Good morning kids. Rush Limbaugh of blessed memory used to say that the Democrats could never be honest about what they wanted to do because if they did, they'd never get elected.
But once they are elected, legitimately or otherwise, the failures of their policies still do not seem to matter, most especially to those who reflexively keep voting them in. I mean, just look at California. And yet.
After nearly four interminable years of an illegitimate Biden-Harris Junta, run no doubt from Kalorama (and Davos) that have lain was to our economy, society, the rule of law and brought the world closer to global war than ever before (all this on top of the 8 years of Obama's initial stint of fundamental transformation), They're seemingly out in the open about it. And yet, after announcing that she intends to Sovietize the American economy with price controls, the reaction from even those in her own party was to backtrack faster than you can say five-year-plan.
Finally, weeks after having Biden thrown under the bus and being installed at the top of the ticket, she will make her first appearances on state-run media. And yet, those pulling the strings still feel compelled to do this:
What should volunteers for Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign tell voters about her policy positions? It’s hard to say.Over the course of the Democratic National Convention, Harris’s staff held several messaging sessions for supporters of her presidential run. There, attendees were given a crash course on how to convince their friends and family to vote for Harris this November.
But several of them left those sessions, which the Washington Free Beacon attended, a bit befuddled. There was no clear policy outline for campaign volunteers to bring home, nor would any staff members commit to a position on a variety of contentious issues. . .
. . . When asked by the Free Beacon, for example, about how voters should square the Harris campaign's repeated criticism, and sometimes mockery, of Trump’s tariff proposals when the White House has made many of its predecessor’s tariffs permanent, deputy communications director Brooke Goren said, "I’m not going to get into proposals about what the vice president might roll out in the future."
Those at the top know the positions. There aren't any, none that could be revealed lest they completely turn off all but the most hardcore leftist voter. One merely has to look at the track records of Harris and Walz to see what their true beliefs and values are. The Dems can't have that, now can they.
On top of that, we now have Harris taking credit for Trump's border wall and claiming to want to expand it as well as claiming to now be against EV mandates that she pushed hard for not so long ago.
So the strategy is just keep your mouth shut (Willie Brown sighs in sadness) and hope the courts and the media can clear the playing field for you to Walz right into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
On top of Jill Stein, Cornel West and RFK Jr., being abused, the latter's endorsement of Trump is going to be a factor — that is if this latest maneuver from the despicable Jack Smith doesn't thwart the Trump train:
The new indictment removes a section of the indictment that dealt with Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, an area of conduct for which the Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion last month said Trump was entitled to immunity from prosecution.
The updated criminal case no longer lists as a co-conspirator Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who championed Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Trump’s co-conspirators were not named in either indictment, but they have been identified through public records and other means. . .
. . . The indictment retained the allegations that Trump attempted to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the electoral vote count. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the interactions between Trump and Pence amounted to official conduct for which “Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.”
The question, Roberts wrote, is whether the government can rebut “that presumption of immunity.”
Aside from the charges being baseless and spurious, the SCOTUS has already ruled that for his official actions in office, Trump is indeed immune from prosction. Which in a sane world doesn't even have any bearing on this because in no way did Donald Trump attempt to foment an insurrection or interfere with the electoral process. But you knew that already.
Todays’ Democrats likewise are targeting the Constitution’s guardrails against tyranny of both the minority and the majority. On his way out the door, Joe Biden has proposed “reform” of the Supreme Court that would limit the tenure of justices to 18 years, and give the executive branch oversight of the Court, threatening the separation powers and the Justices’ independence. Another target is the Electoral College, which prevents the president from being chosen by a majority that would likely ignore or diminish the rights and interests of less populated states and regions.
. ..Finally, the political philosophy of the Democrat Party is consistent with the early Progressives: scientistic technocracy, utopian goals, and a rejection of the underlying principles of the Constitution, which is part of a more general rejection of tradition, especially religion, and common sense. For today’s left, their foundational philosophy is “make it new,” the same guiding doctrine of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution, when what he called “the four olds” ––“old thought, old culture, old customs, and old habits” ––were eliminated by mass murder.
For today’s progressive Democrats, the Constitution–– with its divided and balanced powers, Bill of Rights, and ordered liberty–– is the bulwark against the tyranny they seek to impose on their fellow citizens who resist their utopian delusions, and to expanded power toward which both “marches” have been advancing.
Whether they succeed, or are slowed down enough to change course back to our Constitution, will be determined in November.
Perhaps, in a sense, and again I don't know what's in his heart, and he is after all a Kennedy, perhaps RFK Jr. sees this at long last for what it is and doesn't like what he sees. The problem is the LIV who does not know or has been brainwashed about history to get them to see this. A tall ask.
Policy positions, schmolicy positions. Just promise paradise on Earth and the world is your oyster.
Have a good day.