Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 13 2024

Oct 132024
 
 October 13, 2024  Posted by at 8:31 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Max Ernst Ubu Imperator 1923

 

• Kamala Unwinding (Kunstler)
• US Election ‘Too Close To Call’ In Swing States – WSJ Poll (RT)
• The Scent of a Harris Panic in the Air (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Shills For Harris (Michael Tracey)
• Dems Won’t Certify Election if Trump Wins (HUSA)
• Trump’s Toughest Foe Could Be Harris Lawyer Marc Elias (Sperry)
• Alien Enemies Act is Not a Viable Legal Basis for “Operation Aurora” (Turley)
• Jon Stewart: Americans Don’t Need Guns To Protect Constitutional Rights (ZH)
• Biden, Netanyahu Closer to Consensus on Attacking Iran (Antiwar)
• Biden Warns Iran Against Going After Trump – WaPo (RT)
• CBS News Faces Integrity Crisis Amid Bias Concerns, Missteps (JTN)
• 3 Million Non-Citizens Have Texas Driver’s Licenses Allowed As Voter ID (JTN)
• DOJ Sues Virginia Over Removing Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls (JTN)
• NATO Could Have Prevented Ukraine Conflict – Hungary FM (RT)
• NATO Planning New Russia Strategy – Politico (RT)
• Boeing To Fire 17,000 Employees (RT)

 

 

 

 

Trump ad

Vance

Jan 6

Kirk

Tucker Dhillon

Hawley Wray

Judge Thomas

Appellate

 

 

 

 

 

 

“She ends as an historical prank on her own country. It must be deeply demoralizing to be used like that in front of the whole world.”

• Kamala Unwinding (Kunstler)

The outstanding question: will the Democratic Party actually go ahead and attempt to execute an election steal despite growing evidence of a developing Trump landslide that might obviate it? The works are already in motion. The mail-in ballots went out long ago and early votes are getting cast by the day. The overseas ballots that require no US address or voter verification are flooding in by the millions and four years of open borders has 10-million illegal aliens (at a minimum) dispersed around the nation, great gobs of them planted in swing states, processed through the DMVs and social services — with the requisite automatic voter registration — their ballots already pre-bundled for harvest.

It could go a few ways. One is, just let’er rip, harvest all those fake votes, stuff the drop-boxes, flood the zone, and do it all right in America’s face as if to say: we can do whatever we want. . . to get whatever we want. . . and you can’t stop us. That is probably the point where blue America finds out exactly what the Second Amendment was designed for. You might also expect a whole lot of state-organized resistance, especially in the populous red ones, Texas, Florida, real court cases over fraud this time, contested certification.

Or, the election could come out a hopeless unresolvable muddle. There’s no precedent for this and no provision in the Constitution, but you can imagine the Supreme Court having to decide a necessary do-over minus all recent gimmicks, paper ballots only, voters with proof of citizenship only, all voting on one re-scheduled election day before January 1. This novelty would be something apart from the clunky Congressional machinery established for settling electoral college disputes, since it is predicated on various states’ inability to determine their electoral college vote in the first place, based on patent irregularity and fraud. You could also imagine a period of disorder so deep and grave that the regime behind “Joe Biden” declares martial law. . . or, alternately the military — the martial institution — has to take matters into its own hands, shoving aside even “Joe Biden” and his filthy retinue. Appalling to consider, I’m sure, but these things happen in history, and the Party of Chaos has set enough mischief in motion to wreck the election and wreck the country. Call it catastrophizing, if you will. There it is.

But to step back from that abyss, it appears that Mr. Trump’s momentum accelerates by the day, that he is becoming, at last, an implacable, irresistible juggernaut who will, perforce, overcome all the gimmicks, traps, and frauds arrayed against him. Kamala seems to think so. Have you ever seen such resignation, such loserdom-in-action as her recent performance on CBS’s 60-Minutes, or her pitiful admission on ABC’s The View that she couldn’t think of anything she would do differently beyond the excellent management of national affairs under “Joe Biden” (and herself as veep). Surely that said it all. She has nothing, brings nothing. Long ago, she was a pretty girl with a law degree and an infectious laugh on the fringes of local politics in San Francisco. The winds of fortune blew her this way and that way until she ended up way over her head, used by the reprobates around her as a mere device to stay out of jail. She ends as an historical prank on her own country. It must be deeply demoralizing to be used like that in front of the whole world.

Read more …

With all the shenanigans going on, Trump needs to win by a huge margin. Another reason not to believe these polls.

• US Election ‘Too Close To Call’ In Swing States – WSJ Poll (RT)

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are locked into a dead heat in all seven of the battleground states that will decide the outcome of next month’s US presidential election, according to a poll published on Friday by the Wall Street Journal. Sampling 4,200 voters, the poll found Harris with a razor-thin lead over Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Trump holding a slim advantage in Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. However, the newspaper noted that no lead is wider than two percentage points, except for in Nevada, where Trump leads by five points. All of these results are within the newspaper’s margin of error. Across all seven swing states, Trump leads Harris by 46% to 45%, the poll found. Some 93% of Republicans are backing Trump, while 93% of Democrats are supporting Harris, the WSJ noted, adding that independents prefer Harris by a slim 40% to 39%.

“This thing is a dead heat and is going to come down to the wire. These last three weeks matter,” Republican pollster David Lee, who worked on the survey, told the newspaper. “It really could not be closer,” Democrat pollster Michael Bocian said. “It’s an even-steven, tight, tight race.” A slew of recent polls have shown Trump and Harris within the low single digits of each other in these key states, with Trump gaining the upper hand in every state but Wisconsin in an average compiled by RealClearPolitics. Voters surveyed by the Wall Street Journal ranked the economy and immigration as their top two issues of concern, respectively.

