The Biden Admin Peacefully Transferring Power To Hitler

I add a bunch of stuff to Larry Elder’s recent audio from November 11th (APPLE TUNES). The quick change of tune here is amazing, both from KJP, Biden, and Kamala Harris – as well as the MSM.

ACE of SPADES has a good post on this:

Even stupid, idiot, uneducated leftists are putting it together: Wait, you told us he was Hitler. Literally Hitler. So either you are a bunch of craven quislings who are eager to fete Hitler, oryou lied, gaslit, and drove us crazy for eight years just to cling on to filthy political power.

I think it’s the latter.

Biden called Trump “President-elect” and welcomed him back to the White House. All with a smile on his face:

BIDEN: “Well, Mr. President-Elect and former President Donald, congratulations.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

BIDEN: “And looking forward to having a, like we said, smooth transition. We’ll do everything we can to make sure you’re accommodated, what you need. We’re going to get a chance to talk about some of that today.”

TRUMP: “Good.”

BIDEN: “Welcome.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

They met for two hours — longer than scheduled.

I approve of Trump going there. Not to pay respects to Biden, but to get the concession he never got from Hillary Clinton. He needs the left and the establishment (but I repeat myself) to understand and acknowledge that he has beaten them fair and square, and if they #Resist the democratically-elected, majority-vote president, then they are #Insurrectionists and will be treated with all the mercy that Biden treated the J6 “insurrectionists.”

Speaking of: Good point from Legal Insurrection.

There’s going to be a lot of talk about Trump needing to “extend the olive branch.” NO.

If he had lost, he would have been jailed. And for his support of Trump, Elon likely would have been bankrupted and jailed.

Those who launched the lawfare must be held accountable.

He doesn’t need to persecute random Democrats. He does need to ensure that his DOJ investigates Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Merrick Garland.

PJ-MEDIA pounces, lol

…. The other oddity of this happy meeting was the fact that Old Joe was palling around with the guy that the Democrats were calling Hitler just a few days ago. In fact, X is still full of videos of hysterical leftists wailing about the descent of fascism upon our once-free country, and the beaming old man to Donald Trump’s immediate left (of course) at the White House on Wednesday was largely responsible for that hysteria.

This did not, of course, start with the election season. The Democrats’ fearmongering about Trump began the moment he announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican nomination, and it never let up in the intervening years. It reached its apex on Sept. 1, 2022, when Biden, in a dark, threatening, nationally televised speech before an ominous red-and-black background and flanked by two Marines in full dress uniform, declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

For the first and only time in American history, a president declared that his primary political opposition was outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. The message couldn’t have been clearer: The establishment left, entrenched in power but deeply afraid of losing that power, was intent on criminalizing political opposition. Dissent from Biden’s agenda, and you could end up with the thought police breaking down your door at 4 a.m. The FBI, on the other hand, comes at 6 a.m., as Polymarket’s Shayne Coplan just found out.

“As I stand here tonight,” Biden declared in front of his ersatz National Socialist background, “equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.” Biden said equality and democracy were under assault, and then he proceeded to assault them. He said he intended to “speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face,” but he wasn’t referring to China, Russia, North Korea, or the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and certainly not to the woke America haters who infest our public schools, colleges, and universities. No, Biden’s big threat to the nation was Trump, along with the Americans who dared to vote against him and reject his policies. Old Joe came closer to calling for war upon American citizens than any president since Jefferson Davis.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice,” Biden declared. “They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” This was the “accuse your enemy of what you’re doing” strategy to a T. Old Joe added, “Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.”

And yet, there he was on Wednesday, cheesin’ and grinnin’, as Barack Obama would put it, with the sinister destroyer of democracy himself. Why, it’s as if the whole thing was a put-on. There never was any threat to democracy, except from Old Joe himself and his henchmen. Trump and his supporters never represented “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” and Biden likely knew this even as he was saying it back in 2022. But will Old Joe, in his present happy mood, call on leftists to calm down and tell them the whole “threat to our democracy” shtick was just a vote-getting tactic? Don’t hold your breath.

