Tag: politics

THIS MONTH IN HISTORY – OCTOBER

October has had more than its share of significant historical events. Please see below:

10/1/1908 – The first Model T cars, designed by Henry Ford, went on sale.
10/1/1938 – German troops occupied the Sudetenland section of Czechoslovakia.
10/1/1949 – The Peoples’ Republic of China was founded with Mao Zedong as its leader.
10/1/1979 – The US formally turned the Canal Zone over to Panama.
10/2/1967 – Thurgood Marshall was sworn in as the first African American associate justice of the Supreme Court.
10/3/1863 – President Abraham Lincoln promulgated a proclamation designating the last Thursday in November as Thanksgiving (later changed to the fourth Thursday).
10/3/1929 – The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was officially renamed Yugoslavia.
10/3/1932 – Iraq gained its independence from Great Britain.
10/3/1974 – Hall of Famer Frank Robinson became the first African American to manage a major league baseball club (the Cleveland Indians). Later, he also became the first AA manager to be fired.
10/3/1990 – East and West Germany were united as the Federal Republic of Germany ending 45 years of separation.
10/4/1830 – Belgium gained its independence from the Netherlands.
10/4/1957 – Russia ushered in the Space Age as it launched the first satellite, named Sputnik.
10/5/1908 – Bulgaria proclaimed its independence from the Ottoman Empire.
10/6/1927 – “The Jazz Singer,” the first “talkie,” opened in NYC.
10/6/1928 – Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek became the president of the Republic of China.
10/6/1973 – The “Yom Kippur War” commenced as Egypt and Syria launched surprise attacks against Israel, which was busy celebrating the most sacred of Jewish holidays.
10/6/1981 – Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated.
10/7/1985 – Palestinian terrorists seized the cruise ship, “Achille Lauro,” and threatened to blow it up if their demands were not met. They infamously murdered an elderly wheelchair-bound passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, by pushing his wheelchair off the deck into the sea.

10/7/2023 – Hamas terrorists perpetrated the worst attack on Israeli civilians since the Holocaust murdering, raping and terrorizing thousands of innocent women, children and elderly people.

10/8/1871 – The Great Fire of Chicago destroyed much of the city. Legend has it that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow started it by kicking over a lantern in her barn.
10/8/1918 – Sergeant Alvin York, arguably the US’s greatest war hero, single-handedly took out a German machine-gun battalion, killing and capturing nearly 150 enemy soldiers. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and the French equivalent, the Croix de Guerre.
10/8/1998 – The House of Representatives voted to launch a formal impeachment inquiry of President Bill Clinton.
10/9/1962 – Uganda gained its independence from Great Britain.
10/10/1973 – Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid allegations of income tax evasion stemming from his tenure as Governor of Maryland.
10/11/1939 – Scientist Albert Einstein issued a warning to President FDR that Germany was seeking to develop an atomic weapon. His warning led the US to marshal its resources to develop its own atomic weapon (the Manhattan Project).
10/12/1492 – Christopher Columbus landed in present-day El Salvador, erroneously thinking he had found the elusive northwest passage to India.
10/12/1811 – Paraguay declared its independence from Spain.
10/12/1822 – Brazil declared its independence from Portugal.
10/13/1792 – George Washington laid the cornerstone of the White House.
10/13/1884 – Greenwich, England was established as the basic time zone from which all time is calculated.
10/14/1066 – The Normans defeated the English at the decisive Battle of Hastings, which resulted in the Normans’ conquest of England.
10/14/1912 – Former president Theodore Roosevelt was shot while campaigning for re-election, but he survived.
10/14/1947 – Test pilot Chuck Yeager became the first to break the sound barrier.
10/14/1964 – Martin Luther King became the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
10/15/1991 – Following several days of contentious hearings regarding allegations of sexual harassment against a former aide, Anita Hill, the Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
10/16/1701 – Yale University was founded in Killingworth, CT as the Collegiate School of Connecticut.
10/16/1793 – French Queen Marie Antoinette, known for her extravagance and contempt for her subjects (“Let them eat cake.”), was beheaded.
10/16/1853 – The Crimean War (Russia, England and France vs. the Ottoman Empire and parts of present-day Italy) began.
10/16/1995 – Louis Farrakhan led the Million Man March on Washington.
10/17/1777 – The Colonial Army defeated the British at Saratoga in what many historians believe was the turning point of the Revolutionary War.
10/17-25/1944 – The US succeeded in decimating the Japanese Navy at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in history.
10/18/1945 – The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial commenced with indictments against 24 former Nazi leaders.
10/19/1781 – English General Cornwallis surrendered to the Colonial Army at Yorktown, VA. marking the end of the Revolutionary War.
10/19/1987 – This day was dubbed “Black Monday” on Wall Street as stocks plunged 508 points or 22.6%, the largest one-day decline ever.
10/20/1818 – The US and Great Britain agreed to establish the US-Canadian border at the 49th parallel. The 5,525-mile border is the longest in the world between any two countries.
10/20/1944 – General Douglas MacArthur, who upon fleeing the Philippines in 1942 to escape the Japanese Army boldly asserted “I shall return,” returned as promised.
10/20/1968 – Jacqueline Kennedy, widow of President John Kennedy, married Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis.
10/21/1805 – The British Navy defeated the combined naval forces of France and Spain at the Battle of Trafalgar, obviating the threat of their invasion of England.
10/21/1879 – Thomas Edison successfully tested an incandescent lamp.
10/21/1915 – AT&T transmitted the first successful transatlantic radio voice message (Virginia to Paris).
10/22/1962 – President Kennedy warned Americans of the existence of Russian missiles in Cuba. The so-called “Cuban Missile Crisis” was probably the biggest threat of nuclear war during the Cold War.
10/23/1942 – The British Army led by General Bernard Montgomery launched a major offensive against the German Afrika Corps, led by General Erwin Rommel, at El Alamein, Egypt. Montgomery’s victory marked a major turning point in WWII.
10/24/1931 – Notorious Chicago gangster, Al Capone, was sentenced 11 years in prison for income tax evasion.
10/24/1945 – The UN was founded.
10/25/1854 – 673 British cavalrymen took on a Russian force in the Battle of Balaclava. This famous Crimean War battle was immortalized in a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson entitled “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”
10/26/1881 – In the infamous shoot-out at the OK Corral the Earp brothers and “Doc” Holliday defeated the Clanton Gang.
10/26/1825 – The Erie Canal, the first man-made waterway in America, opened for business.
10/27/1904 – The NYC subway system opened with a run from City Hall to West 145th Street as the first underground and underwater system in the world.
10/27/1978 – Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat shared the Nobel Peace Prize.
10/28/1636 – Harvard University, the oldest university in America, was founded in Cambridge, MA, funded by donations provided by John Harvard.
10/28/1846 – The ill-fated Donner Party departed Illinois for California.
10/28/1918 – The Republic of Czechoslovakia was founded by combining three provinces that were formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – Moravia, Slovakia, and Bohemia.
10/28/1919 – Prohibition commenced as Congress enacted the Volstead Act.
10/28/1962 – Russia agreed to halt the construction of offensive missile bases in Cuba and dismantle existing bases, thus ending the Cuban Missile Crisis.
10/29/1929 – The stock market “crashed” ushering in the Great Depression.
10/30/1938 – A radio broadcast of H. G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” without commercial interruption caused widespread panic, as many people thought that Martians had actually invaded Earth.

10/31/41- The sculptures of four US presidents on Mt. Rushmore was completed. Can you name them? (See below).

10/31/50 – Earl Lloyd became the first AA to play in the NBA (Washington Capitols).

10/31/84 – Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandhi was assassinated.

BIRTHDAYS – Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi – 10/2/1869; Rutherford B. Hayes (19th President) – 10/4/1822; Frederic Remington (artist)- 10/4/1861; Chester A. Arthur (21st President) – 10/5/1830; Robert Goddard (“Father of the Space Age”) – 10/5/1882; George Westinghouse (engineer and inventor) – 10/6/1846; John Lennon – 10/9/1940; Eleanor Roosevelt – 10/11/1884; Mary Ludwig (aka Molly Pitcher (Revolutionary War heroine of the Battle of Monmouth, NJ) – 10/13/1754; William Penn (founded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which bears his name) – 10/14/1644; Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower (WWII commanding general and 34th President) – 10/14/1890; Lido Anthony (Lee) Iacocca (auto industry executive) – 10/15/1924; Noah Webster (teacher and journalist who compiled the first dictionaries) – 10/16/1758; Oscar Wilde (Irish playwright and poet) – 10/16/1854; David Ben Gurion (“Father” of Israel) – 10/16/1888; Eugene O’Neill (playwright – “The Iceman Cometh”) – 10/16/1888; William O. Douglas (associate justice of the Supreme Court) – 10/16/1898; John Birks (Dizzy) Gillespie (jazz musician) – 10/21/1917; Pablo Picasso (artist) – 10/25/1881; Hillary Rodham Clinton – 10/26/1947; James Cook (English explorer) – 10/27/1728; Theodore Roosevelt (26th President) – 10/27/1858; Dr. Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) – 10/28/1914; Bill Gates (Microsoft) – 10/28/1955; John Adams (2nd President) – 10/30/1735; Emily Post (arbiter of etiquette) – 10/30/1872; Admiral Will (“Bull”) Halsey (WWII fleet commander) – 10/30/1882.