They favored Trump over Harris on economic issues by ten points, and on immigration and border security by 16 points. Harris beat Trump on the issue of abortion by 16 points. By this time in the 2020 campaign, President Joe Biden was leading Trump by five points in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump won all three of these post-industrial northern battlegrounds in 2016, and lost them to Biden in 2020. Winning all three would likely guarantee the presidency to either Trump or Harris this year.

Baris

Read more …

“..so far, the cures for the Harris slide are far worse than the malady itself..”

• The Scent of a Harris Panic in the Air (Victor Davis Hanson)

The 2024 race is still close. But then so was the 1980 Carter-Reagan race at this same juncture. Indeed, incumbent president Carter was then comfortably up in the last two October Gallup polls—before utterly and suddenly evaporating on Election Day. But in the last seven days, there seems a sense of panic in the Harris campaign. How do we know that? Why are Democratic pundits—from Axelrod to Carville—blasting the Harris campaign and otherwise warning of bad things to come? Why are some of the once Democrat sure-thing senate races—e.g., in Ohio, Wisconsin, and even Michigan—tightening up? Pundit poll-watchers are suggesting that Trump is close, even, or slightly ahead in the swing-state polls, suggesting that he is nearing a margin that could cancel out anticipated “ballot irregularities”.

The expected October Harris-Biden surprises—the opportune Fed interest rate cut, the transparently desperate Jack Smith beefed-up re-indictment, the current new Hollywood Trump-hit movie, the desperate Zelensky fly-in to Pennsylvania, the election-cycle customary Bob Woodward unsourced gossip book—seemed so far to have had no effect. Why would any campaign send out the bumbling Tim Walz to a Fox Sunday interview after his disastrous debate? Why is a suddenly smiling Biden so eager to claim candidate and VP Harris as a co-conspirator to his disastrous four years? Why would Harris pivot and now agree to (admittedly mostly softball) interviews, thus confirming to the voting public why she wisely had previously avoided all press conferences, interviews, and town halls? Why—after the last two moderator-rigged ABC and CBS debates—would Harris desperately want another and possibly believe that Trump would ever agree to any such warped forum?

The last 4-5 Harris scripted interviews, but especially on CBS’s 60 Minutes, have been train wrecks. Everyone expected (and was not disappointed) the on-spec word salads, predictable sappy retreats to her misleading bio, the now accustomed deer-in-the-headlights confusion about her prior three years with Biden, and the general mush in lieu of any policy prescriptions. Why would CBS think it worth ruining its already debased reputation by doctoring the transcript of the Harris disastrous interview in a vain attempt at Orwellian repair? Why is a rusty but still narcissistic Barack Obama at last hitting the campaign trail? And is he still effective—or reduced to becoming an Oprah-like caricature? After all, is it wise for the elite Obama (in his now accustomed snarky “clingers” style) to venture out of his mansions (Kalorama? the Hawaii beachfront? or the Martha Vineyard estate?) to talk down to black males struggling under years of a hyperinflationary economy, a flood of illegal immigrants from an open border, and a four-year-spiking crime rate?

Does the Netflix grandee berating black men as victims of false consciousness, misled, and brainwashed into voting for the Trump agenda really win them over to Harris? Does the hundred-million-dollar-plus man Obama persuade anyone by reverting for a few moments to his old community-organizing, fake black patois and his pseudo-racial intimacy of “brothers”? And does it work for Obama (remember “when they go low, we go high”) to blast Trump as racist and crude, when Obama jokes that Trump wears diapers— this after previously suggesting at the Democratic convention that Trump suffered from small genitalia? If this should continue, soon the July 21st coup that removed Biden, along with the Harris pick of Tim Walz, will go down as days of Democrat infamy. Anything can happen in the next three weeks. But so far, the cures for the Harris slide are far worse than the malady itself.

Read more …

“These aforementioned attendees were essentially just “seat fillers” — they were not the audience members who were called on to ask pre-selected questions..”

• Shills For Harris (Michael Tracey)

Last night’s Univision “town hall” with Kamala Harris was billed as an exciting opportunity for “undecided Latino voters” to question and evaluate the potential next President of the United States. The corporate press release from Univision advertises it explicitly as such. But viewers at home would have been wholly unaware that this billing was false. As I discovered, having been granted the sacred opportunity to view the event from an adjacent room on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus, the carefully curated “town hall” audience was actually comprised of avowed Harris supporters. “I already knew I was going to go for Kamala,” one town hall participant told me. “Part of the reason why I wanted to go was just, like, to also fully support her.” “So you were already decided, before you came?” I asked another. “Yes,” she replied, declaring her support for Kamala.

The audience members I spoke to were selected with the help of a company called FansOnQ, according to the company’s founder, Conny Quintanilla, whose title for yesterday’s event was “Audience Manager.” The company puts out “casting calls” for events like the Latin Grammy Awards, which have been previously held in Las Vegas. It’s a type of company that you might not be consciously aware exists, but once you’re told of its existence, it makes perfect intuitive sense: people who want to dance at award shows are “vetted” by this particular company, perhaps for good looks and rhythmic skills. That’s the same company which filled the seats at Kamala’s town hall. Another person told me he was able to attend because he “knows people” at an unnamed “progressive organization,” which somehow granted him the ability to get in the town hall audience. The person said he works as an intern for Rep. Steven Horsford, Democrat of Nevada. I’m not naming the person because he was wary of attribution. Others quoted here also didn’t want to be identified.

