Trump/Harris Debate

The debate last night between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris might have been one of the most important Presidential debates in history.

It did not rise to that importance because people needed to see Donald Trump and understand his position on the issues any better.

It was important because so few people had ever had the opportunity to see Kamala Harris for an extended period of time.

It goes without saying that there has not been a Presidential candidate in my lifetime that has had less exposure to the voters and so little scrutiny from the media.

Some of this is due to the fact that she never was on the ballot in the Democrat primary in either 2020 or 2024.

The rest is intentional in that it seems that her campaign strategy has been based on avoiding interviews, media appearances and press conferences at all costs.

There is a pretty good record of the positions and beliefs that Kamala held in 2019 when she first attempted to run for the 2020 Democrat nomination before dropping out due to meager support in preference polls.

Axios chronicled some of these past positions and the extent she seems to be running away from them today.

Credit: https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1832085835266883816

She has also adopted the campaign slogan "A New Way Forward" to suggest to the voters that she has not been at the right hand of Joe Biden the last four years.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/posts/now-is-the-time-to-chart-a-new-way-forwardto-build-an-america-where-everyones-wo/1057709232382180/

Harris finally put some policy positions on her campaign website on the eve of the convention under the mantle of that "A New Way Forward" slogan.

A New Way Forward?

Kamala has been VP for the last four years.

The Democrats have held the Presidency for 12 of the last 16 years.

Kamala is suggesting that she is a change agent.

A favorite line in her speeches is "we are not going back".

However, Bret Baier of Fox News points out that portions of her platform were simply copied and pasted from Biden's campaign page as evidenced by the page's source code.

Kamala Harris is well known for her fervent support for progressive, woke and far-left causes.

In the past, she has been in favor of defunding the police, decriminalizing illegal immigration, criticizing the border wall, supporting reparations, legalizing all drugs (including heroin and fentanyl) and using taxpayer funds to pay for transgender surgeries for detained illegal immigrants.

This is CNN (yes, CNN!)  reporting on some of the positions that Harris had on immigration in 2019.

Is any of this mentioned in her policy positions today?

How about her love of all woke causes?

Link to video 

What happened to everybody needed to be woke?

Consider this text analysis of the policy positions on her campaign website.

Anything woke has gone missing.

However, America and Americans have suddenly become more important than illegal immigrants.

In other words, expect Kamala to say anything to win this campaign.

Why does Kamala Harris and her advisers feel the need to hide and revise her true values, positions and beliefs in this campaign?

Bernie Sanders himself said the quiet part out loud when asked about why Kamala is no longer talking about the issues like she used to.

Has she abandoned her progressive ideals?

Bernie says not to worry. She is just doing that to win and we will get the real Kamala if she is elected.

Link to video

The challenge for Trump last night was to attempt to expose Kamala Harris for what she is to the voters.

It is a task that should not be his alone.

That is why we are supposed to have a free and vigilant press.

However, consider the coverage of the candidates by the ABC nightly newscast of David Muir thus far according to the Media Research Center/

Muir was also one of the debate moderators last night.

Source: https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1833195276598730981

Considering all of the above, Donald Trump went into the debate with a challenging set of circumstances.

It was akin to trying to corral a slippery eel in a vat of WD-40 while wearing gloves coated in vaseline.

FULL DISCLOSURE---I wrote all of the content above before the debate so I would not be up to 2am this morning writing this blog. What follows below are my reactions to the debate.

Kamala Harris was that slippery.

There was no evidence of the cackling, far-left progressive on the stage last night.

It was if she had just been placed on earth last night to save the United States from all its ills and Donald Trump.

There was no evidence of that committed far-left progressive.

Donald Trump had the difficult job of trying to stay composed but also putting Kamala on defense for both her past positions and for her job as VP with Joe Biden.

The bottom line---Trump spent too much time defending his record and himself rather than getting Kamala Harris to defend herself in the debate last night.

.

Whatever goes on in these debates the reality is that most people have made up their minds before either candidate says a word.

