Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Thursday, July 25, 2024

This Election Will Be One of America's Most Historic

By Rich Kozlovich

I've stated, and believed, the most important election in the 20th century was the 1928 election.  was in my view the greatest President in the 2oth century.  When Harding died he assumed the Presidency two years in, and was elected in 2024.  He could have served another term in 2028, but he hated being President and refused to run.  

became President and set a chain of events into motion leading to   All that's finally being challenged after almost 100 years of the Deep State, massive spending, massive borrowing, and the eventual complete take over of the Democrat party by extreme leftists embracing each of the 1963 published forty five communist goals to destroy America.

In 2018 I predicted there was going to be a blood bath for both the Democrat and Republican parties.  The Democrats in elections, and Republicans in their primaries. That’s happening, albeit much more slowly than I initially predicted.

But this election is the kicker. Trump now controls the Republican party. The “old guard” has been pushed to the side line and are either retiring or not running because Republican voters, with the exception of a few states, won't tolerate TDS any longer.   

I keep coming back to this. After all the rhetoric, all the rationale being offered by pundits, the fact is American’s like Trump for the same reason Lincoln refused to fire Grant. He fights!

The RINO's are America's equivalent of the UK Tories.  Great at promises they never intended on keeping, all the while claiming they're conservatives, never seeing any insane leftist issue they couldn't make their own.   Like John Kasich who claimed he had the right to define conservatism as he saw fit, so he supported Joe Biden in 2020 because Trump was a false conservative. 

Since the RINO cabal has been exposed as Democrats is sheep's clothing, the McCain"whacko bird" conservatives are taking over.

The Democrat party is completely controlled by the Obama cabal.  All tyrants, all racists, all radicals, all socialists, all traitors, all antisemites, all anti Israel, and all this antisemitism isn't playing well with Americans.

His speech was brilliant in the subliminal message he presented. When saying, “Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory,” that was a message that Israel is the canary in the coal mine, and as of this moment is the front line in defense of western civilization, and Netanyahu's speech before Congress highlighted just how radical the Democrat party is. 

His speech was brilliant in the subliminal message he presented saying, “Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory,” that was a message that Israel is the canary in the coal mine, and as of this moment is the front line in defense of western civilization.

The idea of a religious war is anathema to western civilization, but western civilization doesn’t get to pick. If a religious movement says they hate you, and want to kill you because you’re an unbeliever, you should believe them and act accordingly. That’s Islam, and Islam won’t stop on it’s own. It’s a religious war.

After this election I believe all that's going to be challenged because their core is a nightmare, and their bench is disastrous, and it was in 2016 with Hillary, and being epitomized by Harris.  They chose Biden because he was the least offensive and still needed massive levels of voter fraud to put them in the White House, and the Obama bench is even weaker than before to the point of non existence.

I've no doubt Kennedy will be back in the Democrat camp by 2028 and could very well be their nominee, along with others like this governor could very well find themselves in leadership positions by then also.   If Kennedy gets back in and takes a leadership role, I think we could very well see RINO conversions to the Kennedy cabal, as Democrats, or a third party mixture of upset Democrats, RINO's, and independents.  

One thing I think is clear, there will be a massive restructuring of both parties.  But, as the journalist said in movie, Charlie Wilson's War, we'll see.

Iran is Funding the Pro-Hamas Protests

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog 

Who is funding the pro-Hamas riots in major cities? The state sponsors of Hamas in Tehran.

After failing to mention it in previous briefings, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines finally issued a press release admitting that “Iranian government actors have sought to opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza” by “posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters.”

Haines, a veteran of the Obama and Biden administrations, then went out of her way to defend participants in the pro-Hamas movement even though they are working with America’s enemies.

“I know Americans who participate in protests are, in good faith, expressing their views on the conflict in Gaza,” she argued. “Americans who are being targeted by this Iranian campaign may not be aware that they are interacting with or receiving support from a foreign government.”

That problem could be easily addressed if Haines revealed the names that the Iranian campaign operates under and which pro-Hamas groups or individuals are benefiting from the money.

Especially since doing business with the Iranian government is illegal without special exemptions. If Americans are taking money from the Iranian government, they’re committing a crime. And if they don’t know the source of the money, shouldn’t the U.S. government warn them that they’re unintentionally breaking the law? So why is Haines still keeping quiet?

Iran’s support for the pro-Hamas movement is no secret. The terrorist regime in Tehran has declared its support for the terror riots and even sanctioned’ the Chief of the University of Florida Police Department and other law enforcement personnel for interfering with the terrorists.

“Dear university students in the United States of America, you are standing on the right side of history. You have now formed a branch of the Resistance Front,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had declared, openly taking credit for the pro-Hamas movement.

The term “Resistance Front” is used to refer to Iran’s international network of terrorist groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others. (Iran doesn’t officially list Al Qaeda as part of this network, which does include other Sunni Muslim Brotherhood groups like Hamas, but the current leader of Al Qaeda is based out of Tehran.) By naming the Hamas protesters as part of the “Resistance Front”, Iran was including them alongside Hamas and Hezbollah, whose flags have been waved at the riots, as one of the terror fronts that it funds and controls.

During a terrorist conference, IRGC Chief Commander Hossein Salami, a leader of Iran’s international terrorist network, boasted that “the resistance is so grand, beautiful, and captivating that its attractions have penetrated even into the universities of the US.”

Iranian universities organized solidarity protests praising the Hamas encampments complete with chants of ‘Death to America!’ ‘Death to Israel!’ and ‘Death to the Jewish oppressors!’

An Iranian university offered free tuition for students protesting in support of Islamic terrorism.

Kayhan, a major Iranian regime newspaper, wrote that “every student from Harvard, MIT, Boston, Columbia, Emerson, Texas, and so forth has become an Iranian student” and celebrated, “this is what we call exporting the Islamic Revolution!”

Foad Izadi, a professor at Tehran University who is listed as affiliated with the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, boasted that the Hamas supporters on college campuses were “our people”.

“If tensions between America and Iran rise tomorrow or the day after, these are the peoples who will have to take to the streets to support Iran,” he told an interviewer. “Personally, I think that the potential to repeat in the U.S. what Iran did in Lebanon is much higher. Our Hizbullah-style groups in America are much larger than what we have in Lebanon.”

The Iranian regime has done everything possible to take responsibility for the Hamas riots. After months of it, the Biden administration has tentatively gotten around to admitting the obvious.

Why is the Biden administration covering up Iran’s role in the Hamas campus riots?

