Articles by Paul Ingrassia

It is a sad, borderline tragic commentary on modern American life that fewer and fewer of our countrymen would recognize Thomas Jefferson’s foreboding words that offer a solemn coda to our Declaration of Independence: “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Today, such famous canonical phrases (even among the educated professions) of America’s legal pantheon go often unrecognized with scandalous and increasing regularity.
And yet, rarer still is the individual who not only recognizes but acts upon the motivating spirit behind those words.
This describes the political man who has made it his personal vocation to live by them, to the best of his abilities, day in and day out, despite the terrific personal and professional costs in doing so.

For this group, one can probably count on one hand the number of lawyers, the supposed vanguard of American law and justice, who still adhere to that national creed.  (And, correspondingly, discover where the origins of so many of our societal afflictions, particularly in the legal arena, lie).

Jeff Clark, former Assistant Attorney General under President Trump, who dared to do the unthinkable and actually remain loyal to his former boss during a period of unprecedented political turmoil in the lead-up and immediate aftermath of the 2020 presidential contest belongs to that latter lot.
Originally a Philadelphia native, Clark went to Harvard for his undergraduate studies, where he majored in history — and portentously, the history of the Soviet legal system under communism.
Law school followed Harvard.   Following undergraduate, Clark migrated from Boston to Washington, DC, to attend Georgetown for law. It was during his time in law school where he met his future wife, with whom he later married and had four children.
He eventually would make the decision to settle down in that same city, surely knowing even at the start of his professional life that a career in government and public service would be his destiny.
Following Georgetown, Clark served as a clerk on the Sixth Circuit under Judge Danny J. Boggs (a Reagan appointee), and then returned to DC, working himself all the way up to partner at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the most prestigious white shoe law firms in the country.
In short, Jeff Clark had a picture-perfect legal career.
And though he resided in the Swamp for most of his adult life, Clark never succumbed to it.  Unlike so many of his peers, Clark served under two Republican presidents, serving two separate stints at the Department of Justice, and never selling himself out to DC’s countless lucrative special interests.
From 2001-2005, he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division.
This was a post that he would later upgrade to US Assistant Attorney General for that same division under President Trump, a little over a decade later, in which he served from 2018 until 2021.
Until the November 2020 election (whose events and immediate aftermath sent his professional career spiraling) Clark’s body of work was defined by his devotion to the Constitution and his love of lawyering.
Many lawyers begrudge the day-to-day clerical work of the job. Not Jeff Clark.
In speaking with Clark, one immediately gathers that Clark is the quintessential “lawyer’s lawyer,” one of the rare lawyers who genuinely loves the job of lawyering.
As a devout and lifelong Catholic, Jeff Clark’s convictions in the law are doubtlessly entwined with his faith.
As far as his professional vocation goes, Clark is the type of lawyer that could convince even an atheist that certain men are divinely ordained by God, from birth, to serve a particular vocation — and for Jeff Clark, that vocation was being a lawyer.
Having a true love for one’s vocation often always is a wellspring for greatness, whatever that vocation might be.
Clark’s backstory lends support to the lawyer-by-birth theory: he himself concedes that the type of analytical reasoning lawyers engage in was intuitive to him from a young age.  He took to the profession as an athlete does to sport.
When he got to Georgetown, he aced his law school exams with ease; in practice, he unspools his opponent’s erroneous arguments with Olympian deftness.
He cuts through dicta and fluff like the sword of a legal ninja.
His persecution at the hand of a megalomaniacal government, one on the brink of full-fledged tyranny, is uncannily reminiscent of another lawyer, St. Thomas Moore, the Catholic saint who was similarly persecuted for upholding the truth in the face of dark opposition.
While Clark, a humble man, may shun comparisons between himself and Moore’s literal martyrdom, the comparison is apt, and not only because each involves the persecution of two great lawyers, who stood up for truth despite having every incentive on earth not to.
But there are also spiritual parallels between each case – in the sixteenth century, it was a Christian lawyer against a secular (and, as Catholics see it, heretical) king.
In our times, those who most ardently uphold America’s political creed, like Jeff Clark, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump, tend to also be men of faith, or at least men of deep-seated beliefs about right and wrong, justice and injustice, who respect the traditional morality out of which both Constitution and Country was carved.
It is the moral boundaries laid down by religious convictions, sincere and practiced in the lives of the faithful, that make freedom possible in the first place.
So, it is no surprise, then, that someone with Clark’s religious temperament would equally take umbrage – and sense the injustice perhaps more deeply than most – of those actors who betrayed Donald Trump during that most fateful 2020 election, and be the type to step up, foreseeing the ominous waters in which the ship of state was sailing into, and take action over and above those who could not see beyond their own selfish desires, preferring to preserve their own hide, country be damned.
* * * * *
Fearless at the Point of Attack: the Jeff Clark Story is a new documentary produced by the Center for Renewing America, a Washington DC-based conservative policy institute, in partnership with Steve Bannon, a co-producer.
Over the course of the 30-minute film the saga of Clark’s professional and personal nightmare of the last four years is fleshed out, in all its harrowing and at times even absurd detail.
CRA’s documentary of Clark’s life story, a story that Clark himself has frequently related to listeners in speaking events over the past four years, is the first time it has been brought to the silver screen. And, boy, does it deliver!
With special commentary from Steve Bannon, Russ Vought (former director of OMB under Trump), Congressman Matt Gaetz, and Harry MacDougald (Clark’s lawyer) – along with Clark himself – plus clips from Tucker Carlson’s former Fox News show — viewers get a firsthand look at the real human side of having a weaponized justice system.
Viewers get a visceral sense of how that system can and has destroyed the livelihood (if not lives) of a real man, who was simply acting out his duties – and faithfully, as he saw it, adhering to his constitutional oath.
Clark’s reality is certainly not the first, and far from the worst, of the heavy-handed treatment exacted upon those accused of the high crime of remaining loyal (an utter blasphemy in the eyes of DC’s legal establishment) to President Trump, particularly when it was expedient – politically, professionally, financially – to rat at the moment of greatest uncertainty – i.e., the lead-up and aftermath of the November of 2020 ordeal.
“To see my profession weaponized and tortured in such a manner – it’s really painful,” Congressman Gaetz says in the film.  “It makes me feel empty about the work of my life some days when I see what’s happening to people like President Trump and Jeff Clark.”
Clark, however, is one of the few DC lawyers actually made of sterner stuff.  And this is readily depicted on screen.
Despite years of being ritualistically humiliated and dressed down (literally) by the Justice Department and intelligence agencies, which even included a home raid, as related in the documentary, by the DOJ’s Inspector General Office, Clark has no qualms about what he did – and would probably do it all over again if necessary.
“President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong,” Clark is depicted saying.
“At all times his actions were entirely proper and motivated by a desire to uphold the law and the Constitution.”
It is true: Clark remained loyal when so many of his peers defected, and when the pressure to defect – particularly by mainstream media outside the White House, and effective mutineers within was at its highest.
Thus, at the point when many of his peers in the Justice Department attempted to undermine the President and his plan to merely execute what basically amounted to a procedural formality, Clark held firm.
What was being asked of him, as the film chronicles, should not have been particularly controversial, let alone incriminating.
Plainly stated, Clark’s role was basically a legal deep dive into finding out whether the vice president had any legal authority to – not, as foolish media talking heads falsely proclaim, “overturn an election” – but rather, simply ask state legislatures to reconsider allegations of fraud in hotspots of electoral contention like Fulton County, Georgia.  That’s it.
Under the Constitution, states have plenary or exclusive power to administer election rules and procedures.
To the extent the federal government, or Congress, ever gets involved, it is as an advisory or ministerial role – to clear up controversies and guide states to conduct their proceedings in a timely fashion.
To the extent controversies still remain unresolved after the fact, for instance, such as in a case where a state legislature cannot decide between two competing slates of electors, then Congress has authority to square away the differences, and then upon reviewing the evidence could proceed to certify the slate of electors it deems most lawful.
Clark’s own role was pretty narrow: simply investigate the situation in Georgia – and if there were problems, provide his expert legal advice.
He was asked by President Trump to request for state officials there to take account of additional evidence of irregularities and outcome-determinative fraud that impacted the results of the 2020 race (claims of which were widespread then, and now, after four long and grueling years of legal battles, we know existed in overwhelming amounts).
As testimony to his brains and his loyalty, Clark actually wound up being tapped by President Trump to serve as Acting Attorney General, over an intense, 9-hour period on January 3, 2021, where he wound up leading the entire Justice Department.
This he did as other senior officials within both the DOJ and the White House Counsel’s Office hightailed themselves out of controversy, abandoning their Captain when he needed them most, leaving Clark as the last man standing within the DOJ.
Clark’s loyalty (to both Constitution and President) – which, as the documentary makes crystal clear, is the sole basis for his criminal liability – immediately made him a target for DOJ officials in the post-Trump era.
These four years, some of the bleakest yet to bear in modern American history, amounted to a protracted requiem for the rule of law in America. The charges against Clark, specifically – resulting in the criminal investigation in Georgia, where Clark is one of the famous co-conspirators implicated in Fani Willis’ sham proceeding there – in addition to a separate disbarment saga in Washington DC, are downright egregious, whose absurdities the film does a good job of unpacking.
The greatest absurdity of all might have been the fact that the letter detailing Clark’s legal advice to Georgia state officials was never even sent in the first place!
Not that the advice Clark offered (later published in the New York Times) – which otherwise reads like any ordinary legal memorandum instructing Georgia state officials in constitutional law – basically, a rundown of Article II coupled with a brief legal history of the Electors Clause – was in the slightest bit damning, and certainly not illegal.
But it underlines how ludicrous the whole affair is: Clark is given the treatment of a criminal felon and has even been indicted all for an unsent legal memo! Of course, in our perverse age, faithful interpretation of the Constitution, in accordance with its intended, textual and original meaning, is liable to get any decent lawyer into trouble with the law.
Why? Because under the current regime, any law that conflicts with those rules established by the powers that be is ispo facto illegal, and thus punishable without recourse to ethics or traditional legal codes of any sort.
As a practitioner of law in Washington’s Swamp, Clark naturally found himself in the crosshairs of the iniquitous January 6th Special Committee, that slipshod medley of some of the most self-hating and vindictive lawmakers in America.
The J6 Committee’s shameless disregard of law and procedure, a Herculean subject worthy of its own dissertation, puts Joseph McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee from the late 1940s and early 1950s to shame.
The film relates how the J6 Committee was Orwellian in relying on Stasi-like subterfuge by producing groundless documents with sternly menacing titles, like “Subverting Justice,” that gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “Witch Hunt.”
The grand takeaway is one of how justice in America might be so brazenly wielded like a sword against political dissidents and opponents; their crimes, only vaguely defined and with little grounding in facts or law, making their counterclaims possible to defend – Constitution, due process, and presumption of innocence be damned along the way.
Joseph McCarthy’s Committee of the 1950s, for its countless asserted improprieties, nevertheless abided by time-tested customs and congressional rules and norms with respect to issuance of subpoenas, partisanship composition, and scope of mandate.
Nancy Pelosi’s latter-day impersonator, by sharp contrast, flouted with shameless abandonment all customs, rules, and norms, making mincemeat of the rule of law in the process.
Whatever his failings might have been, Joe McCarthy is an angel compared to Nancy Pelosi – and we all suffer the consequences for it.
Rather than adhere to an intensive, fact-finding operation that rigorously upholds our nation’s legal customs, cultivated over centuries, the J6 Committee took its marching orders instead from mainstream media like MSNBC and The Washington Post, de facto mouthpieces of the administrative state.
These purveyors of propaganda paraded the bogus claim that the events of January 6th, 2021, constituted a “political insurrection” (even though it hardly qualified as a riot at its worst) – and thus any and all enablers (read: Trump supporters) automatically became enemies of the state.
This in turn granted federal authorities absolute and unprecedented power to deny their fundamental rights without legal recourse. Why? Because the powers-that-be wanted it that way, and plainly do not care for the text of the Constitution.
Nancy’s “committee” would thus provide the template by which card-carrying political operators could masquerade as prosecutors, Attorneys General, and District Attorneys – waging their carry own insurrection against those political castaways who dared to not only hold, but act upon, convictions antithetical with the only accepted political ideology of the regime itself.
Because Clark found himself not only holding opinions contrary to those deemed acceptable, but in remaining loyal to the President, was seen as having entered territory that virtually no other lawyer would dare go, and so had acted upon those beliefs as well – he, only naturally, found himself as a person of interest, nay co-conspirator, in the eyes of both Jack Smith and Fani Willis, two of Merrick Garland’s most fanatical attack dogs.
As the documentary tells, the charges lodged at Clark were as makeshift and far-fetched as the criminal activity for which he allegedly was responsible itself.
“The January 6th Committee is the worst abomination and the worst abuse of congressional investigative authority in the history of the United States,” inveighs Clark’s lawyer, Harry MacDougald, in the film. And he’s absolutely correct.
The string of abuses by the Committee, too legion to elaborate here, helped inform the ham-handed charges against Clark by the DC Bar Association, which has embarked on a relentless crusade to disbar the former Assistant Attorney General.
The first charge, as the film details, was “attempted dishonesty,” a “crime” so nebulous and divorced from any workable legal standard as to be practicably impossible to prove in any court of law, let alone treat seriously.
“I encourage your viewers to try to figure out what that could possibly mean,” declares MacDougald in the film, reiterating the absurd depths by which lawyering can be weaponized for political gain.
The second charge, “attempted serious interference with the administration of justice,” also drives home the ridiculousness of Clark’s legal imbroglio.
The charges themselves, being classified as “attempt” “crimes” (in other words, no criminal action was taken), betrays the increasingly kangaroo nature of American justice that Jeff Clark’s legal proceedings encapsulate overall.
As the film goes onto explain, Clark had his private home raided by federal agents, and now is on the verge of losing his law license, because he “attempted” to (that is to say, never did) mail a legal memo to explain, as a matter of good faith legal practice, to Georgia state officials.
At which point Clark notified them about irregularities the DOJ was made aware of (now, apparently, a high crime and misdemeanor in the land of the free) regarding election procedures in the lead-up and immediate aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.  In short, Jeff Clark’s unsent letter offering the most innocuous (and candidly, banal) legal advice one can possibly conceive implicated him in a criminal conspiracy and a years-long disbarment proceeding.  That’s it.  That’s the crime.
There’s an old, famous line from Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s longest-serving secret police chief, who said: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
In a banana republic, it is an unfortunate truth that justice and the rule of law often take a backseat to man’s less noble proclivities, where the forces of envy and vindictiveness, to say nothing of retribution, overtake the better angels in man’s nature – and society overall – that subordinate selfish passions for the greater good.
Rebuking the evils present in every man’s heart are lawyers like Jeff Clark, who is a consummate legal professional; his example is one that should establish the model for every lawyer in our profession.
On merit, he is a first-rank intellectual – one of the increasingly rare non-DEI types who miraculously slipped through the cracks and found himself in an important government office.
Clark is the type who understands, believes in, and knows how to adeptly and fairly apply the rule of law and administer justice in accordance with the intent, spirit, and letter of the Constitutional text.
It is unthinkable that any high-ranking DOJ official within the Biden administration has the acumen to take on not one, but two separate divisions within the DOJ all by himself, as Clark did, and then, at a moment’s notice, take on the entire department upon being called to do so by the President, as Clark did as well.
These types across society are sadly now few and far between. Therefore, his model is one that should be exalted by the rest of us for how good lawyering used to be – and ought to be again.
Clark’s ordeal furthermore demonstrates how the qualities of commitment and loyalty might look in our own debased times — as well as the near-superhuman ability to not break down in the face of tremendous adversity and pressure upon him.
Today, these virtues are so rare, not just among lawyers or government officials, but across society in general.
That Jeffrey Bossert Clark has not only endured, but persevered despite those years-long trials and tribulations (which are still ongoing by the way) is the ultimate testimony to his sterling character, defined by a tenacity of spirit that puts him among an elite and endangered class of lawyers of the first rank.
This is the quality about Clark, his dogged faith – to God and country alike – that, even more than his preternatural legal brain, distinguishes Clark as a genuine leader and statesman – the archetype for an Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice that any political movement worth its salt would be proud to claim as their own. […]