Kamala Budgeted Campaign Like She Would Have the Government

SEE: How Kamala Harris plowed through $1 billion (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

It was ultimately no use. On Tuesday, Donald Trump made history and became only the second former president to win a nonconsecutive term. After surviving two assassination attempts on the campaign trail, Trump dominated Harris in battleground states to emerge as the president-elect. And he did so with far less cash.

The story of how Harris pocketed record sums while failing to gain support from voters will be studied by campaigns for decades to come. Democrats who successfully pressured octogenarian President Joe Biden to pass the torch to the former California senator are now conducting an internal autopsy of the 2024 race, in which Trump raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars less than Harris.

“A billion dollars paled in comparison to the increased prices Americans were seeing across the country,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch and a longtime Trump ally, told the Washington Examiner. “Voters weren’t fooled.”

The Harris campaign and its affiliated committees dropped more than $654 million on advertising from July 22 to Election Day, whereas Trump spent $378 million, or 57% less, in the same category, according to data from AdImpact.

Future Forward, the $500 million “ad-testing factory” and super PAC that supported Harris, was a reliable clearinghouse for checks from wealthy Democrats such as Reid Hoffman, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Dustin Moskovitz. And anonymous donations, or so-called “dark money,” also benefited Harris at a faster and more substantial clip than Trump thanks to lax federal laws that progressives often criticize but, nonetheless, exploited in 2024.

The Harris campaign declined to comment on its finances. A fuller portrait will be public after the election, as the Federal Election Commission mandates post-general election reports for candidates within 30 days.

In mid-October, the Harris campaign disclosed that it had spent over $880 million this election, almost $526 million greater than the roughly $354 million that the Trump campaign had disclosed spending, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of federal filings. Much of the Harris campaign’s spending was allocated for digital media advertising, polling, and travel from state to state, including to a private jet company called Advanced Aviation.

Payroll and the taxes that accompanied it accounted for $56.6 million of the Harris campaign’s spending. In comparison, the Trump campaign reported spending $9 million on payroll — employing hundreds fewer staff members.

There was also the army of political, digital, and media consultants who were paid over $12.8 million by the Harris campaign, filings show.

read it all

LOTS O-MONEY via OFF THE PRESS:

Finger-pointing has erupted over the Kamala Harris campaign blowing up to $20 million on swing-state concerts Monday night, hours before the VP’s spectacular election loss to Donald Trump — prompting concern that everyday staff and vendors won’t get paid amid reports the campaign is in debt by the same amount.

Members of the defeated Harris team tell The Post that the concerts had a ruinous effect on the Democratic campaign’s coffers and that fact was no secret — with one planned performance by ’90s alt-rock goddess Alanis Morissette getting scrapped to save money.

The seven swing-state concerts on election eve featured performances by Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas, Katy Perry in Pittsburgh and Lady Gaga in Philadelphia — with 2 Chainz joining Harris on Nov. 2, three days before the election, for an eighth concert in Atlanta.

Two sources said that Obama campaign alum Stephanie Cutter pushed the concert concept as a way to woo lower-propensity voters to the polls.

While the performers donated their time and talent, the sets still required an immense commitment of manpower and financial resources. ….

LOTS O-MONEY via PJ-MEDIA:

… Most of it went for advertising, which is a reasonable expenditure for a presidential campaign. The Washington Examiner reported Friday that “the Harris campaign and its affiliated committees dropped more than $654 million on advertising from July 22 to Election Day, whereas Trump spent $378 million, or 57% less, in the same category, according to data from AdImpact.” A good chunk of what was left went for polling and travel, which is reasonable, but the Harris campaign wasn’t going to risk getting dirty by hobnobbing with the hoi polloi: the travel expenses includes payment to “a private jet company called Advanced Aviation.”

Neo-Marxist apparatchiks don’t come cheap, and so the Harris camp shelled out a princely $56.6 million for payroll and the accompanying taxes. On top of that, Kamala and her henchmen plunked down $12.8 million for “political, digital, and media consultants,” all of whom promptly proved that they don’t know their own business and are wildly overpaid.