Quiz answer: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.

by Tags: , , 2 Comments

JEWS FOR KAMALA

I have made this point many times during the 2024 presidential election campaign, but it bears repeating. Why in the world would any Jew who is thinking objectively and who cares about Israel and the welfare of American Jews, vote for Kamala Harris? For that matter, why would they vote for any Democrat? After all, Dem pols are supporting Harris, or at least they are reluctant to speak out in contradiction of her antipathy toward Jews. I don’t get it; it’s inane; it’s not logical.

Perhaps, it is due to habit and inertia. They’ve always voted Dem; their parents always voted Dem; so, they continue the practice without giving it serious thought or analysis. In any case the Dems have abandoned the Jews and Jewish causes. They have not been loyal to you, so you no longer owe them your loyalty. Jews need to have an open mind.

Another reason is some voters, although they agree with Trump’s policies, despise him intensely on a personal basis and refuse to vote for him under any circumstances. That is just ridiculous, inane and fatuous. If Trump were to lose the election he would, of course, be disappointed. But he would not be devastated. He would merely return to his previous life as a billionaire entrepreneur and entertainer. We, on the other hand, would be saddled with the same policies we are suffering under now. Therefore, anti-Trumpers would be “cutting off their noses to spite their face.

Perhaps, a brief review of Harris’ actions and non-actions since becoming the nominee would be helpful and appropriate.

  1. Among her staunchest supporters is the antisemitic far left wing of the Dem Party. It’s obvious that she is afraid of offending them. This includes “Squad” Congresswomen, such as AOC (NY), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), and Ilhan Omar (MN), among others. She knows she needs their support to win, and she will need their continuing support to govern. All have repeatedly expressed antisemitic and Anti-Israel attitudes. Furthermore, Tlaib and Omar are representatives of states that are Anti-Israel hotbeds. Harris needs those states’ electoral votes to win.
  2. Publicly, Harris (and Biden, for their policies and actions have been interchangeable) have stated that they support Israel, and it that it has the right to defend itself. (Thank you, Captain Obvious!) However, privately they have continually acted to restrict Israel’s response to the horrific October 7, 2013 sneak attacks. From the outset they have advocated “restraint” and demanded “precision” in its deployment of weaponry. It’s all right for the terrorists to attack indiscriminately, but the Israelis have to demonstrate “restraint” and “precision?” This is wholly unreasonable. What do “restraint” or “precision” even mean in this context? Also, tell me what other country in the history of the world when attacked has been urged to show “restraint?” The answer is “none.” Did the US show “restraint” after Pearl Harbor or 9/11? Of course not. But BH expected the Israelis to do so after October 7.
  3. BH threatened to withhold arms and support if Israel got too aggressive. In my view, the purpose of this was to placate their antisemitic far left wing and also Iran.
  4. BH and their minions objected to Netanyahu’s war strategy, so they tried to force him to resign or call for new elections. They trotted out political chameleon Chuck Schumer to give “the speech,” which I discussed in a previous blog. This type of outrageous interference in the internal workings of another sovereign government is not appropriate with respect to an ally, particularly one that is our only reliable one in the volatile and strategically crucial Middle East. Perhaps, BH need a lesson in geopolitics.
  5. BH insisted that a member of their administration sit in on Israel’s war cabinet meetings to suggest/approve strategies.
  6. BH continue to refuse to recognize that Iran is the root cause of the terrorism extant in the ME and take corrective action against it.
  7. BH have blamed a “significant deterioration” in the level of aid reaching the citizens of Gaza on Israel. They threatened to withhold aid if the Israelis did not allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.
  8. Furthermore, they have long insisted that Israel not attack Rafah for “humanitarian reasons” even though there has been ample evidence that Hamas’ leadership was hiding there. Luckily, the IDF did not obey BH’s instructions. They attacked anyway. Douglas Murray, a columnist for the NY Post accompanied the IDF and filed an exclusive report describing the operation.
  9. Lo and behold, a few days ago, we learned that the 10/7 mastermind, Yahya Sinwar, had been hiding in that very area. He had set up luxury accommodations for his family and him deep within the labyrinth of tunnels under the city. In his report Murray described it as a “Rafah rat’s nest.” He reported “for the past 12 months [Sinwar] had [been] scurr[ying] like a rat through the tunnels he [had] spent years building.”
  10. In summary, he reported that the IDF found it to be well-stocked with food, medicine, and other provisions, including millions of dollars of cash that had been provided by the UN and had been earmarked for the Gazans. So, Sinwar and his family were living in relative luxury while the Gazans he and his men were supposedly “protecting” were starving. And all the while, the world had been criticizing Israel for keeping aid from the Gazans. How did he obtain all these goods? Either he stole them, or terrorist-sympathizing UN workers gave them to him. Either way, it is unconscionable.
  11. In addition, the IDF ascertained that Hamas had been smuggling rockets, guns and other weapons through this area. Had BH been cognizant of this while they were telling the IDF to refrain from attacking this area? Who knows, but I wouldn’t put it past them. The IDF also found passports and UN IDs, which indicates that Sinwar was planning to flee, like a coward, to Egypt with assistance from the UN. This is further evidence of the UN’s sympathizing with terrorists over Israel.
  12. This is just one of many examples of the UN’s blatant bias in regard to curbing terrorism in the ME. Another example is that since 2006 it has maintained a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon to monitor the cease fire between Hezbollah and Israel. Recently, the NY Post reported that Hezbollah terrorists had dug a labyrinth of tunnels right under the noses of the peacekeepers which they had been utilizing to launch terror attacks in Israel. It described the UN as “worse than useless.”
  13. Opponents of Israel have persistently accused it of “genocide” against the Palestinians in Gaza. This accusation is not only inaccurate, but also it is inflammatory and dangerous. In point of fact, the Israelis have gone out of their way to minimize casualties, even providing advance warning of attacks so civilians could vacate the area. It is the Hamas terrorists who have shown a blatant disregard for Palestinian civilians by hiding among them and in hospitals and schools. The collateral damage means nothing to them. In fact, they want it for the optics. Unfortunately, this accusation has been accepted by many people. In a recent campaign speech Harris added fuel to the fire by stating that “[genocide] is real.” That was totally irresponsible. She should know better. She said it to rile up her base for votes. Afterwards, an anonymous campaign official attempted to clean it up, but she said what she said.
  14. As I have written in previous blogs BH have basically ignored the ongoing displays of antisemitism against American Jews. They have done nothing to deal with the violence on college campuses, nor the surging rate of crimes against Jews. They have many options. For example, they could have demanded that the college administrators deal with the matter or else lose funding. The Federal government provides a significant amount of financial aid to these universities in the form of grants. It also has the option to initiate legal action. They could have weaponized the Justice Department, Homeland Security and/or the FBI to investigate the masterminds behind the protests.
  15. Few people, think the protesters are all “students” who just happened to organize. In fact, according to a recently published study conducted by George Washington University Iranian agents have been “funding and fueling hate” on college campuses.
  16. It is no surprise that Harris has met several times with Imam Mohammed Ali Fahiem, who has deep ties with the Iranian regime, is vehemently antisemitic and anti-Israel, and is one of the suspected leaders of the antisemitic program against American Jews.
  17. In addition, they have done nothing to curb the overt and covert antisemitism against Jewish citizens.

CONCLUSION

Kudos to Israel for standing its ground against BH. Otherwise, we would have never found and killed Sinwar and discovered the duplicity of Hamas, the UN, and perhaps BH. This operation dealt a damaging blow to Hamas. I have often said the quickest way to rescue the hostages is to let Israel win the war.

Rather than criticizing Israel for its war strategy it should be admired for its determination to eradicate Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the rest of its enemies once and for all. In a sense it is fighting this war for all of us. Iran and the terrorists have been clear that they hate all “non-believers.” That includes all of us. If they were to succeed in annihilating Israel, they would not stop their aggression. Have we not learned anything from history?

Thankfully, there have been signs that the message is resonating with Jews. According to a recent poll by the Manhattan Institute Jewish support for Dems has been deteriorating. Currently, it is at 67%, which is the lowest in 40 years. By comparison 80% of Jews voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. The same poll reported that 86% of Jews supported Israel. Their chief complaint, according to Jesse Arm, chief of staff at the Institute was the Dem Party’s “tolerance” of the extreme criticism being levelled against Israel, notably calling it “genocidal.”