Credit: Evan Vucci/AP
The tides have shifted in MAGA world – and those reverberations are being felt not only in politics, but across all of American society.
Many commentators on X noted in the aftermath of Saturday’s historic rally to Butler, Pennsylvania, the sight where Donald Trump was nearly slain some three months ago, how Lazarean the whole event was — with one insightful commentator noting how if one had the ability to time travel back to 2014 and explain to someone back then that “by 2024, Donald Trump, who had been president, was waging his third presidential campaign – and, exactly a month before election day, had made a pilgrimage to the location in which a bullet had nearly struck him down during the campaign – where he was joined by Tesla and X (formerly Twitter) CEO, Elon Musk, on stage, who was jubilantly jumping for joy, onstage, before a crowd size of one hundred thousand people” that person might have looked at you like a lunatic who had escaped the asylum!
But reality, as they say, is stranger than fiction.  The timeline of events this election cycle, not to say the last ten years, has been truly surreal.
Our reality, in 2024 America, is one where the forces of good are seemingly making a comeback against the forces of evil, where the divide between the two sides could not be any clearer (or more stark) – and where the outcome of this race, now less than a month away from November 5th, will truly be the most consequential of any presidential election – certainly in living memory, perhaps in history.

Dovetailing with that reality does appear to be a genuine shift in momentum, particularly in recent weeks – since the debate and second attempt on President Trump’s life.

At Butler 2.0, Kamala Harris’ media-manufactured “honeymoon” over the summer is but a distant memory.  Everything about the event – from the optics down to the choice of music (which included stirring live performances from Lee Greenwood, who belted out an emotive “God Bless the U.S.A.” – and beautiful renditions of “Ave Maria” and “How Great Thou Art” (among other melodies) by Tenor Chris Macchio, which added a layer of solemnity – and gravitas, even – to end a most remarkable night.
There are only a handful of presidents in American history who survived assassination attempts. Virtually every one of those attempts (Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, now Donald Trump) has been immortalized in American history, only enhancing the legend of their targets, creating a sense of destiny to their life’s work and mission.
The attempts on Donald Trump’s life stands, astonishingly, apart from the others, historically significant though they are, as the attempts on the former are a manifestation of the Left’s attempt to destroy the Republic itself.
In part, because, they reify and make blood-and-flesh reality of the extraordinary political stakes of this particular election cycle – stakes, which President Trump has been incessantly reminding audiences on the campaign trail in speech for the last two years.
As Elon Musk explained in his short, but impactful, remarks at Butler, nothing short of free speech – the First Amendment – and by extension, the very fabric of our society – the Constitution, which is the law of land – is on the line.
The importance of this election, in short, derives not so much from conventional disagreements in policy – be it inflation, the border crisis, or even the looming threat of world war, which are themselves monumental issues that can, depending on who is elected, result in outcomes that make, or break American society.
But going more deeply, the very foundations of our way of life, the principles enshrined in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights, and epitomized in our governmental institutions, are on the chopping block in a way unlike any other time in American history: more so than the divisions that nearly tore America at the seams at the apex of the countercultural revolution of the 1960s; more so, even, than the deep-seated divisions that separated North and South, and catapulted this nation into civil war, in the lead-up to that most fateful 1860 presidential contest.
This is because at no other point in American history has one political party (the Democrats) been hijacked and fully overtaken by a virus – as much ideological and spiritual as it is political – as the modern Left has done to Kamala Harris’ Democratic Party.
What Kamala represents bears no relationship to anything seen in any political movement heretofore in our country’s history.
And it is not just her policies which are radical and proto-Marxist, from her advocacy of “ending price gouging” to curb inflation, to her support for taxing unrealized capital gains, a death knell to capitalism, to overcome budget deficits.
Those are bad policies – existentially so – in and of themselves.  But their danger pales in comparison to the dangers of her movement’s ideological fixations, which have made clear their desire to overthrow America’s Constitution, the rule of law, due process, the presumption of innocence, and the morals and ethical substrate woven throughout Western societies across every age since the dawn of Greco-Roman civilization, institutionalized by the Church and Christian and Biblical morality, which Kamala’s Democrats seek to excise root and branch.
It might seem anodyne, even banal, to the desensitized ear to hear Kamala or her beclowned running mate to inveigh against “hate speech” and call for laws clamping down on “misinformation” on the campaign trail and in political debate.
Indeed, large swathes of the population might not even bat an eye to Kamala, et al. calling for decades-long sentences for the majority of January 6th demonstrators, vilifying them in the most dehumanizing of terms, denying their presumption of innocence (among other sacred tenets of Anglo-American law), despite the fact that the worst culprits committed misdemeanors – at worst.
And yet, the ease with which Kamala and the institutions supporting and her propping her up speak about political persecutions should ring alarm bells – as loud as the arias of Macchio’s rousing performance in Butler – because that raging drive to weaponized justice as a cudgel to silence political dissent — a still ongoing problem in our society — is anathema to American identity at its core.
It is hence in her rhetoric where Kamala’s extremism is most palpable.  Her words signal either ignorance or callous disregard for fundamental American principles that should never, under any circumstances, be compromised, for reasons that any student of history should immediately recognize: 1) they are venerable parts of our national tradition; and 2) that they are – objectively – true.
We allow free thoughts and free speech (and peaceful demonstrations) because those things are woven into the fabric of American democracy – they are essential prerequisites to not only understanding, but making politically workable our governmental institutions, like Congress, the judiciary, and the Presidency itself.
What is more, an electorate sufficiently marinated in these principles is also essential – and indeed, a matter of civic responsibility – to ensure the perpetuation of “equal justice under law,” that seminal motto inscribed atop the Supreme Court building, remains in place for future generations.
Whereby those requirements that make our liberty sacrosanct, that most cherished and distinctly American fruit of our political civilization since 1776 (and for those reasons, an object of envy, scorn, and deranged hatred of so many other peoples and parties the world over) possible cannot exist without, in turn, a collective respect for the meanings of such things as due process of law, innocence until proven guilty, separation of powers, constitutional governance, republicanism, and, yes, democracy (in its true and not distorted meaning).
Respect and appreciation for these concepts, which incubate the values of American civic life, can only be obtained, in their fullest capacity, by an immersive study of their histories – and over the course of that study by extrapolating, through deductive logic, their origins.