To get some idea of how disproportionate that is, note that the Trump campaign spent all of $9 million on payroll. There are some very wealthy Commies out there today courtesy of Kamala Harris, although to be sure, her campaign employed far more people than Trump’s did.

Harris also spent over $15 million to hire the parade of icky celebrities she trotted out to boost attendance at her allies, and sent a cool million to Oprah Winfrey for hosting a town hall with her and appearing at her final rally. Oh, you thought Oprah was appearing out of conviction, love for our country, and thoughtful support for the candidate she thought would best lead us through the perilous coming four years? Come on, man! 

Worst of all, however, was the fact that “the Harris campaign spent six figures on building a set for Harris’s appearance on the popular Call Her Daddy podcast with host Alex Cooper. The interview came out in October and was reportedly filmed in a hotel room in Washington, D.C.” Wait a minute. Doesn’t this notorious sex podcast have a studio? Yes, but it’s in Los Angeles, and apparently Kamala and her minions decided that it would be better to spent over a hundred thousand dollars to build a new set rather than have the candidate fly all the way out to a state she already had in the bag.

The set that the Harris campaign built was not exactly a masterpiece. The Daily Caller asked trenchantly: “How the heck could this have cost six figures? How? The chairs, shelves, and knick-knacks on the shelves are ugly and cheap-looking, like Chinese-made Amazon basics furniture. In a couple of trips to the local Home Depot, the boys and I could whip up something better with a fraction of the budget. Although $100,000 is a drip in an ocean of billions, it’s emblematic of the poor spending choices of the campaign that got them nowhere. Also, to spend it for an hour-long appearance on a trashy sex podcast? What an utter waste of money and time.” ….

Secular vs Religious Jewish Voting Patterns | Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager was on the Patrick Bet-David Podcast and was asked why a majority of Jews vote Left typically. His response as well as the ABC article to follow are illuminating. To say the least.

(One minute and 45-seconds long)

ABC:

Israelis broadly favor Trump over Harris on security and in vote preference: Poll

Israelis broadly pick former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris as better for Israel’s security and in turn favor Trump for the U.S. presidency, albeit with sharp political divisions, a national survey by Langer Research Associates and PORI (Public Opinion Research Israel) finds.

Fifty-eight percent of Israelis in the survey, conducted in September, said Trump would be better for Israel’s security, vs. 20% for Harris. If they had a vote in the U.S. election, Israelis said they’d pick Trump over Harris by a similar 54%-24%, with the rest taking a pass.

[….]

Gaps also are present within the Jewish population. The shares picking Trump as better on security ranged from 53% of secular Jews to 88% of Orthodox Jews. Patterns are similar in preference for the presidency: Secular Jews favored Trump by 11 points, 46%-35%, widening to 65%-17% among traditional Jews and 69%-3% among ultra-Orthodox Jews, and peaking for Trump at 85%-4% among Orthodox Jews.

U.S. election preferences among Israeli Jews overall are sharply different from those of Jews in the United States. In ABC News/Ipsos polling, combining late August and mid-September surveys for an adequate sample size, U.S. Jews favored Harris over Trump by 63%-33%.

Another difference is by age. In the United States, Harris does best with younger adults. In Israel, it’s Trump who does best in this group, with 65% of those younger than 35 picking Trump on security and 58% supporting him for president. These drop to 52% and 48% for Trump, respectively, among Israelis age 65 and older.

Trump also prevails among Israelis in strength of sentiment. Thirty percent overall said they’d “surely” support Trump for president, vs. 10% who said this about Harris; and 37% said Trump would be “much” better for Israel’s security, compared with 12% for Harris.

Dennis Prager Uses Bret Stephens To Explain TDS – and more

Via QOSHE / NYTs: Kamala Harris Has an Unexpected Ally

The Conversation

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens: Please don’t tell me you’re going to ask how I’m going to vote.

Gail Collins: Well, Bret, why would you imagine such a thing? Just because I keep getting stopped by people on the street, demanding to know whether you’re going to support Kamala Harris. I am not making this up.

Come on. Give us a hint.

Bret: You really want to know?

Gail: Um, yeah.

Bret: Kicking and screaming, I’ll cast my ballot for Harris.

I really would rather have just sat out Election Day. But Jan. 6 and election denialism are unforgivable. And as my friend Richard North Patterson likes to say, “Donald Trump is literally bleeping crazy.” And what crazy brings in its wake is JD Vance, whom I find worse than Trump, because he’s just as cynical but twice as bright. And what it also brings in its wake is Tucker Carlson and the Hitler defenders he likes to platform.

Gail: OK, gonna take a little time to run up to the roof and toot a horn. Be right back.

Bret: Well

Gail: Hear that, don’t-like-anyone people? Really, if Bret can bring himself to vote for Kamala, you can.

Bret: It’s a 99.999 percent vote against Trump and a 0.001 percent vote for Harris.

Gail: And to bolster the argument, how about a short list of the things that bother you most about your new choice for president of the United States?

Bret: If the G.O.P. had nominated Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis or Doug Burgum, I’d be voting Republican. Probably even Tim Scott: That’s how reluctant I was to vote for her.

I fear that Harris is every bit as vacuous behind the scenes as she seems to be on the public stage. I fear she will be tested early by a foreign adversary and stumble badly, whether it’s in stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon or China from blockading Taiwan or Russia from seizing a portion of a Baltic country. I fear she will capitulate too easily to her party’s left flank, especially when it comes to identity politics, economic policy or polarizing cultural issues. I fear she’ll have no domestic policy ideas that don’t involve mindlessly expanding the role of government. I fear she’ll surround herself with mediocre advisers, like her embarrassingly bad veep pick. I fear she won’t muster the political will to curb mass migration. And I fear that a failed Harris presidency will do more to turbocharge the far-right in this country than to diminish it.

Gail: That does cover a lot

Bret: But I won’t fear that she’ll refuse to recognize the result of the……..

Prager’s Description: Dennis defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and explains why “Never Trumpers” have a narcissistic attitude that could ruin our country.

Before reading the meat of the convo, keep in mind that the only people really talking about violence if Trump is elected and not authorizing the election are Democrats. A couple examples. Long time Clinton and Democrat ally, James Carville, called for armed revolution if Harris loses:

“People say, ‘What’s at stake in this election?’

“I say the Constitution is at stake,” Carville went on.

“We live under a set of laws, it’s literally at risk and he is telling you that.”

Carville then upped the fearmongering ante.

He blasted journalists and commentators who are discussing polling data showing black and Hispanic men’s wavering support for Harris.

He then claimed this is petty compared to Trump’s alleged authoritarian agenda.

“People want to know about [Harris’ polling] weakness among males of color,” Carville said.

“Okay? He’s gonna arrest all of ya,” he claimed.

[….]

He argued that journalists and even a retired Democratic Party strategist like himself would be rounded up during Trump’s possible future presidency.

“When the paddy wagon comes, you and I are going to be in the back of it, bouncing around, and it’s not going to be very much fun, and they will tell you, the judge said, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. Carville, Trump said he was going to get rid of the Constitution, I have no choice but to enforce the democratic norms of this country.’”

[….]

“When the Republic was threatened, people picked up arms and answered the call,” Carville said.

“Or, you know, in 1965 in the middle of the Civil Rights movement, I think people decided they were gonna take matters into their own hands and create a better country and that’s what I hope we do here in the next few weeks,” he finished….

(SLAY NEWS)

Another call to not qualify Trump comes from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who said that Democrats would not certify Trump because he would be a crises for the consitution — adapted.

  • Congressman Jamie Raskin says EVEN IF TRUMP WINS they will disqualify him on January 6th, 2025 under 14A. — END WOKENESS

(More at LEGAL INSURRECTION)

THE ATLANTIC as well notes the following after talking to multiple Democrats:

Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.

Democrats Call For Violence

A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here

Bret Baier Single Handedly Shuts Down Harris’ Campaign

Vice President Kamala Harris discusses immigration, the economy, responding to U.S. adversaries and more with Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier on ‘Special Report.’

BTW, I thought of this when I watched the FOX interview, and I finally had some time to cobble it together:

“I Will Never Vote For a Democrat Again!” | Howard Stern

FOR THE RECORD

Howard Stern said he would never vote for a Democrat again, because they are Commies! Then he proceeds to vote for the most Communist Democrat to run to date:

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld and the panel react to Howard Stern’s interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on ‘Gutfeld!’

  • “Yes, I’m voting for you. But I would also vote for that wall over there,” Stern told Harris during a Tuesday interview on his radio show. (BREITBART)

BONUS ~ JESSE WATTERS

Jesse Watters discusses how there is possibly some concern among Democrats about Vice President Kamala Harris’ lack of media appearances on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.’

Carbon Pipelines | Another Kamala [Deadly] Legacy

FIRST ORDER OF BIZNESS BEFORE MINI-DOCUMENTARY:

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which dedicated $370 billion to investments in clean energy projects, was the biggest climate legislation in American history when it was signed into law just two years ago. — Foreign Policy Magazine
  • It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever. “We should have named it what it was” — Joe Biden
  • Two years ago, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, with Vice President Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in Congress. — White House

Here is more from the Western Journal:

It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever.”

“We should have named it what it was,” he said.

The problem Democrats faced then, and face now, is that if they name things for what they are, they won’t be able to convince the American public to go along.

During the Trump administration, Democrats tried to sell a “Green New Deal” that didn’t get anywhere — for good reason. The idea of energy created from wind and solar power might sound great on the surface, in a dewy-eyed, dreamy kind of way. But when it comes to spending massive amounts of money for negligible returns, sane, adult people tend to balk.

But when inflation is ravaging household income, coming up with a bill called the “Inflation Reduction Act” makes it much more appealing.

Biden has made a similar admission before. In 2023, during a speech in Park City, Utah, he acknowledged outright that the bill “has less to do with reducing inflation than providing alternatives where we generate economic growth.”

So, an “Inflation Reduction Act” it wasn’t.

“I wish I hadn’t called it that,” he said.

But Thursday’s admission — “we should have named it what it was” — was far more explicit.

And that should be a problem for the Kamala Harris president campaign. It was Harris, remember, who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that passed the monstrosity of a bill in August 2022 and sent it to the then-Democratic controlled House for final approval before Biden got it.

If Biden is admitting its title was a lie, what does that say about Harris? ….

(READ IT ALL)

Tie breaking vote of a bill purposefully mislabeled to lie to the American public so it could pass!

Effe Democrats!

Kamala’s carbon pipeline climate scam impacts human health, destroys the environment, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Let’s get President Trump back in the White House and me to Washington so we can stop this massive boondoggle.

Damn!

More on the Pipelines created by the “Inflation Reduction Act,” so called (I emphasize a couple things as well – as well as adding a [snippet or two]):

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today issued Notices of Intent to fund two programs that will advance carbon capture demonstration projects and expand regional pipeline networks to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) for permanent geologic storage or for conversion into valued end uses, such as construction materials. The two programs – the Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program and the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Program – are funded by a more than $2.6 billion investment from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Together, the programs build on the Administration’s  recent actions to catalyze investments in clean energy and industrial innovation and advance President Biden’s goal of a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy by 2050—creating good paying jobs and economic opportunity. The investments also support the Justice40 Initiative, and DOE continues to prioritize engaging with environmental justice communities to ensure that equity is at the center of reaching our climate goals. [JUMP]

“To meet President Biden’s climate goals, we have to rapidly decarbonize our power generation and heavy industries – such as steel production – that are essential to the clean energy transition,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enables DOE to invest in carbon capture, conversion and storage technologies that play essential roles in the development and deployment of clean energy.” 

Greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the primary component, have risen dramatically over the past several decades. Greenhouse gases fuel climate change, increasing the risk of droughts and floods, and putting our agriculture, health, and water supply at risk. These programs will enable the capture, transport, and permanent storage of greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate the impacts of climate change on communities. They will also benefit communities across the nation by creating good-paying jobs and improving air quality. 

[….]

Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent  

The $100 million Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program will design regional carbon dioxide pipeline systems to safely transport CO2 from key sources to centralized locations. Projects will expand DOE’s knowledge of carbon transport costs, transport network configurations, and technical and commercial considerations to support the country’s broader efforts to develop and deploy carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon conversion, and storage at fully-commercial scale.  

DOE is also working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to incorporate their safety guidance into DOE’s research, development, demonstration, and deployment portfolio for CO2 pipelines. To read DOE’s statement of support for the new CO2 pipeline safety measures recently announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, click here. 

More information on the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent can be found here.

(ENERGY.GOV)

Since FEMA has been in the news for handing out monies meant for Americans in case of natural disasters to housing and feeding illegal immigrants, here is another boondoggle of American transfer of tax money to DEI type projects by FEMA:

[FEMA Press] Release Date: July 15, 2022

WASHINGTON — Today, FEMA released an initial list of programs covered under the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40  Initiative, which aims to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, clean water and other investments to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, overburdened and underserved. There are four covered programs within FEMA, each of which advance the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to environmental justice.

President Biden is committed to securing environmental justice and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that are marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care.

Under Administrator Deanne Criswell’s leadership, FEMA has been integral to fulfilling the Biden-Harris Administration’s whole-of-government approach to advancing environmental justice and delivering on the President’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, including the critical Justice40 Initiative.

“The Justice40 Initiative strengthens FEMA’s commitment to ensure quick and equitable distribution of funds and benefits to the communities who need it most,” said Administrator Criswell. “We know that socially vulnerable communities bear the brunt of climate change and are more likely to be impacted by the associated extreme weather events. Thanks to President Biden and the Justice40 Initiative, FEMA will be able to better serve these communities by making them more resilient when disaster strikes.” ….

The CITY JOURNAL responds. Hat-tip to HOT AIR!

… At the start of his term, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which set aggressive targets for clean energy but also included the demand that 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of environmental programs should flow to disadvantaged communities. The White House says this “Justice40 Initiative” must be a major focus of every government agency. The underlying concept holds that poor and minority communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution and are entitled not just to lower emissions but to various economic benefits to make up for historic underinvestment in those communities. In effect, the Justice40 project redefines the purpose of environmental programs to include not just less pollution but also various social goals such as “empowering communities” and reducing poverty.

What are the key problems with that effort?

Biden’s EJ agenda is a confusing jumble of requirements that burden government agencies with new layers of bureaucracy and contradictory demands. Some of the key requirements of the program, including the meaning of the word “benefit,” are left undefined. At a time when the White House says we are in a “climate emergency,” the EJ requirements will make it harder to get clean energy infrastructure projects approved. It will also raise the costs of those projects by adding demands such as favoring more expensive union labor. In practice, this means it will cost more and take longer to reach the administration’s ambitious climate targets. The EJ rules will also make it easier for activist groups to tie up private industry in litigation, which will undermine economic opportunity in poor communities.

Could you describe the distinction between the “practical” and “extreme” wings of today’s EJ movement?

The EJ movement contains a mix of ideologies and policy goals. On the practical side, advocates seek basic fairness in the application of environmental laws and reasonable goals, such as replacing lead pipes or reducing airborne pollution in cities. On the extreme side, activists see environmental justice as part of a larger progressive movement that pursues radical social change. For example, the influential Climate Justice Alliance describes its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” The White House invited leaders of the Climate Justice Alliance and similar groups to advise it on how to shape its EJ policies.

Do you see parallels between the administration’s EJ agenda, which tries to expand social-welfare programs under the rubric of environmental concerns, and efforts by medical organizations and federal agencies to promote concepts like the “social determinants of health?”

The progressive movement is good at taking goals most Americans agree with—less pollution, or better health outcomes for minorities—and then using them as a kind of smokescreen under which to enact a more radical agenda. In both cases, activists want to take programs aimed at specific, concrete problems and then redirect those programs toward an amorphous set of social goals. For example, the White House’s EJ advisors demand that federal programs prioritize installing solar panels on the roofs of public-housing buildings. That wouldn’t help reduce CO2 emissions; these panels will be less efficient than rural solar farms. But it would mean more inner-city jobs and empowerment for activist groups. These activists imagine a future of “decentralized grid ownership,” in which poor communities control power generation communally. So, while most voters see Biden’s climate policies as being aimed at reducing emissions, EJ extremists see them as a vehicle for building the kind of post-capitalist future they desire. So far, the White House hasn’t followed every extreme EJ policy recommendation, but the activists are planting seeds. They might not fulfill their whole vision, but they can certainly tie up green programs with costs, delays, and contradictory goals.

The Radical Kamala Harris | Conversations That Matter

Wow… great stuff! I had no idea on some of it. Also, I ALWAYS noted the Black Panthers were a black nationalist cult. NO MORE. They are strictly a Maoist movement/cult.

Trevor Loudon joins the podcast to talk about Kamala Harris’s Marxist roots, how she ascended to the vice-presidency, and what she plans to do to America.

Kamala’s “holistic” Sit Down w/Stephanie Ruhle

(Some of the best commentary on the “holistic thing”)

Kamala Harris sat down with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle—for what might be the most favorable, comfortable possible conditions for the Democrat presidential nominee to speak with a “reporter.”

It did NOT go well.

Connect with Larry:

The Sith Lord Endorsed Kamala Harris? LOL

My idea of Cheney is not like the Democrats, or even Charlie Kirk. YES! He is wrong on his views of Donald Trump, and, I have debunked many of these lies over the years stated in the video. However, the point is that DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THIS … until 2-seconds ago.

Here are some of my posts for the record:

  • Dispelling the “CIA Trained-Funded Bin Laden/Taliban” Myth/Mantra
  • Halliburton
  • WMD
  • “We Supplied Most Of Iraq’s Weapons” ~ Mantra
  • Was The Iraq War About Oil?
  • The Yellow Cake Uranium Mantra (YUGE UPDATE!)

All those are found linked HERE:

Conspiracies

 Another worth mentioning:

  • Playing a Little “Concepts” Catch Up (Romney and Torture):

Playing a Little “Concepts” Catch Up (Romney and Torture)

I will be fixing that post’s dead media soon

No Active Duty Military In War Zones? WTH?

  • “As of today there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” – Kamala Harris

This was my quick ad-on to the video on my sites FB:

JUST A FEW HEADLINES, preceded by date:

  • (ABC | September 13th, 2024) Iraqi and US forces kill a top IS commander and other militants in joint operation — Iraq’s military says its forces and American troops have killed a senior commander with the Islamic State group who was wanted by the United States.
  • (Big News Network | September 13th, 2024) 2 officers killed in IS attack in N. Iraq — BAGHDAD, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) — Two army officers were killed and three soldiers wounded on Friday in an attack by the extremist Islamic State (IS) militants in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk, said a local security source.
  • (WSJ | September 9th, 2024) U.S. Forces Try to Regroup as al Qaeda, Islamic State Sow Terror in West Africa — After being evicted from counterterrorism stronghold Niger, U.S. is adopting a smaller military footprint — The U.S. is gradually moving aircraft and commandos into coastal West Africa in an urgent effort to try to stop the march of al Qaeda and Islamic State militants across one of the world’s most volatile regions.

The NEW YORK POST has more:

Outraged family members of US troops hurt in the line of duty slammed Kamala Harris’ brazen claim that no Americans are serving in war zones — a statement which flies in the face of her own administration’s official list of active combat zones.

As many as 50,000 US service members currently patrolling countries and oceans across the Middle East and Africa are receiving either “hostile fire” or “imminent danger pay,” monthly payments of up to $225 for troops deployed in areas where they could easily be subjected to — or do come under — enemy attack, retired Army Col. and military analyst Jonathan Sweet told The Post.

Yet during Tuesday’s ABC debate with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the vice president to make it seem as if the Harris-Biden administration has heralded in a period of peace not seen in decades — and that all American military members are safe.

More via LIBERTY DAILY, emphasis in the original:

… it’s essential to recognize the gravity of the situation where service members like Chief Warrant Officer Garrett Illerbrunner are critically injured in active duty. His father, Brad Illerbrunner, expressed profound disappointment and anger towards Harris’s misleading assertions.

really [hit] below the belt… She doesn’t even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.” – Brad Illerbrunner

We’re still in war zones.” – Brad Illerbrunner

trying to snow the public.” – Brad Illerbrunner

These poignant words from a distressed father highlight the disconnect between the administration’s narrative and the ground realities. How can such blatant disregard for the truth be justified? Is it merely a ploy to divert the public’s attention from the ongoing dangers faced by our troops?

Michael DiMino, a fellow at the think tank Defense Priorities, also criticized the vice president’s claims for failing to reflect the true conditions experienced by U.S. forces deployed overseas.

fail a basic kind of smell test” – Michael DiMino

If you’re in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you’re getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you’re in a war zone.” – Michael DiMino

to finagle a wording… to make a point we’re not engaged in all these conflicts — which we are” – Michael DiMino

Those quibbling qualifiers ignore the fact American men and women in uniform are getting shot at on daily basis, and many just in the last eight months have died or been injured.” – Michael DiMino

Despite these glaring facts, a Harris campaign spokeswoman and a Defense Department official reiterated the administration’s stance, further fueling the narrative disconnect.

taking risks for our country that should be honored no matter where they serve.” – Harris campaign spokeswoman

An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur… Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the Secretary of Defense. However, it’s important to note that just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war.” – Defense Department official

The emotional toll on families is palpable. Holly Davis, whose husband is currently deployed in Syria, shared her distress over the vice president’s claims, which starkly contrast with her daily reality.

It’s very hurtful that someone who is currently our vice president is making these claims when my husband is literally sacrificing his life every day over in the Middle East.” – Holly Davis

I had to sit in those literal two minutes of hearing that, wondering if he was going to come back on the phone… It’s very real. Very war zone.” – Holly Davis

The Harris-Biden administration’s portrayal of a peaceful, conflict-free global stage under their leadership does not hold up against the testimonies of those directly impacted by the realities of war. 

Yes, The Left Thinks Lawns Are Racist

To “get this post” and to understand the comment by THE PEOPLE’S CUBE (PC), one has to do some reading.

Here is the idea behind PC’s quip ~ New York Times: Lawns Are Symbols of Racism and Bad for Global Warming (Breitbart):

While most Americans are spending time this summer enjoying the sun in the comfort of their houses’ yards, the New York Times is out with a new exposé on how lawn care is problematic, once viewed through the lens of social justice.

Lawns are contributing to pollution and climate change, asserts narrator David Botti, and their origins are far from woke, in a seven-minute video on the history of American lawns.

Botti says lawns are part of the “colonizing of America,” which transformed the landscape from “pristine wilderness” to “identical rows of manicured nature.”

“These lawns come on the backs of slaves,” he continues, zooming in on a painting of George Washington in a field to highlight men cutting the grass with scythes. “It’s grueling, endless work.”

“By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses,” he states. …

The Times also refers to the work of historian Ted Steinberg, who calls lawns the “outdoor expression of ’50s conformism.”

Jerry Thornton over at BARSTOOL SPORTS takes the above to an awesome conclusion:

  • I used to just blame the white supremacists, the neo-Nazis and the garden variety ignorant rednecks for creating division in our country. There was a time I believed the true polluters were the ones flying private jets, dumping plastics into the oceans and clear cutting rainforests. I no longer have that luxury thanks to the NY Times. They woke me to the fact it’s my fault. Me, George Washington, 1950s conformism, a couple of anonymous dead ladies who wanted to live near white people, the golf industry and Big Garden. We are to blame. Me and my Sears Craftsman push model with the autodrive feature are creating racial intolerance and melting the Antarctica permafrost, one blade of grass at a time. And I am sorry.

Jerry makes sure to post the Brothers [movie] scene… hilarious!

Now the the main event… a KAMALA WORD SALAD:

Here is my response to PC

In other words, in the current #WOKE or CRT (Critical Race Theory) understanding — Kamala is essentially calling those middle-class Americans “systemically racist.”

A COUPLE MORE “TWI-X’S”

Also note that radical Islam got its philosophical start by Sayyid Qutb in part to hating the bourgeoisie “lawn status” of Americans:

See more here:

Why “Ron Paul Types” are Wrong About Foreign Policy and Islam