For example, in the Trump-Biden debate, as abysmal as was Biden's performance, the polls only moved a point or two in Trump's favor.

Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-trump-june-debate-poll/

My sense of the debate was that Trump failed to do what he needed to do in putting Harris on the defensive about her past positions and her record as VP.

He was too defensive regarding the attacks by Harris and repeated too many talking points on the economy, immigration and that we are failing as a nation under the leadership of Biden/Harris. He had many missed opportunities where he could have scored points on a range of topics but kept repeating the same lines where he could have exposed Kamala's record and flip flops.

Kamala was a slippery eel and to uniformed voters I am sure her messages sounded good. She came across as polished and prepared even though there was very little substance in anything she said regarding her policies.

She said she would explain her flip-flops on a number of issues but only spoke to one---fracking. However, she really gave no substantive reason for her change in position.

She was measured and spent most of the night suggesting that Donald Trump was unhinged and crazy and that she would be a uniter (we seem to get that talking point with every Democrat candidate) and be the President for everyone. (Does that also include the 20+ million illegal immigrants who are here?)

Never mind that Trump was President for four years without the world blowing up in war, runaway inflation, the border being overrun or the American standard of living falling like it has over the Biden/Harris years.

It should also be noted that ABC's moderators were not as fair and balanced as we saw in the CNN debate in June.

They were quick to "fact check" Trump but not once did they attempt to do the same to Harris.

We will see where this leads over the next days and weeks in the polls.

Two pollsters with good records in the past came to different conclusions in polls done right after the debate.

Trafalgar had Harris winning 55%-43%

Democracy Institute had Trump as the winner.

Source: https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/148368/who-won-presidential-tv-debate-harris-trump-poll

I generally don't put much stock in polls taken right after the debate. You get a more read on how the debate shaped views over the next week or so as people talk among their friends and neighbors.

Interestingly, the Harris campaign has already called for a second debate in October after consistently refusing another debate when it was offered to them previously.

That tells me that they feel good about Kamala's performance last night but they must also have some real concerns about her standing in their internal polls.

If they were really confident about where she stands why risk it?

In addition, will we see Kamala do any interviews and press conferences or will she go back to the basement again?

It all says that there is still a long path ahead to November 5.

Election Interference Redux?

The U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray shared details last week of accusations of Russian election interference efforts in this year's election.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/video/russia-2024-election-interference-merrick-garland-doj-digvid

Garland stated that the American people have the right to know when the FBI finds evidence of possible election interference by a foreign power.

Garland hinted that the interference was intended to benefit Donald Trump without ever mentioning his name or the Republican party.

Consider some of the narratives that the DOJ said were examples of foreign influence and disinformation.

"Concerns about the cost of living."

"Losing the American way of life."

"Threat of crime from people of color and immigrants."

"Overspending on foreign policy."

"Risk of job loss by white Americans."

These may be examples of foreign influence but is this disinformation?

For example, consider the breakdown of net jobs over the last 12 months in the Bureau of Labor Statistics report for August released last week.

Of course, this comes shortly after it was reported that the BLS had to revise the number of jobs added to the economy that had been previously reported by over 800,000 jobs over the last year.

It seems that in almost every month over the last year the BLS was overestimating job growth in the economy. Yes, the BLS numbers are estimates. However, what are the chances that the numbers so happen to always go one way?

Coincidence or election interference in support of the Bidenomics narrative that all was great?

I thought the timing of the DOJ announcement  on Russian election interference was also interesting coming just one week before the Trump/Harris debate.

What do you think the odds are the Kamala Harris will bring this up in the debate tomorrow night and attempt to feed another Russian collusion hoax narrative?

I also thought it was interesting that Garland and Wray are so concerned with foreign election interference but the DOJ and FBI did nothing about the blatant election interference in the 2020 election.

Do you remember a similar story that came out a week before the Biden/Trump debate in 2020?

This was shortly after it was revealed that Hunter Biden's laptop contained a treasure trove of damaging info about Hunter and Joe.

