Despite raising a billion dollars, the Harris campaign somehow ends $20 million in debt.
That’s especially sad when we consider: the campaign actually had far more than a billion dollars.
It had nonstop cheerleading from the media (including sympathetic edits of interviews), from airhead celebrities, from corrupt academia, and so on down the list of predictable culprits.
Its opponent was tied up in frivolous and idiotic lawsuits obviously intended to target him because of who he was rather than for anything he had done.
It had the benefit of prominent voices risibly warning, nonstop, of the return of Hitler.
And it still wound up $20 million in debt.
You’d think that would be an opportune moment for reflection about what might have gone wrong.
Nope. The best they can come up with is: the country is more fascist than we thought.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has just issued a statement about the election result.
Note that Bernie decided to wait until the day after the election to unbosom his criticism of the state of the Democrats.
Of course, this option would continued to keep the CIA’s records secret and therefore advance the cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy, but, at the same, time would confirm my thesis (and Glennon’s thesis) that the national-security branch runs the federal government and the other three branches, including the executive branch, defer to its rule.
A fascinating situation has now developed between President-elect Donald Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment with respect to the long-secret JKF-assassination-related records that the CIA has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. Despite Trump’s campaign vow to release those records, it’s not at all clear how this matter is going to be resolved. I will give my prediction at the end of this article.
There are three major factors at play:
1. During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed that this time around he is definitely going to order the National Archives to release those 60-year-old secret CIA records. Moreover, as he told Joe Rogan, he is going to do it “immediately.” See “Trump to Rogan: If Elected, I’ll Open Remaining JFK Files ‘Immediately’” by Jefferson Morley.
Let’s place this first factor in a historical context.
The JFK Records Act, which was enacted in 1992, ordered the national-security establishment and all other federal agencies to disclose their JFK-assassination-related records to the public.
However, the law gave federal officials an out. If they claimed that the release of certain records might jeopardize “national security” in various ways, they could keep them secret for another 25 years. Yes, 25 additional years of secrecy, on top of the secrecy from 1963 to the 1990s! Taking advantage of that out, the national-security establishment, especially the CIA, continued keeping thousands of its assassination-related records secret.
That 25-year-period ran out during Trump’s first term as president. At first, Trump declared valiantly that he was going to comply with the law and permit the National Archives to release and disclose the records.
But then just before the deadline arrived, Trump was visited by the CIA, who insisted on continued secrecy of its assassination-related records.
Trump immediately buckled. While allowing some records to be released, he did what the CIA wanted him to do and ordered that thousands of other records continue to be kept secret for another few years.
When the new deadline occurred under President Biden, the CIA convinced Biden to continue the secrecy of the records into perpetuity. Thus, the CIA felt it could now sleep easy, knowing that its long-secret assassination-related records would never see the light of day.
2. There is no doubt that the CIA does not want people to see its assassination-related records that it has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. That’s undoubtedly because the records contain incriminating material — that is, evidence that points further in the direction of a national-security-state regime-change operation against President Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas in November 1963.
An official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency was “removed from their role” and is under investigation after the Daily Wire obtained a leaked internal message in which they ordered workers to bypass the homes of Trump supporters as they surveyed the damage caused by Hurricane Milton in Florida.
Microsoft Teams chat used by FEMA workers. (via the Daily Wire)
In the leaked message, a FEMA supervisor told workers to “avoid homes advertising Trump” as they canvassed Lake Placid, Florida to find residents who may qualify for federal aid.
The supervisor, Marn’i Washington, told workers both verbally and in a group chat to avoid Trump supporters’ homes, multiple government officials told the Daily Wire.
“When we got there we were told to discriminate against people. It’s almost unbelievable to think that somebody in the federal government would think that’s okay,” one of the employees told the outlet, adding that it was wrong to discriminate against Trump supporters when they were at their “most vulnerable.”
One of the homes skipped by FEMA/ FEMA app tracking what homes were visited. (via the Daily Wire)
“I volunteered to help disaster victims, not discriminate against them,” said the employee. “It didn’t matter if people were black, white, Hispanic, for Trump, for Harris. Everyone deserves the same amount of help.”