On average, President Trump leads in most of the seven key designated battleground states this election cycle. Where his margins are less (or behind) are likely weighed down by Democrat-skewed pollsters, who are over-correcting in Harris’ favor out of non-empirical or ideological biases toward a particular candidate.
It is also noteworthy to mention that many polls deemed “too Republican” or partial to President Trump, despite stellar reputations, are excluded. Despite these countervailing factors, President Trump still leads — and is now leading in betting markets, like Polymarket, as well.
Only then can a society begin to understand why the dangers of speaking about these ideas with such brazen disregard, as Kamala Harris does on a daily basis, is not only idiotic, but existentially perilous.
With understanding (what the Founding generation called “Enlightenment”) comes then a deeper appreciation for our values, and a deference that mirrors the awesome solemnity – bordering on fear – with which a true believer worships at God’s altar, and therewith, the hope for civilizational renewal.
That renewal does not end with Donald Trump’s political movement – but it is his movement, a dynamic almost miraculous by-product of our political situation, a sort of uniquely American, ingrained survival instinct that kicked-in at the moment of greatest crisis — and only his movement, which makes the revival possible.
Thus, the pomp and circumstance of Butler – which was followed by another entrancing rally in Juneau, Wisconsin, on Sunday (one that Steven Cheung, a Trump Campaign advisor declaimed as “legitimately one of the loudest crowds I’ve ever heard”) – is emblematic of a much broader, deeper cultural shift in American society.
In Donald Trump’s third bid for this nation’s highest office, there are numerically more Trump supporters than ever before. If the 2016 campaign was the great awakening, 2024 demarcates the great conversion.
And it’s not simply a matter of public sentiment shifting to become more outspoken about their support for the 45th President, either (though there is undoubtedly an element of that).
But it is also a reflection of the maturation of the Trump movement, which is not a traditional political movement per se, but a battle for the heart and soul of American civilization (and, by proxy, the West overall), where, in the 2024 campaign, it has reached its fruition.
MAGA has become recognizable in a way that it is no longer seen as an enigmatic political subculture of American society; it is now being recognized by an increasing lot of our countrymen as an essential ingredient of America itself; in short, MAGA has gone mainstream — in a way that probably Donald Trump himself could not have anticipated.
Elon Musk, a former Democrat and probably someone who would still consider himself a political liberal (classical, if not modern), is far from the first individual to switch teams from Obama or Biden voter to Trump.
Musk instead represents a legion of disenchanted American citizens, both famous and unknown, who have undergone a similar conversion over the last four or eight years.
The conversion is in reality better described as a realization; the realization is not that Donald Trump and MAGA are one of two co-equal political alternatives, each one, however distinct, nevertheless being intrinsically American.
Nay, Donald Trump’s MAGA Movement is the prophylactic to Kamala’s cancer that has eviscerated our society in a way that threatens to wipe government of the people from the face of the earth.
MAGA is about restoring American civilization, at its root.  Policies are important, but when one ideological faction that masquerades as a legitimate political movement works relentlessly to undermine the Country’s Law of the Land, the United States Constitution, that movement forfeits any claim to the mantle of a legitimate political party.
You can wage a political campaign under the pretense of undermining the Constitution of the United States all you want, but you can never claim to be an upholder of American institutions if you contaminate the lifeblood of its very existence.
That, ultimately, explains the shift in the electorate; that explains the message Elon Musk conveyed on Saturday; it crystallizes the swing in the polling momentum; and, yes, it defines the sense of inevitability setting in among so many Americans that Donald Trump will be elected as President of the United States for yet a third time. […]

We are now within the 40-day window until Election Day – and all eyes are on the Keystone state.  Over the next couple of weeks, both President Trump and Senator JD Vance have multiple rallies scheduled in Pennsylvania, including one in Butler County scheduled for October 5th.
There the President will make his much-anticipated return to the town in which he nearly lost his life three and a half months ago.  The time between the fated Butler rally in July and the President’s return trip is 84 days, more than twice the period of time left until November 5th.
So the clock is really ticking.
As of today, to the extent mainstream polling at all can be trusted (not much) the President would garner over 270 electoral college votes, and hence, win the presidency.

This of course will all depend on the President keeping a safe lead ahead of Kamala Harris in each one of the critical “sunbelt” battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina – and either winning Nevada, where he is currently ahead, and Nebraska’s third congressional district, where polls suggest he lags, or taking Pennsylvania, a “tossup” rapidly trending rightward.
Of course, there are multiple ways to 270 (and beyond) for President Trump, which includes crisscrossing through Wisconsin and Michigan, both key to his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton – or picking off a longshot state like Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, or potentially New Jersey or New York, all states that have been largely written off by pollsters and thus have scant data, but could nevertheless be ripe territory for an upset.
All that said, however, given the lack of polling in those other states, we are reduced to mere speculation.  And speculation, at this late stage, deals with far too many unknown unknowns to pin down a winning strategy – at least from the standpoint of political forecasting, especially with this little time left.
Granted, forty days in politics is tantamount to many lifetimes.  But, as it stands, Pennsylvania has already begun issuing applications for mail-in ballots, and at least nine of sixty-seven counties statewide have even commenced early voting – and a few of those counties, including Philadelphia, have even opened the doors to early, in-person voting.
Accordingly, we have a ton of data already to crunch about Republican performance and can compare these data sets with 2020’s final results to determine whether Donald Trump can expect to see, at this still early date, positive trends in his favor.
A few numbers already stand out: voter registration efforts by on-the-ground grassroots activists, like Scott Presler, and organizations, including the RNC and TPUSA, have made inroads in chipping away at that once formidable lead the Democratic Party commanded not too long ago in the Keystone state.
Based on official data reported by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, back in 2020 registered Democrats outpaced registered Republicans 4,228,888 (46.52%) to 3,543,070 (38.97%), with another 1,319,004 (14.51%) of voters remaining unaffiliated.
Today, so far, the Democratic advantage has been cut to 3,933,706 (44.02%) against 3,595,310 (40.23%) for Republicans – a 3.76% reduction (with ‘other’ voters tallying 1,408,063, or 15.76%, of the remaining registered voters).
Those trends obviously bode well for President Trump, who “lost” the Keystone State to Biden in 2020 by just 1.2% points (in other words, the current number passes the “too big to rig” test) and won the state by 0.7% against Hillary Clinton four years earlier.
National polling currently gives Kamala Harris a stingy 0.8% edge in Pennsylvania, though the presumption that that number is artificially boosted by older polling rests on solid footing.
The latter polls gave the vice president a gratuitous boost based on false and debunked media narratives concerning Kamala’s debate performance. More recently, reputable polling either has President Trump tied with Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania or even gives him a slight lead – a phenomenon that is slowly but surely acclimating to the on-the-ground truism that Pennsylvania is, incontrovertibly, Trump Country.