51 former U.S. intelligence "experts" quickly came out a few days before the debate and stated that the laptop story had all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation and election interference scheme.

It was later revealed that the entire narrative was created to provide Joe Biden a defense to the laptop story at the debate.

Even worse, the FBI had been in possession of the laptop for over nine months and knew Russia had nothing to do with the laptop. It was Hunter's. The FBI did nothing to correct the record when it could have easily done so in the name of JUSTICE.

A poll taken after it was revealed that the laptop story was authentic found that 79% of Americans believed that the laptop coverup changed the election.

Source: https://tippinsights.com/shock-poll-8-in-10-think-biden-laptop-cover-up-changed-election/

A whopping 79 percent of Americans suggest President Donald Trump likely would have won reelection if voters had known the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop—that it was real and not “Russian disinformation,” as intelligence officials aligned with Joe Biden falsely led the public to believe, a new national poll reveals.

In fact, 47 percent said that knowing before the election that the laptop contents were real and not “disinformation” would have changed their voting decision—including more than two-thirds (71 percent) of Democrats.

Almost 8 of 10 respondents said that a truthful interpretation of the laptop would have likely changed the election’s outcome more in favor of Trump.

The DOJ ultimately used the contents on that laptop to help convict Hunter of a federal gun charge earlier this year and to get Hunter to plead guilty to federal tax charges last week.

It has also been disclosed that the FBI was behind the effort to have social media and mainstream media companies censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in the final days of the 2020 election.

There is little doubt we need to be concerned about any attempts at foreign election interference.

However, isn't domestic election interference of the kind we witnessed by the FBI and those 51 former U.S. intelligence "experts" far more sinister and alarming?

What happened to the investigation and prosecution of what went on in the domestic election interference of 2020?

Let's look a little closer look at that guilty plea that Hunter Biden pled to last week.

 

Of course, it should also be remembered that the DOJ initially did everything they could to let Hunter Biden walk on all charges related to both his gun and tax charges.

It was only when a Delaware judge questioned the details behind a friendly plea deal for Hunter with the DOJ that all was exposed.

Joe Biden previously has said that his son Hunter was "the smartest man that I know."

Biden also told us that Hunter "never did anything wrong" when asked about his son's activities.

Hunter pleaded guilty yesterday to tax evasion and fraud charges a day before he was to be tried on those charges in a federal court in California.

This comes after Hunter was also found guilty of a federal gun charge in a jury trial in June.

The speculation is this is a prelude to Joe Biden either providing his son with a pardon or commuting Hunter's sentences before he leaves office.

Sentencing is scheduled for November 13 on the gun conviction and December 9.on the tax guilty plea.

After the guilty verdict in June on the gun charges Biden said he would not pardon Hunter or reduce his sentence.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c133mdjkl7go

Anyone want to bet on Joe standing by that statement?

The timing of the sentencing in the two cases is interesting coming after the election in both cases.

If Kamala wins, Joe will probably stand by his statement but a deal will have been made so that she has to do the dirty work when she takes office

If Trump wins, Joe will forget he ever made the statement. He is not going to allow the smartest man he knows to be put in a prison cell.

It goes without saying that it has been a very bad ending for both Joe and Hunter over the last several months.

However, as bad as it is, I have the feeling we don't even know the half of it when it comes to both of them.

Election interference has serious consequences. We have lived with the consequences over the last four years.

I would feel better if I was fully confident that the FBI and the DOJ were not involved in it.

I once thought it was impossible to believe this.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.

This and That----September 6, 2024 Edition

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Are We Looking At The Right Target?

Another school year. Another school shooting.

Why?

If on cue, the Democrats are again saying that we have to ban "assault weapons".

They seem to ignore the fact that there was a so-called "assault weapons" ban enacted in 1994 with a 10 year sunset provision. The ban was not extended by Congress in 2004 as there was not enough evidence to indicate that the ban had been effective in the decade after its enactment. 

Of course, machine guns and automatic weapons (what Tim Walz would like to call "weapons of war") have effectively been banned in the United States since the 1930's.