The guidance came as the Biden administration was criticized over its sluggish response to Hurricane Helene in rural areas across the country. In Roan Mountain, Tennessee, for example, locals told The Daily Wire it took nearly two weeks for FEMA to show up. The town is located in Carter County, which voted 81% for Trump on Tuesday.
The FEMA agents ordered not to help houses with Trump signs were operating in Highlands County, a deep-red area located in south central Florida that backed Trump by 70% on Tuesday. It was hit with tornadoes, torrential wind and rain, and flooding when Milton hit in October. -Daily Wire
“The blatant weaponization of government by partisan activists in the federal bureaucracy is yet another reason why the Biden-Harris administration is in its final days,” DeSantis wrote on X. “New leadership is on the way in DC, and I’m optimistic that these partisan bureaucrats will be fired.”
FEMA, meanwhile, has “removed” Washington “from their role” within the agency.
If we truly care about the fact that Jesus is King, we must show our enemies that we are Christians who love our enemies, not Marxists who stoke the fire of hatred for the sake of power. The first step, then, would be liberating the Republican party from these Marxist tactics. Then we can proceed to liberate the Democrats.
Trump has won. Now is the time for Christians to love their enemies. It’s time to show Democrats and Republicans both that the only way forward for America is the Christian way.
For too long, Americans have been locked in a “cold civil war” in which both sides have been at each other’s throats, without any understanding between them.
On the one side, the Democratic party has swallowed Marxism, leading them to where they are now: promoting child sacrifice as “reproductive rights.” And since they are Marxists, they are taught to hate their enemies.
On the other side, the Republicans have been dominated by the Neoconservative movement, which pays lip service to life issues but promotes bloodshed across the globe. The Republicans have claimed to be Christians, but they too have hated their enemies the Marxists, and thus have also been overcome by this Marxist poison.
The Republicans have attempted to fight Marxism by using Marxist methods.
But that’s how we lost the global Cold War to the Soviets: our whole country became Marxists on the Left and Marxists on the Right. (As I discussed yesterday, this is because both sides are “capital L” Liberals).
Thus, over the past few decades a cold civil war has developed, where a shared value system has evaporated, which is the first step to actual war. First, enemies must hate and demonise each other. After that happens, they will be willing to fight and kill their enemies.
Since Trump began his political ascendancy, he has been targeted by the Marxists. As Sammons summarises:
From the moment he declared his initial run for the presidency in 2015, Trump has endured more attacks than any other candidate in memory. These attacks range from lies about his connections to Russia to literal attacks in the form of two assassination attempts, including one that left him bloodied on the ground (before he famously got back up and urged his followers to “Fight! Fight! Fight!”). The past eight years have been a steady drumbeat of accusations against him as being every form of evil, including “literally Hitler.”
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to cut some taxes. I say “some” because Trump has also pledged to raise taxes on imports…Nonetheless, Trump ran on the idea that he would reduce the tax burden on Americans if elected…Unfortunately, Trump has no plans to cut government spending,
and this means there is little chance that ordinary taxpayers are going to experience any real tax relief.
This is because tax cuts without spending cuts don’t actually lessen the cost of government.
As this election cycle has demonstrated yet again, Democrats are not shy about calling for tax increases. In every election cycle they call for more taxes, whether through corporate taxes or through taxes on unrealized capital gains.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to cut some taxes. I say “some” because Trump has also pledged to raise taxes on imports.
Nonetheless, Trump ran on the idea that he would reduce the tax burden on Americans if elected.
Unfortunately, Trump has no plans to cut government spending, and this means there is little chance that ordinary taxpayers are going to experience any real tax relief.
This is because tax cuts without spending cuts don’t actually lessen the cost of government. A tax cut without a spending cut simply moves around the tax burden, and often replaces explicit taxation with the stealth tax of price inflation.