These aforementioned attendees were essentially just “seat fillers” — they were not the audience members who were called on to ask pre-selected questions. Those audience members were flown in from around the country at Univision’s expense. Which is a bit odd, because there would certainly have been plenty of genuine “undecided Latino voters” in Clark County, Nevada who I’m sure would’ve been more than happy to ask Kamala Harris a question. NOTE: The non-question-asking attendees were still integral to the televisual production of the event, hence their recruitment. Uninformed viewers at home were under the false impression that the people they were watching react to Kamala’s answers were “undecided voters,” when numerous of them were in fact pre-committed Harris voters who sought to attend for the specific purpose of demonstrating their support for Kamala.

Naturally, I wanted to interview the actual question-asking attendees. However, a corporate dictate apparently came down prohibiting this. “We won’t be making them available,” Anna Negron, Director of Corporate Communications at TelevisaUnivision, told me when I asked if there would be an opportunity to interview said audience members. She would not elaborate on the reason for this strange secrecy. Reporter Mark Kellner of the New York Post asked Negron the same question, and was similarly dismissed. So the sum total of the authorized journalistic acts that we were permitted to carry out at this event was to sit in a side room and politely view a generously provided video feed of the “town hall,” which was taped several hours before it aired yesterday. For the record, I don’t think she actually used a teleprompter, despite social media allegations to that effect. I can verify that the event was already contrived enough as it is — no need to embellish any phony stories.

Of course, most journalists covering the event simply repeated the conceit that Kamala was empathetically taking questions from “undecided Latino voters.” In other words, they simply regurgitated the corporate press release. Her actual remarks were bereft of any real substance. The only amusing part was when she name-dropped Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General under George W. Bush, as one of her cherished Republican endorsements — adding him to the esteemed roster of Dick and Liz Cheney and myriad “national security officials” affiliated with Mitt Romney and John McCain. Perhaps Kamala calculated that the surname “Gonzales” would be extraordinarily appealing to these allegedly “undecided Latino voters.”

It’s worth briefly reminiscing about what the purpose of a “town hall” has traditionally been: for ‘townspeople’ to gather and air their concerns about issues that most affect them. (“Town halls” are actually how some small New England towns are governed — the town halls effectively become temporary citizen-led legislatures to decide questions around zoning and so forth.) Now, though, they’re just glitzy TV productions that accomplish the polar opposite of the free-flowing dialogue and debate with which the term was once associated. Indeed, these events now more resemble the production values of the Latin Grammy Awards — literally — than a forum to scrutinize candidates for public office.

Read more …

‘I’ve been told this type of rhetoric is “dangerous to our democracy” or something…’

• Dems Won’t Certify Election if Trump Wins (HUSA)

Despite their constant whining about the Jan. 6, 2021, “insurrection,” the Democrats recently admitted that they won’t certify the 2024 election results if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is elected. Axios reported that the Democrats would certify the election results only if Trump used “free, fair and honest means to secure a victory,” which, according to Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., is not what Trump would do. This statement implies that he would be declared a winner only if he cheats. “[Trump] is doing whatever he can to try to interfere with the process, whether we’re talking about manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska or manipulating the vote count in Georgia or imposing other kinds of impediments,” the politician told the news source. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., also questioned whether Trump would win the election fair and square, telling Axios that she doesn’t know “what kind of shenanigans he is planning.”

Conservatives on Twitter pointed out the hypocrisy after the article was published. “I’ve been told this type of rhetoric is “dangerous to our democracy” or something,” @Patriot_Vibes wrote. Co-owner of Trending Politics, Colin Rugg, also mocked the Democrats who have been talking non-stop about Republicans and Trump’s alleged attempt to overthrow the government at the beginning of 2021. “The ‘democracy defenders’ won’t commit to certifying an election?” he wrote. Others wrote that the recent news is a warning from Democrats about their own insurrection, this time it being real and violent. Some conservatives noted that hearing about the recent news was not surprising after the Democrats replaced Joe Biden, who was elected by leftists during the primaries, with the current Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, who nobody cared about before the disastrous debate between Trump and Biden.

“No surprise there. They threw democracy out the window when they put Kamala in w/o a single vote. Why wouldn’t they pull some more shenanigans? We’ll get SCOTUS involved if we have to, but they need to do their job or GTFO,” an anonymous person wrote. The Democrats’ recent comments are also unsurprising because Raskin said he would never allow Trump to be in the White House again. “I’ve been warning of this for months. Here is Rep Jamie Raskin confirming what I’ve been predicting. Even if President Trump wins the 2024 election, Democrats will not accept the results and refuse to leave the White House, creating a civil war scenario,” investigative reporter and commentator Drew Hernandez said.

Read more …

Elias makes a lot of money. But I think the Steele dossier has tainted him too much to be effective.

“According to court records, Elias acted as a cutout for more than $1 million in campaign payments for the dossier..”