The protesters and rioters are almost universally members of the administration’s leftist political base. And the administration has gone to great lengths to defend them. Like Haines, Biden and Kamala both praised the Hamas rioters as being motivated by the best possible intentions.

The Hamas rioters “are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza,” Kamala recently told The Nation: an extremist magazine whose writers have championed the riots and denied Hamas atrocities. Kamala sounded like Iran’s Khamenei.

And the Biden administration has played a major role in enriching the Iranian regime.

Iran has benefited from tens of billions in sanctions relief. That money allowed it to build up allied terror groups like Hamas in Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. The US Navy has been battling the Houthis for months on the high seas because of those billions.

The dozens of Americans killed in Israel by Hamas and others who may die in a war with Hezbollah can be attributed to the Biden administration’s extensive sanctions relief to Iran.

And it’s likely that the sanctions relief also freed up money used to interfere in our election.

In her Senate testimony, Haines implied that Iran was interfering in the coming elections. We already know that Iran interfered on behalf of the Democrats in the 2020 election.

The IRGC had previously engaged in a “cyber-enabled disinformation and threat campaign designed to influence the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election” through a false flag operation by Iranian operatives pretending to be conservatives sending emails to “tens of thousands of registered voters” in Florida that threatened them “with physical injury if they did not change their party affiliation and vote for President Trump.”

The Iranian operatives organizing and funding Hamas riots in America may be the same ones trying to swing the 2024 presidential election to the Biden-Harris ticket.

That’s why the Biden administration doesn’t want to talk about them.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Biden Administration Launches A Great Leap Forward Into Green Energy

@ Manhattan Contrarian

Probably very few readers here are old enough to remember China’s “Great Leap Forward.” You’d have to be my age (73 - born in 1950), or close to it, to remember the GLF from reading about it at the time. The name “Great Leap Forward” refers to Mao Zedong’s second Five Year Plan, launched in 1958, and intended to catapult China’s economy from backwardness into modernity. This was to be not just any old central planning project, but a whole new approach designed by the really smart people to correct the mistakes and failures that the Soviet Union had encountered on the road to communism. This time, they were going to get central planning right.

Yesterday the Biden Administration launched a significant new climate initiative with a design that has some remarkable resemblances to the Great Leap Forward. Since most readers probably don’t know how the Great Leap Forward worked out, I’ll save that for the end of the post.

The new Biden Administrative initiative is called “Community-Driven Solutions to Cut Climate Pollution Across America.” The press release from the EPA is here. Nick Pope covered the new initiative in this post at the Daily Caller, which was then also re-posted at Watts Up With That here.

This new initiative is just one small piece of the vast economic waste of the falsely-named Inflation Reduction Act, with its multi-trillion dollars of subsidies for uneconomic projects. But the “community-driven” tag line here is what brings the memory of the Great Leap Forward. The basic idea is that the new investments and technologies to transform our energy economy are going to come from federal selection and subsidizing of various projects originating out of state and local governments, otherwise known as “communities.” From the EPA release:

Today, July 22, . . . the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced selected recipients of over $4.3 billion in Climate Pollution Reduction Grants to implement community-driven solutions that tackle the climate crisis. . . . The grants will fund projects supporting the deployment of technologies and programs to reduce greenhouse gases and other harmful pollution across the country. . . . Together, these selected projects will implement ambitious climate pollution reduction measures designed by states, Tribes and local governments that will achieve significant cumulative GHG reductions by 2030 and beyond.

Enough of the outmoded idea that the way to an efficient and reliable energy system is through profit-driven businesses competing with each other to find the most cost-effective solutions. The new idea is that local governments, aka “communities,” run the economy, directed and supported by some lavish funding from the feds. Here is the quote from Biden Administration “climate czar” John Podesta:

“President Biden’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants put local governments in the driver’s seat to develop climate solutions that work for their communities.”

Pope gives some examples of the kinds of projects that will be getting the funding:

The projects include electric vehicle (EV) charging station construction, funds to help local governments expedite green energy siting and programs to enhance heat pump adoption.

The unifying aspect of all of these projects is that they are uneconomic and would never be adopted by the people of their own choice with their own money. Thus there must be coercion through the federal funding and mandates from the local governments.

Compare this vision to China’s Great Leap Forward. A decent short history of the GLF can be found at the Association for Asian Studies here. The basic idea was that communes would be formed, of about 5500 households each, to become the main economic units, then taking direction from above as to what businesses to pursue:

The movement bore [Mao’s] characteristic faith in China’s bucolic masses—now unfettered by skeptical intellectuals—to surmount any obstacles and achieve a Communist utopia through unity, physical labor, and sheer willpower. In this final stage of collectivization, communes formed—each with some 5,500 households. . . .

In classic the central planning way, the businesses selected to be pursued were based on an ideological vision of utopia, rather than economic reality. The trendy thinking of the time was that strong and modern economies produced a lot of steel, so therefore making a lot of steel was proof of success. And thus the best-known example of the GLF’s folly in economic development was that every household was to build its own furnace to make steel:

One of the most infamous innovations of the Great Leap involved an industrial revolution in the countryside, where farmers constructed millions of backyard furnaces and then divided their time between tending crops and smelting steel.

This promptly led to myriad unintended consequences. Examples:

Gathering fuel to stoke all these furnaces resulted in the loss of at least 10 percent of China’s forests. . . . Rather than mining the ore to be smelted, everyone contributed iron implements, including tools, utensils, woks, doorknobs, shovels, window frames, and other everyday items, while children scoured the ground for iron nails and other scraps. . . . [T]he campaign essentially converted practical items into useless lumps of pig iron good only for clogging railroad yards. . . .

And as labor got diverted from productive uses to unproductive, the economy collapsed. It only took about a year:

Starvation became a widespread problem with the harvest of 1959. . . . As food reserves in the countryside diminished, peasants began dying in droves by the summer of 1960. They collapsed in fields, on roadsides, and even at home where family members watched their corpses rot, lacking the energy for burial or even to shoo away flies and rats. . . . Estimates of deaths directly related to the famine range from a minimum of twenty-three million to as many as fifty-five million, although the figure most often cited is thirty million.

Well, the good news is that this latest Biden program is a lousy $4.3 billion — big, but still not much more than a rounding error in the federal budget. The Inflation Reduction Act as a whole — touted as $1.5 trillion, but estimated by many to be more like $2-3 trillion — is not a rounding error. Devoting that kind of money to uneconomic and wealth-destroying projects can have disastrous consequences. I expect that we will escape the fate of China in the 1950s, but we can’t be sure until the climate crazies are defeated.