Unless accompanied by spending cuts, a tax cut simply increases deficit spending, and taxpayers will pay for deficits one way or another. Typically deficits are paid for using one or more of the following: future taxes, present interest payments, and monetary inflation. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, when it comes to paying off deficit spending, “the future” is already here. In the 2024 fiscal year, the taxpayers had to pay nearly $900 billion in interest on the debt. That huge tax bill exists because federal politicians in the past spent more than they had in revenues.
Forcing the taxpayers to pay off old debts isn’t exactly popular, however. So, federal technocrats have found a way to push down interest rates on government debt. This reduces the amount of interest owed and nominally reduces the cost of government debt.
But this also ends up costing the taxpayers bigtime because the way that technocrats suppress the cost of interest is by having the central bank buy up more federal debt. (By buying government debt, the central bank artificially drives up demand, so the Treasury doesn’t have to pay as much in interest to attract buyers.) And where does the central bank get the money to buy up government debt? It prints the money. That then leads to both monetary inflation and (eventually) price inflation.
So, tax cuts that increase deficits only end up placing new and different burdens on the taxpayers. They’re not a real tax cut at all.
Well not quite total. It turns out there was another writer who, like Buchanan and Sobran, was fiercely independent and came to embrace the conservatism of old – some call it paleo-conservatism but it should just be conservatism. I am referring to my former mentor, the late Robert Novak, whose half century career in media had come to define not only modern conservatism but the evolution of a young liberal “mugged by reality,” as neocon godfather Irving Kristol put it.
As we arrive at today’s election, there is good news in the US conservative movement regardless of who wins. While the old guard – mostly “boomers” – who still cling to the levers of power continue to mouth the tired old shibboleths (“peace through strength,” “rules based order,” “our greatest ally“), a new generation of young conservatives has emerged that is revitalizing the Old Right view that the focus of conservatism should be to conserve what is actually great about the United States.
First and foremost is the idea, espoused by our first president George Washington, that the United States can only prosper if it is capable of jettisoning “passionate attachments” to any foreign country and embrace, as outlined by John Quincy Adams, the view that America…
…goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
To this point, the focus in the mainstream media and among “boomer” and Beltway neocon Republicans has been that the opposition to US backstopping the Israeli destruction of Gaza is made up of radical, Marxist, Hamas-loving dupes. As I decry in my recent speech to the “Rage Against the War Machine” rally at the Washington Memorial in DC, there has been a notable absence among my fellow “pro-life” and right wing Americans to speak out against the snuffing out of perhaps 200,000 innocent civilian lives – many of them Christian – in Gaza and Lebanon.
I chalked some of that hesitation up to the fear of being labeled “anti-Jewish,” while at the same time I pointed out that a significant proportion of the US university campus protests against the Israeli slaughter in Palestine and Lebanon are led by Jewish students. Likewise, Jewish intellectuals in the US constitute a significant and powerful voice against the policies of the Israeli government and in opposition to the US “special relationship” with that country.
Whatever the case, a younger generation on the Right is getting it. And they are threatening the establishment in ways that should warm all of our conservative hearts. Take for example a new poll by the progressive “Data for Progress” outlet. Among the usual fluff about progressive attitudes toward Kamala etc., a fascinating metric was reported:
By a solid 52 percent majority, Republicans aged 18-24 support a US arms embargo against Israel over their massive slaughter of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.
Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has filed a lawsuit against General Motors for illegally collecting driving data on customers for the past decade without the driver’s consent AND selling that data to insurance companies. According to the lawsuit, this practices has resulted in consumers’ monthly insurance premiums increasing and some customer having their coverage dropped.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the main American media includes many homely, bitter, left-leaning women and numerous bald, left-wing, and equally unattractive men. No wonder, then, that Kamala is the media’s favorite and Trump is referred to as Hitler and, in the words of a Quasimodo type, one Adam Gopnik, “a vile and malignant actor.”