• Trump’s Toughest Foe Could Be Harris Lawyer Marc Elias (Sperry)

Elias later testified that he was worried – then as now – that Trump was a threat to democracy: “I received information that was troubling as someone who cares about democracy.” That “information” turned out to be a fictitious “dossier” linking Trump to the Kremlin crafted by former British spook and FBI informant Christopher Steele, who huddled with Elias in his Washington office. “Some of the information that was in it I think has actually proved true. It was accurate and important,” Elias testified in a closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill in December 2017, according to a declassified transcript. Actually, Steele’s allegations proved to be a collection of improbable rumors and fabricated allegations invented by Steele’s top researcher and a Clinton campaign adviser. Nonetheless, the disinformation was fed to the FBI and media, igniting criminal investigations (including illegal electronic surveillance), congressional probes, and a media frenzy that crippled Trump’s presidency with bad press for years.

In a parallel operation against Trump, Elias worked with his then-law partner Michael Sussmann and Clinton campaign officials – including Jake Sullivan, who is now President Biden’s national security adviser – to develop misleading evidence of a “secret hotline” between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that allegedly used a “back channel” connection between email servers at Trump Tower and Russian-owned Alfa Bank. These false allegations were posted on social media and brought to the attention of the FBI, triggering a separate criminal investigation targeting Trump and his campaign. Like other Russiagate probes, it was eventually discredited. But the damage was done. By spreading fake Russian dirt on Trump, Elias was able to create scandals that dogged Trump for years, tarnishing his electability. The Democratic lawyer’s machinations, however, drew scrutiny from other investigators and hurt his own reputation – albeit temporarily.

During his probe of Russiagate, Special Counsel John Durham found Elias intentionally sought to conceal Clinton’s role in the dossier. According to court records, Elias acted as a cutout for more than $1 million in campaign payments for the dossier. By laundering its payments through a law firm, the Clinton campaign and Elias were able to claim attorney-client confidentiality when Durham sought their internal emails (the assertion of that privilege also blocked investigators from accessing communications between Elias and Steele’s immediate employer, the Washington-based opposition research firm, FusionGPS). But their shell game got the Clinton campaign in trouble with the Federal Election Commission, which later fined it and the Democratic National Committee $113,000 for misreporting the purpose of the payments as “legal expenses,” rather than opposition research, in violation of FEC laws.

The Durham probe, which Elias insists was “politically motivated,” nonetheless raised ethical issues with the D.C. Bar and Elias’ former law firm, Perkins Coie, reportedly leading to their breakup in August 2021, when Elias suddenly left the powerhouse after almost 30 years. The firm, which Elias had joined fresh out of law school in 1993, grew “increasingly uncomfortable” with the unwanted scrutiny the Durham probe invited on it, according to published reports. The veteran prosecutor exposed questionable billing practices by the firm. Durham also revealed the Democratic firm had set up an FBI workspace within its Washington offices, further calling into question the FBI’s impartiality in investigating Trump. In late 2021, Elias opened his own firm, the Elias Law Group, but soon lost major clients who reportedly grew weary of his aggressive tactics and go-it-alone style.

Last year, the DNC severed its 15-year relationship with Elias; then more recently, the Biden campaign parted company with him. In 2020, Elias had quarterbacked Biden’s legal team that fought Trump’s claims in court that the election had been stolen. He also beat back GOP measures to ensure election integrity after Democrats took advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to dramatically loosen rules for voting – including allowing ballot harvesting, drop boxes, and ballots arriving up to four days after Election Day to still be counted. Top Democratic Party officials were said to sour on Elias after he filed election-related lawsuits without consulting with them, some of which backfired with unfavorable – and lasting – rulings. Biden’s team reportedly also became frustrated with his fees. Elias billed the DNC and Biden campaign more than $20 million during the 2020 election cycle.

But Elias has since taken on other clients – including Kamala Harris – who have more than made up for the loss in revenue. So far in this election cycle, the latest FEC filings show the Elias Law Group has received a total of more than $22 million in disbursements from a host of major Democratic and anti-Trump clients.

Read more …

It’s a war act. But there’s no war.

• Alien Enemies Act is Not a Viable Legal Basis for “Operation Aurora” (Turley)

In announcing his “Operation Aurora,” former President Donald Trump has suggested that he may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on “every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.” The plan to begin mass deportations is certainly popular with the public, according to polling. However, without a declaration of war, he will likely have to look to alternative statutory vehicles for a peacetime operation. This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has invoked the AEA. Last year, the campaign cited the law as giving it the power to “remove all known or suspected gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.” The AEA has only been used three times and each time we were in a declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is a law that became infamous in its use to put Japanese, German, and Italian civilians in internment camps during World War II. In DeLacey v. United States in 1918, the Ninth Circuit wrote that:

“The first reported case arising under the [AEA] is [by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in] Lockington’s Case [in 1814] … Lockington … had refused to comply with the executive order of February 23, 1813, requiring alien enemies who were within 40 miles of tidewater to retire to such places beyond that distance from tidewater as should be designated by the marshals. He was arrested, and on petition for habeas corpus attempted to test the legality of his imprisonment. Chief Justice Tilghman said of the [AEA]: “It is a provision for the public safety, which may require that the alien should not be removed, but kept in the country under proper restraints. … It is never to be forgotten that the main object of the law is to provide for the safety of the country from enemies who are suffered to remain within it. In order to effect this safety, it might be necessary to act on sudden emergencies. … The President, being best acquainted with the danger to be apprehended, is best able to judge of the emergency which might render such measures necessary. Accordingly, we find that the powers vested in him are expressed in the most comprehensive terms.”