Also lost in this discussion is the fact that rifles of any type (automatic, semiautomatic or any other long barrel) are rarely used in any homicide. 

Less than 3% of murders (mass shootings included) are committed by using any type of rifle.

We are talking about 500 per year in a nation of 340 million people.

Consider the FBI statistics for the year 2022 (the latest year data in available) on murder victims by weapons.

Source: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/shr

Many also do not know that there are many more deaths by guns due to suicide than in homicides.

60% of gun deaths are from suicides. Only 1% of gun deaths involve mass shootings.

This data is from Brady, the nation's oldest gun violence prevention group.

Source: https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/statistics

I am not sure Democrats are focused on the right target in these shootings.

 

Does Anyone Think We Should Ban Alcohol Again?

The United States has experience with bans. The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took effect in January, 1920. It prohibited the production, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.

That ban was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.

The argument for banning alcohol was not primarily based on protecting the drunkard. It was based on the adverse effects that alcohol had on society at large. It contributed to domestic issues, broken homes, child neglect and abuse, poor health, crime, debauchery and degeneracy. The argument was that by eliminating alcohol society would be improved substantially.

Of course, history shows that Prohibition was an utter failure.

It was found to cause more unintended consequences and adverse effects than alcohol did alone.

All of the arguments that existed to ban alcohol that existed in 1920 still exist today.

(I have written several times about Prohibition in the past here ,  here  and here if you would like to know more about the subject),

I found it interesting that the country of South Africa banned alcohol sales three times as part of their Covid measures during the pandemic.

Each period the government banned alcohol sales, deaths from homicides and other unnatural causes declined rapidly. However, when the ban was lifted deaths quickly went back up.

Weekly Mortality in South Africa from Unnatural Causes During Covid Pandemic
Source: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1831471828025712646

Assaults and rapes also followed the same pattern.

Similar patterns were seen in the United States during Prohibition. There were many benefits to society from the ban on alcoholic beverages.

However, in the end, the ban on alcohol was seen as overly burdensome on the overwhelming majority of Americans who used alcohol responsibly.

Does anyone see any parallels here with the subject above?

Does A Climate "Expert" Really Exist?

Western societies are spending trillions of dollars to fight climate change.

Joe Biden has said that climate change is the single biggest threat to mankind that exists. Nuclear conflict is not even a close second according to Biden.

Kamala Harris has said in the past that climate change is real and we must be aggressive in our response.

ABC News recently reported that "during a CNN forum on climate change in 2020, Harris said she opposed fracking and offshore drilling. She said she would also ban fossil fuel leases on public lands if elected as president."

As a Senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal that wanted to transition the United States to 100% clean energy in 10 years. That was five years ago.

Of course, neither Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is a climate scientist.

They rely on so-called experts on this subject.

Experts that are supposedly telling us what the climate is going to be 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in the future.

In the meantime, those same "experts" predicted this about the 2024 hurricane season this past April.

What are they saying today?

You may also remember the famous prediction that Al Gore made in 2009 that the Arctic ice cap might disappear in as little as five to seven years. This was based on the projections of polar science"experts".

We are just finishing up the summer of 2024 in the Arctic. This should be the time period when the arctic ice cap is at a minimum. 

Arctic sea ice extent is 20% larger as of September 3 than it was 12 years ago.

If the "experts" are this far off in a forecast involving a few months or years, why would anyone trust spending trillions of dollars and totally reworking our energy infrastructure on a forecast of climate change decades in the future?

What Happened To A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats?

The California legislature just passed a bill that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for up to $150,000 in state supported loans to buy a house.

Even better, the bill would not require any interest to be paid on the loan until it is sold. At that point 15-20% of any appreciation on the house would be due as interest.

Source: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/state/california-legislature-allows-undocumented-to-get-free-150k-home-down-payments/article_1cf5d090-9e53-5b3d-b6e3-6f0594b5f036.html

The California legislature passed a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to make use of the state’s $150,000, 0 down, 0 interest home “loans.” The bill now goes to the governor’s desk, where he must either veto or approve the bill by the end of September.

