If you are reading these words, you are paying unusually close attention to Election 2024. Most Americans are too busy to follow campaigns in depth. Politicos often speak in shorthand and wrongly assume that everyone understands us. Phrases like “very fine people” and “bloodbath” echo across party offices and newsrooms. But they escape normal people. To accommodate the regular 99% of America, former President Donald Trump and his allies should speak in greater detail when they debunk the Left’s enduring anti-Trump lies. Rather than simply dismiss Democrats’ unending untruths, they should precisely explain Trump’s statements and actions. This would help voters understand why the Left is wrong, and Trump is right. “Very fine people”: Democrats accuse Trump of calling neo-Nazis “very fine people” after the August 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia, race riots. Snopes’ non-MAGA fact-checkers declared that “False.” Trump said “very fine people” both supported and opposed a local statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Democrats cover up what Trump added: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” “Suckers and losers”: Trump haters keep claiming that he refused to visit a French World War I-era cemetery because it brims with “suckers” and “losers.” Jeffrey Goldberg cited four anonymous sources in his reckless, if not libelous, Sept. 3, 2020, article in The Atlantic. I dismantled Goldberg’s fabricated charges via multiple published rebuttals. I eventually quoted 16 named advisers who accompanied Trump to Paris. They concurred that Trump never said “suckers” or “losers.” The cemetery visit was scrapped due to helicopter-hostile weather and motorcade-unfriendly logistics. Two unnamed military aides backed my 16 on-the-record sources. An independent weather report called climate the culprit. Goldberg mocked his wafer-thin “evidence.” He told MSNBC: “I share that view that it’s not good enough.” Murdock 19, Goldberg 4. “Find me 11,780 votes”: Democrats’ fantasies notwithstanding, Trump did not order Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find me 11,780 votes,” to beat Joe Biden. As the Trump-hating Washington Post’s transcript shows, Trump said: “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.” Personally, I just want to find $100,000 cash. That’s light-years away from me instructing anyone to rob a Wells Fargo branch and “find me $100,000 cash.” Jan. 6, 2021: Trump haters claim that he ordered supporters to attack Congress’ certification of 2020’s election. Wrong! During a First Amendment-protected outdoor speech, Trump urged his fans to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” If Trump craved a bloodbath, why did he authorize 10,000 National Guard troops to keep the party polite? If Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had not spurned Trump’s offer, domestic tranquillity would have prevailed.  “Fight like hell!”: As part of Impeachment Hoax II, Democrats claimed that Trump whipped his troops into a murderous lather by urging them in his Jan. 6 speech to “fight like hell!” Nice try, Democrats! Grabien’s February 2021 supercut caught 11 Democrats, including Biden, saying “Fight like hell!” Trump’s defense attorneys pounded this pathetic argument more thoroughly than basil leaves pounded into pesto. At his impeachment trial, they presented a devastating video in which top Democrats, including impeachment managers Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Eric Swalwell of California, used the bipartisan political cliché “fight like hell!” countless times. This phrase is as much a part of America’s bellicose public-affairs jargon as target markets, battleground states, and the War on Poverty. “Dictator on Day One”: Vice President Kamala Harris told a Univision audience last Thursday: “Donald Trump has said he will be a dictator on Day One.” Fox News’ Sean Hannity asked Trump last Dec. 5: “You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?” Trump jokingly replied, “No, no, no, other than Day One. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.” That would reverse Biden’s Day One “dictatorship” in which his lawful executive orders opened the border and stopped the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil-fuel ventures. Should Trump have spoken more carefully? Yes. Will Trump open concentration camps? No. “Bloodbath”: In her debate with Trump, Harris parroted a phony Democratic talking point. “Donald Trump, the candidate, has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.” Nope! On March 16, Trump predicted that a Democratic victory would trigger “a bloodbath” … in the auto industry, not the streets. “Fight! Fight! Fight!”: In a uniquely lame critique, CNN’s Jamie Gangel slammed Trump for defiantly waving his right fist and reassuring the world of his resilience by saying, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” moments after an assassin shot him on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania. Gangel scolded Trump—even as he was nursing a fresh and nearly fatal bullet wound. “That’s not the message that we want to be sending right now,” Gangel scowled. “We want to tamp it down.” “Someone attempted to assassinate my father tonight, and this is what @CNN is focused on,” Donald Trump Jr. reacted via X. “These people are vile.” Someone attempted to assassinate my father tonight and this is what @CNN is focused on. These people are vile. https://t.co/ZNKe9cuNQz— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 14, 2024 Between now and Nov. 5, Trump and his supporters must use such hard facts, thoroughly and completely, to win distracted voters who too often fall for the Democrat-Left’s relentlessly repeated lies. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Debunking Democrats’ Oft-Repeated Anti-Trump Lies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Something is amiss in Annapolis, home of the U.S. Naval Academy. A rot growing like kudzu across this bucolic campus is undermining the Naval Academy’s core mission: to prepare young officers to take command at sea.  