Whitewashing Soviet-Era Tyranny and Failure

July 24, 2024 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty 

As part of my 100-tragic-years-of-communism series in 2017, I wrote a column about dupes and apologists for Soviet tyranny, as well as a column mocking economists who thought communism was producing good results.


The worst part of communism was the depraved brutality that led to 100 million deaths.

But since I’m an economist, let’s focus on the failure of communism to deliver higher living standards.

The Soviet Union, for instance, was a member of the anti-convergence club, falling farther and farther behind the United States over time.

Given these facts, I was shocked to see a report in the New York Times, authored by , that waxes nostalgic for “Soviet prosperity” in the country of Georgia (formerly part of the Soviet Union).

I’m not joking. Here are some excerpts.

…those…in poorer parts of the country…pine for a Soviet past that delivered them stable incomes and basic social infrastructure. …the Soviet period…for many people in rural areas…was a time of plenty, when they had jobs and prosperity. …One such town, Chiatura, was once considered a Soviet workers’ paradise… Now, the town center is a shell of what used to be, with shuttered businesses…

“We used to live well under Communism,” said Mamia Gabeskeliani, 68, who lives in Zodi, a mining village outside Chiatura. …Sopo Japaridze, an American-educated workers’ rights activist in Tbilisi, said she wanted to see a closer examination of all sides of Georgia’s Soviet past. …

But life in Georgia since the collapse of the Soviet Union “has degraded in every way,”…she said, so the benefits of Soviet rule also need to be considered. “Life was much richer,” said Ms. Japaridze.

You may be wondering about Sopo Japaridze, who is identified as a “workers’ rights activist.”

What the reporter should have mentioned is that she's a lunatic lefty. It only took me one minute of online searching to find some of her strange output, such as “Imagine a World: Utopian Visions of Marxist Feminism” and a presentation to Kasama Project, which openly states that “We are a communist project that fights, in theory and practice, for the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

To be fair, I’m sure there are some people in Georgia who are nostalgic for the Soviet Union. Some people who had jobs in subsidized industries probably lost status when communism collapsed. And relative status matters to many people.

But if the goal is more prosperity for the masses, then the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was a big plus for Georgia.

Just as it was in Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, and other parts of the former Soviet Bloc that shifted to free markets.

P.S. I wrote back in 2020 about a reprehensible attempt to whitewash East Germany’s Stalinist dictatorship.

The Biden Coverup and Kamala Harris 2.0

What did the vice president know, and when did she know it? 

By Jul 24, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Let’s be honest. From the moment she came into sharp focus upon being selected by Joe Biden as vice president, Kamala Harris has been a laugh line. Why? The widespread perception that she was picked over more qualified candidates strictly because of her race and gender. Her evident lack of substance revealed through her signature word salads. Her disastrous performance as border czar. Her famously ineffective management style that forced one adviser after another to run for the exits. Her inexplicable guffaws when a gracious laugh was called for and expected.

But that’s all over now. She’s a new person, Kamala 2.0, don’t you know? She no longer represents the most target-rich environment for ridicule but rather a rock star, Hollywood on the Potomac, the female Barack Obama — the woman whose mixed-race background and endless enthusiasm for abortion promises to offer broad appeal to left-of-center voters. 

With Democrats undoubtedly scrambling to change everything from ballots to lawn signs from Biden-Harris to Harris or Harris-(fill in the blank), a fawning media are doing their part by glamorizing her life story. They will be sure to leave out inconvenient truths like her career-launching relationship with a married man, famed California Democrat Willie Brown, or that her formative years were spent in Canada, or how she has presented herself alternately as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and BLM-inspired progressive.

She will try to be all things to all people but is in danger of winding up where she did in her failed run at the White House: as nothing to nobody. Despite lazy descriptions of her as African-American, she is not — and that matters in the Democrats’ hierarchy of oppression. She has never had particular appeal to minorities or women beyond those who vote primarily on race and gender. Perhaps most damaging is that she is widely viewed as having few core beliefs.

But that was then, and this is now. Harris is a new woman, reborn as the goddess of our progressive future. And so, with the wind at her back during a mini-honeymoon, she will now have a chance to transform her image before an anxious national audience. She will try to do so as shellshocked voters desperately try to add their evaluation of Harris to their processing of the dizzying course of events in this campaign for the ages, from Trump’s conviction to Biden’s debate from hell to the Trump headshot to Biden’s stunning exit from the race.

Questions Demanding Answers

Before anyone is truly convinced of her ability to either beat Trump or serve as president, Kamala will have to answer a series of extremely difficult questions in forthright and intelligible fashion. It will require political skills she has not previously displayed.

  • Exactly when were you aware of President Biden’s cognitive decline?
  • What did you do about it? Whom did you talk to about it?
  • Will you continue to claim you saw no evidence of his deteriorating condition through all of your interactions with him? Congressional Democrats were reportedly startled by his condition as far back as the fall of 2021.
  • If President Biden is not up to running for office, something he denied for months, how exactly is he fit to continue as commander-in-chief? What is your response right now to Robert Hur’s description of your president as an elderly man with a poor memory?
  • As Border Czar (though you reject that title), how much responsibility are you willing to accept for the catastrophe at the southern border, for the millions of illegal immigrants who have poured over the border since the advent of your administration?
  • How responsible are you for a migrant-driven crime wave that has women terrified to go out alone and has driven so many out of once-great cities?
  • Do you agree that inflation was really 9% when you took office, as the president has repeatedly claimed, even though it was reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as 1.4%?
  • Exactly how much responsibility are you willing to accept for inflation that is worse than at any time in 40 years, and rising prices that are forcing Americans to change their lifestyles?

Those are certainly not all the questions facing Kamala as she races out onto the big stage. But if she can navigate those fundamental issues effectively enough to convince Americans — and Democratic leaders well aware of her deficits — that they were wrong about her all along, then her candidacy can be considered a serious threat to Trump. But if she replaces Biden’s stumbles and mumbles with her own circular logic designed to dodge scrutiny, her negative image, like that of her increasingly elite party, will only be reinforced.

How did we get to this point?

Kamala Harris: Product of a Rigged Process

One of the more prominent narratives advanced by the media over the course of the 2024 presidential campaign is that an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted alternatives to both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Armed with that data-based assumption, how did the two parties respond? After all, they are the only vehicles for managing the political landscape as laid out by public and private polling. And the responses of the two parties could not have been more opposite.