California’s Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans program allows applicants to secure “loans” of up to $150,000 or 20% of the home’s purchase price — or, about what a typical down payment is — with zero down payment on this state “loan,” and no payments. In exchange, the state receives the original loan amount plus 20% of the appreciated gain when the home is refinanced, sold, or transferred. 

Meanwhile, in the state of Washington a similar program that offers 0% home loans of up to $150,000 has been established based solely on race.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/washington-states-homeownership-program-offers-loans-based-solely-race

The loan program seems to be available for everyone but Caucasians.

We also recently saw Kamala Harris say she wants to make housing more affordable by providing $25,000 to first-time homebuyers and the construction of 3 million new homes over the next four years.

There is no doubt that housing has become prohibitively expensive for many Americans. This is particularly true for younger Americans looking for their first home or apartment of their own.

This chart says it all.

Credit: https://x.com/charliebilello/status/1824279436306297294/photo/1

Why has housing become so unaffordable the last several years?

1. Home mortgage interest costs have soared due to inflation

2. Construction costs have risen substantially due to higher energy costs and inflation

Compare the increase in costs of building materials in the 2016-2020 period compared to 2020-2024.

Source: https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/material-costs

I am also sure that Kamala Harris has not considered what a government program will do to these building material costs when her 3 million new homes (twice the normal number) is instituted. 

3. Over 10 million illegal immigrants seeking housing who have arrived here the last four years has put enormous demand pressure on housing costs.

Consider this chart that shows the level of illegal immigration over the last decade or so. This is the chart that Donald Trump credits with saving his life as he turned to refer to it at the Butler, PA rally in July.

Who was sitting at the helm in Washington, D.C. as all of this unfolded before our eyes?

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris now wants to tell us she has a plan to fix the mess that she and Joe created with their misguided policies in the first place?

It also goes without saying that "Kamala's plan" would be paid by U.S. taxpayers or (more likely) the creation of more federal debt.

All of this is occurring at the same time that the pending sales of homes has dropped to its lowest levels in recent memory.

Lower than the depths of the pandemic. Lower than in the Great Recession of 2009/2010.

I guess the argument can be made that the housing market needs all the help it can get.

However, what happened to the way things used to be done?

The federal government facilitated growth in the economy by establishing an environment that allowed prosperity to flourish by protecting free enterprise and limiting government control and interference where possible.

Is the American system perfect?  No.

Are there inequities from time to time? Yes.

Kamala Harris likes to repeat the following line in her speeches.

"What can be...unburdened by what has been."

Here is a 2 minute clip showing Kamala uttering that same phrase over and over again.

Link to video

It is essentially Harris telling us that she wants to throw out America's past and its success and replace it with a system that favors redistribution and government control that she believes will be more equitable.

It is similar to what the socialists and communists in Russia, China and Venezuela told the people of those countries as they sought to achieve power.

However, President John F. Kennedy probably said it best when he stated what the real focus should be in government policy.

A rising tide lifts all the boats.

The Democrat party of JFK was interested in making the pie bigger for everyone. Its primary interest was looking out for the working men and women of America and seeing that everyone had a fair shot at success and getting a piece of the pie.

That Democrat party no longer seems to exist. It is more interested in handouts than providing a helping hand. Instead of focusing on giving everyone equal opportunity, Democrats have decided they want certain groups moved to the front of the line. It seems that prosperity is no longer their primary goal. Their entire focus has become about their own power. And the control they need over the people to keep getting the votes they need to retain their political power.

Kamala Harris may want to be unburdened by the past history of the United States. However, the fact is that no other country has provided more opportunity and more prosperity for more people than the United States has.

There is no better proof of that than in looking at the economic success of the United States of America and what it has meant to its populace over the course of history.

Even the poorest Americans have a much more prosperous life than the vast majority of people in the rest of the world.