For comparison, as of this date – approximately forty days out from election day – Biden enjoyed a 4.7% overall polling advantage over President Trump in 2020, while Hillary Clinton benefited from a 2.4% lead at this stage in 2016.
Indeed, this should be noted with the caveat that cross-election comparisons are an imprecise science since pollsters tweak their methodologies year-to-year.
In addition, one is also dealing with different pollsters election year over election year, meaning an entirely separate set of data and calculations, resulting in an ersatz cross-reference.
The other overriding factor in place that helps account for why many polls have the two candidates tied in Pennsylvania, rather than giving the President the outright lead he actually has is due to inherent bias.
Each year the polls – particularly the ones self-selected by legacy outlets like the New York Times and CNN – are driven by the same subversive motive: to boost the Democratic candidate, whoever that might be, against the perennial bogeyman in Donald Trump.
Mainstream pollsters are generally deemed “reputable” insofar as they do not deviate too far from preferred, if unspoken, expectations by their legacy media handlers.
Ergo, the current scenario in which at least four polls, concomitantly afraid to anoint Trump with the lead he truly has, each instead indicating the race in Pennsylvania is “tied.”  More on that in a moment.
Betting markets, like Polymarket, have reflected broader momentum trending in the 45th President’s favor.
Recently, the popular prediction platform gave the President a slight lead in tossup battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Nevada, which has led to him tightening his overall prospects of winning the electoral vote, according to these platforms, considerably in the past week.
In summary, this confirms two major takeaways: 1) the Keystone State is the ‘key’ battleground; and 2) this race is President Trump’s to lose: he has the upper hand and should run with it.
Having said that, to declare victory this early on would of course be foolish.  As Steve Bannon said in a recent op-ed, we must put “everything we have into these final weeks.”
Republicans – through the relentless work of many grassroots activists and groups – have gone a long way towards correcting longstanding disparities in Pennsylvania, but in absolute numbers they remain behind (less encouraging is the fact that as of this date, Republican ballot absentee requests are at 26.45%, up by just 1.37% from 2020).
The Democratic machine there, as anywhere else, spearheaded by Kamala henchman Josh Shapiro, is robust and will resort to any means to try to cheat the system once again.
And, as alluded to above, in politics public perception matters just as much (if not more so) than the facts themselves.
This proved true four years ago when judges and courts across the nation decided to not take up cases of election fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence that existed, citing hackneyed excuses like “a lack of standing” to circumvent the controversial issue.
This was driven by legacy media narratives that ran wild with the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was plotting to “overturn” (a word neither he nor anyone close to him ever used) the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.
Rather than report on the accurate claim that he – and those like Jeff Clark and John Eastman who faithfully carried out their duties – was merely exercising his Article II constitutional prerogative, as commander-in-chief, to take care that the election laws were being conducted properly and legitimately.
These solemn duties are ultimately grounded in the higher principle that credible elections are essential to democratic governance.
To achieve credibility, the public must have the belief that their elections have not been corrupted by fraud.
Without confidence in the electoral process, the government, rightly or wrongly, will be ensnared by the perception of illegitimacy – if the belief persists long enough and becomes widespread throughout the body politic, as has occurred under the Biden-Harris administration, it starts corroding the president’s credibility like a cancer where governance then becomes impossible.
At which point, the president is reduced to two options: either step down and return political power to the people, where it belongs, by ensuring a free and fair electoral process, or spurn the people entirely and rule as a tyrant.  It is a regrettable though irrefutable fact that Biden (and now Harris) has chosen the latter option.
Finally, in closing, I would like to repost an excerpt from a piece I released last week, detailing Pennsylvania’s outsized importance this year and why I believe the Keystone is all-important to securing President Trump’s path back to the White House:
A Word On Pennsylvania…
Which brings me again to Pennsylvania, the aptly nicknamed Keystone State, which will prove “key” to determining the outcome of this year’s race.  The subject of Pennsylvania and its role in this year’s election is a Herculean one, one deserving of an entire piece all of its own.
Its importance lies in three major reasons: 1) Pennsylvania boasts the largest number of electoral votes of the seven deemed “critical” battleground states this year at 19; 2) of the three ‘blue wall’ states that handed Donald Trump the presidency in 2016, it has consistently trended more in his favor by national polling than either Michigan or Wisconsin (which lag only slightly behind) — being more demographically favorable, with large swaths of older, blue collar white voters — than the national average; and 3) of any state in the union, Philadelphia is arguably “ground zero” for voter fraud, and the most corrupt election precinct in the country, a trend that goes back decades.
To put things into context, the President can afford to lose Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona – a whopping 36 electoral votes – and still win the election if he secures the Keystone State (assuming that he holds Georgia, North Carolina, and Nevada, three sunbelt states that he has constantly lead all this year and still does today).
By contrast, if the President loses all three of the key rustbelt battlegrounds – he would have to win Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and pick off a state like Virginia (which should not be written off entirely, based on the strong electoral reforms Governor Youngkin enacted this year to help fortify election integrity there, coupled with recent polling that places Trump within the margin of error among Virginian voters).
In the latter scenario, he can still afford to lose Nevada, but the point that it would be more difficult to win the presidency without Pennsylvania should be obvious.  (There is another scenario, where, hypothetically, President Trump can “lose” Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona – but would need to win Virginia, New Hampshire, Georgia, North Carolina, and hold onto Nevada, in addition to winning Nebraska’s at-large congressional district.
But that scenario deals in too many implausible hypotheticals – the prospect of losing every rust belt state plus Arizona, where he presently leads, and then picking off Virginia and New Hampshire, that it is not worth giving serious merit to.)
This hypothetical electoral college map, where President Trump can afford to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, but retains Pennsylvania and the other three critical sunbelt battlegrounds of North Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada (alternatively, GA and NC can also conceivably turn blue and the Trump victory result would still hold if he adds AZ, but he would need all three of NC, GA, and AZ to lose NV), demonstrates the Keystone State’s outsized importance to 45’s prospects of becoming 47.
All of which is to reiterate the “key” in “Keystone.”  More specifically, the RNC must devote serious election integrity resources and legal “boots on the ground” in Pennsylvania.  Ideally, the playbook for Pennsylvania should be distinct from that used in other states.
Pennsylvania’s election rules are ostensibly far more ambiguous (i.e., more room for interpretation and potential sabotage by creative lawyering) than other states, which specify, for instance, greater specificity and detail in their procedures that must take place to process mail-in ballots, including the requirement of showing identification in the form of a driver’s license or passport, or matching one’s signature with a registrar of state voters.
So far, it is unclear just how election integrity lawyers will be able to verify a voter’s residence in Pennsylvania, especially if voter rolls are not publicly available.
Again, the predominant issue is illegal alien voters appearing on voter rolls – and the mistrust of the public in lawmakers like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Kamala Harris crony, who will doubtlessly do everything in his power to guard those state voter rolls from becoming disclosed, given his vested interest in Kamala’s election.
Beyond that, Pennsylvania lawyers should come equipped with rigorous knowledge in Pennsylvania election law, and deploy that knowledge, enforcing the law wherever needed, in the most important precincts in that all-important battleground – like Philadelphia County, neighboring Bucks County, or Delaware County – all of which house some of the biggest populations in the entire state, and thus are especially ripe for corruption and fraudulent activity, being under the thumb of Democratic officials, many of whom are Soros-aligned or DNC-funded.
An ideal strategy would be one that combines maximum knowledge of the law combined with a focus of being deployed on the ground, weeks in advance if need be, to thoroughly peruse the highest-risk precincts, and challenge fraudulent cases ahead of time.
Being on the ground will also allow lawyers and other RNC personnel, such as poll monitors, to better get a lay of the landscape, and anticipate possible fraud – or the ways in which fraud might be attempted this cycle – and design a proactive strategy to mitigate, or eliminate, fraud before it occurs.
It will also give RNC personnel a sense of what and who they are dealing with on the ground – providing opportunities, if all else fails, to shine the national media spotlight on bad-faith actors, before November 5th, using the light of transparency afforded by media outlets as a powerful antiseptic against fraud and unlawful conduct.
The goal has always been to create a deterrent effect for bad-faith actors who would otherwise like to manipulate and interfere with this election cycle in particular to block President Trump from ever entering the Oval Office again.
But in a situation where the fate of the country literally hangs in the balance, the highest possible stakes literally ever for a presidential election, a proactive approach that works to guard the vote in a critical battleground that has already begun early voting will be absolutely essential to protect the integrity — nay, sanctity — of America’s institutions – and save democracy from the demonic forces looking to bury it once and for all. […]

President Trump delivered a vintage debate performance last night, taking on not only Kamala Harris, but ABC’s two debate monitors, David Muir and Linsey Davis, whose hostile questions and fact-checking primarily, if not exclusively, were directed at the 45th President.   The 45th President displayed a masterclass in polemics to over 50 million viewers – with fair-minded commentators ranking it among one of the President’s best.
He repeatedly drilled down on the issues that matter to voters this election season – above all, Kamala’s catastrophic border crisis, which has unleashed tens of millions of criminal invaders into the country with impunity, bringing lethal drugs like fentanyl as well as unprecedented barbarity, including drug cartels and human trafficking, which have no analogue in American history.
The tenor of the President’s remarks and style were apropos the gravity and extraordinarily high stakes of this election cycle: fierce yet reserved, intense yet thoughtful, serious and sober.  In sharp contrast, Kamala Harris reeked of juvenility and weakness throughout, nervously trying to cackle herself out of uncomfortable situations addressing problems for which she is chiefly responsible.  This includes the outbreak of the Ukraine War that observed Vladimir Putin send troops into Eastern Europe just three days after she was tasked by Joe Biden to broker peace in the region.
This was in response to Putin sensing her weakness, a point that President Trump stressed, as well as observing just months prior Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. The catastrophic pullout directly caused the deaths of 13 American troops and left millions of dollars of equipment behind for dangerous terrorists to swoop up – this country’s greatest foreign policy blunder in living memory.

Moreover, the President dealt another haymaker when he excoriated Kamala’s mismanagement of the border when she was designated as the Biden administration’s “border czar.”  The President pulled no punches when he declared, “[The migrants are] eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” referring to an influx of recent Haitian arrivals in Springfield, Ohio, who have been reported – and corroborated by a police report, despite the gaslighting of ABC’s erroneous “fact-checkers” – to be eating American pets, bringing the barbaric and uncivilized practices of the Third World to these shores.
Speaking of third world barbarity, the President delivered another blow to Biden and Harris when he attacked their record on the economy, which has resulted in inflation at record-setting levels, sabotaging the jobs market and resulting in the slowest growth in both the stock market and growth domestic product since the Great Recession.  The damning jobs report, recently put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed that last quarter the Biden-Harris regime created some 1.2 million jobs, but those jobs were incredulously, exclusively for foreign laborers – many of whom are illegally domiciled here.  Meanwhile, native-born American citizens have lost 1.3 million jobs – an unmitigated disaster.
On these statistics, the President held Kamala’s feet to the fire. “Kamalanomics is killing the American Economy!”, the President declared.  “When I left office, I handed Kamala a surging economy. Mortgage rates were around 2%. Gasoline was $1.87/gallon. Incomes surged. Kamala blew it all up.”  All true.
President Trump then succinctly captured just how disastrous the policies of the Biden-Harris administration have been for the economy: “If she becomes president, this country doesn’t have a chance of success. Not only success, we’ll end up being Venezuela on steroids.”
In addition, President Trump did a stellar job articulating the fact that Kamala Harris’s policies are dangerously liberal: she is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  He adeptly dispelled any doubt as to her radical beliefs by delineating the origins of her extremist philosophy: “She’s a Marxist, everyone knows that, her father is a Marxist professor in economics, he taught her well.”  In this line, he made reference to Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, who was a professor of economics at Stanford for many years, a specialist in Marxist economic theory – that, through her daughter, have demonstrated the disastrous practical implications of such theories through the policies Kamala and Biden have enacted over the past three and a half years.
These policies include price controls, higher taxes, and handouts for illegal aliens.  Furthermore, they include her radical plans to socialize medicine and eradicate private insurance; introduce central bank digital currencies, replicating the CCP’s system of assigning social credit scores; and phasing out fracking, oil, and gas, in pursuit of crippling electric vehicle mandates, putting the United States on the road to serfdom.
The President’s closing statement was maybe his knockout punch.  He asked a very simple question: why hasn’t Kamala Harris, who has been serving as Biden’s vice president for the last three and a half years, been unable to deliver on any of the promises she proposed on the debate stage.
“They’ve had three and a half years to fix the border,” President Trump said, “three and a half years to create jobs – and all the things we talked about.  Why hasn’t she done it?”
It was that final line that will remain in the minds of the 50 million viewers watching last evening.  And this was observed in post-debate polling: when asked who won the night, Newsmax found that 93% of its audience believed President Trump won, compared with just 6% for Harris.  Even C SPAN, a neutral network, found that 83% of its audience believed the 45th President had won the evening’s debate, compared to just 17% for the Vice President.
Among CNN’s audience, when asked who would better handle the economy, President Trump’s numbers improved after the debate.  Entering the night, 53% of CNN’s left-leaning audience thought President Trump would do a better job handling the economy compared with 37% for Harris.  After the debate, President Trump’s numbers increased to 55%, and Harris correspondingly dropped to 33%.
American voters are intelligent enough to cut through the nonsense.  It is for this reason that Harris immediately begged President Trump, as he was wrapping up post-debate interviews, for a second opportunity to debate him.  Among Pennsylvania voters, President Trump’s remarks performed especially well.  His points about saving fracking and mass deportations resonate with this mostly blue-collar audience, who – like large swathes of the rustbelt region – have been especially devastated by globalist policies that have outsourced their manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, and India and eroded their culture with mass immigration at home.
As a globalist herself, Kamala Harris is the mouthpiece for Washington’s failed ruling class – the likes of which also include Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the disastrous Iraq War, whose endorsement she bizarrely welcomed on stage.  In this she revealed herself to be the establishment candidate, embodying the same ruling class that has brought endless wars and untold economic ruin upon this nation over decades.
The fact that President Trump made a concerted effort to appeal to the constituency most harmed by destructive neoliberal and globalist policies last night, in particular, was a brilliant move – for it will be states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that ultimately decide this election, much as they did for him in 2016.   These voters are naturally drawn to the President’s plans to close the border and prioritize America’s interests, as well as his rabble rousing, no-holds-barred rhetoric that has endeared him to hundreds of millions of Americans, who to this day turn out by the tens of thousands to his rallies wherever he goes.
On that appeal, the President was a smashing success, looking every bit the part of vintage 2016 Donald Trump, who famously pierced the blue wall and shocked the political world by defeating Hillary Clinton, the face of the Washington Swamp, on a very simple yet powerful message: to Make America Great Again.
After last night, he looks poised to do it again. […]

There’s much to be cautiously optimistic about down this homestretch of the campaign season, with President Trump’s poll numbers widening almost by the day now over Kamala Harris, whose manufactured honeymoon period now appears to be in the distant past.
As such, just eight weeks out from November 5th, it’s due time to shift our collective focus to the integrity of the electoral process itself.
The mantra by the Trump campaign all year long has naturally been “too big to rig” – in other words, flood the ballots with so many Trump voters as to overcome even 2020-levels of fraud.
That said, however, there are some troublesome developments that Democrats will double and triple down with backdoor methods of electioneering.

