brentwood, California, from RFK Jr., and his wife Cheryl Hines? This was news to me. Insiders have known it for months, but the late-night talk show host and “sociocultural activist,” as House Digest describes Handler, paid $5.9 million for the place, which, being in the Mandeville Canyon neighborhood, is about an hour west of Los Angeles proper. This allows her to steer clear of the riffraff. As one does. Handler’s neighbors include Gwyneth Paltrow, George Clooney, Tom Selleck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Dr. Dre, which must make for pleasant conversations when they are taking out the garbage, hosing down the driveway, and unclogging the gutters.  Handler’s house is nothing grand—about 5,500 square feet—but the “resort-inspired abode” does have a “serene” swimming pool with waterfall and Tiki bar. And an  850-square foot semi-detached guest or staff suite with its own bedroom, bathroom, and laundry room, [plus] a 400-square foot studio or media lounge that opens to the backyard with a wall of French doors. Sitting between the home and a steep hillside is her stone patio, complete with a fire pit, bar, built-in grill, and a spa that spills into the kidney-shaped pool. There are six bedrooms, which will be helpful in coming months should Handler find herself forced to move to Mallorca where, back in 2015, she bought a beachfront property. She bought the place in Spain, she said, “just in case” Donald Trump got elected. Trump was elected, of course, but Handler stayed put. In fact, she bought the Mandeville Canyon house a year into Trump’s presidency. Whether Handler will flee the country this time, should he win back the White House, only time will tell. Moving is a hassle, especially when you own stuff.  If she does leave, Handler might have to wait in line, something not even B-list celebrities should be expected to do. If this indignity does befall her, she will at least have the comfort of being in good company. There, standing at the bus stop, hastily packed suitcases beside them, will be Amy Schumer, Bryan Cranston, Lena Dunham, Samuel L. Jackson, Barbra Streisand, Miley Cyrus, and Snoop Dogg, among others, who have said they too will flee.  Cher says she will “leave the planet,” so it is hard to say which line she will be in. A lot of us thought she had left the planet decades ago. That Cher’s high-minded friends have not forced her to leave the country just for the get-up she wore to promote Half-Breed remains a mystery. It has taken 500 years for Christopher Columbus to get his comeuppance, so there’s still time. Cher’s day may yet come. The six bedrooms of Handler’s digs will be helpful, as mentioned, as we seek to solve the nation’s urgent housing crisis. Hollywood celebrities understand things that the general public does not. They understand, for example, that immigrants, whether legally here or not, deserve a decent place to live, and that there is a shortage of such places. Celebrities realize this, too: Reports of violent migrant gangs taking control of apartment houses in, say, Aurora, Colorado, are vicious falsehoods spread by xenophobic racists.  While celebrities, when pressed, can be made to agree that such things have occurred, their frequency and severity are grossly exaggerated, and that the arrival of migrants, violent or otherwise, has had no ill effects on the lawful residents of these cities and the municipal services they pay for. Celebrities also understand that anyone who claims otherwise is also a xenophobic racist.  Celebrities understand economics. They can explain, for example, that if only other rich people were made to “pay their fair share,” all our economic problems could be solved. Celebrities understand, finally, that the Democrats have actually done more than Republicans to limit the flow of migrants across the Southern border, and anyone who suggests otherwise is ditto.  As for Chelsea Handler’s six bedrooms, it occurs to me that they could easily accommodate immigrant families, as could the bedrooms, dining rooms, in-home theaters, guesthouses, greenhouses, and poolside cabanas of Handler’s generous-spirited friends and neighbors who will be leaving the country too.  Considering the vast numbers of well-to-do Americans who have vowed to leave and the actual numbers of immigrants arriving in need of decent housing, it will seem to you, as it does to me, that it’s a wash. When one group moves out, just move the others in. Problem solved.  The post Lots of Character appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics What a Trump Cabinet Might Look Like Investigating the second administration. (The Sturdy Table/Shutterstock) The leaves are falling in Washington—and so is the spell of Kamala Harris’s inevitability.  Whether this is merely the latest gust in the hurricane of shifts that has defined this race since at least June is any man’s guess. But the conjecture—and very real shadow games—that have framed the discussions of personnel in a second Donald Trump presidency are beginning to feel like the prelude to forming a real government.  If history is any guide, and it may not be, the first thing the president-elect will do will solidify his transition chair and pick a chief of staff. In 2020, Joe Biden named Ron Klain (a person who once betrayed the 46th president) chief by November 11 that year. In 2016, Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner wiped out Chris Christie as head of the nascent transition by November 11. On November 13, 2016, Trump named the Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus his chief of staff, but installed Steve Bannon in the newly-created role of White House chief strategist after passing him over for the official role. It was to be an uneasy, and unsustainable, power-sharing role between the two men (three, if you count Kushner, perhaps the real albeit unofficial chief of staff).  