Republicans, shaky about another run by Trump, created a primary framework that attracted well-known alternatives to Trump like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Chris Christie. They provided platforms, primaries, and debates. And just like in 2016, the challengers all fell like dominoes before the former president as a martyr for the cause who “took a bullet for democracy,” as he proclaimed at a recent rally, and who has now unmistakably redefined and united the Republican Party.

In striking contrast, Democrats, once perceived as protectors of the downtrodden and dispossessed, are now widely viewed as the true elites. And their primary process only reinforced that reputation. They essentially warned and threatened anyone in their fold, from officeholders to operatives, who would dare consider challenging their president. Dissenters were silenced. There was only a single option. Joe Biden would be the nominee whether rank-and-file Democrats wanted him or not. The one brave soul willing to openly observe that their emperor had no clothes, Rep. Dean Phillips, was marginalized, ostracized, and reportedly threatened with a primary challenge.

The result: Trump and Republicans are more united than ever. Democrats are left with Kamala Harris, a candidate who flamed out mightily in her previous run for the presidency, receiving a grand total of zero delegates in her heavily funded presidential campaign. But now she has wrapped up the nomination in about 24 hours. Maybe it had something to do with the way their nominees were selected. Could Kamala Harris have won an open primary against successful or well-known Democrats like Govs. Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and other rising stars? Few would say yes, and that is why, despite the party’s attempts to put a happy face on the mess they created, so many Americans are flummoxed and so many Democrats are furious.

Read More From Tim Donner

President Joe Biden Has Been Bad, but a President Kamala Harris Would Be Worse, Part II

July 22, 2024 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty 

Four years ago, I explained that Kamala Harris supported a very radical agenda of equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity.

I don’t want to engage in hyperbole, but that’s unadulterated Marxism (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”).

And it’s definitely a recipe for endless tax increases to finance an ever-expanding burden of government spending.

And that’s exactly what she proposed as a candidate in 2020, calling for more than $4 trillion of new spending compared to Biden’s $297 billion wish list.

But it’s not just me pointing out that Kamala Harris is even worse than Biden.

In a piece for the New York Times, Alan Rappeport explains that she is to the left of him on economic policy.

That doesn’t seem possible given Biden’s support for class warfare, redistribution, protectionism, and red tape (his agenda after getting elected was a lot more expensive than what he mentioned in the campaign), but Rappeport makes a compelling argument. Here are some excerpts.

As Ms. Harris prepares to potentially replace President Biden atop the Democratic ticket, she now faces the challenge of articulating her own vision for steering a U.S. economy…as an attorney general and a senator, she was at times more progressive than the president, pushing for universal health care while calling for more generous tax benefits for working-class Americans and paying for them with bigger tax increases on companies. …

the LIFT the Middle Class Act, was unveiled in 2018 and aimed to address the rising cost of living by providing middle-class and working families with money to help pay for everyday expenses. …Ms. Harris proposed increasing estate taxes on the wealthy to pay for a $300 billion plan to raise teacher salaries.

…Ms. Harris wanted to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 35 percent, which is higher than the 28 percent that Mr. Biden had proposed. …She proposed the Rent Relief Act, which would have provided refundable tax credits allowing renters who earn less than $100,000 to recoup housing costs…

I’ve written about many of the bad ideas that she has endorsed (rent subsidies, child handouts, energy taxes, and “Medicare for All“).

The bottom line is that she is a knee-jerk statist.

Editor's Note:  While I think Dan does a great job in a lot of areas, and outlines very well what's wrong with Kamala and her ilk, but I want to make sure my readers understand, this next section is an bone of contention I have with the Libertarians delusional views of international trade. RK

But I don’t want to be completely pessimistic. It’s possible she will be better than Trump and Biden on trade.

Ms. Harris said she would be focused on bolstering American exports and declared, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.” …Ms. Harris echoed her earlier criticism of Mr. Trump when discussing his plan to impose 10 percent tariffs on all imports into the United States. She said such a policy would inflate the cost of gas, groceries and clothing.

She’s right that Trump’s trade policy is bad, so my fingers are crossed that the pro-trade sentiments mentioned above are sincere.

P.S. She’s also a hypocrite on school choice.

Who Were the Secret Service Protecting?

 By Rich Kozlovich

Well, finally one of the incompetents Biden appointed to an important position has resigned for her incompetence.  Or was it incompetence?  

Kimberly Cheatle has resigned after testifying she believed she was the best person around to keep heading up the Secret Service.  Why?  Because she was pretty much bereft of defenders, even Democrats attacked her.  Were there other reasons for her resignation?  Only time will tell. 

In the meanwhile there are questions be asked based on what is now absolutely known, and one writer even wondered who Secret Service thought they were there to protect, Trump or Crooks.

  1. He wandered without hindrance at the rally.
  2. He settled in the most obvious location for his shot, and was observed doing so 20 minutes before the shooting, of which the Secret Service was aware.  One officer had Crooks point a gun at him and he fell off the roof, before the shooting.  That alone should have triggered an assault on Crooks.
  3. Two officers abandoned their post in spite of that knowledge.
  4. He was carrying a rifle, and he was carrying a range finder and the Secret Service knew about it.
  5. Ordinary citizens tried to warn police and were ignored.
  6. Police claimed they told the Secret Service, and they did nothing.
  7. The Secret Service had previously identified that location as the best location for an assassination attempt and it was not guarded.  A location he managed to get to and shoot Trump without hindrance.
  8. The Beaver County sniper team saw and photographed him a full four minutes before the shooting. 
  9.  When the Secret Service sniper saw him on the roof with a rifle why didn't they shoot?  We now know there were a full 26 minutes to prevent the assassin from shooting at Trump.  It's also reported "at least one sniper/spotter team had the assassin in their sights for some three minutes but were denied clearance to shoot".  If that's true, then who refused permission to shoot, and why?  Is this failure by the Secret Service just blatant incompetence on the part of the Secret Service, or was it more?

All this was known to the Secret Service and yet no one prevented Trump from standing up in front of that audience, which is standard operating procedure in that kind of situation, allowing Trump to be Crooks' target, and no one prevented Crooks from setting up his target.  And now there's talk about evidence of a second shooter.

All nine bullet points outline serious violations of the operational procedures for the Secret Service giving way to the question: Who were they protecting? 

As the story unfolds there's a lot of disturbing facts emerging indicating planning, advanced technology, and potential unexplained connections, along with a awful lot of unexplained security reactions.   I'm now convinced this is a story that has tentacles that reach farther, deeper, and wider than I initially thought, and it needs to be investigated far more seriously than it is, since the FBI and the DHS are taking on that responsibility, and no one trusts them.  I think it's not unreasonable to say there won't be a proper investigation until Trump is elected.   