These lawfare efforts on the Democrats’ part, abetted by radical lawyers like Marc Elias, Andrew Weismann, and Norm Eisen, should be expected to worsen in the weeks ahead as they see any poll leads they once had evaporate in thin air.
Of these methods, the most readily identifiable concern is the integrity of the voter rolls, and the high prospect – now with at least 7.2 million illegals having flooded the country over just the past four years (an extremely conservative estimate, by the way, that discounts the potentially millions of more so-called ‘gotaways,’ undetected by border patrol) that ineligible voters might appear on these rolls in key battleground states.
Of particular concern is battleground states with Democratic Governors – a list that includes Pennsylvania (Gov. Josh Shapiro), arguably the most important (hence, ‘keystone’) state this cycle with its 19 electoral votes (EVs), Arizona (Gov. Katie Hobbs – 11 EVs), Wisconsin (Gov. Tony Evers – 10 EVs), Michigan (Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – 15 EVs), and North Carolina (Gov. Roy Cooper – 16 EVs).
The logic to this is straightforward: even if just 1%, heck .01% of those 7.2 million illegals appeared on voter rolls, that would amount to 72,000 unlawful voters.
In 2020, President Trump “lost” Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona, totaling 37 electoral votes, by a measly 42,918 votes, according to CNN’s tracker. A reversal of just those four states – totaling fewer than 43,000 votes – would have gotten the 45th President to 269 electoral votes, and hence an effective victory.
Add in Nevada, which he allegedly “lost” by a little over 33,000 votes, a total of 76,000 or so votes, and the President would have won the race outright.
Thus, going by the most conservative number of ineligible voters – a one hundredth of a percentage point of the 7.2 million illegals who have crossed the border during the Biden-Harris administration – would have tipped the scales in a close presidential election.
The voter roll concern is not a conspiracy, but basic mathematics.
Indeed, it is reasonable to think that if potentially millions of illegals evaded government agents at the border, why would they not similarly evade detection on state voter rolls, where the amount of scrutiny is far less rigorous than at the border?  Common sense dictates that they would.
Of course, liberal mainstream news outfits, like the New York Times, caught wind of the heightened scrutiny conservative activists and the RNC have rightly placed on the voter roll issue in recent days.
They have begun the spin and gaslighting song-and-dance charade.
These are actual words from a recent Times piece: “This surge of activity is raising a range of concerns among voting rights advocates and lawyers.
The Republican activists’ discussions carried echoes of Jim Crow-era practices that kept Black and Latino voters from the polls.”
Really? Echoes Jim Crow-era practices that kept “Black and Latino voters from the polls”?
But perhaps even more absurd is a statement made further down in that very same article, where the writer admits that illegal aliens – i.e., noncitizens – are unable to vote, under federal law.
The unspoken premise of the article is that federal law is racist or immoral for preventing non-citizens from voting.
But arguably no right is more linked to citizenship than is the right to vote, the two are so deeply entwined that it’s difficult to conceive of how the concept of national sovereignty, and by extension the country, would be without it.
But the gaslighting gets worse.  Salon repeated the outright racist trope that “many Americans don’t have [proof of citizenship documents] readily available,” something that is immediately discredited upon looking at the nearest highway teeming with thousands of drivers of all racial backgrounds in the course of mass transit.
If it is not too difficult to receive a driver’s license (a stance Leftists presumably might soon argue), as proof of the millions of cars on the roadways would demonstrate –– it surely is not too difficult to have a driver’s license, or passport, to vote.  Amusingly, the Salon article links to a study perpetuating once more the racist and discredited myth that black and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately harmed by voter ID laws, even though that could not be further from the truth, as debunked in academic study after study.
President Trump declared on his Truth Social platform this past week that “[a]n interview by Tucker Carlson of an election expert indicates that 20% of the Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania are fraudulent.”  He ended his post with a ringing call to action: “THE RNC MUST ACTIVE, NOW!!!”
The urgency expressed in the President’s Truth Social post echoes his campaign pledge, also reaffirmed this week on Truth Social, to “[s]ecure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship.”
The importance of Voter ID, a staple of the President’s 2024 campaign platform, cannot be overstated: free and fair elections are integral to an orderly democratic process.
There is no other way.  If the right to vote, a pillar of constitutional government, is allowed to be opened to the world, all hell will break loose.
Our country will cease to exist soon enough – as no country in history has ever abdicated its commitment to national sovereignty and survived.  America, exceptional though it is, is no exception to that rule.
The integrity of the election process goes much deeper than illegal aliens potentially voting and corrupting the results of a free and fair process – but the issue is important for several reasons.
First, it shines a light on systematic fraud generally affecting our electoral procedures – fraud that doubtlessly goes to other categories, beyond just illegal alien voters, including the possibility of deceased voters, out-of-state residents, minors, felons, and other classes of unlawful voters appearing on voter rolls.
Second, it helps focus national attention on problems that demand investigation and an offensive legal strategy, not just one that reflexively counters legal developments spearheaded by the left’s lawfare brain trust.
The RNC, for example, would be well-advised to devote legal resources to demand Democratic Governors in battleground states, starting with Josh Shapiro, to disclose his voter rolls to the public immediately.
This way, the RNC will better be able to conduct a comprehensive audit on the system, resolving any issues beforehand.
This would hopefully ensure that only legal voters are being tabulated – as part of its broader strategy to count as many votes before November 5th as possible.
Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia County above all, has a longstanding reputation of being the most fraudulent precinct in the country.
Thus, it’s absolutely imperative for the RNC to double down on election integrity efforts targeting Philadelphia and nearby counties aggressively and systematically.  That is the best way to avoid a 2020-type repeat.
As an aside, now that Congress is back in session, an election integrity committee should be commissioned to investigate potential fraud and oversee the presidential electoral process, particularly as early voting begins in several states this month.
One proposal that might be included as part of this committee’s more general strategy is to pass legislation protecting private citizens from questioning or probing the legitimacy of the electoral process.
As has become sadly commonplace over the past four years, private individuals should not be pummeled into bankruptcy with crippling defamation lawsuits systematically targeting those who simply raise awareness on these issues.
The examples of Rudy Giuliani, Tina Peters, Jim Hoft, Mike Lindell, organizations like Fox News and the Gateway Pundit, and countless others had their First Amendment rights, particularly as private individuals, denied to them in the cruelest of ways – their livelihoods destroyed – for innocuously exercising their rights.
The right to speak freely is unassailable.  This remains true for anyone, so long as we live under a constitutional form of government, which we still (unbelievably!) do.
But it remains particularly true for private individuals, who should be allowed to speak freely about a political process unencumbered by the threat of a lawsuit, or personal, financial, or professional retaliation – above all from the government.
As elections are a federal issue, it only underscores the importance of safeguarding a private individual’s right to speak freely about them, for it is a political process first and foremost, and political speech is protected speech under the First Amendment.
If we cannot preserve that most sacred liberty, simply put, our society will have abandoned any claim it has to freedom and democracy.
Thus, Congress must act now to pass legislation fortifying the individual’s right to speak freely about electioneering processes, without threat of legal or political retaliation by bad-faith actors who have forfeited their oaths to uphold the Constitution: mankind’s last, best hope against the temptations of government overreach – and the corruption therewith that necessarily flows from unchecked power. […]

September has officially arrived.  With the change in the calendar, the air in many regions of the country has already gotten noticeably crisper.  Autumn looms.   And as swift as the seasonal tides have changed, so too has the momentum in this presidential contest.
The “honeymoon” that characterized Kamala Harris’ media-induced rally during the hottest summer months has cooled down considerably.  Like the turnaround in the weather, Kamala is now experiencing the cold hard truth of where her campaign stands.
As Americans sober up and return to the hustle and bustle of school and work, they remember an election is just two months away – and it’s time to get serious.
As such, public sentiment, over and against fake news contrivances, has reverted to the norm prior to Joe Biden’s ouster: that Donald Trump is yet again the clear favorite.

No greater metaphor for the flailing state of Kamala’s campaign is found than in the recent news that the entire Walz family – including Tim’s brother, Jeff, now a Florida resident, and a coterie of other Walzes sprinkled across the country have all publicly denounced their wayward relative in the most scathing terms.  Brother Jeff referred to Brother Tim as “not the type of character you want making decisions about your future.”

The elder Walz brother added that “he’s 100% opposed to [Tim’s] ideology.”  He even reacted to the news of President Trump’s indictment in a Facebook post as our country having “become a third world banana republic.”  How’s that for an indictment?

At the same time, famed pollster Nate Silver, whose polls historically have been unfriendly to President Trump, forecasted that the 45th President has a seventeen percentage advantage of winning the electoral college outright, and hence, the presidency.
Silver, whose voice, for better or worse, is considered a kingpin in the polling industry, also warned Americans to not to live and die by the forecast models.  By this he was referring to a litany of mainstream polls, some of which – like a spate of recent Fox News polls – still give Kamala an (albeit dwindling) 1- or 2-point edge in a few key battleground states like Georgia.
But the fact that President Trump retains leads in states like North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, and even Pennsylvania – despite all the manufactured positive coverage used to prop up Kamala over the past four weeks, tells quite a lot about the state of the race overall.