The fact that tens of millions of people from around the world are willing to cross our borders illegally to get here is all the additional proof you need to know how true that JFK adage about the benefits of a rising tide lifting all boats.

What happened to the "a rising tide lift all the boats" philosophy of JFK?

 It apparently is not even a distant memory for the Democrat party any more.

Five Facts From August, 2024

BeeLine is rooted in facts and data. It is the foundation from which everything I write is based.

Five facts from BeeLine posts in August, 2024 and in my research during the past month that I thought were particularly salient, surprising, or stupefying.

In a world in which opinions seem to be based more on feelings, emotions and prevailing narratives it might make sense to put more focus on straightforward facts, data and truths. 

Consider these facts and data and consider the context they provide to the larger issues of our world today.

Coming Soon To A City Near You?

In the 2020 U.S. census, Springfield, Ohio had a population of 58,000.

It is a far different city today than it was in the past.

In fact, it is becoming unrecognizable as an American city.

In the last five years an estimated 15,000-20,000 Haitian migrants have settled in Springfield, Ohio.

Over 15,000 Haitians move into a city of 58,000 within a few years time?

I was shocked recently when I heard this fact about what has happened to Springfield.

I don't know how any city could absorb an increase in its population by almost one-third within five years without causing major disruptions to the quality of life of its citizens. 

It is even worse when the influx involves people with no shared language, culture or values.

This was not by chance. This was carefully orchestrated by someone.

How is any city supposed to deal with this?

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did not care as they pursued their open borders policy.

Has Politics Aged Tim Walz?

Tim Walz has spent a lot of time saying things during his life that are just not true.

That includes claiming he was in a war zone when he served in the National Guard.

He claimed he said it because he does not always use good grammar.

Link to video

Perhaps keeping all the stories straight as a politician ages you.

One thing is for sure. 

If Tim Walz claimed he was older than he is no one would doubt him.

Did you know that Walz is actually YOUNGER than Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.

Tim Walz born April 6, 19864

Brad Pitt born December 18, 1963

Tom Cruise born July 3, 1962

Richest To Poorest In 25 Years

Venezuela used to be the wealthiest country in South America.

All it took to become the poorest was to elect Communists/Socialists and 25 years of redistributive policies, the government takeover of private business, price controls and other Marxist ideas.

Abortions Went Up After Roe v. Wade Overturned

The Democrats have spent a lot of time over the last two years demonizing the U.S. Supreme Court due to its decision in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.

The Democrats like to portray the decision as if abortion has been banned in the United States.

It should comes as little surprise that many believe that propaganda even though the decision merely placed the question of what the limits (if any) to abortion should be  determined at a state level by the voters. Some might call this democracy.

Last year a survey found that half of Americans thought overturning Roe v. Wade banned abortion nationally.

That view was held by 63% of Democrats.  I wonder where they got that idea?

What is even more interesting is that while half of Americans seem to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court banned abortions in the United States, abortions in the United States have actually increased after Roe was overturned.

In fact, abortions in the first full year after Roe was overturned reached a decade plus high according to the Guttmacher Institute which is an abortion rights think tank.

You would never know it would you?

Putting Price Gouging In Perspective

Kamala Harris is blaming grocery stores and food providers for the inflation we have seen the last three years.

She stated she is prepared to enact price controls to stop price gouging in the food industry.

Let's look at recent net profit margins for some selected companies for some perspective on this issue.

Kroger.             1.43%

Albertsons        1.63%

Walmart            2.34%

Google             25.90%

Facebook         32.06%

Do you think that Kamala might be looking in all the wrong places for why overall prices are up over 20% since she and Joe took over?

Why Do They Lie And Hide?

Why do so many Democrat politicians spend so much time lying and hiding about who they are?

What is that all about?

Why do they need to do it if they are so concerned about DEMOCRACY?

Could it be that that they are afraid to have people vote on their actual policies and views?

For democracy to work it requires a well-informed citizenry that includes information and communication that are representative, accurate and trusted in order to insure a fair electoral process that allows citizens to hold policymakers accountable.

That is certainly not the case in 2024.