 So, what do we have here?  Another conspiracy theory?   Let's try and get this right once, just once, please.  There's a difference between conspiracy theorists and those who believe in conspiracies.  Conspiracy theorists create these unfounded scenarios in order to try and make sense of a complicated world.  Whereas those who believe in conspiracies have read a history book..... or two, and they know all this clabber about how there's not such thing as a conspiracy, ergo, conspiracies don't exist, just isn't true!  There have been secret plans, i.e., conspiracies, throughout human history.  There's no reason to believe anything have changed.  People will be people, and the patterns of life repeat over and over again.

So, what do we have here?  Another conspiracy theory?  Well, that's how all conspiracies are exposed, by theorizing they exist, and then investigated, that's science.   In this case criminal science.  And time has shown an awful lot of these conspiracy theories turn out to be conspiracy fact.  However, let's not obfuscate this fact.  There' just no end to the rank incompetence in the Biden administration, and no matter what else is likely to be uncovered, that's blatantly obvious.

Mostly Peaceful Assassinations

Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog


The attempted assassination of President Trump was on the right side of history. The inch that spared his life was on the wrong side of history.

Leftists see history as a series of confrontations between progressive and reactionary forces. The escalation of those confrontations from political protests “dissent is patriotic” to violent riots “the language of the unheard” to terrorism “the last desperate struggle of outraged and exasperated human nature” is blamed on the failure of society to become sufficiently socialist.

The right side of history arrives when society, and all conservative and reactionary forces, is overthrown. Assassinating a president, especially a reactionary one, is a means to that end.

Over the last 9 years, liberals had pursued every possible legal and illegal means from secret investigations to lawfare to street violence to prosecution on invented grounds to stop Trump.

Are we supposed to believe that the same political interests that defended the violent BLM riots as “mostly peaceful” were willing to shrink away from a targeted assassination of Trump?

Just call it a mostly peaceful assassination.

Nearly every Democrat politician, media outlet and cultural force has consistently made the case for the last 9 years that Trump is a unique threat that must be stopped by any means.

If there is anything that they have demonstrated over the years, it’s that they don’t believe any value, principle or safeguard matters more than getting him. Or getting to the right side of history. A movement vandalizing art treasures, killing babies and destroying black neighborhoods for the greater good could hardly quibble with one man’s death.

Every legal and moral code has been made subservient to the right side of history. The ends of saving the planet and transforming society always justify the means. Violence is a means. Like racism or breaking into the Capitol, it’s not inherently wrong, its morality rests on whether it falls on the right and progressive side or the wrong and reactionary side of history.

To regret the violence is to also to regret the movement. Those liberals who came to regret the violence eventually became conservatives because they came to question the ends.

Liberals ask us to accept two incompatible notions, that Trump is Hitler and they regret his attempted assassination. But if Trump indeed is Hitler, then wouldn’t shooting him be justified? Either they don’t believe their own analogy or they don’t regret the assassination attempt.

There’s no doubt that the obsessive hatred for Trump is real, but the need is as real as the hate. Every Republican presidential candidate, even the most milquetoast of them like Mitt Romney, have been compared to Hitler because the right side of history needs someone to hate.

Trump, unlike Romney or George W. Bush, understood that and embraced the persona. In contrast to many other Republicans, he didn’t expect to be liked by those who wanted to hate him. And the right side of history is all about finding someone to hate to justify the violence.

The greatest lie that leftists tell themselves is that they are violent only as a reaction. Someone, society, an economic system, human nature, always started it and they’re the ones fighting back. The reality is that the real purpose of every radical movement is violence. The promise of utopia is unachievable, but the impossible dream and its accompanying impossible standards justify the destruction of every flawed institution and the flawed people who live by it.

In France, leftists rioted before and after they won the election. Why riot after you’ve won? Because violence is both the means to victory and the ultimate purpose of victory. Out of power, leftists riot, in power they kill. The right side of history is the power to kill absolutely everyone.

Killing Trump was not an aberration, a turn away from the right side of history, but the thing itself. In the aftermath of the assassination attempt, the machinery of denial and projection hums along, spinning off conspiracy theories, projections and rationalizations. Ear truthers claim that Trump wasn’t really hit. Prominent intellectuals and academics speculate that it was a set up. Democrats and the media explain that it’s conservatives who are the violent dangerous ones.

An act of violence is an opportunity for self-examination. Mass murder, as Stalin was said to have pointed out, operates on the scale of statistics which is impossible for people to take in. Anne Frank is comprehensible where the Holocaust is not. A single story or moment can crystalize violence while a systematic campaign of destruction is too big to take in.

The Trump assassination attempt did what previous larger scale outbursts of leftist violence, like the congressional baseball game shooting, the campaign against the justices and BLM race riots could not because the man at the center of it had become the symbol of the unwoke. The seconds of the assassination showed what the right side of history really looks like up close.

The Left fears that moment because it understands the power of symbolism. It cannot bend economies to its will, command the ocean tide or change the human heart, but it understands how to tell a story because telling stories is what it does. The right side of history is a story that killed millions. The Trump assassination is the story of the right side of history. And its ugliness.

The Trump assassination, like the terrors of the French and Russian revolution, and Mao and Pol Pot in China and Cambodia, show what happens when the Left actually gets what it wants.

In Butler, PA, liberals briefly tasted what they had wanted all along. Some were shocked while others gloried in it. And that is not only the story of the Trump assassination, but of the Left. It’s the story of two centuries of mass murder, torture, fear, terror and the destruction of everything.

The right side of history doesn’t unite us, it doesn’t offer hope and its only outcome is death.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

Joe's Gone and the RINO's Must Go Too

By Robin Itzler

Editor's Note:  This is some paraphrased humor that appeared in Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors. Any cartoons appearing will have been added by me.  If you wish to get the full edition,   E-mail her at to get on her list, it's free.  RK 

On the DEMOCRAT side:

California Democrat Representative Adam Schiff, who is running for U.S. Senate, told donors during a private event on July 13 that Democrats are likely going to suffer massive losses in November if Joe Biden remains the party’s nominee.  As reported in The New York Times, Schiff said: 

“I think if he is our nominee, I think we lose. And we may very, very well lose the Senate and lose our chance to take back the House.” On July 17, Schiff publicly announced that Biden should step down.