Consider this: President Trump can get the necessary 270 votes needed in the electoral college, and still lose Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
However, the conditions of the race are likely only going to improve for President Trump, especially given what’s in store in the weeks ahead.
The 45th President is set to finally debate Kamala Harris on their September 10th meetup, a confrontation that will be very difficult for her to weasel herself out of — no matter how much she might like to.
The encounter will be historic on many counts, not least of which is that it will be the first time the two will meet face to face.  Even more important is that it will be the first time Kamala Harris is met with a serious challenger.
Thus far, the Vice President has only sat down for softball interviews, like her recent chat with CNN’s Dana Bash.
She has almost avoided the pressure cooker of the mainstream media entirely; part of it stems from her fear of wading into conflict, where she has demonstrated herself utterly incompetent to handle even the slightest amount of scrutiny.
The other part of it is the implicit role of the Fourth Estate, which for all intents and purposes operates as an arm or interest group of the Democratic Party.
Thus, even right-of-center networks like Fox News or the Wall Street Journal will at most bristle at Kamala’s incompetence or radical ideology.
They will scarcely ever level the sort of criticisms against both her and the Potemkin Village of a Regime that props her up necessary to expose the factual, fatal truth of matters.
Much better for Fox to interview failed presidential candidate and traitor, Mike Pence, for the eleven hundredth time about why he is not endorsing Donald Trump than interrogate Kamala about why she has not already implemented all the “great” things she is promising on the campaign trail – or, at the bare minimum, relentlessly call out the unconstitutional and unprecedented lawfare being waged by the Biden-Harris DOJ – and various State DAs and AGs – in an assault on the rule of law.
This assault extends all the way to the imposition of a gag order on a United States President, banana republic stuff the likes of which have never been seen before in this country.
This week, Merrick Garland announced a probe into the possibility of “Russian interference” with the 2024 election. And yet, oddly enough, he remains deafeningly silent about the meddling occurring thousands of miles closer to home — in Manhattan and Fulton County, which have been overtaken by radical, power-hungry prosecutors in Letitia James and Fani Willis, respectively, who have taken the existential step of indicting — and sentencing — a former and likely future president of the United States.
In any other age in American history, these dramatic actions would be unthinkable because they are grievous affronts to not just our Constitution and fundamental liberties, but they imperil our very way of life and national identity to its core.
All of this weaponized persecution is occurring under Kamala’s watch: she doubtlessly condones it, and the press — better termed, agitprop — sticks its head in the ground like an ostrich, pretending these unlawful prosecutions are not only normal, but banal, not worthy of eliciting national outrage.
This abdication of duty lends the prosecutions a legitimacy that even if not brought to fruition will be mightily hard to reverse the damage, for the integrity of our entire judicial system has been deeply wounded.
And the media sits on its hands, or worse, screeches the phony Russia collusion gambit, thinking the electorate foolish enough to buy that tired and song and dance a third time.
The greatest irony is that Democrat politician after Democrat politician gets exposed for themselves being pawns of some other country.
Garland’s nonsense was conveniently timed to detract attention from New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s former staffer being investigated for having legitimate ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Hochul is widely considered to be a top cabinet pick for a Kamala administration; that one of her closest and most powerful staffers, Linda Sun, was arrested and charged, according to Fox News, for “violating and conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, visa fraud, alien smuggling and money laundering conspiracy” speaks to how incompetent and unethical the Democrats are.
Also it further vindicates that everything they accuse President Trump of is actually projection; a front, in other words, to psychologically cope with their own crimes, and for constantly selling out to foreign adversaries.
For his part, President Trump, who never runs from uncomfortable – if not downright hostile – press scrutiny, has between his campaign rallies and countless interviews across an array of media – print, television, and increasingly, podcasting – been an absolute workhorse.
The September 10th debate will be a true inflection point for this campaign; if President Trump performs as well as he did against Biden back in late June (heck, even if he performs half as well), it could prove to be the final blow to Kamala’s presidential prospects.
It’s not like she even appears to have the same fire in her belly, an eagerness for the job that motivated Hillary Clinton before her, and even the comparatively lesser drive of embattled, ol’ Joe Biden when he ran in 2020.
On the campaign trail, she cuts the harried image of an anxiety-ridden middle-aged woman.
The rumor mill has been on overdrive of her reliance on the bottle to make it through grueling days campaigning, which increasingly come paired with arduous debate preps so that she can make it out of her impending bout with the Donald still standing – in contrast with her boss.
The debate will be complicated by the fact that she will probably not have Tim Walz in tow as her comfort blanket.
I say probably because the debate host, ABC, the same network that boasts George Stephanopoulos, the Democratic Party’s de facto media spokesman, is not surprisingly biased in Kamala’s favor.
So, notwithstanding a last-minute rule change that makes that accommodation for her, the debate should go down as a true polemical prizefight, one that will clash two very different worldviews and agendas mano-a-mano; Trump’s showcasing freedom and the rule of law, against a ruthless communist alternative in Kamala’s: one born out of vengeance and a desire to go scorched earth on America’s most sacred traditions and institutions.
President Trump’s campaign just announced as well that it raked in $130 million in the month of August.  This fundraising haul, which was overwhelmingly supported by small dollar donations averaging just $56, reflects the grassroots momentum behind the President’s 2024 campaign – as well as the broader desire across society for a dramatic change in our political leadership.  A return, in short, to the glory days of Make America Great Again.
Credit: CNN […]

The takeaway of any honest viewer of Kamala Harris’ much-lambasted interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this past week is that of someone overwhelmed – burdened, one might say – by the stresses of campaigning, and for that reason, wholly unsuited to the office that she seeks.  Even though the Left would beg to differ, one can still level a criticism against a so-called “person of color” that is not based on race or gender, but rather, stands alone as an objective assessment of the candidate’s performance.
In terms of conviction, Harris cut the opposite of the image of a confident leader.  The fact that she needed Tim Walz with her in tow, who has been needled by the press as “Kamala’s comfort dog” – someone who is supposed to provide assurance for a candidate palpably in over her head, is hardly the look of a strong, independent woman.  Rather than be the change candidate, the impression was a candidate ill-equipped in every possible way to take on the solemn and sober duties of the highest political office in the land.  Not a good look for a president.
Kamala’s uncertainty began with her non-responses, which invariably devolved into “word salads” of jumbled and confused thoughts, decoupled from specifics on policy or anything resembling a novel or coherent line of reasoning.  This was immediately on display when Bash pressed Harris on her pivot on several policies, especially fracking.  In 2020, as a Democratic candidate for president, Harris ran on a platform of banning the practice unilaterally.  Her change now is obviously born of political expediency, plain and simple.  Everyone knows this gambit: she is desperately trying to pander to crucial voters in Pennsylvania and other rustbelt states, whose economies so heavily depend on the oil and gas industries.  Only a fool would deny that incontestable fact.  So too would a fool believe Kamala at her word, and think she has come to a genuine change of heart on that issue.
Luckily, most people aren’t fools. This was evident by the downward trends in prediction markets and major pollsters, which had Kamala Harris riding the wave of a manufactured “honeymoon period” narrative in the weeks after Joe Biden was forced out of the race. The fallout of the CNN debacle was swift and unforgiving: Polymarkets, a betting platform, which had Kamala leading Donald Trump before the CNN interview, immediately reverted to having the 45th President ahead once again.

After Kamala Harris’ disastrous interview performance, Polymarket, a prediction market platform, put Donald Trump in the lead over Kamala Harris.
Nate Silver, a left-leaning pollster who created FiveThirtyEight, also yielded a forecast model that gave Donald Trump a five point advantage over his opponent in taking the electoral college. These polls and prediction markets indicate that Americans can detect a choke and bullshit artist when they see one, and Kamala Harris, whose acted out the Art of the Choke in realtime on CNN, came across in the worst possible way: an unapologetic liar, willing to say anything — including adopting President Trump’s own policies, and rhetoric — to get herself elected.
This is especially true given her previous, well-documented devotion to the Cult of Climate Science, which was zealous and extreme. In 2020, if it were up to her, she would have wiped the oil and gas producers off the face of a planet.  Now, of course, her handlers tell her to speak out of both sides of her mouth to pander to what they hope are gullible voters.  This explains Kamala’s garbled answer to Bash, professing that her “values have not changed,” even though she now, apparently, supports fracking – at least until November 5th.
Will Pennsylvania voters buy this?  They certainly should not.  Her explanations – paired with her off-putting, holier-than-thou attitude – simply do not make sense to anyone with an IQ above room temperature (and probably even to those below the mendoza line).  That apparently wasn’t enough. Incredulously from there, Kamala doubled down. She went on to actually describe Joe Biden as an “intelligent man,” multiple times.  This is where, of course, Kamala’s dishonesty was most illuminating: here she revealed her cards as a classic case of the lady doth protest too much.  Kamala’s lies are so brazen as to be unbelievable.
Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before her, and to a lesser extent, Joe Biden (at least when he was still semi-sentient), Kamala is a very poor student in the art of duplicity.  She wouldn’t even likely register as an amateur by most counts.  For these reasons, her falsehoods became immediately apparent, so much so that you could almost – almost – forgive the scandalously biased Bash, representing her scandalously biased network, for not interrogating the Democratic candidate further on the nonsense.  Anyone with a pulse could detect it.
And if her lies somehow weren’t already obvious by the shiftiness of her responses, they should have been discerned by her repeated self-contradictions that riddled virtually every answer she mouthed, eroding the last of her credibility.   The clearest case of this being her insistence that Joe Biden was – and remains – an intelligent(!) man, implying that he is still capable of remaining in office as president while she campaigns, even though he was ousted in a coup – of which dear Kamala dutifully played a significant part as co-conspirator – because of his lack of mental marbles.  But heaven forbid Kamala be asked to campaign and govern as president at the same time. Don’t black (Indian? Who knows!) womXn already bear enough of the world’s burdens! Heck, in her “warped” worldview, such an ask would be tantamount to a hate crime!
If not that, what other explanation does Kamala Harris have for why she, and not ol’ Joe, was sitting before Dana Bash for an interview about hers – not his —presidential campaign? Alas, Dana Bash conveniently forgot to ask! Maybe Joe’s amnesia is contagious and infected every mainstream network!
Democrats naturally love to dress up the July coup resulting in Biden’s ouster in language to the effect of “Joe stepped down for the good of the country,” characterizing it as a noble act of sacrifice and heroism, which the press, in turn, seems to always accept as an incontrovertible article of faith.  They never fail to overlook the most natural follow-up, namely: what on earth caused Joe to step down, a little over three and a half months out from the most consequential election in modern American history, after being adamant about not doing so for months on end, in the first place?
Intelligence and terminal dementia normally do not go hand-in-hand.  But Kamala’s repeated insistence that Joe Biden is “intelligent,” “so smart” and “very strong” transmits the obvious truth that he’s in fact not any of those things. He is utterly incapable of handling the duties of his post because he does not have the mental capabilities to do so.
It’s a dead giveaway that a politician is lying when they must repeatedly describe an elderly man riven by dementia — now recognized universally — as “smart” and “intelligent,” both descriptions standing as attacks on reason and observable reality itself.  The truth is that Kamala aided and abetted the fraud of the century: Joe Biden’s senility. This fraud gravely endangers the entire national security of the country, all done to avoid a connection to that fraud – which, of course, is still ongoing.
That Kamala then had the audacity to say Biden, who unleashed hordes of illegal aliens into our country, helped restore our “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” – and, on top of that, claim that the number of immigrants “has actually reduced” – takes the art of lying to a whole new, absurd level.  Adding insult to injury, she meshed her lies in an exceedingly dismissive and shamelessly condescending tone throughout.
Acting like CNN was an adversarial outlet – and the mere act of asking questions to her, as coddled up as they were, somehow crossed the line of professionalism, indicates a deeply insecure person who is easily rattled, even in a forum as cloyingly friendly as CNN’s no doubt is. In the past, this would disqualify a person’s candidacy, no questions asked, because an inability to handle a painstakingly easy, softball interview demarcates the bare minimum of what a president is expected to do.
Could you imagine a person with Kamala’s exceptionally weak character and disposition dealing with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Bashar al-Assad or Kim Jong-un?  Of course not!  Her dismissive tone betrays a fundamental ignorance about the high responsibilities of the presidency, or – maybe even worse – showcases a callous indifference to its importance, an importance which includes its venerable history and the lofty standards, imposed by tradition, upon each and every one of its officeholders.
While it’s true that it’s been a long time coming, with the exception of Donald Trump’s four year stint, in which the presidential incumbent truly lived up to the majesty of the office, it is indisputable that if, God forbid, someone like Kamala Harris were to ever occupy that position, for all intents and purposes the United States of America would be over.  She harbors nothing but scorn, disdain, and resentment for the office, and callous disregard — in the form of her odious sense of entitlement — for the institutions enshrined by our Constitutional form of government.
It’s one thing to be ignorant of history, but it’s another thing entirely to be apathetic of our cultural traditions and customs – not even pretending to care to learn more or so much as try to relate to your constituents in a meaningful, indeed human, way.  Wisdom is found in admitting one’s ignorance; Kamala Harris strikes the portrait of a cutthroat politician, full of pride and hubris and complete disregard for the well-being of those over whom she seeks — intends — to rule.
Her election would be a national disgrace and unmitigated disaster on so many fronts. Kamala’s interview with CNN reaffirms this fact – and again, not that it was needed, but underscores the extremely high stakes of this presidential election, the most important in generations. One that will determine whether the United States of America will go on, or succumb to pride and ignorance, the perennial sins that have brought mightier civilizations than ours to ruin. With candidates like Kamala Harris, who are we to believe we will not escape a similar fate? […]