Anti-Trumpers, wake up. As I said above if you vote for Harris just because you hate Trump personally, you would onlybe hurting yourselves.

by Tags: , , , , , , , 1 Comment

2024 ELECTION UPDATE – HARRIS LAYS AN EGG ON FOX NEWS

A few months ago, when the Dem Party leaders selected Harris as the nominee, I asserted that her political policies were extremely far to the left, and if the public were aware of them, she would lose in a landslide. According to multiple media reports, at the outset of the campaign some 70% of the voters were unclear as to her policies and voting record. Consequently, for most of the campaign the polls have reported the race to be extremely close, virtually a dead heat. l suggested that in order to win her election strategy should be to endeavor to keep these policies hidden. Therefore, her overall strategy should adhere to the following principles:

  1. Say as little as possible.
  2. When forced to speak to the media only do so with friendly journalists who would not press her or ask follow-up questions.
  3. Limit her speeches to scripted comments and speak in generalities, rather than specifics.
  4. Rely on the friendly media to cover up, omit or alter any faux pas.
  5. When all else fails attack Trump and blame him for everything.

Conversely, Trump’s winning strategy was to somehow make the public aware of Harris’ far left policies. I believe that this strategy has been somewhat successful as more voters have become cognizant of Harris’ policies. The question is, is it enough.

For the most part Harris’ strategy was successful until recently. In the last week, however, it was becoming apparent that Trump had seized the momentum, which is very significant in elections. The Harris campaign had come to realize that she needed to change the narrative in order to regain the momentum. It decided that she should grant more interviews, including one with Fox News. It was a gamble, but it was one she had to risk. A few days ago, she participated in a one-on-one interview with Fox’s Bret Baer. Baer had a well-earned reputation of being fair but tough. Harris would have to be on her “A” game.

In a nutshell, she was not, not even close. Basically, she “laid an egg.” She was exposed before a huge audience. For many of them it was her first exposure to them. Rather than attract undecided voters, she turned them off.

My analysis of the interview is as follows:

  1. Parts of it were painful to watch. From the outset Harris appeared to be uncomfortable, defensive and argumentative.
  2. Baer was professional and respectful, but he did not let her get away with vague, general, non-responsive, and incomplete answers, which normally are her staple. Whenever she tried that he challenged her and asked follow-up questions in order to elicit an appropriate answer. Clearly, her inexperience with probing questions showed. She was not used to being challenged, and she didn’t handle it well.
  3. The interview was short – only 26 minutes. At some point, Baer realized that the point of her rambling, “word-salad” responses was to “run out the clock.” He began to interrupt her answers in order to elicit meaningful information. In some cases, she snapped back a retort like “may I finish responding, please? Many times, they ended up interrupting and talking over each other.
  4. There were several contentious topics, including immigration, the economy, relationship with Israel and Iran, and her relationship with Biden, among others.
  5. Regarding immigration, she continually dodged questions regarding the Biden/Harris policies. She did not accept any responsibility for the disaster at the southern border. She failed to explain her failure as “border Czar” to solve resolve the “root causes” or even visit the border until it became apparent that the issue had become a major negative. She stubbornly declined to concur that halting construction of the border wall or terminating Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy were mistakes. She tried to deflect blame onto Trump for Congress’ failure to pass a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill, which she had championed. Baer interjected to explain that the bill would have made matters worse by giving the current policy the force of law and providing a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants presently in the US. That comment sparked one of the angry exchanges referred to above. She couldn’t or wouldn’t even disclose how many illegal immigrants had entered the country under her watch.
  6. She refused to elaborate on the controversial matter of Biden’s competence, such as what did she know and when did she know it.
  7. She offered no cogent plans on how to fix the economy, inflation or crime.
  8. Many times, she went to her default answer, which was to blame Trump. At one point, she characterized him as “unstable and unhinged” and questioned his “mental competence to hold office.”
  9. In a related matter Harris declined to attend the annual Al Smith Dinner. This is a non-partisan event hosted by the Catholic Diocese of NY. The goal is to raise money for various Catholic charities. Normally, it is attended by a cross-section of prominent politicians, wealthy executives, donors and members of the media. Attendance is considered a “must” for presidential candidates. Failure to attend is perceived as a “slap in the face” to Catholics. In the 90-year history of the event only one presidential candidate has ever declined to attend. That was Walter Mondale, the Dem candidate for president, in 1984. Coincidentally or not, in the ensuing election Mondale only won one state. Harris claimed she was campaigning, but the truth of the matter is she was already on thin ice with Catholics. She and her far left base are hardcore pro-choice and have been very critical of pro-lifers who have investigated and criticized what they considered to be Planned Parenthood’s “barbarism” toward women who choose to seek alternatives to abortion.

CONCLUSION

It was not a good week for Harris. Her campaign aides and allies in the media will likely try to spin it, but by any objective analysis her attempt to use the Bret Baer interview to widen her appeal had the opposite effect.

Likewise, Catholics will perceive her spurning the Al Smith Dinner as an insult.

All that said, the polls released in the last couple of days did not show any discernable movement. The race is still too close to call. Most everyone agrees it will be determined by the turnout for each candidate.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

2024 ELECTION UPDATE – LATEST TRENDS AND STATUS OF SENATE RACES

Heretofore, my major focus has been on the presidential race and rightly so. As I write this, the various national polls report Harris with a slight one-to-two-point lead. These polls are mostly irrelevant since the winner is determined by electoral votes, but they do provide some incite as to trends and momentum. Furthermore, they reveal why multiple media outlets have been reporting that the Harris campaign is very concerned, if not panicked. More on that below.

For example:

  1. Harris has been leading Trump in the national polls, but lately her lead has been shrinking. For example, the most recent ABC/Ipsos poll disclosed Harris’ lead to be two points, down from six points last month; CBS News/You Gov reported Harris with a three-point lead versus four points last month; and RealClear reported 1.4% versus 2.2% just a few days ago. These may not seem like significant changes, but in such a close race one should be cognizant of the trend they indicate. Remember, in my last blog I described the significance of momentum in an election.
  2. Multiple polls have reported that Harris is losing support among Blacks and Hispanics, particularly males. This is not surprising since as I have written in previous blogs these groups favor Trump’s policies over Harris’, especially with respect to the economy, crime and illegal immigration. The latest NY Times/Siena and NY Post polls reported that Dem support among Blacks has declined from 90% in 2020 to 78%. Similarly, support among Hispanics has declined to 56%. Even though the Dems have been trying to scare Hispanics with Trump’s “get tough” policies regarding illegal immigrants, including deportation, they are not buying it. Polls show that 67% of Hispanics born in the US and 51% born in another country don’t believe those harsh policies will pertain to them. Both of these demographics have long been bellwether Dem supporters, but both groups have come to realize that the Dems are no longer delivering on campaign promises. Their primary complaints are regarding the economy/inflation, crime and illegal immigration.
  3. Prior to these surveys being published there were multiple media reports that Dems’ internal polls were indicating Harris was losing ground in the swing states and among Blacks and Hispanics. Political Journalist Mark Halperin denoted “there are a lot of really worried Democrats, and there are no really worried Republicans.”
  4. Across all demographics Harris is polling better among women and Trump is polling better among men.
  5. Multiple polls have reported that Trump is gaining in most of the swing states. The latest Redfield & Wilton survey of voters in GA and PA showed Trump to be up 1% in GA and 2% in PA. Again, although the margins are tiny and within the margin of error, they indicate a significant improvement compared to 2020 when Trump lost both GA and PA in tight races. These results are another indication of the shift in momentum towards Trump. If these leads hold up on ED and Trump also wins the other states in which he is currently leading, he will win the election.
  6. According to the NY Post more people who voted for Biden in 2020 have gravitated to Trump than to Harris. This is somewhat surprising since Harris, like Biden, is a Dem. Perhaps, it is an indication of the realization that Harris is a weaker candidate than Biden was in 2020. In the crucial states of PA and GA Trump is beating Harris in acquiring formerly Biden voters 12% to 6% and 13% to 11%, respectively. Again, this might not seem like much, but given the extremely tight races in those states, it is significant. Voters in both states identified the economy/inflation as their primary concern.
  7. Multiple media outlets have reported that Biden has been providing only tepid support for Harris. Apparently, he is resentful of the manner in which he was replaced by Harris. He feels he is still the better candidate, and his candidacy was sabotaged. For example, he has declined to attend some of her campaign events, and he was seen wearing a “Trump 2024” cap at a recent campaign event. Jason Meister, a strategist on the Trump campaign was blunter, saying “Biden is intentionally enacting revenge on Kamala for knifing him in the back.”
  8. Harris, whose campaign strategy had been to say as little as possible and only grant interviews with “friendly” journalists has recently agreed to appear on Fox News to be interviewed by Bret Baer. Baer will be fair, but it will not be a “softball” interview. She will likely have to explain her policies, in detail, including why they have changed since she became the nominee. This could be problematic for her, so I can only conclude that she is afraid, maybe even “panicked,” that she is losing. Prospectively, she may be forced to grant additional interviews outside of her comfort zone.
  9. The Senate could be a major issue. In my view, it is essential for the GOP to gain control of it in order to prevent the Dems from blocking legislation or even impeaching Trump like they did after the 2016 election. Presently, the Dems have slight control over the Senate – 51 (including two independents) to 49. Therefore, the GOP has to flip a net of two seats to obtain control (one if Trump were to win). According to multiple media reports West Virginia is virtually a “lock” due to Joe Manchin’s retirement. Montana is a good possibility as well. However, the Dems have a chance to flip Texas, where Ted Cruz is clinging to a narrow lead, and Nebraska. There are several other close races as well, so we’ll see what happens.