The Democrat Party’s coup was successful! They got Joe Biden to step down. However, the elites desperately wanted an open convention to put together a ticket that excluded the hapless Kamala Harris. Instead, Joey endorsed Kamala. (Plus, she can access much of the Biden/Harris donations.) 


It would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for another candidate to swoop in on August 22, the last day of the DNC convention, and mount a solid presidential campaign. Remember, early voting in several states starts just a few weeks after the convention. The DNC might let Cacklin Harris go down in the hopes of retaking the White House in 2028.

No matter who the Democrats put up as the nominee, we are a divided nation, and it will be a close election!  Trump/Vance are running against Biden/Harris policies.

RINO's are hurting the Republican Party.  

As Republicans gathered in Milwaukee for the most unifying convention in decades, RINO Senator Susan Collins of Maine announced she will NOT vote for Donald Trump. Instead, RINO Collins stupidly said she will write in Haley’s name. 

This is another example of why RINOs absolutely must be voted out of office. To share your thoughts with Sen. Collins: Email: Click here to email Senator Susan Collins of Maine. -  Phone: 202-224-2523 -  Write: 413 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510

On the INDEPENDENT side:

Following the assassination attempt on President Trump, the Secret Service agreed to provide protection to Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Labour’s Class-Warfare Raid Will Cause Rich People to Leave the United Kingdom

July 23, 2024 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

I wrote a couple of days ago about the possibility of confiscatory taxes in France and whether that would lead to an exodus of upper-income taxpayer.

Since that’s happened before, it’s very realistic to think it will happen again.

Now let’s cross the English Channel and investigate how the Labour Party also is pushing for policies that will cause an exodus of successful people.

Only instead of higher tax burdens on all rich people, the new Labour government is targeting “non-doms,” which is the shorthand term for non-domiciled residents (high-net-worth people who lived elsewhere and decided to move to the United Kingdom).

Under current law, non-doms don’t pay tax on income that is earned in other countries so long as the money isn’t remitted to the United Kingdom.

This policy has been very successful in attracting rich people from all over the world. And one of the most important things to understand – as shown by this chart – is that government collects a lot of money because of non-doms.

The chart comes from a 2022 article in CapX by Callum Price. Here are some excerpts.

Non-domiciled status is not some new tax wheeze. It has been around some 200 years, since it was used to protect colonial investments in in the days of the British Empire. It essentially means someone doesn’t have to pay tax on earnings they make outside the UK, unless those earnings are remitted to the UK…

Effectively, non-dom status just prevents someone being taxed twice, once by the country in which they are domiciled and again the country they reside in… By letting wealthy people move here without having to pay double taxes on their earnings from another country, Britain becomes a more attractive destination for high-net-worth individuals. That in turns brings some significant benefits. …

F rstly, for the Treasury… And given that non-dom status invariably applies to rich international business people, those tax receipts are significant. …we want to attract the best and brightest from around the world and the non-dom arrangements are a part of making Britain an attractive place for talent from around the world to come and bring their expertise, and spend their money, on these shores.

In April of this year, Mattie Brignal wrote an article for the Telegraph about the likely impact of a big tax hike on non-doms.

Wealthy foreigners are being told to “get out while they still can” after Labour announced plans to toughen up a Tory crackdown on non-doms. …high-end tax and wealth advisers warned the raid will be “devastating” for rich foreigners, forcing them to flee abroad and take their wealth with them. …Jon Elphick, international tax adviser at Mark Davies & Associates, said…“This will be a dealmaker for moving abroad, especially ultra-high net worth clients who would be paying a lot of tax.

There’s now a big risk they relocate.” …The Office for Budget Responsibility, the official forecaster, expects 10pc to 20pc of non-doms to leave the UK because of the tax raid, but in reality that figure could be even higher. …Mr Elphick added: “One Israeli client last week said they had had enough of how the tax system had changed and as a result will move, probably to Monaco, Switzerland or Dubai.

Notice, by the way, that the Conservative Party (Tories) also were bad on the issue. They became big spenders and sooner or later that leads to bad tax policy.

But let’s not digress. What matters if that politicians are threatening a big tax increase on people who bring a lot of wealth to the United Kingdom.

Defenders of the new Labour plan claim that non-doms are bluffing and that most of them will stay and pay more tax.

So let’s look at a July 19 article in Reuters by Sinead Cruise. As you can see from these passages, it seems like some of the golden geese are indeed flying away.

For ultra-wealthy entrepreneur Bassim Haidar, living in London has become an expensive indulgence he can no longer justify. While new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer settles into No. 10 Downing St, Haidar is searching for homes in Greece and Monaco, because a proposed inheritance tax revamp will make Britain a ‘no go’ zone for the rich, he says. …
Haidar says the proposed changes could harm the economy if international business owners choose to quit Britain, or avoid moving here, undermining its reputation… Investment firms, wealth managers and private bankers who provide financial services to around 70,000 UK-based individuals with ‘non-dom’ status are on high alert for when the historic tax overhaul might begin. …Britain is likely to lose nearly one in six of its U.S. dollar millionaires by 2028, according to the UBS Global Wealth Report for 2024 published earlier this month. …
David Lesperance, managing director of tax adviser Lesperance & Associates, told Reuters the government should not underestimate the ease and pace at which wealthy families could quit the UK, and how countries like Dubai and Singapore were striving to attract them. …”Wealth does not stay still anymore. It doesn’t have to. The golden geese have wings and they will fly,” he said.

I’ll close with three points.

First, this tax will have substantial Laffer Curve effects because rich people have significant ability to change their behavior (including their residence). It may still raise revenue, but the amount of revenue will be modest compared to the loss for the British economy.

Second, we have evidence to support my concerns. A tax raid on non-doms in the 2000s caused many of them to flee and the government may have suffered a net revenue loss.

Third, some people make a compelling argument that it’s not fair to exempt non-doms from tax on the income they earn in other countries when regular citizens are subject to such extraterritorial taxes. But the way to make things equal is by getting rid of worldwide taxation for everyone (the U.S doesn’t have a non-dom policy, but we also should get rid of worldwide taxation).

P.S. Greece and Italy have policies to attract well-to-do foreigners, so they’ll likely benefit from the U.K.’s mistake. As will Monaco, Switzerland, and other sensible jurisdictions.

The Canonization of Joe Biden

The line forms on the left.

by | Jul 23, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News Articles, Opinion, Politics

Even before the white puff of smoke could be seen rising above the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington, DC, members of the president’s party lined up to laud the man who had suffered their wrath only a day earlier. The Joe-Must-Go campaign finally came to its obvious denouement after a few weeks of pressuring the president to drop out of the 2024 presidential race. Joe Biden didn’t go willingly and didn’t go quickly, but, by God, he went – and that’s all that matters to the Democratic Party.