The leading candidates for chief this go-around are probably (in no particular order): Susie Wiles, a seasoned Florida political operator and Trump’s main campaign brain, but also potentially a divisive selection with the grassroots; Kushner (officially this time); Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner who will thrill the base but revolt the mainstream media; Russ Vought, the social conservative hardliner, who would have a similar galvanizing–polarizing effect to Miller’s, while drawing attention to an issue set (social issues) that isn’t particularly Trumpian.  But the dark horse may be John McEntee, the former personnel director. At 34, he would be the youngest chief of staff since Dick Cheney in the Ford administration. His selection would thrill true believers and Trump’s youth wing, but criticisms that he is too “green” and critiques of past scandals would surface in the media. It’s also entirely possible that Trump erodes the power of the role—“acting” White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump’s last chief, Mark Meadows, probably won’t get historical treatments a la James Baker.   From there, Trump will likely move to the “great offices of state,” to use a British term. But any role requiring Senate confirmation will be constrained by the terms of a Republican victory. This reality is likely to be more apparent than following in any election in memory, thanks to the unique nature of Trump’s political phenomenon, the zenith of American polarization, and a possibly very weird electoral map. A second Trump cabinet reliant on the final blessing of Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski is far different than the one that would ensue if, say, Trump and the GOP were to sweep the Blue Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  In the minimum-to-moderate scenario (51-54 Senate seats), the favorite for secretary of state is Robert C. O’Brien. Trump’s last national security advisor is a pragmatic, polished foreign policy bigwig who has done an assiduous and under-the-radar job of not offending any Trumpian constituency. And, as is a theme with Trump, the well-coiffed, Brioni-clothed Californian former trial lawyer is straight out of Hollywood, and looks the part.  O’Brien’s principal rival for the role is actually his friend, the fellow Californian Ric Grenell, formerly the ambassador to Germany and acting national intelligence director. Grenell would be a flashier pick that would enthuse some stalwart Trump fans, but he would probably rely on figures like Kari Lake, his ally, to get through the upper chamber. Lake is not favored to win Arizona’s Senate race. Grenell’s pedigree is mostly hawkish, and his selection would be a disappointment to those hoping for a purer distillation of Trumpian restraint in foreign policy. A third contender for Foggy Bottom is the Tennessean Senator Bill Hagerty, Trump’s former man in Japan. Hagerty has kept a low profile but is a known commodity in conversations around a potential Trump transition.  A benighted selection would be the former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the neoconservative runner-up to Trump in the primaries. But politics in the smartphone age has shown the power of online insurgencies. As happened to Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro’s reported consideration as Kamala Harris’s running mate this past summer, a digital insurgency would probably emerge against Haley to kill her selection in the crib.  At the Department of Defense, Trump may well select the Arkansan Senator Tom Cotton, who has quickly emerged as one of the most effective surrogates for the campaign this cycle. But Trump has passed on giving Cotton top jobs before, and, as with Grenell, his hawkish bona fides aren’t exactly stuff that smacks of “this time will be different.” Hagerty is possible at Defense as well. The selection of a pragmatist would likely make most sides breathe easier. There would be far worse things in the world. A reprise of Mike Pompeo, only this time at the Pentagon, is possible. But the status of the relationship between the president and his former top diplomat is not well understood and potentially poor. Notably, this time last year, when Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin was weighing a challenge to Trump in the primary, the keynote speaker at Youngkin’s secretive autumn conclave at the famed Cavalier Hotel in Virginia Beach was none other than Pompeo. Pompeo has not been prominent on the trail for Trump. And Pompeo has taken on work for a Ukrainian telecommunications firm, Kyivstar. None of this screams “major political player” in this current moment in Republican politics.    The greatest break with business-as-usual at the Pentagon might actually be a continuity pick: Trump’s last (acting) secretary of defense, Chris Miller. The famed former “horse soldier” was one of the first men on the ground in Afghanistan and, in the dark days of late 2020 and early 2021, helped end America’s doomed crusade there. In a little-noticed longform interview for the Australian Financial Review this summer, Miller flashed his Trumpian id.    “I fully embraced Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat globalism, the whole thing: free trade, and the policies that gutted American industry and left a devastated rust belt.