How else can you explain the academy’s insistence that the Supreme Court’s holding that it is unconstitutional for colleges to use race as a factor in admissions doesn’t apply to the academy, as I wrote about here? At least in that case, the academy could make a straight-faced legal argument in support of racism.  More recently, Annapolis’ apparatchiks were caught inviting a problematic speaker to deliver—by her own account—a partisan speech targeting former President Donald Trump just a few weeks before the Nov. 5 election. This is a clear violation of the Hatch Act as well as Defense Department regulations meant to keep politics out of our military. Although this instance is a clear violation of law, the Naval Academy has yet to officially announce its decision to “postpone” the speech scheduled for Oct. 10 by anti-Trump historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat. Ben-Ghiat’s scheduled appearance came to light only because of her public postings, and the Naval Academy acted under pressure only when it was made clear that her speech was a violation.  And now it is coming to light that at least two civilian professors at the Naval Academy may be violating constitutional rights under the First and 14th amendments. Two professors in the academy’s English Department have required students to state their “preferred pronouns” at the beginning of each class, according to students who complained to me. At first, students played along, but eventually they refused to engage in this disturbing behavior. Instead of dropping the issue, the professors essentially taunt and harass the students to state their preferred personal pronouns instead of moving along and teaching the class.     What do preferred pronouns have to do with the study of English? And more to the point, are these professors using personal pronouns in accord with proper grammar?  As you might imagine, many students at the Naval Academy, and in the military in general, are patriots first. They’re not prone to discuss their personal lives in a professional military context. They have decided to serve their country in uniform and live their lives according to set of convictions.  Like many other Americans, Naval Academy students are troubled by current trends in contemporary society—not the least of which is the assault on the Constitution, which they pledge their lives to defend. Compelled speech, in short, is a violation of their right to freedom of speech, already strained in recent years. So, imagine how disturbing it has been for some midshipmen at the Naval Academy to have to deal with government employees who compel them to say something they don’t want to say and cut them off when they object. This needs to stop for several reasons. First and foremost, these professors may be, and likely are, violating students’ First and 14th amendment rights.  Don’t take my word for it. Read the decision in Meriwether v. Hartop from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and ask yourself whether the same legal logic applies to this situation. Hint: It does.  In that case, Nicholas Meriwether, a professor at Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, answered a student’s question in class by saying, “Yes, Sir.” After class, the student spoke with Meriwether and told his professor that he was transgender and demanded that Meriwether refer to him as a woman, using feminine titles and personal pronouns. Meriwether offered to use the student’s last name, or any other name (including a female name), but politely declined to use the student’s preferred pronouns. The student became angry, threatened to get him fired, and filed a formal complaint with the state university’s Title IX office.  After the Title IX office rejected Meriwether’s offer to use the student’s last name, any name of his choosing, or stop using sex-based pronouns altogether, the university—believe it or not—charged Meriwether with creating a “hostile environment” and put a written warning in his personnel file.  As my Heritage Foundation colleague Sarah Parshall Perry outlined here, Meriwether sued the university for violating his rights of free speech and religious liberty under the First Amendment and violating his due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.  With respect to the compelled use of pronouns, 6th Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, writing for the court, stated: [T]itles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students. That’s not a matter of classroom management; that’s a matter of academic speech… Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity. … Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, we hold that the university violated Meriwether’s free-speech rights. Meriwether prevailed because he stood on his convictions and was willing to take his case to court. Midshipmen at the Naval Academy aren’t tenured professors. They’re just starting their careers as officers in the Navy or Marine Corps. They don’t want to be named because they’re concerned that if they come forward, the Naval Academy will see them as troublemakers instead of brave young men and women who quietly complained about abusive, legally questionable behavior. The Naval Academy last week reluctantly “postponed” a politically toxic speaker after being outed for violating the Hatch Act and Defense Department regulations prohibiting overt political activities by members of the military. Now the academy needs to look into this matter of compelling students to list preferred pronouns and order the professors involved to stop their questionable practices.  The post First, Naval Academy Books a Partisan Speaker. Now, 2 Professors Compel Speech in Class appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Terrifying Truth About Those Apartment Buildings in Aurora

Playing with Fire: Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve

Drug Trials Funded By Manufacturers Find 50 Percent Greater Drug Effectiveness

Kamala the Change Candidate – says “She wouldn’t change anything.”

Common Injuries People Get During Disasters

The Fall & Winter Prepper Checklist: 9 Things To Get Your Home Prepped for Disasters

Review Of Rapid River Knifeworks Fin & Feather & The History Of The Bird & Trout Knife.

Master Situational Awareness (Effective Decision-Making)