Kamala Harris and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to obfuscate and obscure almost everything about their true views, values, beliefs and agenda from the voters.

It was only yesterday (well over a month since Kamala was anointed to replace Joe Biden) that Kamala did her first interview with anyone in the media. Even then, it was pre-recorded, she needed to have her running mate with her and it was done with Dana Bash of CNN who is known for being strongly anti-Trump. It took all of 18 minutes.

Think back to what we have seen over the last several months.

It was only a little over two months ago that we were told repeatedly that Joe Biden was as "sharp as a tack" and had "never been better".

One of those who spoke those words the loudest was his Vice President who also liked to tout the fact that she was the last person in the room on the decisions that Biden made.

It was all an act.

Robert F, Kennedy, Jr. and every other potential Democrat challenger to Biden in 2024 were summarily blocked by the Democrat establishment so that Biden would have a clear path to the nomination.

One of the reasons that the Democrats kept insisting that Biden was totally fit for the Presidency was that Kamala was deemed a liability due to her far-left views and high levels of unpopularity in poll after poll when she was VP.

The polling showed that the approval ratings of Harris got progressively worse the more that people got to know her while in office.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/projects/kamala-harris-approval-rating-polls-vs-biden-other-vps/

Consider this comparison of favorability ratings of Kamala Harris to other recent VP's are reported by the Los Angeles Times in April , 2024.

Her net approval was about 20 points worse that Dick Cheney or Mike Pence at similar points in office.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/projects/kamala-harris-approval-rating-polls-vs-biden-other-vps/

Add to this the fact that Kamala had been a spectacularly poor candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2020.  She was never able to get above a 5% level in the polls and dropped out before getting even one vote in the Democrat primaries.

One of the reasons for her failure as a candidate was that her far-left views were even too much for Democrat voters.

Consider the platform that Kamala Harris ran on in 2020.

• She was in favor of the Green New Deal.
• She was opposed to fracking.
• She was strongly in favor of gun control and wanted to see mandatory gun buy backs for "assault weapons".
• She wanted to substantially reduce the defense budget.
• She was in favor of some form of reparations for African Americans.
• She was in favor of free college at public institutions.
• She was in favor of abolishing the death penalty.
• She was in favor of re-examining ICE and was opposed to building the border wall. She wants to allow more refugees and immigrants into the United States and is against sending illegal aliens home. In fact, she compared ICE to the KKK.
• She was in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings.
• She opposed a border wall.
• She was in favor of providing free health care coverage to illegal immigrants.
• She was in favor of a $15 national minimum wage
• She was in favor of abortion up to the time of birth.
• She was in favor of repealing most of the Trump tax cuts and would like new taxes on banks and financial institutions.
• She was is favor of reinstating the Iran nuclear deal.
• She was against the China tariffs and also opposed the new USMCA trade agreement that replaced NAFTA.
• She was a co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill that would have eliminated private health insurance and required a new payroll tax on employers and employees to fund the cost on top of the current FICA taxes. When criticized about eliminating the option for private insurance during the campaign she changed her position and stated she was open to merely creating a "public option"

There were plenty of reasons why Democrats did everything they could to prop up Joe Biden and were fearful of Kamala Harris.

However, once they had no choice there was only one way forward.

Lie and hide.

What other way is there to try and get the American people to elect Kamala Harris?

Now that Kamala is the Democrat nominee it is as if she never held any of these views.

We are also supposed to believe that Harris did not sit at the right hand of Biden for the last 3-1/2 years as inflation surged, the invasion at the southern border occurred , we witnessed the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, Covid vaccine mandates, the Russia/Ukraine and Middle East wars and all the rest.

However, as soon as Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democrat nominee for President, she suddenly became a popular cult figure.

It is quite remarkable.

Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/harris-favorability-rating/

What is also remarkable in that Kamala Harris is not talking about any of the issues she held so dear when she last ran for President.

In fact, she seems to running away from them.

She was against fracking. Now we are told she is for fracking.