CONCLUSION

The presidential race remains tight. There are many states, including the swing states, where the polls report the margins to be very tight, well within the margin for error. The GOP has the momentum, but a lot can happen in the next few weeks to change the outcome. The GOP cannot be overconfident. Get out and vote!

by Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

2024 PRESIDENTIAL UPDATE. MO FAVORS TRUMP.

Historically, momentum has proven to be a powerful force in elections. Often it is unrecognized or undervalued in the polls – until Election Day when the underdog who has been behind in the polls pulls an unforeseen upset. That is one of the axioms behind the famous expression that “the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.” In recent history two examples of this phenomenon were Harry Truman defeating Dewey in 1948 and Donald Trump defeating Clinton in 2016. On the rare occasions when this occurs the winners are jubilant; the losers are shocked; and the “experts” are confounded. Who can forget the post-election visage of a grinning Truman holding aloft an early edition of the next day’s Chicago Daily Tribune boldly proclaiming, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

Presently, all the polls indicate that the election remains very close as it has been for several months. In the national poll, which is essentially meaningless, the latest Guardian poll reports Harris ahead by two points 48% – 46%. It’s worth noting that the Guardian’s previous poll had Harris up by 4%, so Trump would appear to have some momentum.

More importantly, let’s consider the seven swing states that will actually decide the election – AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, and WI. The latest Emerson and Real Clear Politics polls are consistently reporting that Trump has a slight one or two-point lead in AZ, GA, NV, NC, and PA, and the two are tied in MI and WI. This represents an improvement for Trump compared to the 2020 election and earlier 2024 polls, another hint that Trump is gaining momentum.

Pollster Matt Towery, Insider Advantage, noted that Trump is gaining with African Americans and Hispanics due to the economy and immigration issues. Hispanic citizens, in particular whose forebears emigrated legally, resent the illegal immigrants’ “jumping the line.” This is the opposite of what the Dems no doubt intended with their open-door policy. Ironically, the Dems are being “hoisted on their own petard.” Towery added that the Administration’s inadequate response to hurricanes Helene and Milton was another negative.

Pollster Robert Cahaly (Trafalgar Group) denoted that the polls may be undervaluing Trump. He speculated that there may be a “hidden vote” for him. Other polls may differ very slightly but taken as a whole the polls are indicating that Trump appears to have the momentum.

There is palpable pessimism among the Harris supporters. One senior Dem source apprised the NY Post that the Dems were “not in a Blue Wall panic… but they were concerned.” MI Dem Rep Elise Slotkin acknowledged “we have her underwater in our polling.”

Below please find what I consider to be the key recent developments based on multiple media reports:

  1. Trump is on the right side of the issues that voters have opined concerns them the most in this election – the economy, inflation, the border/illegal immigration, crime and security. The numbers with respect to these issues speak for themselves and cannot be explained away by the Dems with vague generalities, platitudes, and anti-Trump utterances.
  2. The electorate is gradually becoming cognizant that Harris’ reluctance to disclose her specific views on the issues is because she is hiding them in order to get elected. Her real views as expressed over her entire political career prior to becoming the nominee are so far to the left as to be downright scary. Even though she has given a few tv interviews recently with friendly journalists she has not acquitted herself well. She is still prone to giving rambling, non-responsive answers. In her recent interview with 60 Minutes a few of her answers were so embarrassing that the network had to edit them before showing them on tv.
  3. Based on polls in the swing states Trump is gaining among men, particularly Black and Hispanic men. Traditionally, Dem candidates have held decisive edges with these groups, but there are signs of much concern this year. For instance, recently the Harris campaign has launched ads aimed specifically aimed at Black and Hispanic men. Various observers, such as TX Rep Wesley Hunt, are predicting that Trump will have “the highest male Black vote of any Republican president[ial candidate] in modern history.” According to a recent NAACP survey 25% of Black men under 50 disclosed they would vote for Trump. This may not seem like much, but it represents a sizeable increase over previous election cycles.
  4. As a further indication of the extent of the Dems’ concerns regarding the above trends former President Obama in a recent speech actually lectured Blacks that it is “not acceptable for Black men to support Trump.” In addition, he asserted (incorrectly) that Black men are opposed to Harris based on her gender. I don’t believe that this insulting, demeaning and highhanded attitude will help the Dems with male Blacks.
  5. Moreover, local radio host Dan O’Donnell reported to the NY Post that the Harris campaign has taken the unusual tact of targeting Blacks in Philadelphia by advertising on hip-hop radio stations in the area.
  6. The NY Post reported that Black men such as Rafael Smith, a former Harris supporter from MI, has switched to Trump because he feels the Dems have taken his and other Blacks’ support for granted “just because [Harris] is a woman of color.” He said “I don’t really think they’re looking at what she has done within the last 3 1/2 years…”
  7. Another implication of concern among Dems is the appearance of former president Bill Clinton. The so-called “Big Dog” has commenced campaigning in NC and GA.
  8. Harris has committed to participate in a town hall interview on October 23 that will be hosted by CNN. As we all know, a town hall format is not exactly in her wheelhouse. In my view, this is a further illustration of her concern that her campaign is flailing.
  9. Trump has expressed his views and intentions on the issues very clearly. For example, he will not “pussyfoot” around with illegals, particularly those who have committed crimes against Americans. He states that his Administration “will either ‘put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or get them the hell out of our country.’ ” He has even floated the idea of invoking the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the president to “apprehend, restrain, secure and remove [those who] are deemed a threat to the US during wartime.” This language may be extreme or even illegal, but it resonates with those who are sick and tired of illegal aliens strutting into the US unrestrained and then preying upon US citizens.
  10. Trump has made other promises that show he is cognizant of voters’ major concerns. For example, he will “drill, baby drill;” he will deal more aggressively with Iran; and he will support Israel more strongly in its war against Iran and its terrorist proxies. He will not tax overtime pay or tips; he will eliminate the double taxation being levied against Americans living and working abroad; he will make interest on car loans tax deductible; and he will extend the Trump tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in 2025. These will primarily benefit middle class and working-class voters, which counters the Dem’s claim that his policies favor the wealthy.
  11. Despite multiple credible plots reported against him and two actual assassination attempts the government has still not acceded to all of the Trump campaign’s requests for enhanced security. Some Trump supporters have seriously questioned why, insinuating it may be part of a sinister assassination plot to leave Trump exposed.

CONCLUSION

As I said above, it appears that Trump has grabbed the momentum. He knows it; the Harris campaign knows it; you know it; and I know it. Just look at the substantial and enthusiastic crowds he draws wherever he goes. Just look at the signs of concern or even panic in the Harris campaign as delineated above.

Whether it’s due to a bias in the polling or the reluctance of some supporters to admit they will be voting for Trump, remember his appeal was undervalued in the polls in both 2016 and to a lesser extent in 2020. One caveat is that the election is far from over. A lot can happen between now and ED to swing the election, but at the present time it’s looking good.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

VANCE-WALZ DEBATE

Last Tuesday, October 1, the first, and probably only, debate between VP nominees J. D. Vance and Tim Walz was telecast on CBS. The network reported that an estimated 43 million persons watched it. This sounds like a lot, but it was a sizeable decrease from the estimated 58 million who watched the 2020 VP nominee debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.

For the most part, as one might expect, the post-debate analysis of who won followed along party lines. As I said after the Trump-Harris debate the key is not who “won,” but the post-debate effect on the polls. Often, they are not synchronized. So far, the post-debate polls have moved slightly in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close, and an unforeseen external event could be decisive. More on this below.