Without hesitation, Washington, DC’s prominent legacy newspaper and The New York Times invoked the H-word on their front pages. As they see it, Biden’s decision to remove himself from the Democratic ticket was “heroic” – and he may now don the mantle of American Hero. As the Roman triumphus got underway, The Times chose historian Jon Meacham to spread the word of their victorious, conquering hero. And he laid it on thick:

“Mr. Biden has spent a lifetime trying to do right by the nation, and he did so in the most epic of ways when he chose to end his re-election campaign. His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington, who also stepped away from the presidency. To put something ahead of one’s immediate desires — to give rather than to try to take — is perhaps the most challenging thing for any human being to do. And Mr. Biden has done just that.”

One wonders if Meacham will initiate a movement to put Biden’s face on the one-dollar bill. However, he might have to queue up behind columnist David Ignatius, who intoned, “Bravo to Biden for opening the curtain as he closes his own.” Dana Milbank breathed a sigh of relief, saying, “[I feel] heroic more than anything. Biden did what he has always done and put the country first.” Editor and commentator Ruth Marcus chimed in with, “It is hard to age — indeed, hard to accept our own frailties and limitations at any age — and Biden’s story, laced with tragedy throughout his career, ends on a note that is both tragic and, I hope, heroic.”

The Fourth Estate was only one column of support for the outgoing president. The Democratic political aristocracy was tripping all over itself and each other to commend Biden for his “selfless heroism.” The Lady Macbeth of the Democratic Party cut in line to be one of the first to congratulate Joe. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a statement, “God blessed America with Joe Biden’s greatness and goodness.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), perhaps the ultimate schemer, Iago, of Shakespeare’s Othello, asserted, “Joe, today shows you are a true patriot and great American.”

Next in line to heap praise upon the laurel-crowned head of the commander-in-chief was none other than former president Barack Obama. Some might jump to the erroneous conclusion that he played the part of Brutus, the Roman military leader and politician immortalized in the Bard’s Julius Caesar, but this may be too virtuous a role for the former president. Indeed, the real villain in the murder of Julius Caesar is Decimus, Brutus’ cousin, who laid the groundwork for the conspiracy and ultimate betrayal of the Roman emperor. With friends like Obama, as the saying goes, who needs enemies?

Joe Biden — A Pawn on the Democratic Chess Board

When viewed dispassionately, Democrats – whether they be in the media or serpents within the leftist political class – display all the signs of the abuser in an insalubrious relationship. The abusers exert control over the victims and threaten to take power away unless and until they agree to do what the abusers demand. It’s the old “slap, slap, kiss, kiss” method of manipulation. Having been backed into a corner by his abusers, the president had no place left to go but to submit to their demands – or else.

Thus it appears the canonization of Joe Biden is underway. Architectural plans for the Biden Presidential Library will be snatched from the funeral pyre. Democrats are preparing to cue Kool & The Gang for a hearty chorus of “Celebrate good times – come on.” However, they may come to rue the day when they kicked Grandpa to the curb. A reckoning draws nigh: It is not the Ides of March but rather Nov. 5 that they must fear.

Read More From Leesa K. Donner

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Passing Thoughts on Today's News

By Rich Kozlovich
Recently there was an article comparing the similarities of Alexander Hamilton's life and J.D. Vance's life, and generally when I see piece praising Hamilton I chuckle, more of a snort actually, roll my eyes and shake my head.   They invariably leave something really important out.  
Hamilton was a believer in a strong central government with more control over the states. He was the first promoter of crony capitalism, in favor of big business over society, and supported the Whiskey act, which taxed the sale of whiskey. The distillers in the major cities liked that as it would cut competition from the farmers, which was the goal of the Whiskey act.

Farmers turned their corn into liquor, which was easier to transport from the back woods than corn, and it was more profitable. That triggered the Whiskey Rebellion and Washington sent troops. All of which clearly violated the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter. 

Why did he take that stand?  The Whiskey Act was passed in 1791, and the Constitution was completed in 1787, ratified in 1788, and became operational in 1789.  Just two years earlier, and their concern was to garner support for the Constitution from the business community.  In short, he sacrificed the struggling common man for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.    Let’s hope Hamilton and Vance don’t have that much in common.

Here's an interesting piece comparing the Democrat's backstabbing of Biden and the literal stabbing of Julius Caesar.

Both power mongers, both corrupt, but Caesar's murderers were trying to save the Roman Republic, which wasn't going to happen since the Empire was getting too big for their system, and they weren't inclined to create a Constitution as that would have restricted the power structure of Rome. 

I always hate it when I see Caesar glorified, but considering the culture of Rome, he played their corrupt game better than his rivals, by being "far more" corrupt than all of them.  But here's the point.  If you compare the violence, selected rioting, protesting, public intimidation, and corruption being orchestrated by the left, it would seem they got their lessons from Julius Caesar and how he took power in Rome

The author left out a lot about Caesar, especially his rendition of the Gallic Wars, which seems to be as much self promoting propaganda as it is history, but his point was well made.  

The Democrat party is made up of Girondins versus the Jacobin in France's revolution, and Mensheviks versus Bolsheviks in Russia's revolution, both resolved by murdering the opposition.  In America, that's not so easy.  So, the solution for the conflict between the moderately radical and the extremely radical creates a potential for a third “Democrat” party with the disaffected Girondins/Mensheviks/RFK Jr. Independents/disaffected RINO’s, who have all now been relegated to bleating, whining, and groveling before leftist media hacks. 

But, like all leftist collaborations, it won’t last and America won’t care. The benefit is it won’t be long before we will start to hear blessed silence from them as no one will care what they have to say, including what’s left of the MSM, which is losing readers/viewers. 

A  couple of years ago I read Amity Schlaes book “Coolidge” which I highly recommend if for no other reason it highlights there were RINO's before they were defined as RINOs', and there were John McCain's before there was a John McCain, practicing all the slimy tactics we've seen in recent years.

Calvin Coolidge was the greatest president of the 20th century, and has largely been forgotten…unfortunately.  As it turns out, 1928 was a seminal election in America.   Coolidge hated being President and refused to run for his own second term. was then elected and set a chain of events into motion that brought in  FDR's New Deal, the  massive spending, borrowing, the deep state, and the nation to where it is now.