… There was plenty of reason for Trump to say, ‘You’ve been played by elites,’” Miller said. “I didn’t think it was that desperate until I went back to Iowa in 2012.… I do believe in the wisdom of the crowd. There is a deep, deep feeling in America that the old way of doing things is not working.” Miller diagnosed: ”We fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of people believed in the cause and to lose so dramatically and decisively really made common Americans question the wisdom of officials and Trump is just channeling that.” At national security advisor, competition for the most important non-Senate confirmed appointment in government will be teeming.  At the end of the day, Trump may well settle on Elbridge Colby. Whatever the men’s differences, Trump is likely to be impressed with his former Defense undersecretary’s Harvard pedigree, youth, ambition, and CIA connections (his grandfather was director). As with others, aesthetics may play a role. And the selection of J.D. Vance for vice president signals that, far from being the nihilist-on-wheels parody of the man, Trump is curious about the youth wing intelligentsia that supports him, the so-called “New Right.” Colby is an eminence grise in these circles. Even a recent, subtle comedown from an ultra-hardline stance on Taiwan signals that the forty-something Colby is readying for center stage. He is preparing to work for a president who has no real track record of being a hawk’s hawk on China.  Grenell is possible as NSA, as is Keith Kellogg, the former deputy NSA. But Trump has passed on Kellogg multiple times before. And the retired general, while tremendously networked, has distinguished himself in recent years as a particularly odd and quixotic Ukraine hawk. Kellogg (a tight ally with John Bolton’s former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz) argues the Biden administration has failed in Ukraine because it has not supported the Zelensky administration enough.  “Have the United States given Ukraine a support of F-16s? No,” Kellogg told Voice of America in July. “Did we provide long-range fires early for the Ukrainians to shoot in Russians? No. Did we provide permission for them to shoot deep into Russia? No. Did the United States provide them the armored capabilities they needed? We gave 31 tanks. Thirty-one tanks is not even a battalion in the United States Army.” Kellogg continued: “You have to give more arms to them because you can’t trust the Russians. You just have to do it.” (No, you don’t “just have to do it,” actually.) But the true dark horse to head up the National Security Council may be another former deputy, Michael Anton—if he wants the job.  Moving away from national security (officially, anyway), Trump will need a steady hand at Treasury, as some in the business class will doubtless drench themselves at the prospect of a second Trump go. History would imply that the favorite is Howard Lutnick, the Cantor Fitzgerald chief who is the current co-chair of the Trump transition. Like ex-Goldman partner Steve Mnuchin in 2016, the financier might have gotten in on the action at just the right moment. In both Democratic and conventional Republican administrations, Treasury is reserved for only the toniest of players—Goldman chiefs and former Federal Reserve chairs. With Trump, it’s the Wild West. Lutnick has emerged as a persuasive champion of Trump’s tariff policy in recent weeks, and he has a charismatic story. Lutnick lost 658 employees, including his brother, in the twin towers on September 11, 2001.   Jamie Dimon, the eternal JP Morgan head, will get some buzz for Treasury, but one would think a failure to endorse Trump this round when so many of his fellow elite have taken the plunge would finally end this dream. Another possibility is Kushner, who has a long career in finance ahead of him after his father-in-law’s day in the sun. He may want a blue chip credential to add to his considerable professional portfolio. (And many would be quietly elated to keep him away from foreign policy.) A place must be found for Vivek Ramaswamy, many will argue—that is, if he wants a job and not to run for Ohio’s governor (and potentially become the DeSantis of the Midwest, but with a silver tongue). The most likely landing spot is the Department of Homeland Security. But the self-made superstar may think twice about the role. If deportation raids are actually to occur (dubious), the man behind them could be thanked by history and scapegoated by the present. It’s not exactly prime real estate for someone who wants to be president.  If Trump does pursue a harder line on immigration (and for perhaps the first time, polling indicates the public outside of Republican ranks is with him), he may install the aforementioned Stephen Miller at DHS, but he will need some comfortable margins in the Senate. A safer perch for Ramaswamy would be U.N. ambassador, a job Joe Biden hilariously declined to give Pete Buttigieg (perhaps to placate Kamala Harris). Turtle Bay is showtime for any politician who can generate buzz, and from there, it’s an easy entrée to the New York donor set.   Some will also say a place must also be found for Steve Bannon, who, with excellent dramatic timing, will be released from prison on November 1, nigh on the eve of Election Day. But, again, there is a quiet but open question: Does he even want a role? The exact circumstances of Bannon’s departure from the White House in August 2017 remain shrouded in mystery—probably a firing, but maybe not strictly. Bannon, as he does, indicated much relief publicly back then.  “I’ve got my hands back on my weapons,” he told the Weekly Standard, referring to Breitbart, which he later replaced with War Room and a broader arsenal of the Bannonite dark arts. In 2023, it was revealed ahead of a joint event with the two men at Mar-A-Lago that Bannon and Trump had not spoken to each other in person in six years. Finally there is the question of attorney general. Trump has so far found no success, from his perspective, at the Department of Justice.  It is plausible Trump goes with a hatchetman, especially if the election is a relative landslide. Mike Davis has emerged as an internet pugilist par excellence, provocatively vowing a “reign of terror” in a sort-of suicide mission if he were given the job for a short stint. Jeff Clark has emerged as a movement martyr in recent years, and it is of course possible Trump gives him the nod in an act of elaborate revenge.  But for the decade’s worth of ink spilled about Trump as proto-Mussolini, the diagnosis Bannon gave to NBC in June seems apt: “Donald Trump is a moderate in the MAGA movement.” Villain origin stories such as The Apprentice might get movie deals, and might be more interesting, but Trump has given more jobs to former Exxon CEOs and Raytheon execs than old cronies from New York.     An interesting choice for DoJ would be Ted Cruz.  Cruz was seemingly born to be the nation’s top lawyer, and he might be getting tired of being a target of cosmic significance every Senate election cycle. (He may lose one of these days). And while he will remain a player in Trump’s Washington in the Senate, it’s hard to see how he’s really “in the mix” the way he was 10 years ago. A leading Cabinet post would change all that. Love or hate Cruz, Trump would add one of the brightest minds in law and politics to his chess set.  The appointment of Cruz would also have a subtle safety switch for Trump. Cruz was Trump’s most brutal rival in the 2016 primary, and, though both have tried, the relationship has never fully recovered. Cruz wants the presidency as a wino wants lunchtime Sancerre, but it’s unlikely Cruz will ever really regain his renegade buzz of the mid-2010s, unless he gets another starring role. The Trump show will dominate the box office, day and night. Trump also knows Cruz can’t betray him twice—not if he wants to seek the presidency. And if Cruz emerges as “Trump’s warrior,” he will cleanse himself of the sins of 2016.  Stranger things have happened, and things might be about to get very strange. The post What a Trump Cabinet Might Look Like appeared first on The American Conservative.

CA Dems Corruption, Newsom Failed AI Meme Ban and the Pretend Persecution of Fake Patriot Elon Musk - CA Democrats' Corruption Exposed! - 5,312 views October. 17, 2024 Carl DeMaio / Reform California *** TheWarAgainstYou: - For All those who understand the Truth about Elon Musk, His Close Ties to the Deep State and Military Industrial Complex and the Fake Right vs Left Divide, it would all seem humorous. But for the fact that actual workers and others are suffering from the Real Life consequences of this Political Theatre. - MUSK was a creation of the CIA, DARPA, Intelligence Big Tech Industrial Complex. And of course he was given these opportunities because of his Cabal Family Heritage, and his wheeling dealing Success By Any Means willingness to Do Whatever He is Told. And you can Be Certain that Musk is indeed Doing What He is Told. You do not get to be a Top Military Contractor Without Doing So. - But unlike what the vast majority of the misinformed public thinks: Twitter is NOT a Free Speech Platform. It is a Trojan Horse and Honey Pot for Tracking Dissidents and to Trick them into the X Everything App Beast System. - And anyone who believes Musk is a Conservative, Libertarian or an Actual Patriot are sorely Self Deceived. - Newsom and his attempted Law on Banning AI Deep Fakes of Politicians is a concern, but you can be certain the Deep State will most definitely be creating Laws to benefits them but disempowers everyone else. - But the Deep State - Globalist Puppets have a NEED for this Technology to remain in the public. - The presence of Deep Fakes gives Politicians, Traitors and Globalists Friendly Operatives PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY to call out Real Video Evidence as Fake. Even when it is legit, with the army of Bogus Fact Checkers and Fake News Monopoly, the Truth Does Not Matter to those caught in the Mainstream Matrix of the Web of Lies. - The Persecution of the Likes of Musk and Trump is DONE TO GIVE THEM CREDIBILITY. The old (If our Enemies Hate Them, They Must Be Good Trick) - Let's Face it. The Jewish Controlled Main Stream Media are Not Really Enemies of Jewish Zionist Champions like Trump and Musk. And all of the endless attacks against Trump did little more than make him look good and give him FREE UNLIMITED PROMOTION. Trump has received more free press than anyone in history. - (I AM DROPPING A BIG SECRET HERE) - Dr. Henry Makow had the astute insight that: - There are 2 separate Factions of the Jewish Elite. - The Communist U.N. Friendly Woke Liberals - - And the Hardcore Zionist Fascist Conservatives... BUT THEY ATTACK US FROM BOTH SIDES - AND ARE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE SAME ENDS *** CA DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION EXPOSED: It's not news that CA's political leaders are often corrupt to the core, but I do have 3 new examples of it that you won't see in the liberal mainstream media! And one story involves retaliation against Elon Musk! Find out the latest FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.