My analysis and opinion of the debate is as follows:

  1. Both candidates were unusually cordial to one another. There was some animosity but not nearly to the level of other debates. It was almost as if the two of them were going out for a beer after the debate.
  2. In general, Vance seemed more polished, more professional, more presidential and in better command of the facts and issues. On the other hand, Walz came across as uncomfortable, nervous and jittery. A few times he exhibited a “deer in the headlights” look.
  3. Once again, the moderators were biased in favor of the Dem. For example, even though all parties had agreed that the moderators would remain neutral and refrain from fact-checking they did so to Vance on a few occasions. Finally, he had to remind them that it had been agreed beforehand they wouldn’t do so.
  4. I objected to the selection of questions. For example, there was no question regarding the violent protests in 2020 that wreaked destruction on many cities, including Minneapolis. As you may recall, Walz had resisted requesting assistance from the MN National Guard for several days. Moreover, he and his wife kept the windows in their home open the better to see, hear and smell the protests and fires in Minneapolis. How weird was that? There was no mention of Walz’ “stolen valor.” He retired from his Guard unit (essentially quit) when he heard it was going to deploy overseas, which has drawn much rancor from other members of his unit. Finally, there was no question on fracking, which is one of, if not the, key issues in the key swing state of PA. These were all issues on which Harris-Walz was vulnerable. I would have loved to hear Walz’s explanation regarding them.
  5. Walz had two particularly bad moments. He uttered two sound bites that people will remember, even those who did not watch the debate. They will likely be repeated over and over again on social media and in political advertisements. (1) He confused a trip to China with one to Hong Kong. That was when he uttered his soon to be famous “knucklehead” comment. The second one was when he stated he had become “friendly” with “school shooters.”
  6. Walz’s best moment occurred with respect to the 2020 election. Vance was reluctant to acknowledge that Trump had lost, but he did denote that Trump had asked demonstrators going to the capitol to protest “peacefully and patriotically” and that Trump had repeatedly requested additional security, which was denied.
  7. The Dems continue to bring up two issues about which they lie – the 2025 Project and abortion. Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of or involvement with Project 2025, and he has reiterated time and again that pursuant to SCOTUS’ recent ruling the issue of abortion has been relegated to each state where the voters will decide that state’s policy. Give it up, already!
  8. Walz was weak regarding the ME conflict. He refused to state that Harris’ support for Israel was “iron clad.” Vance pointed out that there had been no conflicts during Trump’s presidency.
  9. The analyses of most commentators fell along party lines, although the NY Times opined that “Vance dominated the debate,” and some members of CNN’s post-debate round table said they were “disappointed” with Walz’s performance. Full disclosure: CNN disclosed that according to its post-debate instant poll there was no “clear-cut” winner.
  10. On the GOP side, Newt Gingrich was particularly effusive in rating Vance’s performance. He commented that he (Vance) showed “exactly how to do it (the debate).” He added that Vance “handled the [biased] moderators [well] and vindicated Trump’s judgment in picking him [as his running mate.”
  11. The implication was that Harris exhibited poor judgement in selecting Walz. That renewed speculation that PA Governor Josh Shapiro would have been the better choice, but he was passed over to appease the antisemitic leftwing of the party.
  12. Initial post-debate polls have shown a slight movement in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close with any advantages in the swing states still within the margin for error. Matt Towery, pollster and Fox News political analyst, declared that Vance had the better performance, and that Trump should receive a “bump” (in the polls).
  13. Robert Cahaly, chief pollster for the Trafalgar Group, was particularly impressed with the manner in which Vance handled the issue of climate change. Vance had pointed out that if Harris and her allies truly cared about the effect of fossil fuels on the environment, they would seek to use American-produced energy as it is much cleaner and more environment-friendly than energy produced elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on the VP debate. All the polls say the election remains a virtual dead heat. There is still a month to go before ED, although early voting has already commenced in some states.

History tells us that a lot can happen between now and ED to influence the election. For example, there are four current events – the destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene, the war in the ME, the war in Ukraine, and the dockworkers’ strike – any one of which could have a decisive effect. Harris has the chance to boost her candidacy or doom it depending on how she handles them.

Also, there could be some unforeseen event such as a 9/11-style terror attack, another deadly natural disaster or some other unforeseen event. For example, some of you may recall Superstorm Sandy, which occurred on October 29, 2012 and had a significant impact on the 2012 election.

This is a most critical election, and all indications are that it will be historically close and go down to the wire. Stay tuned.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

KOMRADE KAMALA’S RADICAL TAX PLAN

Komrade Kamala (“KK”) has proposed a radical new tax plan. Like many socialist proposals at first, it appears to be attractive but upon detailed analysis the luster fades rapidly, and the warts become evident. As always, “the devil is in the details” and one must beware of unintended consequences. Read on, and I will explain.

Essentially, KK’s plan is a wealth tax, and its intent is a redistribution of wealth. This is consistent with classic socialist/communist doctrine, which should not be surprising given Harris’ real “core values” that she espoused during her entire political career until she became the Dem nominee for president. Many of its provisions are consistent with the proposed Ultra-Millionaire Tax Bill of 2021, which was sponsored by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and other far-lefties. That particular bill was not passed for various reasons, but the general idea of it is still popular with the far left.

As I have explained repeatedly, at her core KK is a socialist/communist. Her basic instincts are to replace capitalism and free enterprise with government administration and control in virtually all aspects of one’s life. She has advocated replacing our capitalist economic system, which is based on free enterprise, competition and private sector decision-making, with public sector (government) decision-making. For example, she has been advocating government-administered price controls in the economy to eliminate what she perceives as “price gouging” even though there has been no evidence of it. Similarly, under the guise of providing everyone, including illegal aliens, access to free healthcare she has been advocating an aggressive revamping our healthcare system to a single-payer system that would be administered and controlled by the federal government. Her proposed tax plan would be consistent with those precepts. As we have seen time and time again, anything administered by the government becomes plagued with inefficiency and waste.

Like most tax plans hers is complicated. Moreover, it is too vague and not well reasoned. Even proponents of the general idea should realize that there are a multitude of rough edges that need to be clarified. Like I said above, the devil is in the details and beware of unintended consequences. Below please find my opinions and comments regarding KK’s tax plan.

With respect to the “wealth tax” provision:

  1. According to the Tax Foundation such a tax has never been implemented in the US. A handful of other countries have tried it, but most were forced to abandon it due to unforeseen problems.
  2. The proposal would penalize savers, discourage economic growth, discourage entrepreneurship and investment in start-ups, decrease employment, and increase the trade deficit, among other ramifications.
  3. For starters, according to Wikipedia the paramount issue is that some legal scholars question the constitutionality of such a tax. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution precludes any “capitation or other direct tax.” Because of this clause in 1895 SCOTUS declared that a federal income tax was unconstitutional. Subsequently, Congress passed the 16th Amendment, which made a federal income tax constitutional, however, the amendment did not cover a “wealth tax.” This matter would have to be resolved or else the proposal would be “dead on arrival.”
  4. Its primary purpose is to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce, the wealth gap by mandating that the uber-wealthy pay their “fair share.” What does that phrase even mean? What would constitute a “fair share?” It is so vague as to be meaningless. Is it a higher percentage? If so, how high? Also, how does one define “wealthy” or “uber-wealthy? I suppose all that depends on one’s economic status and one’s political point of view. But you can see how the murkiness complicates the issue.
  5. It is fashionable, in some quarters to want to punish the rich for being rich. These people want to take away some of their wealth and spread it around. This ignores the fact that income and wealth disparity is a natural consequence of our free market, capitalist system. Some people will always be more ambitious, more industrious, smarter, more willing to take chances to succeed, or just be luckier than others. Our system rewards that. The attitude of the masses should not be to confiscate wealth from the rich, but to aspire to become rich, themselves.
  6. In my view, “equality” means “equal opportunity.” It does not advocate some sort of balancing act where the rich keep giving and the needy keep taking until everyone has an equal amount of wealth. That is fatuous on its face. History tells us it cannot be legislated. Even in Russia there is a small group of rich and superrich persons, and the vast majority are poor.
  7. In the opinion of former Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, the cost of implementation, administration and enforcement of a wealth tax would be extremely expensive, cumbersome and problematic.
  8. How would assets be valued, particularly illiquid ones such as land, a farm, a ranch or a business? In my opinion, this would be the most inequitable and troublesome aspect of KK’s proposal. Taxpayers would be required to pay tax based on an unrealized gain with respect to assets that they had not sold. Therefore, they might be forced to sell their business, farm, ranch, or house to raise the money to pay the tax. This particular provision was most troublesome to the Tax Foundation as well.
  9. Furthermore, who would ascribe a value, the owner, the IRS, a government bureaucrat with limited knowledge of the worth of the asset, or someone else? This would be a particularly troublesome issue.
  10. I presume the IRS would enforce the tax. That would also be problematic. Public confidence in the fairness and competence of the IRS is at an all-time low, and no one would want more government intrusion in their lives.
  11. Inevitably, the wealthy would find and exploit loopholes. They always do. Consequently, there would be contested valuations and lawsuits with all the ancillary problems.
  12. Some wealthy would be tempted to transfer assets out of the country or perhaps relocate. Such people have the wherewithal to do so. The question is would they have the motivation? This became a problem in other countries that had enacted a wealth tax, which ultimately forced them to abandon it. For example, in 2018 France’s President Emmanuel Macron noted that it had resulted in brain drain, loss of jobs, and flight of capital. This could be negated by including an “exit tax” in the proposal, although I’m not sure how it would work or if it would even be legal.
  13. Very likely, it would discourage foreign investment in businesses, real estate and the like.