The laws sweeping language makes it ripe for abuse. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Brackenridge in Lockington’s Case (1814) observed that under the AEA “the President would seem to be constituted, as to this description of persons, with the power of a Roman dictator or consul, in extraordinary cases, when the Republic was in danger, that it sustain no damage: ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.” However, the AEA’s only limiting language is found in the triggering language for those powers: “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event…” In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), the Supreme Court held Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a supportive decision of the presidential authority under the AEA on when the powers expired, but not when the powers begin:

“And so we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops.” This broad granting of authority under the AEA is obviously a great attraction for presidents who have rarely hesitated to use the maximal levels of their powers. However, the threshold requirement of a declared war has proven the limiting element and it is telling that the law been used only three times by presidents.

Read more …

“Once a government has a monopoly on violence, the concept of public consent is meaningless..”

• Jon Stewart: Americans Don’t Need Guns To Protect Constitutional Rights (ZH)

Donald Trump’s recent return to Butler, PA where he was nearly assassinated due to Secret Service incompetence (or deliberate failure) has got the political left all worked up. Perhaps in part because Thomas Crooks failed to complete his task despite being given every conceivable opportunity to succeed, but also because Elon Musk was there to support the rally. Nothing Musk said was particularly shocking to normal Americans, but his comments on the necessity of the 2nd Amendment as a means to keep the 1st Amendment have outraged Democrats. Coastal progressives in particular have sought to disarm the rest of the nation for decades. Gun control and ultimately gun confiscation are foundational policies that their movement revolves around. The question is, why? Why are they so desperate to violate the Bill of Rights and take firearms away?

They certainly don’t care about people’s safety. If they did, they wouldn’t have cheered on the baseless and violent BLM and Antifa riots. Social media is replete with woke activists calling for the deaths of conservatives. These are not peaceful people seeking nirvana, they are happy to use violence if they think it will get them more power. This is a problem that old-school Democrats like Jon Stewart continue to enable while pretending it doesn’t exist. Stewart, clinging to cultural relevancy on his newly rebooted Daily Show, attempted to lampoon Elon Musk over his assertions on the 2A in Butler, but his strange diatribe about representative democracy is a retro callback to the 1990s and comes off as rather naive. Does Stewart really believe this nonsense? It’s hard to say, but the past few years have made his arguments obsolete.

The 1st Amendment is not protected by the “consent of the governed.” Americans just experienced a three year period of active censorship under the Biden Administration working closely with Big Tech and social media companies. Stewart shrugs off such censorship as if it’s overblown and doesn’t matter, but even Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was under pressure from the establishment to silence dissent on a number of issues from covid mandates to Hunter Biden’s laptop. Contrary to Stewart’s delusions about democracy, the reality is that the Constitution does not defend itself. According to polls a large number of Democrats desired the erasure of numerous rights during the covid scare. They don’t represent the majority, but there is more than enough of them to add weight to any authoritarian effort. And, the only thing stopping them from getting everything they want is the existence of millions of American gun owners.

It’s not as if the progressive/globalist establishment intends to give up, either. As John Kerry noted during a climate conference held by the WEF in September, their open intent is to shut down free speech rights regardless of the democratic process. If they could get rid of the 1st Amendment, they would. The only reason they haven’t is because the US government doesn’t have a monopoly on force. In Stewart’s fantasy land, a free Republic is a self perpetuating entity that continues on for eternity once it is set in motion, driven only by the goodness and purity of ideology and the voting process. But elections can be subverted by top-down corruption and the system has clearly been broken for some time. One only need to look at the malicious government crackdown on speech happening in the UK to see what happens when a population is disarmed.

There are examples of this across the globe, yet in the world of The Daily Show there is some kind of magical force embedded in “democracy” that protects the populace from abuse. To be sure, the act of violent rebellion is generally a last resort after all other measures have been exhausted. It’s just important to recognize that there’s always a breaking point and America is very close now. Stewart ironically contradicts his own premise when he claims guns “only protect the speech of the people holding the guns.” Yes Jon, that’s why the 2A exists, so that everyone’s speech is protected. Because a representative government can become a tyrannical government as easily as any other government. All it takes is time. The 2A ensures that the “consent of the governed” is never manufactured or forced without the threat of rebellion. Once a government has a monopoly on violence, the concept of public consent is meaningless and the elites will do as they please.

As Thomas Jefferson once wisely stated in reference to the potential for future citizen rebellion: “…What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Read more …

WWIII as their legacy for Trump.

• Biden, Netanyahu Closer to Consensus on Attacking Iran (Antiwar)

President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved closer to an understanding on Israel’s plans to attack Iran during their phone call on Wednesday, Axios reported on Thursday. The report, which cited US and Israeli officials, said that the US had accepted Israel is going to launch a major attack on Iran soon and is only concerned that striking certain types of targets could dramatically escalate things. However, Iran has vowed it will respond to any type of Israeli attack, and the situation could easily turn into a full-blown war that would involve the US. An Israeli official told Axios that the Israeli plans are still a bit more aggressive than the US would like. The US has been warning against striking nuclear facilities or oil infrastructure, and recent media reports have said Israel will likely target military infrastructure.

Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Thursday to brief them on the situation with the US and is expected to get approval for him and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to set a timeline for the Israeli attack. The Times of Israel reported that the US and Israel will continue conversations on the plans in the coming days, signaling the attack is not imminent. NBC News reported on Tuesday that the US was considering supporting Israel’s attack with direct airstrikes of its own, although US officials said intelligence support was more likely. The Jerusalem Post reported that the US was offering Israel a “compensation package” of military aid and full diplomatic support if it only hits US-approved targets in Iran. The US has also committed to defending Israel from any Iranian response.

Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel last week in response to a string of Israeli escalations, including the assassination of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran. Immediately after the attack, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the US would work with Israel to ensure Iran suffers “severe consequences.”

Read more …

So noble.

• Biden Warns Iran Against Going After Trump – WaPo (RT)

US president Joe Biden has told the White House National Security Council to warn Iran against trying to assassinate Donald Trump, the Washington Post has reported. The message that the US president wanted to be relayed to Tehran was that Washington would treat any attempt on the life of his predecessor, or on that of any other former American official, as an act of war, the paper wrote on Friday. WaPo cited National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett, who insisted that Biden has directed “every resource” to make sure that the Republican Party nominee is well protected and that his security detail receives intelligence data in a timely manner about any dangers he might face. “We consider this a national and homeland security matter of the highest priority, and we strongly condemn Iran for these brazen threats,” Savett stated.

Tehran will face “severe consequences” if it attacks any American citizen, including people who “continue to serve the US or those who formerly served,” he stressed. Late last month, Trump claimed that there were “big threats” on his life, coming from Iran. He said that the two assassination attempts against him in recent months, at a rally in Pennsylvania in July then, in September, at his golf club in Florida, “may or may not involve” Tehran. WaPo, citing sources familiar with the matter, wrote that currently there is no evidence tying Tehran to either of the incidents. The former president’s statement came a day after his team announced that they had a meeting with representatives of US intelligence, who warned them about Tehran’s alleged plans to kill Trump and to “sow chaos” in the country.

Politico said on Friday that it had talked to dozens of officials, who claimed that Iran’s efforts to kill Trump, as well as persons involved in the assassination of top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, were “even more extensive and aggressive than previously reported.” Soleimani died in a US drone strike outside an airport in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in January 2020, during Trump’s period in office, and Iran has promised that he would be avenged. However, after Trump was wounded in the ear in an assassination attempt on July 13, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani stressed that Tehran “strongly rejects” any suggestion that it was involved. “Iran is determined to pursue legal action against Trump for his direct role in the crime of assassinating Martyr General Qassem Soleimani,” Kanaani said.

Read more …

“About the notion that broadcast licenses should be up for bidding anew, Collins said: “If it causes a conversation in the halls of New York, and panic, maybe I’m all for it.”

• CBS News Faces Integrity Crisis Amid Bias Concerns, Missteps (JTN)

CBS News was once home to giants in the journalism industry. Walter Cronkite – known as “the most trusted man in America” – broadcast from a bomber in WWII on a mission over Germany. Edward R. Murrow changed investigative reporting forever with a 1960 documentary that is still taught in journalism schools today. And Mike Wallace could stir fear in the hearts of interview subjects with a simple phone call from his “60 Minutes” office. But today the news giant once heralded as the “Tiffany network” is blinking with crisis as the neutrality of its anchors is challenged and the integrity of editing at its most famous news magazine has been questioned. Many believe the storm of credibility was born two decades ago when then-Anchor Dan Rather’s supposed scoop on George W. Bush’s Vietnam war service factually crumbled, a miscue so embarrassing it sunk the 60 Minutes II franchise for good.

But a steady run of miscues and clashes in the era of Donald Trump and Middle East war has only inflamed the distrust – at least among conservatives – to scandalous levels and left a cloud lingering over the entire CBS News franchise. The most recent accusations of liberal bias exploded when CBS announced ahead of the vice presidential debate between Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee, that its moderators would not “fact-check” the candidates’ answers. Instead, CBS moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan pulled a fast one, and several times argued with him about assertions. At one point when Vance answered their questions pushing back, they interrupted him and cut his mic off. In another event, The Free Press reported that a memo from Mark Memmott, the network’s director of standards and practices, told CBS reporters not to refer to Jerusalem as being in Israel, though it is the nation’s capital city and home to the U.S. embassy.

But perhaps the most politically incendiary incident, and the one that has Trump calling for CBS to lose its broadcast license, involved “60 Minutes” on Monday, when the network’s flagship news show was caught subbing one rambling answer from Vice President Kamala Harris for a more coherent one. “60 Minutes is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History,” Trump posted on social media after the Monday night show aired. “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS — and maybe even WORSE!” The Harris interview was conducted by Bill Whitaker at the Naval Observatory over the weekend and an edited portion aired on “Face the Nation,” also a CBS show.

When Whittaker asked about U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to the Biden administration’s desire to scale down the war against Hamas, Harris responded with: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” But when the question aired later on “60 Minutes,” the response by Harris was different. “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” the presidential nominee said. In an additional social-media post by Trump, he said: “With me, 60 Minutes does the exact opposite! They take everything I say, realize how totally BRILLIANT it is, and take it out. So, with Kamala they add, with ‘TRUMP’ they delete. Like the Democrat Party, THEY ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!”

While progressive pundits quickly came to the defense of CBS, saying that edits for the sake of time and “concision” are common in news media, Trump’s assertion that broadcast licenses ought to be in play due to media bias is gaining traction among conservatives. “I want to hold these people responsible. We’re giving them FCC licenses. They don’t deserve them,” Arizona senatorial candidate Kari Lake said Thursday on the “Just the News, No Noise,” TV show with host John Solomon. Broadcast licenses are considered a shared “public common” after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, an obscenity case, that the federal government had jurisdiction to manage the airwaves.

Similarly, former Congressman Doug Collins, who has served as legal counsel for Trump, told co-host Amanda Head that some of Trump’s lawyers will be filing an FEC complaint claiming that CBS has been making in-kind political contributions to the Harris-Walz campaign. About the notion that broadcast licenses should be up for bidding anew, Collins said: “If it causes a conversation in the halls of New York, and panic, maybe I’m all for it.” Michael Whatley, the chair of the Republican National Committee, called the behavior of CBS “appalling” during the “John Solomon Reports” podcast Thursday. “CBS and 60 Minutes are lying to the American people about what was said and what was done in that interview,” Whatley said. “This is just the latest example that the media is absolutely not going to play it straight.” Noting the rise of alternative media and falling ratings for broadcast news shows, he added: “There is a reckoning that is taking place with the mainstream, traditional media outlets that’s long overdue.”

Falling ratings are a long-term problem and has caused layoffs – and O’Donnell took a pay cut in 2022 to $3.8 million annually, down from $8 million previously – but as recently as four years ago the vice presidential debate between Harris and then-Vice President Mike Pence, scored 25 percent more viewers than did last month’s Vance-Walz debate. Another problem faced by CBS is its decision in February to lay off senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge after she reported stories that irritated progressive activists, including some involving the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has launched an investigation into Herridge’s termination.

Herridge went on to say that when she interviewed then-President Trump in 2020, CBS News posted the entire interview transcript. And on Wednesday, Herridge weighed in on the “60 Minutes” fiasco, posting on the X social-media platform: “As Trump campaign calls on @60Minutes to release ‘full, unedited transcript’ of Kamala Harris interview … there is precedent.” The New York Post quoted unnamed sources as saying that “Herridge had pushed for the publication of her full transcript at the time and that it was a “special case.” “It’s about transparency and standing behind the integrity of the final edit,” Herridge posted Wednesday.

Read more …

How on earth can you hold a free and fair election under such rules?

• 3 Million Non-Citizens Have Texas Driver’s Licenses Allowed As Voter ID (JTN)

Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy and state Rep. Brian Harrison, R, said that the Texas Department of Public Safety has confirmed there are nearly 3 million non-citizens with driver’s licenses in the state that secretary of state has allowed for use as voter ID. The announcement on Thursday came after an Tuesday advisory by the Texas secretary of state’s elections director, Christina Worrell Adkins, which states that while non-citizen driver’s licenses are not acceptable as voter ID, they can be used if the person is already a registered voter. “BREAKING: according to [Texas Department of Public Safety] – 2,824,613 non-citizens have DL’s, CDL’s, or ID – after working with my friend [Brian Harrison] to run this to ground. That’s why this matters – a lot,” Roy posted on X on Thursday as he shared his earlier post with a Texas Scorecard article about non-citizens using driver’s licenses as voter ID.

“Almost 3 million non-citizens have been issued driver licenses, CDLs, or IDs in Texas,” Harrison wrote Thursday as he shared Roy’s post on X. “The Secretary of State’s office is instructing poll workers to give ballots to people with non-citizen driver licenses. [Chip Roy] is right: ‘this matters a lot.’ Developing..” The secretary of state’s advisory explains that only U.S. citizens are permitted to register to vote and cast ballots in Texas. However, the guidance also states that a person with a non-citizen driver’s license or identification card can vote if they are listed on the voter rolls. If the person is not on the voter rolls and has a non-citizen driver’s license or ID, then they may still vote by provisional ballot.

Read more …

Fill up the voter rolls with illegals well in advance and no-one can take them off less than 90 days before the election.

• DOJ Sues Virginia Over Removing Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls (JTN)

The Department of Justice has sued Virginia over removing non-citizens from its voter rolls ahead of the November election. The DOJ announced the suit Friday against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia State Board of Elections, and the Virginia Commissioner of Elections for allegedly violating the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The NVRA prevents states from using systematic programs to remove ineligible voters from voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election, according to the DOJ. “As the National Voter Registration Act mandates, officials across the country should take heed of the law’s crystal clear and unequivocal restrictions on systematic list maintenance efforts that fall within 90 days of an election,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement. “By cancelling voter registrations within 90 days of Election Day, Virginia places qualified voters in jeopardy of being removed from the rolls and creates the risk of confusion for the electorate.

Congress adopted the National Voter Registration Act’s quiet period restriction to prevent error-prone, eleventh hour efforts that all too often disenfranchise qualified voters,” she added. “The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Justice Department will continue to ensure that the rights of qualified voters are protected.” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) slammed the DOJ over the litigation. “With less than 30 days until the election, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice is filing an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine that requires Virginia to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls – a process that starts with someone declaring themselves a non-citizen and then registering to vote,” Youngkin said in a statement Friday.

“Virginians – and Americans – will see this for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy of the elections in the Commonwealth, the very crucible of American Democracy. With the support of our Attorney General, we will defend these commonsense steps, that we are legally required to take, with every resource available to us. Virginia’s election will be secure and fair, and I will not stand idly by as this politically motivated action tries to interfere in our elections, period.” The DOJ lawsuit come two weeks after the department sued Alabama for removing ineligible voters from its voter rolls.

Read more …

“..the main goal of Russian diplomacy is now “crisis management and the prevention of… a truly large-scale conflict.”

• NATO Could Have Prevented Ukraine Conflict – Hungary FM (RT)

The current standoff between Russia and the West could have been avoided if NATO and the US had engaged in serious talks on Moscow’s demand for security guarantees, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has argued. In December 2021, two months before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine, it submitted a list of security proposals to NATO and the US, insisting that the bloc withdraw its military infrastructure to the 1997 borders. The key point of the document was to halt NATO’s expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine, which has long sought to join the military bloc. However, the bloc rejected the proposal, citing its “open-door policy” on new members. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that one of the key reasons for the conflict was the threat of Kiev’s potential NATO membership.

In an interview with RIA Novosti on Saturday, Szijjarto suggested that the Russian terms could have served as a basis for avoiding the Ukraine conflict. “I remember those times. I think that what was missing there was a serious discussion… I do believe that if someone has an issue… then it should be discussed. And these discussions have not taken place, unfortunately,” the diplomat said. Szijjarto acknowledged that any debate on what might have happened is now moot, but stressed that he wishes “those dialogues had taken place. Because if they had taken place, we might not be in the situation we are right now.” In May, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Moscow’s proposal on security guarantees was no longer on the table, and that the main goal of Russian diplomacy is now “crisis management and the prevention of… a truly large-scale conflict.”

Szijjarto, along with other top Hungarian officials, have repeatedly criticized the West’s approach to the Ukraine crisis, calling on both sides to reach a ceasefire and start peace talks. He has also blasted Western sanctions against Moscow as ineffective and crippling the EU economy. Russia has never ruled out talks on Ukraine, and Putin said in June that Moscow would immediately agree to a ceasefire and start peace talks if Kiev were to withdraw troops from the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions and commit to neutrality. Later, he said that any engagement was out of the question as long as Ukrainian troops occupy part of Russia’s Kursk Region.

Read more …

“..options for fighting Russia are being continuously worked out within the bloc, military budgets of member states are being boosted, and Western economies are being militarized..”

• NATO Planning New Russia Strategy – Politico (RT)

NATO’s defense ministers will meet in Brussels next week to start rethinking the bloc’s decades-old strategy on relations with Russia, Politico has reported Despite ties between NATO and Russia hitting “rock bottom” after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the ‘Founding Act’ with Moscow remains in force within the US-led alliance, the outlet noted in an article on Friday. The 1997 document, which states that NATO and Russia share a common goal to “build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe,” does not reflect the current situation, Politico wrote. During its summit in Washington in July, NATO labeled Moscow the “most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security,” while Russia continues to insist that the bloc’s eastward expansion is an “existential danger” for the country.

NATO countries are now trying to “map out different elements of [the Russia] strategy and advance the debates inside the alliance that takes us to subjects like the future of the NATO-Russia Founding Act,” a senior US official was quoted by Politico as saying. “It is time to now craft a new strategy in terms of specific positions” of the member states, the official added. Lower-level discussions on the new Russia policy have been underway for months within the bloc, and next week the issue will be addressed at the ministerial level, the report said. NATO previously announced that it planned to formulate a new strategy before its summit in The Hague, to be held next summer. “Right now we have to have an understanding across the alliance… that the [Founding Act] and the NATO-Russia Council were built for a different era, and I think the allies are prepared to say that was a different era in our relationship with Russia, and therefore something new is merited,” the US official explained.

The official described the strategy as a “political exercise,” adding that its military implications are expected to be “limited.” According to Politico, there are differences among members when it comes to the new policy towards Moscow, as some are concerned that an overly aggressive “signal” could “destabilize” Russia. There are also questions over Hungary and Slovakia, which see “strategic value” in engaging with Moscow, despite being NATO members, it added. Earlier this week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko said NATO is no longer hiding the fact that it is bracing for a potential military conflict with Moscow. Possible options for fighting Russia are being continuously worked out within the bloc, military budgets of member states are being boosted, and Western economies are being militarized, he said. It was not Russia but NATO that took “the path of confrontation” by refusing to engage in dialogue, Grushko insisted. Because of this, the US-led bloc bears full responsibility for a “major European security crisis” caused by the Ukraine conflict, he added.

Read more …

“We reset our workforce levels to align with our financial reality and to a more focused set of priorities..”

• Boeing To Fire 17,000 Employees (RT)

The US manufacturer Boeing has announced plans to eliminate around 10% of its workforce over the coming months, as the aerospace giant’s losses continue to mount and a strike undercuts the production of its best-selling planes. The job cuts will include executives and managers in addition to ordinary employees, according to a memo shared by the company’s new president and CEO Kelly Ortberg on Friday. The corporation employs nearly 170,000 people worldwide. “Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together,” said Ortberg, who became CEO of the troubled aircraft maker two months ago. A month after he took the helm, 33,000 hourly workers went on strike. “We reset our workforce levels to align with our financial reality and to a more focused set of priorities,” he added.

The “tough” decision is aimed at completing structural changes that will ensure the company’s ability to stay competitive and execute the customers’ orders over the long term, the CEO emphasized. Ortberg added that Boeing is also delaying its program to develop the 777X airplane until 2026 and halting production of its commercial 767 freighters in 2027 after fulfilling remaining orders. Earlier this week, Boeing said it had filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the union that represents its striking West Coast factory workers. The company emphasized that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers had failed to bargain in good faith during the four-week work stoppage, adding that it was “issuing misinformation to its members about the status of negotiations.”

The company earlier withdrew a contract offer it had made to the striking machinists, saying that further negotiations “do not make sense at this point.” The union had previously stated that Boeing had refused to improve wages, retirement plans and vacation or sick leave. In a preliminary report on the financial results issued on Friday, the corporation said it expects to have an operating cash outflow of $1.3 billion in the third quarter, and that it will report a loss of $9.97 per share.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Maher

 

 

Phone frogs

 

 

Material girl

 

 

Voila
https://twitter.com/i/status/1844929481615790263

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.