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have presided over the greatest illegal migrant invasion in US history. This comes after Joe Biden opened the border on his first day in office.
By now, it should be common knowledge that Kamala Harris has been serving as Joe Biden’s “border czar” for much of the past four years.  In this role, she owns the disaster at the border more than any other Biden administration official, including the president himself.  Since taking office in January of 2021, more than ten million illegal aliens have unlawfully penetrated the US-Mexico border.  These border crossers have brought untold amounts of illegal drugs, like fentanyl, and violent crime, including homicide, rape, and human trafficking, that have propelled the crime figures in virtually every major American city to the highest recorded rates ever.   Women and children have been disproportionately harmed by the Biden-Harris open border; stories like Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray – all young American women with years of life still to go, murdered in cold blood by an illegal who should never in a million years have been on this land – represent just the tragic tip of the iceberg.
As it stands, America already is well beyond overcapacity for illegal aliens.  The ten-plus million that have crossed over during the Biden-Harris administration discount the millions more, anywhere between 2 and 10 million, that are labeled “gotaways,” by the federal government.  These are people who do not appear on U.S. Border Patrol registrars, and otherwise evade detection.  For their part, border patrol and ICE have been depleted of crucial resources for orchestrating mass deportations — and, even more importantly, morale — that have driven so many of them, particularly competent ones, into early retirement at best, and sometimes even suicide at worst.  The systematic demonization of border patrol agents waged by Joe Biden, and now Kamala Harris, represents one half of a two-part strategy that also includes flooding the border with aliens, the majority of whom are from Latin and South America, but with an increasing share from the Middle East and other parts of the world known as terrorist wellsprings.
The result of the Biden-Harris border catastrophe has been an unmitigated disaster across every economic and civic metric.  Cities, particularly big cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Houston, are being drained of vital resources to process and care for illegal aliens.  The Biden-Harris regime has encouraged local officials to provide handouts, ranging from transportation to housing to medical care, for illegal aliens, to the tune of billions of dollars, at expense of the American citizen. As homelessness rates soar, critical resources that ought to be devoted to America’s most vulnerable citizens are now being diverted to care for illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom are low-skilled laborers, and thus in the net drain more than they contribute to the economy.  And that is the most generous formulation of the crisis.
Walking through Central Park today shines a stark light on the real-time consequences of the Biden-Harris border debacle: now it is commonplace to observe illegals, who cannot speak English, urinate and defecate in public, exacerbating a rampant homelessness crisis that has brought the City’s economy to heel.  As Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams, who both dutifully tow their party’s line on open borders, ping-pong buses of migrants from Manhattan to Albany, and then back again, Democratic politicians lay waste to their constituents – who languish, literally, in the streets.

Even in upscale parts of Manhattan nowadays, including Midtown and the Upper East side, are littered by homeless people, who are not getting the assistance they need to rehabilitate and get off the streets.  New York City schoolchildren are being forced to stay home so that their schools can be used to house and educate illegal alien children in their stead.   The effect of this aggravates already record-setting levels of truancy and feelings on social isolation among America’s urban youth, many of whom are disproportionately racial minorities or below the poverty line, thus worsening social and wealth inequities.

There are other problems with allowing so many illegals into the United States at one time, with no checks or balances whatsoever.  For one, the ten or fifteen (or maybe even twenty-plus million, by some estimates) illegals that have entered our homeland within the past four years exacerbates polarization, by introducing foreign languages, religions, and ways of life at rates far beyond our society’s capacity to assimilate them.  This harms both the American citizen, who increasingly finds himself alienated in his own country, and illegal alike – who is prejudiced by a society that neglects to equip him with the skills, such as instruction in English, or fails to acculturate him in our laws and national customs, all necessary building blocks for civic unity.  To the extent the latter are not assimilated, many join gangs – as evident in the recent boom of Venezuelan illegal migrant gangs ravaging New York and Chicago – leading to a further erosion of civic trust, particularly in law enforcement.  Gangs inflame violence across all of society, resulting in needless and avoidable deaths, both among gang members and civilian casualties, who, like Laken Riley, become collateral damage in these insane policies bringing the nation to ruin.
Not to mention, the 12 or 15 million-plus illegals that Kamala Harris has ushered into our country adds to the 40 odd million (a conservative estimate, by one count) already here, the product of loose border policies of the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations.  Over time, Democratic lawmakers have pivoted from tackling the issue of illegal immigration, even though it constantly polls as the most important issue for Americans, where closing our borders has received widespread bipartisan support, to easing the standards for law enforcement.  Accordingly, we have observed a spike in repeat offenders crossing the border illegally.  In many cases, those responsible for the worst violent crimes that take place are repeat offenders that were originally tracked down and detained by law enforcement, only to be let loose by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who only seem to believe in law enforcement when it involves prosecuting political opponents like Donald Trump.
With an increasingly precarious world order, defined by global instability led by terrorist groups like Hamas and the resurgence of ISIS throughout the Middle East, and endemic political polarization at home, it would seem like commonsense, now more than ever, to completely secure our borders borders and impose rigorous vetting processes for those who come into the nation lawfully.  Alas, Democratic lawmakers have tacked far to the left on an issue that overwhelming majorities of Americans – including Hispanics and even many Democrats – who believe a more stringent approach to border security is necessary.  This is particularly true where an increasing share of illegal migrants come from not only places rife with cartel and drug violence in South and Latin America, but also now traditional hotbeds for terrorism, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen, where DHS has reported a more than 3,000% increase of illegal alien encounters from terror watchlists over the last four years.  These staggering numbers are made all the more puzzling by the fact that we now live in an age of global pandemics, where Democrats and Left-wing parties are among the first to call for lockdowns in the name of public health and safety.
One would think that, applying this same logic, Democrats would be the first to call for the lockdown of the border – as so many illegal aliens have brought not only crime, drugs, and sex trafficking, but also loads of foreign-born illnesses, including covid, monkeypox, and malaria, and myriad other viruses, invasive species, and contagions that have jeopardized our national health, and burdened public systems and officials to meaningfully respond to these newfound challenges.  Evidently, Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to their own made-up rules; it makes absolutely zero sense why a party that purportedly cherishes public health would greenlight tens of millions of newcomers, who bring diseases that nobody’s ever heard of, into the mainland, hurting the American people in the process, and disproportionately the low-income communities where illegals are most frequently settled.
It is no secret that Kamala Harris believes in open borders – hook, line, and sinker.  The globalist agenda, of which Harris is a fierce disciple, sees the need for a constant, steady stream of low-skilled migrants to boost their voter share and provide cheap capital for their donors.  Who these donors are – and to what extent they are involved in human trafficking – is a story unto itself.  However, what is readily evident is that whereas in the past Democrats would at least call for illegals to assimilate, albeit often by way of some unconstitutional voodooism, like Obama’s notorious DACA program, where he fast-tracked the conferral of citizenship to millions of anchor babies.  Nowadays, the Democratic Party is increasingly calling to eradicate the distinction between citizen and foreigner; where differences remain, any rights considerations often falls in favor of the foreigner.  In practice, this means driver’s licenses, social security numbers, and indeed, voting rights for illegal aliens. The experiment started, like in New York, in state elections, but no doubt these were just test cases to inundate ballot boxes with illegal alien votes in the 2024 presidential election.
In short, Kamala Harris believes in open borders because her constituency is illegal aliens.  She is betting the ranch on having the 20 million she and Biden welcomed with open arms, including the brutal human traffickers and drug lords, vote for the Harris-Walz ticket.  No homeborn American would sign up for this – at least 75% Americans rightly do not believe illegal aliens should vote.  Not that it needed to be repeated, but Donald Trump may be the last major presidential candidate ever, if he does not win, to stand for the American people over foreign invaders.  If Kamala is allowed to get her way, it will set a dangerous and irreparable precedent that democratic elections are null and void, for all Democrats in the future will simply be able to import as many foreign votes as necessary to reach victory, backed by our political institutions and mainstream media — who either sit on their hands in the face of madness, or actively enable it, to the shame of their ancestors.
But history offers a portentous guide: Like Rome, a policy that prioritizes foreigners over citizens, relegating native born Americans to second class seconds, will spell doom for the society, and Western civilization overall – and it will be our leaders who bear the burden of the collapse of the American Republic, much as their Roman forebears did for theirs. […]

Not that it needed to be repeated, but the Democratic Party’s agenda now being rolled out at this week’s convention includes some of the most radical ever seen from a major political party in American history.  Kamala Harris, whose father was a Marxist economist, has embraced a smorgasbord of socialist policies, ranging from price controls to sky-high taxes on ‘unrealized capital gains,’ to even more mass migration – all with the apparent design to put Maduro’s Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba to shame.  If not that, what else?
Over the last four years, Americans have been ravaged by record-setting inflation, exacerbated by reckless government spending on handouts for illegal aliens and wars roiling Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which have caused the prices of everything, from eggs to milk to gasoline, to skyrocket.  Rather than address the fundamental problem causing the inflation – the Federal Reserve printing money it doesn’t have and keeping rates low – Kamala Harris has proposed “banning price gouging,” a “solution” so mind-bendingly dumb that if it didn’t actually come out of her lips, nobody would believe it.  Basically, the government is flooding the marketplace with money we don’t have.  That money then causes an increase in prices, because too many dollars are chasing too few goods, the classic explanation for inflation.
Kamala’s solution now, rather than to get spending under control by not wasting billions of dollars on government handouts – including housing, schooling, and healthcare – for low-skilled migrants, who only add to the economic burden, Kamala has proposed punishing retailers for simply adjusting to market conditions.  The result of ‘Kamalanomics’ will lead to shortages and more layoffs, which will have a deleterious cascading effect on supply chains – and do irreparable damage to an already battered economy.
As it stands, the economy is grossly underperforming expectations; there is overwhelming evidence that we are already knee-deep in a recession and have been for some time.  The latest example is observed in Wednesday’s news that the Biden-Harris administration had been fraudulently manipulating job statistics – by claiming 810,000 jobs that did not exist were part of the recent totals added to the labor market.  The correction by the Bureau of Labor Statistics amounts to their largest downward revision to the jobs numbers in fifteen years, revealing an economy that is a far-cry from the picture of strength the Biden-Harris administration has insisted on since taking office.