In addition to the aforementioned wealth tax KK’s tax proposal would raise tax rates on corporations. Presently, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”) enacted during the Trump presidency the US has a very competitive corporate tax rate of 21%. This encourages both domestic corporations to remain in the US and foreign corporations to invest here. That translates to economic growth and lower unemployment.

In addition, the TCJA reduced individual tax rates. Unfortunately, the TCJA is set to expire in 2025, and KK will be unlikely to extend it. Therefore, the corporate tax rate will revert to its pre-TCJA level of 35%. Consequently, corporations will be incentivized to invest elsewhere rather than in the US. Also, corporations typically pass on such tax increases to you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices, which feeds inflation. More bad news, individual tax rates will also revert to pre-UCJA levels, which means a top rate of 39.6%.

CONCLUSION

Frankly speaking, the KK tax plan would be an unmitigated disaster for most individuals and the US economy as a whole. Don’t be seduced by her “mantra of tax the rich” and make them “pay their fair share.” As I said, this is a typical lefty idea. It sounds good on the surface, but it would lead to unforeseen problems in practice. If one takes the time to analyze it in detail the warts become apparent. It’s just a ploy to divert your attention away from the disastrous Biden-Harris economic policies of the last 3 1/2 years.


KK thinks that her plan will raise more revenue to pay off the deficit. In my opinion, it will have the opposite effect. Directly as a result of the Biden-Harris Administration’s wild, irresponsible deficit spending, notably the stimulus packages that were enacted against the advice of even progressive economists, the budget deficit is already projected to exceed $2 trillion this year. Moreover, absent policy changes it is projected to double to $4 trillion within ten years. Folks, this level of spending is unsustainable.

She and her advisors who developed this proposal have demonstrated repeatedly that they know next to nothing about economics and business. It’s astounding but true. History tells us unequivocally that tax increases stifle economic growth, and tax reductions spur economic growth. Growth actually results in increased revenues. Many of you will remember the Reagan Tax Cuts, which illustrate my point. Don’t be gaslighted.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

MY NIGHTMARE

I am living in a nightmare, a horrible, never-ending nightmare from which I fear there will be no waking up. So are all of you, except the difference is I am cognizant of it, whereas many of you are not.

What nightmare, you say? Simply put, we are on the cusp of electing a true Marxist/Communist as president of the US. I never thought I would see the day, but in five weeks I may. We are about to do to ourselves what Russia, China, Germany, Japan, and all of our other enemies through the years have not been able to do. We have repelled all those who would take away our freedoms, who would destroy our way of life.

What no one has been able to do to us, we are about to do to ourselves. Who, you may ask? Why, you may ask? If you don’t know, that is the root cause of the problem. The “who” is easy. It’s Kamala Harris, AKA “Komrade Kamala.” The why is more complicated.

The best answer I can ascertain is that half the country has a deranged, irrational, unwarranted, misguided hatred for KK’s opponent, Donald Trump. Many of them don’t know why they hate him so much; they just know that they do. It’s not necessarily his policies; it’s him, personally. They continue to parrot what they hear from his opponents and the biased media. “He’s evil; he’s a Nazi; he’s Hitler; he’s a threat to democracy; he’s a tool of the Russians; he’s Putin’s pal; if he were to become president, he will be a dictator; he will never leave office.” As I have discussed in previous blogs, these characterizations are preposterous. They have no basis in fact. None. He already was president. You may not have agreed with some or all of his policies. That is your right. But he was not a dictator.

When he lost his bid for re-election he left office voluntarily. Sure, he questioned the veracity of the result, but it was his right to do so, particularly since it was a very close election. This was not unique. I have discussed this issue in a previous blog, and there is no need to repeat it all now. Suffice to say, students of history will recall that many other losers have challenged election results all the way back to Andrew Jackson challenging his defeat by John Quincy Adams in 1824. Hillary Clinton is still claiming she won in 2016. The media doesn’t criticize her for that.

Labelling him as “evil,” “Hitler,” or a “Nazi” is not only false; it is dangerous, provocative, irresponsible, and disrespectful of the memory of the millions whom the Nazis murdered in the Holocaust. One may disagree with some or all of Trump’s policies, but those who label them as those of a Nazi are merely showing their ignorance of what the Nazis really did. Hitler was in a class by himself with respect to “evil.” I trust I don’t need to edify you as to what he did. Finally, one should be careful when one labels an opposing politician as “evil.” Serial killers are evil. Mass murders are evil. Terrorists who murder innocent people are evil. A politician who espouses a different opinion than you is not evil. To label him or her as such gives a deranged, unbalanced person the idea that he has license to murder that person. As a matter of fact, many people believe that was the root cause of the two attempted assassinations of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, most of KK’s supporters, due to ignorance or inattentiveness, are unaware of KK’s true values and policies. Indeed, I have talked to many of them and invariably they don’t have the foggiest notion of most of KK’s policies. No one does, probably not even KK herself. Their reasons are a version of, “well, she seems nice;” or “she would be the first woman of color to be president;” or “she’s better than Joe Biden;” or “she’s not Trump.”

Those are ridiculous reasons. Anyone who votes for her on that basis without understanding her policies and their effect on him or her and the country as a whole is acting irresponsibly. Such a person is making a mockery of the precious and sacred right to vote. It is incumbent upon each of us to do at least a modicum of research so we can vote from knowledge, not ignorance.

I can understand why so many people are being gaslighted. KK rarely speaks in public, and when she does it is highly controlled, highly scripted, with a teleprompter, and with a friendly journalist who will ask softball questions and won’t ask follow-up or clarifying questions. She only speaks in platitudes, slogans, or generalities. She is mendacious. All candidates exaggerate, obfuscate, and twist the facts. She has taken it to an extreme. She downright lies. She knows a compliant media will not challenge her nor fact-check her.

I could write an entire blog on this, but I will give you one glaring example. Abortion has been and still is a “hot button” issue. In fact, it is probably the only issue the Dems have, even if it is specious and spurious at this point. KK is or should be cognizant of this. Nevertheless, she has been claiming that Trump is in favor of a national ban on abortion. That is simply not true. He has never said that. In fact, he has said he supports the recent SCOTUS ruling. Additionally, even if he wanted to it would not be within his power to enact such a ban. Pursuant to the recent SCOTUS ruling it is up to the citizens of each state to decide its own abortion law. There is no longer a standard national abortion policy, nor should there be. No one person or group of persons should be allowed to impose their beliefs on the entire country.

KK won’t disclose any specifics, because she knows that if the voters were aware of what they truly were she would lose in a landslide. So far, with the assistance of a biased media, she is getting away with this strategy. She has been answering all questions with the same canned responses such as she wants to “help the middle class, the rich should pay their fair share [whatever that is], and everyone should have the same opportunity to succeed.” She never explains specifically how she will achieve these goals, nor why she has not done so in the past 3 1/2 years, nor why she isn’t doing so right now. This should tell you that she is, in the words of Joe Biden, “full of malarkey.”

In my opinion, if you’re going to vote for a person who intends to wipe out 275 years of the best political, economic and social system the world has ever seen at least have the facts, at least be aware of what you are doing. In my experience, most of her supporters are not, don’t know, or don’t want to know. As my good friend and loyal reader Rich F. is fond of saying, “my mind’s already made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

All they know is they hate Trump. Why? What did he do? What did he say. Many of them don’t know, and they don’t care. They just hate him, and they refuse to vote for him. My friends, that is irrational. They believe that by not voting for Trump they are punishing him. Not true. They would be punishing themselves, as the saying goes, “cutting off their nose to spite their face.”

Yes, Trump would be disappointed. No one likes to lose. But he would quickly recover. He would return to his previous life, which was just fine thank you very much. On the other hand, the rest of us would be left to suffer the consequences, which would not be pretty. Hence, my nightmare.

Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves. All the people who died for this country in all the wars we have fought for some 275 years would be rolling over in their graves. Your children and grandchildren will be wondering “what in the hell were you thinking.”

by Tags: , , , , , , 2 Comments

TRUMP RALLY AT NASSAU COLISEUM

On Wednesday, September 17, Trump hosted a massive rally at Nassau Coliseum located in Uniondale, NY. According to multiple media reports there were some 60,000 requests for tickets to the venue. People were lined up outside for hours hoping to get a seat inside. This is typical of every Trump rally. There were seats for only 16,000 fans. The rest were content to watch and listen outside on large viewing screens. According to multiple published reports the crowd was friendly and orderly, and there were no incidents of rowdiness or violence. Most importantly, no assassination attempts.

The primary purpose of Trump’s appearance was to provide a boost to various GOP candidates who are embroiled in tough House of Representatives races in Nassau and Westchester Counties. Additionally, he has hopes of winning NYS. Currently, that seems unrealistic. However, Lee Zeldin, who lost a close gubernatorial race to Governor Kathy Hochul in 2022 denotes that at this point in his campaign a Siena poll reported him to be down 17 points, so I guess anything’s possible.

One significant issue he discussed was Harris’ record with respect to antisemitism, Hamas, and Israel. He asserted that she has done “absolutely nothing” to counteract the “surging” antisemitism in the US. She has not condemned it or even acknowledged it as a problem. Furthermore, she has demonstrated a pro-Hamas/anti-Israel bias with respect to the Middle East. He “challenged” Harris to “disavow the support of all Hamas sympathizers” who are supporting her and her campaign and there are many including some members of Congress. Of course, she will never do that because she needs their support to win, and they are in alignment with her “core beliefs” anyway. I have also discussed this issue in previous blogs, as well as expressed my incredulity as to why any Jew with a sense of history and who believes in the importance of Israel would ever vote for her.

Another key issue was illegal immigration and the border. Anyone who has been paying attention is aware of the failure of the Biden-Harris Administration to deal with this extreme crisis. Harris, the “Border Czar,” has basically denied its existence. She keeps blaming Trump for Congress’ failure to pass the border bill that BH backed, but she doesn’t disclose that the bill contained severe flaws that would have made the crisis worse, not better. She also neglects to acknowledge that BH could resolve the matter immediately by executive order.

Trump’s policy fix for illegal immigration is well-known. Among other things, he has asserted he would finish building the border wall, require illegals to remain in Mexico while awaiting approval to enter the US, halt the flood of fentanyl and other illegal drugs that are killing thousands of Americans, curtail sanctuary cities’ lack of cooperation with the feds, empower ICE to identify and locate the illegal aliens currently residing in the US, and carry out “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” You may say, “how could he do all this? The answer is he did do it, all of it, during his presidency.

One final note on this issue. Yesterday, a whistle blower came forward with some explosive revelations. Testifying before a US House Committee on Homeland Security Aaron Heitke, a retired San Diego Border Patrol Chief disclosed that the BH Administration severely hampered their efforts by, among other things, reducing their manpower. Furthermore, his sector was experiencing an “exponential” increase in “Significant Interest Aliens,” i. e. those with “significant ties to terrorism.” Nevertheless, the BH Administration instructed him not to report this increase, because it “was trying to convince the public that there was no threat at the border.”

It is worth noting that according to the NY Post since Biden was forced out and replaced by Harris Trump and Vance have participated in excess of 70 interviews, press conferences and rallies with a wide variety of audiences and answered a multitude of questions. In contrast, Harris has done three interviews since July 21, that’s right three, all with “friendly” interviewers who ask her general, vague questions with no follow-up and no fact-checking. Walz has been largely MIA. And yet, despite this disparity the polls have continued to report them to be within the margin of error. Moreover, some of them have published contradictory results. For example, yesterday, I saw one poll that reported Harris ahead in Michigan, and another poll taken during the same time period that reported Trump ahead.

The Dem strategy, which I predicted months ago, appears to be working just like it did with Biden in 2020. It is very simple. Hide from the media, say as little as possible, do not answer any questions directly, disguise your far-left policies and beliefs, blame Trump and the GOP for everything, and rely on the media to support you. Also, convince the voters you have changed your views from far-left to moderate, and then after the election you can revert to your true policies. Harris has been insisting that her core values have not changed. Believe her.

The NY Post has denoted that at this rate Harris will have granted the fewest interviews of any major party’s nominee ever. I have discussed this gaslighting strategy, in detail, in previous blogs, and there is no need to regurgitate it here.

Harris has been flip-flopping on virtually all of her policies; the media has let her get away with it; and many, if not most, voters are totally unaware of it. This strategy worked in 2020, and so far, it is working again in 2024. How else can one explain the close polls. I have no doubt that if voters were cognizant of Harris’ true values and policies she would lose in a landslide. You know it; I know it; and, most significantly, her handlers know it.

Even in these softball interviews Harris has had some “awkward” moments, many of which have been well-chronicled in the media. For instance:

  1. On how she would implement her policy of slavery reparations, which she has advocated, she told the National Association of Black Journalists, “We need to speak truth about the generational impact of our history, in terms of the generational impact of slavery, the generational impact of redlining, of Jim Crow laws.”
  2. On how she would bring down prices she told Philadelphia’s ABC outlet, “We as Americans have beautiful character. We have ambitions and aspirations and dreams. But not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions.”
  3. As stated in the Atlanta Journal Constitution with respect to her mandatory gun surrender program, which is a thinly-veiled gun confiscation program, she has stated that “police could walk into the home of legal gun owners to confiscate their weapons.”
  4. Another favorite non-sequitur has been “The children of the community are the children of the community.”
  5. She also has an annoying habit of altering her speech according to her audience. I view this as a demeaning and transparent attempt to identify with the audience.
  6. Lately, she has been answering every question by relating how she was “raised in a middle-class family” (not true) where every household had a neat lawn. Huh?

None of these responses comes remotely close to answering the questions. I’m not sure what she said, and probably she doesn’t either, but those “word salad” responses are typical. None of the questioners asked a follow-up question. They just nodded sagely and moved on to the next fatuous question.

CONCLUSION

Something must be done to tone down the rhetoric before someone gets killed. This is the most contentious and divisive election I can recall. Trump has already been attacked twice, and he is the obvious primary target, but, in actuality, any politician could be assassinated at any time. No sane person should want that, (note the word “sane.”)

In my view, virtually all of the hate rhetoric has come from the Dems and their supporters and has been aimed at Trump. Much of it has come not from deranged crackpots, but from politicians (such as Biden, Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer), members of the media (such as The View ladies, Morning Joe and various anchors and guests on CNN and MSNBC), and other “responsible “people who should know better. Even worse, it’s also became a favorite tactic to blame Trump for his own assassination attempts! It is one thing to criticize someone, but it is irresponsible to call someone “evil,” “Hitler” and a “threat to democracy.” For one thing, it is not true. For another, it is disrespectful and insulting to Jews and other victims of the Holocaust. In addition, it actually diminishes the extent of Hitler’s turpitude. It was truly incomparable. I have discussed this in previous blogs, and there is no need to repeat it here.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported that 28% of Dems and 17% of all respondents felt America would have been “better off” if Trump had actually been assassinated. That is shocking, but it is a good example of the moral decline of America. I’d like to think that America is better than this. At least, I used to think that, but now I’m not so sure.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

HARRIS-TRUMP 2024 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

The much-anticipated, long-awaited Harris-Trump presidential debate is history. The questions are (1) who won, (2) will the results affect the polls, and (3) will there be a second debate? Read on for the answers.

The post-debate polls I have seen are all over the place, and as is always the case each side’s spin doctors claimed victory. But, to be fair, the consensus seems to be that Harris “won” the debate. According to CNN North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper opined that Harris’ performance will “move the needle” in his state. But before Harris begins to pick out curtains for the White House, I have a word of caution. Firstly, history has shown that “winning” a debate does not always translate to a bump in the polls, and when it does the advantage is often fleeting. The reasons have varied, but that has generally been the case. For example:

  1. Post-debate, the same polls indicate that the crucial swing states are all still within the margin of error.
  2. In 2012 a CNN poll reported that Mitt Romney won the first debate over Barack Obama. He received a post-debate bump in the polls. But, as we know, Obama won the election.
  3. In 2016 the consensus was that Hillary Clinton had “won” all three debates over Donald Trump. She, too, received a bump in the polls. However, again, Trump won the election.

So, today, Dems can rejoice over Harris’ “victory,” but history has proven it does not mean she will win the election. A lot can happen between now and ED and usually does.