For decades the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans was the Democrats wanted to take all our money, take total control of our lives, and do it “now”! The Republicans were willing to wait a week. Their goals were always the same, the only difference was in tactics, and who were going to be the beneficiaries.

Is it any wonder they hate anyone who’s trying to disrupt that gravy train. 

Here's a good article about the corruption of the media.   The truth is the media, which in days gone by was just newspapers, then radio, then television, were never neutral. The difference is in the many years before WWII the newspapers were openly partisan. Newspapers even had the name of the party they supported in their name. Everyone knew where they stood. After WWII they deliberately hid their bias and lied to America, and learned how to do from journalism schools.  They did it well, and Walter Cronkite was among the foremost leaders in hiding their bias.   But eventually they’re corrupt obfuscation of the truth became obvious with the introduction of the internet and the alternative media. Then the Cronkite acolytes started to fall.   was among those first big named “journalist” who was finally brought down with his lies, which he and he MSM still justify.

Truth and time are on the same side, and history isn’t kind or unkind, it’s just history. However, history can be forgiving or unforgiving, and history will not be forgiving of the mass corruption of the media, or Dan Rather.   

Here's an incontestable truth.  After 1920 communists/socialist infiltrated the newspapers, radio, Hollywood, the federal government, unions, academia, many of whom were Stalinist agents, and public education starting in the 1890's.  And we know that because of the release of the intercepts in 1996.   

That's history!  That's incontestable! And Joe McCarthy was right!

Biden Unfit to be Candidate, Fit to be President

By @ Sultan Knish Blog  

After a few weeks of media hit pieces, donor pressure and calls by party leaders, Joe Biden did what Donald J Trump refused to do in 2016 or 2024, and announced that he was dropping out of the campaign to focus on “fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Democrats and their media had spent months making the case that Biden was unfit to be a presidential candidate on account of his mental state. Members of Congress, celebrities and party insiders described him as being unable to function in even the most basic ways.

Now they will argue that a man in that condition is unfit to campaign, but fit to run the country.

By pressuring Biden to resign from the campaign, but not the presidency, Democrats have officially put ‘party ahead of country’. They have made it clear that they have no problem with an unfit president, only an unfit candidate, and even then only when that candidate’s unfitness becomes public knowledge and puts them at risk of losing a presidential election.

Rep. Seth Moulton recently claimed that Biden didn’t recognize him at a D-Day event and called on him to resign. At the NATO summit, the head of the Eurasia Group described a world leader saying that Biden was “repeating the same anecdote twice in an individual meeting” and another case where Biden was “not recognizing someone that he knew quite well.”

Media reports indicated that Biden could not function well after 4 PM and that he needed to be in bed by 8 PM leaving him unable to attend events with world leaders. Watergate’s Carl Bernstein said that sources had described over a dozen incidents similar to the one at the debate. The media confirmed stories previously reported in the conservative press of Obama and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni having to lead Biden where he needed to go.

How under those circumstances is it possible for Biden to remain in his current position?

Democrats and their media want to have it both ways. They want to argue that Biden is mentally unfit for the strenuous task of making appearances at local diners and ice cream parlors, for speaking at campaign rallies and appearing in a debate, but entirely fit to control the nation’s nuclear weapons, along with the rest of its military, guide its economy, shape trillions in spending, and make the vital decisions that affect the lives of every single American.

And that is completely untenable.

Running the nation (and the free world) is a much more challenging task than running for office. It also comes with far graver responsibilities. Democrats seem entirely unconcerned with the prospect that a senile president might make a mistake that could kill millions, but rang every alarm bell out of fear that he might lose them not only the White House, but Congress.

Patriotism is removing an unfit president, partisanship is removing an unfit candidate.

The Democrat cover-up of Biden’s condition followed by the frantic drive to oust him from the presidential campaign while leaving him in office shows that they are partisans and not patriots.

Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and other top Democrats all pressured Biden to leave the campaign, they did not however call on him to leave office. Not a single national Democrat official appears to have taken the simple step of asking Biden to step down from his campaign and his office.

And it is entirely plausible that they used the former as leverage for the latter, allowing him to remain in office in order to convince him to drop out of the campaign. Had Joe Biden continued to stonewall his party, cabinet members could have ousted him using the 25th amendment. Biden was aware of this and avoiding that humiliation likely played a role in his resignation.

But if Biden is indeed unfit for office, then the 25th amendment is more urgent than ever.

Either Joe Biden is fit to hold office or he’s not. Democrats cannot have it both ways. And House Republicans, who pledged to investigate his medical condition and force his doctors to testify, may expose the real truth about his state and his fitness to hold office. Democrats solved their political crisis by ousting Biden, but the nation now faces a crisis of governance.

And it must be urgently addressed.

World leaders and enemy nations believe that there is no one in the Oval Office. There is now convincing evidence that Biden’s staffers and family members, including his wife Jill, his son Hunter, who has been linked to foreign governments and criminal behavior, rather than the man himself, are making decisions that should by rights only be made by the President. And they will be free to make those decisions as part of a lame duck presidency without having any personal or political accountability for the havoc and corruption that they may be empowered to wreak.

Biden’s mental state is not just a problem for his party, but for the country. It’s a national security issue and a corruption issue and above all else a constitutional issue that must be resolved.

America is not a monarchy. Presidents are personally empowered to serve as representatives of the people. Democrats have subverted what they call ‘democracy’ by ousting their own nominee who received 14 million votes but who were ultimately outvoted by donors with $1.4 billion. But this does not buy them the right to maintain an official whom they already admitted is unfit.

Not Republicans, but Democrats have not only admitted, but loudly shouted over the last few weeks that President Joe Biden is incapable of performing the duties of his office.

So why is he still being allowed to go on performing them?

America cannot be governed by a man whose capacities are failing him. And he cannot be allowed to remain in power as part of a dirty deal that saves a party at the expense of the nation. Democrats made the case that Biden is unfit. Now they must finish the job.

If they do not, House Republicans should move to begin impeachment proceedings.

Democrats and their media have admitted that Biden is unfit for office. They admitted that he and his family members have participated in a cover-up about his true condition. This is an impeachable offense. Impeachment proceedings will clarify Biden’s true condition, the role of family members and staffers in covering it up and will force the same House Democrats who have clamored in the past few days that Biden is not fit to vote to remove him from office.

Or not.

Democrats claim that Kamala is ready to take over. Then let her. They claim that Biden is unfit to deal with the strenuous business of public life. Then let him step down. But there cannot be an unfit candidate and a fit president. For once, Democrats must put country ahead of party.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page MagazineClick here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donationThank you for reading.