Another universally acknowledged truth is that the main media in America, in lockstep with the entertainment industry, does not object to its left-wing agenda. Network executives, newspaper editors, publishers—whose core job is deciding which stories get told and which do not—have decided that everything Trump does or says is vile, and everything Kamala says or does is not. In fact, the media has dedicated itself to destroying Trump, with Anne Applebaum (an old friend) calling the Donald “Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.” Better yet, CBS trimmed and favorably edited Kamala’s answers on 60 Minutes, making her sound and look like a female Demosthenes rather than the inarticulate blowhard that she is in reality. The New York Times, needless to say, has its new Hitler to attack daily, and manages to sling mud at “bombastic billionaires” even in stories that have nothing to do with politics or the Donald. A recent book, a real hatchet job by two drippy Times gasbags about the Donald, was joyously reviewed—surprise, surprise—and an unwatchable movie, ditto.
“For years I’ve watched the networks slant their reporting to straight-up propaganda, and now it has grown to sheer deceit.”
I am writing this column five days before the election, an election that I cannot see Trump winning as long as the media, Hollywood, Big Tech, and even parts of Wall Street are stacked up against him. For years I’ve watched the networks slant their reporting to straight-up propaganda, and now it has grown to sheer deceit. This corrupt media/Democratic Party alliance is a scandal, but no one seems to be doing anything about it. Talk about a biased system. And never have I seen this country more split, with Kamala’s diphthongs that resemble those of a customer complaint robot making headway into Donald’s camp via intelligently placed ads: Pro football is now the American pastime, having replaced baseball, and Kamala’s ads before each quarter reach tens of millions of possible Trump voters announcing the end of any welfare insurances and social security in case of his victory. It’s all lies, of course, but our so-called independent media are not about to denounce it.
The media has clearly chosen to become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories galore. Just for starters, there are more than 10 million men, women, and children who have illegally made it to these shores since the Biden-Harris duo came into power in 2021, yet Kamala, a border tsar with a broken border, is not held to account, and no Times or Washington Post or network phony has made a fuss about her biggest lies of all. These are people who call themselves journalists but are nothing but activist hypocrites, and I apologize to activists and hypocrites who are not posing as journalists.
There are thousands of migrants from Mauritania flooding into a small Ohio town, with the federal government doing zilch about it, and thousands of illegal Haitians turning an Indiana town into a hellhole, yet it’s Trump the fascist who’s occupying our Fourth Estate at the moment. Almost one million illegal migrants have been given quiet amnesty under Biden-Kamala and can remain in the country without the possibility of deportation. Add to those 10 million illegal migrants in our country since the duo of Joe and Kamala came to power, and you’ll be excused if you reach for your gun.
So, what will happen five days from now? America will go to the polls, and the major networks will do their damnedest to claim irregularities and cheating if the Donald lucks out, and dismiss any irregularities if Kamala wins the top prize. I don’t know why, but this election reminds me so much of the run-up to the Iraq war twenty years ago. William Buckley, who was responsible for my start as a journalist and a very close friend, was pro-war and disappointed in me for not only being against the war in my various columns but also starting a magazine in order to protest it. Yet later on, when I visited Bill in Connecticut, he told me in no uncertain terms that he had been taken in by the neocons and their lies. He was neither the first nor the last to be taken in by what in reality are unpaid Israeli agents.
President Woodrow Wilson declared in 1919: “In the last analysis, my fellow countrymen, as we in America would be the first to claim, a people are responsible for the acts of their government.” Wilson had campaigned for reelection three years earlier bragging that he had kept the country out of World War I; then, shortly after he started his second term, he submitted to Congress a declaration of war against Germany. Were the people responsible for President Wilson’s 1916 peace promises or his 1917 declaration of war?
Democracy is a system of government under which the people are automatically liable for whatever the government does to them. Many of the most deadly errors of contemporary political thinking stem from the notion that in a democracy the government is the people, so there is scant reason to worry about protecting citizens from the government.Freedom consists of more than a mere choice of political masters. [Click to Tweet]
Throughout western history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have sought to browbeat the citizens into obedience by telling them that they are only obeying themselves — regardless of how much the citizens disagree with the government’s edicts. Thomas Hobbes explained in 1652:
Because every subject is by this institution the author of all the actions, and judgments of the sovereign instituted; it follows, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his subjects; nor ought he to be by any of them accused of injustice. But by this Institution of a commonwealth, every particular man is author of all the sovereign doth; and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his sovereign, complained of that whereof he himself is author.
Hobbes sought civil peace by imposing an almost unlimited duty of submission via the sham that people are responsible for whatever government does to them: thus, government can never do the people wrong: thus, people never have a right to resist the government. Unfortunately, Hobbes’s canard has become standard equipment in the rhetorical armory of many rulers of democratic states.
A long history of abuses
In 1798, President John Adams pushed through Congress the Alien and Sedition Acts, which empowered Adams to suppress free speech and imprison without trial any critic of the federal government. When the citizens of Westmoreland County, Virginia, petitioned Adams in 1798 complaining of the acts, President Adams responded by denouncing the citizens: “The declaration that Our People are hostile to a government made by themselves, for themselves, and conducted by themselves, is an insult.” Adams’s response to the people of Westmoreland County — few of whom had voted for Adams — was the classic trick of a would-be democratic tyrant. Virginia had been unwilling to ratify the Constitution until a Bill of Rights had been added to safeguard free speech, among other rights.
Yet even though Adams openly suppressed free speech, he still claimed a right to not only the citizen’s abject obedience but also a right to be above criticism for suppressing their freedom. Kentucky and Virginia enacted resolutions declaring the sedition act null and void; the Kentucky resolution observed that the doctrine “that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it [is] nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers.”
President Theodore Roosevelt, speaking in Asheville, North Carolina, on September 9, 1902, proclaimed: “The government is us; we are the government, you and I.” Yet, at the time, Roosevelt was using the American military to brutally crush a rebellion in the Philippines, which had been conquered by the United States and declared an American territory a few years before. Roosevelt explained that the “constitution does not follow the flag” — the American army therefore had no duty to respect the rights of the Filipino people.
President Woodrow Wilson declared in 1919: “In the last analysis, my fellow countrymen, as we in America would be the first to claim, a people are responsible for the acts of their government.” Wilson had campaigned for reelection three years earlier bragging that he had kept the country out of World War I; then, shortly after he started his second term, he submitted to Congress a declaration of war against Germany. Were the people responsible for President Wilson’s 1916 peace promises or his 1917 declaration of war? How can they be responsible for both? Wilson campaigned for the presidency in 1912 as a progressive. Shortly after he took office, mass firings of black federal employees occurred. The chief federal revenue collector in Georgia announced: “There are no Government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negro’s place is in the cornfield.” How were voters who opposed Jim Crow laws responsible for Wilson’s unexpected racist purge? And how could people have been responsible for Wilson’s pervasive suppression of civil liberties — as well as his pious promises to respect the Constitution? As Harvard professor Irving Babbitt observed in 1924, “Wilson, in the pursuit of his scheme for world service, was led to make light of the constitutional checks on his authority and to reach out almost automatically for unlimited power.”
President Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1938, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.” When Roosevelt first ran for the presidency in 1932, he promised to balance the federal budget — and then later touted his endless deficit spending as a panacea for all the nation’s economic woes. When Roosevelt ran for reelection in 1936, he never mentioned his plan (revealed in early 1937) to pack the nation’s highest court with new appointees to rubber-stamp his decrees. Yet, because he won in 1936, he effectively implied that the citizens were somehow bound to accept all of his power grabs as if they themselves had willed them. Likewise, were citizens responsible for FDR’s 1940 reelection campaign boasts about keeping America out of World War Two — or were they to blame of his secret machinations to drag the United States into that war the following year?
President Lyndon Johnson declared on October 28, 1964: “Government is not an enemy of the people. Government is the people themselves.” Yet it wasn’t “the people” of Arkansas or Oklahoma who had lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to create a pretext to commence bombing a foreign nation.
MCViewPoint 