This was an extremely difficult debate to analyze. I have tried to be objective, however, I suspect that some of you will conclude that my comments are biased in favor of Trump. That said, below please find my thoughts, comments and analyses:

  1. This was not a “debate” in the strict sense of the word, nor was it intended to be. As you saw, the moderators asked each candidate questions in turn to which they responded. Then the other candidate had the opportunity to respond. In the interest of fairness, the moderators were supposed to refrain from commenting or exhibiting any bias at all. That was not always the case as you shall see below.
  2. My most significant takeaway from the debate was that the moderators exhibited considerable and frequent bias against Trump. Thus, they failed in their primary duty. They fact-checked Trump frequently (not always correctly as I will denote below), yet I cannot recall any instance of them doing so to Harris. At times, it appeared to be three against one. Many GOPers were incensed. According to CNN Trump asserted to it that ABC News’ bias was so extreme that the network “should have its broadcast license revoked.”
  3. In my view, each side had its own objectives with respect to the debate. Harris’ was to (a) appear presidential, (b) speak in generalities to avoid being pinned down on the specifics of her radical policies, (c) avoid her traditional “word salads” and cackling, (d) “spin” the Biden-Harris Administration’s accomplishments or lack thereof, (e) try to goad Trump into one of his traditional bullying, name-calling episodes, and (f) most importantly, blame Trump for everything – every failed policy from the economy to the border to abortion, even if it meant exaggerating, obfuscating, misrepresenting, or lying. She knew she could succeed in these endeavors because the moderators would assist her and would not fact-check her. For the most part, she accomplished her objectives.
  4. Trump’s objectives were to (a) expose her far-left policies to voters who for whatever reasons, have little or no familiarity of her and policies, (b) expose the duplicity, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, and outright lying with respect to her claimed policy changes, (c) tie her to Biden, (d) refrain from any bullying or name calling, and (e) explain how his policies would be better for the American people.
  5. In my opinion, she succeeded for the most part, whereas Trump, for the most part, did not. Why? Well, for one thing, Trump seemed desultory, and he gave an uncharacteristically lackluster performance. The more significant factor, however, was the moderators. The moderators in a debate have one simple job – to be fair and impartial. Their job is NOT to fact-check, dispute or assist one of the debaters. The ABC News moderators failed miserably (or, perhaps, in view of the network’s history of bias against Trump, 95% unfavorable compared to 100% favorable for Harris, succeeded brilliantly). They fact-checked Trump frequently, sometimes incorrectly. On a couple of occasions, they even disputed his statements. On the other hand, they allowed Harris to bob and weave, obfuscate, deceive and even lie. No fact-checking there.
  6. Apparently, the night before the debate Harris finally posted some policies on her website. But they were vague and short on specifics. Trump derided them as being “plagiarized” from Biden’s policies.
  7. Harris tended to avoid specifics. For the most part, she spoke in generalities, platitudes and slogans.
  8. Harris continually reiterated how “everyone” hated Trump. Yes, he is hated by a portion of the electorate, but not “everyone.” In fact, roughly half the voters love him.
  9. While Trump was speaking and the camera was on her Harris often made weird faces, which was meant to convey her disagreement or displeasure. I found that to be distracting, unprofessional, and disrespectful. Also, on various occasions it appeared she was trying to interrupt Trump while he was speaking. Of course, she couldn’t because her microphone was turned off. The NY Post referred to them derisively as her “Marcel Marceau shtick.” In the opinion of Miranda Devine, political reporter for the NY Post these “reinforced the fatal inauthenticity of the rest of her debate performance, which was a string of memorized set pieces with little reference to the question being asked and delivered in an odd staccato.”
  10. One of the major reasons for the debate was for the electorate to ascertain Harris’ policies. Heretofore, because she had largely refrained from giving news conferences or speaking without the aid of a teleprompter, according to polls as many as 70% were not clear on them. In her entire career up until few months ago she has espoused far left policies. In this electronic age there are a copious number of quotes of them if one cares to look. Now, with the election looming suddenly she has been disavowing most of them in favor of more moderate ones. Voters wanted to know if these substantial modifications were genuine or were they flip-flops to win the election. I would like to denote that in a rare moment of candor erstwhile Harris supporter Bernie Sanders disclosed they were just temporary to win the election. Everyone knows that she cannot possibly win if the voters were to ascertain her real policies.
  11. As of today, voters still don’t know, because she frequently responded to questions with lies, half-truths, nonresponsive generalities, non-sequiturs or avoided answering them entirely. The moderators should have pressed her with follow-up questions or fact-checked her answers. I don’t recall even one instance where they did.
  12. On the other hand, they frequently fact-checked or even disputed Trump’s answers, sometimes incorrectly. That was not their job. That exposed their deep bias against Trump.
  13. The most egregious instance was regarding abortion, although there were several others. They claimed that his point that the state of Virginia under a previous governor had allowed post-birth abortions was incorrect. On the contrary, it was true. Also, they allowed Harris to assert inaccurately that Trump supported an abortion ban. As most people know, Trump has advocated that the voters in each state should decide that state’s abortion policy. In the wake of SCOTUS’ recent decision abortion is basically a non-issue, but the Dems are trying to make it one as they don’t have any others.
  14. As I said, most observers opined that Trump “lost” the debate, but he did utter a few memorable zingers.
    • He said Harris now agreed with his policies to such an extent that he thought about sending her a MAGA hat.
    • He said many of the policy changes Harris is claiming she’ll effect on Day 1, such as the immigration problems and resuming drilling and fracking, can be implemented right now by Executive Orders. We don’t need Congress to pass any laws. He challenged Harris to go to DC right now, wake up Biden, and get him to sign the requisite Executive Orders.
  15. The following issues were either ignored, mischaracterized or glossed over:
    • Are Americans better off today than they were four years ago. Why/why not.
    • Income tax hike of up to 80% for high earners.
    • Tax on unrealized income.
    • Rising prices for groceries and other products and services.
    • Single payer healthcare plan to be administered by the federal government.
    • Illegal migrants being treated better than citizens.
    • Various freebies for illegal migrants, such as healthcare, social security, housing, education, and sex change operations even for those in prison (all to be funded by US taxpayers).
    • Late term abortions when the fetus is viable even after birth, which is allowed now in Minnesota, where Walz is governor, and a few other states.
    • Mandatory gun buyback program, which is tantamount to gun confiscation.
    • Green New Deal, which she co-sponsored and which would cost over $93 trillion.
    • Bans on various popular products such as red meat and plastic straws.
    • Electric vehicle mandate.
    • Bans on offshore drilling and fracking.
    • Border security.
    • Allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
    • The ill-conceived, ill-advised, misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, for which she was “proud” to cast the tiebreaking vote. Contrary to its name this act will cost trillions of dollars, was chock full of “pork” for party donors and friends and actually increased inflation and interest rates.
    • Defunding the police
    • Abolish or sharply curtail the powers of ICE.
    • No-cash bail laws.
    • Establishing a fund to post bail for criminals.
    • Lawlessness in many cities defended and unpunished.
    • Billions of dollars provided to Iran.
    • Dem Party coup to oust Biden, which disenfranchised, some 12 million Dem primary voters, and nominate Harris who has never, ever won even one delegate vote.
    • Student loan forgiveness.
    • Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
    • Reparations.

I found some post-debate polls interesting, for example:

  1. A NY Times survey disclosed that although a majority of the pundits thought Harris had won the debate many undecided voters surveyed were not so sure.
  2. A group of independent voters tracking the debate in real time on the economy were as positive toward Trump as his supporters.
  3. Reuters polled ten undecided voters after the debate. Six said they would vote for Trump, three for Harris, and one remained undecided.
  4. Another independent voter put it succinctly: “I guess I’m leaning more on his facts than her vision.”
  5. Commonwealth Attorney pollster Matt Lowery opined the debate “was not Trump’s best day, but it [didn’t seem] to hurt him. Undecideds are “not sold” on Harris. Trump has now pulled even in MI. Trump’s super-packs must help him to disseminate Harris’ true policies to the electorate (via ads). He cannot do it alone.
  6. Pollster Mark Penn, CEO of Stagwell, a marketing group, opined that voters care the most about the economy (no revelation since that is always the case). Furthermore, Harris’ real positions seem to be slowly seeping out to voters, but Trump has to work harder to disseminate them more fully.
  7. Charles Payne, a Fox News financial journalist, denoted that Biden-Harris’ actions have enriched their donors at the expense of the middle class. He added that the deficits they have created are “unsustainable.” Also, the runaway spending has raised interest rates and is “imploding” the jobs market. The Fed cannot cut interest rates because “inflation is at a 40-year high.”

CONCLUSION

As I said, as is normally the case, both sides are claiming victory. It’s probably too early to know the post-debate impact on the election for sure. The answer will probably be determined once we see the post-debate polls. Although I don’t know who won, I can definitely tell you who lost – the American people. The people did not learn much, if anything, about Harris’ core beliefs, which, in a free society, is unacceptable. A goodly percentage of them did not know before the debate, and they still don’t know now.

Both sides have expressed interest in a second debate. Supposedly, they are negotiating the details. I’m skeptical, but we’ll see.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment