Tag: 2024 elections

Biden-Harris FCC ‘expedites’ Soros acquisition of 2nd largest radio company in U.S. ahead of November election

The First Amendment is under attack like never before in American history, with government officials and even media personalities demanding censorship of facts and opinions they don’t like by claiming it is “mis-,” “dis-,” or “mal-information.”

“Mal-information,” by the way, is perhaps the most insidious part of the global censorship narrative being laid down by puppet leaders under the spell of the World Economic Forum and United Nations. This includes the reporting of accurate facts that question and disrupt an official government narrative, whether it be about mRNA injections being “safe and effective,” even when they’re not, pointing out fraudulent election practices or advocating for an end to the bloodbath in Ukraine.

It is in this unprecedented environment that the Harris-Biden administration is having their FCC expedite the sale of 220 radio stations to billionaire globalist George Soros.

Soros is buying a 40% stake in Audacy, which is America’s second-largest radio network totaling more than 220 U.S. stations. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the deal and is in collusion with Soros to help him “expedite” the acquisition right before the presidential election.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, appointed by Donald Trump in 2017, recently had this to say about the transaction during a bearing before a House subcommittee:

“The FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing a transaction. We have established, over a number of years, one way in which you can gert approval from the FCC when you have in excess of 25 percent foreign ownership, which this case does, and is poised to create for the first time, an entirely new shortcut. The FCC has never signed off on a shortcut like this before.”

Keep reading

When odious foreign policy elites rally around Harris

Efforts to bolster the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris by the D.C. foreign policy establishment kicked into overdrive over the course of the past week with the near simultaneous release of two open letters signed by hundreds of former U.S. national security officials.

It is an accelerated version of previous campaigns in 2016 and 2020, where ex-officials and military officers on both sides of the aisle vocalizing major opposition to Trump offer to give national security cred to the Democratic candidate — in this case Harris. For their part, the candidate virtually ignores that many of these endorsements are in many cases coming from odious individuals, including architects of wars and interventions that Democrats have openly criticized as stains on recent American history.

The first was a letter signed by over 100 former Republican national security officials stating that while they, alumni of every Republican administration from Reagan to Trump, “expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues” they also “firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump.”

According to the former GOP officials, Trump’s “susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making” render him a danger to U.S. national security interests.

Critics of course point out that many of these people are the same Washington creatures who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited from them for 20 years straight — and until this day support cruel, authoritarian dictators when convenient to U.S. policy. They are not wrong.

As a group, the signatories of the first letter are a very mixed bag. The missive does feature a few sensible, responsible pillars of the Washington establishment, including those of former defense secretary (and U.S. senator) Chuck Hagel, and former FBI and CIA director William Webster.

Yet for the most part, the letter carried with it the odor of the consensus minded War Party, if not 9/11-era neoconservatism. In the past this would have been a problem for traditionally liberal and progressive outlets, but Mother Jones and the New Republic were quick to applaud the letter as a “win” for the Harris campaign. Not surprisingly, only The Nation has called out their fellow liberals and progressives for making common cause with the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, both of whom have also endorsed Harris in recent days (except for columnist Joan Walsh, who found Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Harris “strangely moving,” writing, “Liz, I told you we could find common ground. Let’s have a cup of coffee. Or even a beer?”

This columnist at Al Jazeera, however, offers no stated desire for beers with the Cheneys, particularly father Dick. “What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values,” charged Howard University Law school professor Ziyad Motola.

Just so.

The letter features dozens of embittered Republican hawks who claim to deplore Trump’s “unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance” when they evinced no such concerns when they worked for the likes of George W. Bush, Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and old boss John Ashcroft during the Global War on Terror.

Keep reading

Kamala Hit With New Investigation After Potentially Major Campaign Violation

The Biden-Harris Administration is facing a new investigation led by House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY), centered on potential misuse of taxpayer resources in the 2024 presidential campaign. The investigation stems from allegations that taxpayer-funded resources were used to fly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Pennsylvania, where it is alleged he participated in efforts supporting Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

Comer’s investigation was launched after reports surfaced that Zelensky was flown on a U.S. Air Force aircraft to Pennsylvania, a key battleground state, in the lead-up to the 2024 election. The Oversight Committee is scrutinizing whether this arrangement constitutes an abuse of power, drawing parallels to the 2019 impeachment proceedings against then-President Donald Trump.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman Comer raised concerns about the parallels between this case and the 2019 impeachment, which accused Trump of attempting to use Zelensky to influence his 2020 re-election campaign. Comer points out the irony, writing, “In 2019, the Democrat-controlled House impeached President Donald J. Trump for abuse of power under the theory that he attempted to use a foreign leader—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump.”

Keep reading

Radical Enviros Finally Endorse Harris Because They ‘Can Pressure And Move’ Her On Energy Policy

A radical climate protest group called Climate Defiance endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, citing their belief that she will be able to be pressured on energy policy.

The activist group initially held back its endorsement of Harris, appearing to condition its support on her acceptance of a list of demands that included a complete moratorium on new oil and gas projects and a ban on new fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and waters. After meeting with a top Harris adviser earlier in September, Climate Defiance — which once targeted Harris with one of its signature disruptive protests in 2023 — is now backing her candidacy because she “is the leader we can pressure and move” on key energy policies, the group announced in a Wednesday social media post.

“Climate Defiance is endorsing Kamala Harris for President of the United States,” the group wrote in a post to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Harris is not the visionary we need, but she is the leader we can pressure and move. A Trump Presidency would be a full-fledged disaster for our climate & our water & our lands. Trump would gut the [Environmental Protection Agency], tearing down regulations on cars and power plants and farms. He would sell out our sacred public spaces to his billionaire cronies. This is a nonstarter.” 

Keep reading

Biden Is Totally Trying to Sabotage the Harris-Walz Campaign

Anointed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris promises “a new way forward,” but Presidentish Joe Biden said today he delegated “everything from foreign policy to domestic policy” to Harris because “as vice president, there wasn’t a single thing that I did that she couldn’t do” and everybody with functioning synapses wants to know, “Which is it, bub?”

I’ll pause here a moment to give you time to both marvel at Biden’s subtle undercut of the Harris-Walz campaign but mostly to chuckle at the phrase, “Kamala Harris promises.”

Did you get all that out of your system? Good. Let’s proceed, shall we?

All told, Harris is having a mixed week. On the one hand, bettors at sites like Polymarket and John Stossel’s Election Betting Odds show Harris as a slight favorite, and so does poll analyst Nate Silver. If you want to know how the least-liked vice president in polling history suddenly gained such likability, Elon Musk (an actual rocket scientist) has you covered.

“Manufactured by the media.”

On the other hand, she’s still an embarrassment every time she speaks, and her pudding-brained boss just slipped a shiv between her ribs — on The View of all places. For progressive women, that show serves as sacred ground.

During the 2004 presidential race between George W Bush and John Kerry, Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, said the media “wants Kerry to win.” He continued, “They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

Keep reading

Crime and Kamala

If you visit Kamala Harris’s campaign website and click on “issues,” you will find a tepid list of conventional progressive topics — corporate greed, health care, education, child care, and climate change among them.  What you will not find is a single word on crime and especially on migrant crime.  It’s as if crime did not exist.

Kamala’s silence on violent crime actually follows a long history of dismissiveness on the part of progressives.  Liberals seem to find it easy to look the other way when horrific acts of murder, rape, and assault are carried out.  It’s not just that they are covering up for the sake of getting elected; it’s as though they don’t really care.

Among the worst cases this year is that of Joselyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl who was murdered and sexually assaulted back in June, allegedly by two illegal aliens from Venezuela who were apprehended and released by border agents under the Biden/Harris open border policy.

The White House response to Nungaray’s rape and murder was that the administration “cannot comment on active law enforcement cases.”  In fact, Biden and Kamala Harris refused even to speak Nungaray’s name.  The explosion of violent crime in the U.S. is a direct consequence of Biden’s and Harris’s open border policy, but Harris in particular seems to find it convenient to ignore the issue.   But if one refuses to speak the name of the victim, how can one express sympathy and grief?  Isn’t Harris bothered by the 23,000 murders taking place annually in the U.S.?

Actually, based on her strict silence and long-held position denying that a crisis exists and by her proposals to aid illegal aliens with free housing, food, education, and health care, one would have to say she is not bothered by migrant crime.  In this way, she is a typical progressive who believes that criminals should get off lightly and that society just needs to accept a certain amount of violence as the price it pays for liberals’ high-minded ideals.  Sanctuary cities are just part of this witches’ brew of liberal thought.

Just as progressives like Harris remain silent on Joselyn Nungaray’s rape and murder, they have been awfully glib about the two attempts on Donald Trump’s life, often speaking about the two attempted assassinations as “apparent”  or “security incidents” or being dismissive in other ways (“attempts on presidents’ lives are not rare,” according to The Conversation).  If we ask our A.I. co-pilot, we learn that “elections are a super complex topic that I’m not trained to chat about.”

Then there’s the line that Trump brought it on himself by not agreeing with every progressive policy.  Of course, a candidate who talks about “America First,” American greatness, the right to life, gun rights, and freedom of speech is going to make himself a target.  He kind of deserves it.

That was what I heard on some of the mainstream news stations just hours after each of the two assassination attempts.  And there was no indication of concern for a man’s life.  Instead, Harris, Biden, Schumer, and others kept saying that Trump is a “threat” to democracy and that he “has to go.”  Not very sensitive just hours after he was nearly killed.

But progressives like Harris are not very sensitive about life if someone gets in their way.  African-Americans constitute about 30 percent of Democrat voters, so one would think progressive would demonstrate concern about black victims of violent crime.  The fact is that 92% of blacks who are murdered are killed by other blacks.  Kamala Harris has never, to my knowledge, acknowledged this fact, nor has she expressed much sympathy for the thousands of victims, most of whom reside in Democrat-run cities.  But if anyone is going to address the high level of violence in these cities, one needs to acknowledge the facts about the killings.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’s Four (Weird) Freedoms

In the current election cycle, serious charges have been raised by both candidates concerning the fitness for the office of the presidency of the other candidate.  The essence of the Harris charge dwells on what she claims has come out of Trump’s mouth, meaning insults, putdowns, racism, and lies.  The essence of the Trump charge concerns what doesn’t come out of Harris’s mouth, meaning her utter vacuity, not to mention her silence on many issues.

Granted, Harris has not been silent on many important issues — but she has claimed that she has changed her mind on many of them.  In other words, we have a good idea of what Trump stands for and what he will try to accomplish, whereas we have suspicions, but no clear idea about what Harris might do — or might not do.

Now for the vacuity charge.  Yes, that vacuity was on display in Harris’s recent sit-down with Oprah Winfrey.  It was even cringingly and embarrassingly on display — but this was nevertheless not an entirely substance-free zone.

Her laundry list of “freedoms” was actually quite revealing, meaning both what she didn’t include and what she did include.  First was the “freedom to make decisions about your own body.”  That wasn’t exactly one of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms,” but there has never been much doubt that it is Kamala Haris’s first freedom.  Now we have solid evidence that this is the case.

And yet it, too, was in its own way a bit vague.  The obvious presumption is that she was referring to the modern Democrat party version of a “positive good,” meaning an unlimited right to an abortion rather than the right to own slaves.  But notice what was missing: “your body,” not a woman’s body.  She left open the possibility that she was also including the freedom of a child to attempt to alter his sex.  Or the right of an illegal alien to do the same thing — and at taxpayer expense.  Or the right of a male to compete in female sports.  In any case, it is revealing that this is Kamala Harris’s first freedom.

Second on her list was the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.”  But how will she ensure this?  She doesn’t say.  Will she interfere with the freedoms of gun-owners?  After all, to guarantee such a freedom, there will have to be gun confiscation on a massive scale.  If this is really her second most important freedom, nothing less than that will be required.

Third was the “freedom to have access to the ballot box.”  To be sure, that freedom was denied to women and minorities decades upon decades ago.  But just how is this freedom being denied to any eligible voter today?  And might it not be considered freeing to know that assurances are made to ascertain that only eligible voters exercise the franchise?

To be more specific, does Harris’s third freedom include the right to have an unrequested ballot mailed to you?  Does it demand voting for weeks on end?  And does it include not being required to show identification prior to voting?

To cap it all off, Harris returned to the body — and perhaps the mind: “the freedom to be who you are and just be …”  And precisely what does that freedom imply?  Who knows?  It’s not likely that even she knows.  In any case, it is completely vacuous.

Keep reading

City of Madison Clerk Admits to Sending Thousands of Duplicate Absentee Ballots Across 10 Wards Ahead of Presidential Election

Deputy Clerk of the City of Madison, Jim Verbick, has confirmed that 2,215 duplicate absentee ballots are being sent out across ten wards, just weeks ahead of the critical presidential election.

Verbick claims that the ballots were sent due to a data processing error, which was allegedly caused by a mistake when attempting to merge files containing absentee ballots for voters with identical ballot styles, WKOW reported.

“There was a human error that occurred. Despite duplicate ballots being sent out, we will only accept one ballot from every voter, and when we get them back we will make sure that we only have one ballot.”

According to the Madison Clerk’s Office:

The Madison Clerk’s Office is rectifying a data processing error that caused duplicate absentee ballots to be sent to around 2,000 voters. The error affected only an isolated number of voters and was quickly caught and corrected so that it will not affect any other ballots going forward.

The Clerk’s office has been contacting voters individually to inform them of the error, caution them to submit only one ballot, and to destroy the second one to avoid any confusion.

Because the duplicate ballot envelopes have identical barcodes, in the unlikely event that a voter submits two absentee ballots, only one can be counted.

Once that envelope barcode is scanned, the voting system does not allow a ballot with the same barcode to be submitted. The voter is also marked in the poll book as having submitted their absentee ballot as another safeguard against the voter submitting a second ballot.

The clerk’s office insists that the problem is being addressed, but with confidence in election processes already fragile, many are questioning if this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Keep reading

George Soros Works with FCC to Seize Control of Media Before Election

Just ahead of the 2024 Presidential Election, the Biden Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has cast an unprecedented vote along party lines to “fast-track” the purchase of more than 220 radio stations by George Soros, who’s using foreign money to get the deal done.

The government-backed deal, worth more than $400 million, will see Soros take control of Audacy, one of the largest and most popular radio networks in the United States.

According to a report from the New York Post, sources say that last Wednesday, “the FCC adopted an order to approve Soros’ purchase of more than 220 radio stations in 40 markets just weeks before the presidential election.”

The $400 million deal has been funded with foreign money in violation of FCC rules, which state that foreign ownership of American radio stations cannot exceed 25%. Nevertheless, the FCC decided to fast-track the deal, scrapping the usual national security review process.

In addition to control over at least 220 radio stations, the purchase will give George Soros access to the ears of over 165 million American listeners, just in time for a full-court press to wrap up election season.

Audacy is far from the first media platform gobbled up by George Soros, who has financial ties to at least 30 mainstream news outlets, including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and ABC.

Keep reading

Why Kamala Harris’ $25,000 down payment program is just like the electric vehicle boondoggle

Kamala Harris’ $25,000 down payment plan for first-time homebuyers should remind people that we don’t want government to try to solve free-market problems. Because it can’t.  

In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public charging stations for electric vehicles across the country to boost clean energy. 

And the functional charging stations have reached an eye-popping number of eight. Yes. Eight!  

Now Kamala wants you to believe the government can help build 3 million affordable housing units over the next four years?

We don’t even know who will qualify for this $25,000 down payment assistance in terms of income levels. But certainly for those staring down the barrel of the median $425,000 home price in America, this sum of money is a far cry from getting them out of private mortgage insurance and getting into an affordable monthly mortgage payment.  

Instead, we should be looking at the groundbreaking ideas germinating in the free market that may shed some light on how we can fix the affordable housing crisis in America. 

Keep reading