One of the biggest (of many countless) myths that the Biden regime has propounded over the past three years is that Joe Biden created more jobs than any president in history.  That could not be further from the truth.  In fact, the opposite proves true: so many of the jobs that Biden claimed to have “created” were jobs that had been temporarily shut down because of covid – these were jobs created not by Biden, but by his predecessor, Donald Trump, the real jobs creation champion.
If you delve further into the numbers, to the extent Biden created any jobs at all – they are predominantly, if not exclusively, in government services.   In other words, these are jobs that ride on the back of American taxpayers, and do not, for the most part, create anything tangible or valuable – like the oil and automobile industries – and yet, they rely on those industries for their payday.
Speaking of oil and gas, Kamala is unmistakably the most anti-fracking candidate to ever pursue the presidency.  A Harris administration (God forbid!) would spell certain doom to those industries, as well as the industries – everything from automobiles to maritime transport – that heavily depend on the former.  In addition, should Harris wage war – and there is every sign that she would – on oil and gas, it would cripple this country not just economically, but also from the standpoint of national security.
The logic of this is intuitive: less domestic output would mean more reliance on oil-rich adversaries, including Russia and Iran, which would in turn empower their economies at our expense.  Relatedly, our systems – from public transit to military equipment – would become far less efficient, as energy sources, like electric, solar, and even nuclear – still lag far behind oil and gas, as viable alternatives.  This would put our economy in a death spiral, and if left unchecked, make us prone to internal self-sabotage and external attacks from foreign adversaries.
Yet no amount of reason or common sense will deter Kamala Harris and her ideological crusade on all things good and beautiful, particularly those necessary for sustaining a robust national economy, which just four years ago under President Trump was the envy of the world.  By flooding the homeland with illegals, wages will artificially depress even further, disproportionately harming African and Hispanic Americans the most, who would be inhumanely forced into a competitive prizefight with illegal laborers for a diminishing number of jobs.
Not to mention, more resources on illegals – who, after all, need somewhere to live, food to eat, and medical services – means less on American citizens.  The wear and tear effects on roadways and infrastructure, which have their limits in how many people they can manage, would add untold billions in economic devastation.  Even so, that would just be the tip of the iceberg.
All the while, thrifty Americans who are careful with their savings will be punished by the totalitarian state with draconian capital gains taxes which will bleed them dry of everything they have accumulated over time.  Even those Americans living paycheck to paycheck, a larger and larger share of the overall population in the age of “Bidenomics” and “Kamalanomics,” will be forced to bear the burden of higher taxes to contend with a bloated state, saddled with trillions more debt than gross domestic product.
The latter will breed lethargy in the system, requiring more and more state intervention – more government regulations devised by DEI-indoctrinated bureaucrats who will asphyxiate the economy to ruin.  Qualified workers, to the extent America still furnishes worthy talent, will be displaced by unqualified affirmative action hires, or outright replaced by competitors in China and India, who – because they are rational countries – do not impose suicidal policies, which select against their best and brightest, upon their own people.
But rule by the lowest common denominator will select-for like-minded personnel, in government, business, and everywhere else, because envy is a potent intoxicant, and those – like Kamala Harris – who know deep-down that they are not qualified to lead, would rather burn the world down in a fit of jealous rage – scapegoating in particular those who are qualified like Donald Trump – than embrace the cold, hard truth.  In short, Harris will pack the system with unqualified cronies, rather than talent that can push the frontiers of science, technology, and culture forward.  In sum: a Harris administration would be the enemy of real progress, full stop.
Alas, a system that elevates the bottom-feeders and stifles the meritorious will not, in the sobering forewarnings of every brilliant statesman, including each one of this country’s Founding Fathers, last for long.  For the same reasons no communist society has ever worked, let alone been realized, no DEI-regime headed by dotards and dullards, clowns and fools, will long last.  Nature’s hand will inevitably come into play, being the harsh corrective that will collapse the entire system if the people, stupefied by pride and hubris, persist in their benightedness as to not do it themselves. […]

The specter of 82-year-old Biden opening a half-empty Democratic National Convention alongside 76-year-old Hillary Clinton, whose obvious envy of the prospect that not she but another woman would be coronated Democratic nominee was a pathetic, borderline tragic, display of the party that once produced such giants like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy.
Now, after having been browbeaten into submission, Joe Biden has formally passed the baton – though against his will – to a woman who has never been democratically elected to any significant post in her political career.
For her part, Clinton, looking quite haggard herself, also cut the image of someone resigned to her fate in Democratic circles trying to pretend she will not go down as the greatest loser in history.
Clinton was supposed to have broken the glass ceiling.  Biden was supposed to have saved democracy.  Instead, these two geriatrics are the barely walking embodiments of a woefully failed system.

They capture everything wrong with this dismal era in America’s political history.  Should this nation survive, and somehow navigate itself out of this dark age, the likes of Biden and Clinton – alongside Pelosi, et al. – will be accorded the blame by future historians for nearly sinking the republic.  Should it fall, they will be indicted as its executioners.
The half empty arena was a perfect metaphor for the fractured psychology of the modern Democratic Party.  Outside, teems of Hamas-sympathetic protestors clashed with local police and pro-Israeli demonstrators.
Inside, Democrats – wrestling among themselves in a bitter power play between progressives and establishmentarians – struggled mightily to present a convincing unified front, one that more or less shared a general sense of identity and purpose.
In the past, they would call these natural clashes a family feud.  Today, while too sloppy to be deemed a civil war, the Democratic Party – much like the governance of the country overall – appears dysfunctional beyond repair: a sinking ship.

The pathetically low turnout on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
So, what is the Democratic Party in 2024?  Well, the most cynical – though, likely accurate – reading is a front for the administrative state, the shadowy cabal of behind-the-scenes operators who possesses the real political power, where the traditional institutions of government – notably, the presidency and Congress, but also the courts to a lesser degree – serve the interests of the bureaucracy, contra the Constitution’s original design.
For its part, the bureaucracy, which includes the intelligence agencies and increasingly weaponized Department of Justice, is replete with unelected operators – more like operatives – who may be far less competent than their forebears, even though their power is arguably at its greatest to date.
As an illustration: when Harry Truman first signed into law the National Security Act of 1947, the ceremonial start of the Global American Empire, marking the death of the old constitutional republic, the intelligence agencies of the time (this, after all, was the era of Hoover and Dulles) were far more sophisticated than they are, functionally speaking, today.
Though indeed military technology was more rudimentary, the minds behind these agencies were far and away more competent than the DEI-hires of 2024.  They reflected a regime that, by the midpoint of the previous century, covered half the earth – offering a bulwark, both institutionally and ideologically – against the communist menace, vested in the former Soviet Union.
Superficially, this planetary divide was a clash between freedom and democracy on the one hand, and tyranny and communism on the other.
As the decades rolled on, the bureaucracy gained more and more power — at the expense of the constitutional and democratically accountable institutions of government.
JFK’s assassination, and the near-certain prospect of intel collusion, and Richard Nixon’s unceremonious ouster, are but two of the most famous expressions of the past six decades of the bureaucracy’s rise — and indeed, wholesale replacement — of the Executive Branch and the Congress’ political power.
But even in those examples, the fact that bureaucratic agents had to resort to actual violence demonstrated the tug of war of power that still existed between the old and new regimes.
Today, the bureaucracy can oust a sitting president, reduced to a near-comatose figurehead, from his post in a slipshod coup d’état that all but the most brainwashed devotees of the regnant order can see.
And the remarkable thing about it is that it no longer has to rely on brute force, as in the cases of Kennedy and Nixon, but can get the President to capitulate on a whim.
And yet, a paradox: though it can oust a president in a bloodless coup, it is utterly incapable of winning a war overseas, or for that matter, even withdrawing from a lost one, as evident in the Afghanistan troop debacle, with efficiency.
The latter is blistering testimony of a regime – and the greater bureaucracy of which Biden and Harris are its figureheads – that is utterly spent.
Its diminishing political capital, to the extent it has any, solely rides on the glories of its increasingly distant past.  The party on display in Chicago has reverted, much like all once great empires in rapid decline, to an increasingly barbaric and pre-civilized state.Its politicians literally embody the most primitive societies, where tribal leaders cannibalize other tribes – and where no other tribes exist, inevitably turn on their own.  Joe Biden, like Clinton before him, is being cannibalized by his tribe in real time.He may not realize or fully understand what is happening, given his cognitive decline, but on some level he must intuit what is happening and resent it.
After all, Biden spent a half century in politics – to ascend to the highest level of power (albeit illegitimately), and then, once he served his role, the regime that carried him to such highs, immediately turned on him — the greatest indignity possible.
At this moment, Biden must realize that he only ever was a pawn for a callous regime that was bound to eat its own, sooner or later.  He never accomplished anything of note; he merely served as a convenient tool for that one and only purpose.  And he did that for fifty whole years.
Biden’s Faustian pact was to sell his soul and be reduced to a pathetic shell of a man, one who is literally decaying for the entire world to observe, so that he might enjoy his fleeting moment of fame.
But his fate is tied with the fate of the country, which will wither as rapidly as he is in real time, if the policies and ideology that he represents is not handed a decisive defeat.  So, to the extent he has victory at all, it will be a wholly Pyrrhic one, inextricably bound to a regime hellbent on its own managed destruction.
Kamala Harris, the next iteration of those failed policies, represents the next in line in the series of figureheads for the deep state — as well as the subversive interest groups, both foreign and domestic, that prop it up.
Only this time, the power grab is even more brazen than it was four years ago when they stole an election.  Now, they don’t even see fit to go through the motions of a democratic primary, instead forcing their chosen candidate upon an unwilling populace, and using their apparatchiks in the media to, with painstaking incredulity, legitimate her in the eyes of the people.
This is not the sign of a party full of fresh life and new ideas, but one quickly headed for oblivion.  Let us pray the rest of the country is spared from that same fate. […]