She was for the elimination of all private health insurance. We are now told that would be optional.

She was for mandating electric vehicles for everyone. We are now told that is not true anymore.

She was for the Iran nuclear deal. We are told that is no longer true.

She supported defunding the police. We are now told she was a tough on crime prosecutor.

She said that it should not be a crime to enter the country illegally. We are now told she knows how to fix the border chaos.

She was the deciding vote to add 87,00) new IRS employees in order to increase tax audits and compliance ro raise $200 billion in new revenues from unreported tips, etc. She has now announced she is not in favor of taxing tips at all copying a Trump proposal.

Of course, it is interesting that all of these supposed reversals in views have not come from the mouth of Kamala Harris (except the reversal of taxing tips). They have all come from faceless surrogates and subordinates.

Why is that?

May it have something to do with plausible deniability if she is elected?

The effort to lie and hide is so blatant that it is being sold as perfectly normal by Democrats defending Kamala.

“We don’t have time for that s‑‑‑,” one Democratic operative said about the idea of lengthy policy proposals. “The reason you talk about policy is to bring the race back to values, and this race is about values now, so why distract.”

This race is about values?

It is about a "threat to democracy"?

How does lie and hide fit into a values-based campaign? 

Notice that in her CNN interview that aired last night Kamala did not explain why her policy positions had changed. She said the important thing was that her values had not changed. What does that even mean when it is known that she has taken numerous radical positions in the past.

Link to video

How is trying to obscure your true views from the voters not a threat to democracy of the highest order?

I also could not help but laugh when I saw this clip of actor Ben Stiller being interviewed at the DNC when asked why he was supporting Kamala Harris and her platform.

He said it was "time for change".

Link to video

Harris has not only been VP for four years but the Democrats have held the White House for 12 of the last 16 years!

Time for change?

Who wants to tell Stiller?

Or course, he is undoubtedly comfortable with the Harris/Walz ticket as it is close to the world in which he spends most of his time.

It is nothing but an act.

The Gender Divide

One of the more interesting phenomenons in politics in the United States today is the gender divide.

There is a huge difference in the views of men and women when it comes to politics.

This gender divide was not present in the 1970's. It first appeared in the 1980 election when Ronald Reagan was elected.

Today, Women tend to be Democrats. Men tend to be Republicans.

For example, in 2016, Men favored Trump by 12 points. Women voted for Hillary by 12 points amounting to a 24 point gap.

The gap was 23 points when Biden was on the ballot in 2020.

The gender divide has widened in the last few years with Trump but it has been present for a long time.

In fact, there was a gender divide of 22 points with Bush-Gore in 2000, 17 points with Clinton-Dole and 18 points with Obama-Romney.

Source: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Exit-Polls.pdf?x85095

Most current polls show the gender divide continuing in 2024.

A Echelon Insights poll that was just released shows Trump with an overall 49%-48% edge but he is favored by Men 54%-44% while Women are supporting Harris by 52%-44%---an 18 point gap. The good news for Trump is that he is doing slightly better with both Men and Women in that poll than he did in 2020.

On the other hand, a New York Times/Siena poll that was conducted a week earlier in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina that had Trump and Harris tied at 48%-48% shows an even larger gender divide.

In that poll, Trump is leading win Men by 55%-40%. Harris is favored by Women by 55%-41%---a gigantic 29 point gender gap.

You get a better sense of the gender gap when it is broken down by age.

This is a graphic from The New York Times on the gender gap by age from a similar battleground state poll it did in August matching Trump and Harris.

Men of all ages favor Trump. Women of all ages support Harris. However, the largest gender gap is in the age 18-29 age group----around 50 points.

Credit: https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1827889880753439047/photo/1

The gender divide in the age 18-29 age group is clearly impacted by the number of single women in that demographic.

However, in many respects the gender divide is largely influenced by a much larger marriage gap that has existed over the years.

Those that are married---both men and women---vote Republican.

Women that are not married vote Democrat.

Source: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Exit-Polls.pdf?x85095

As I have pointed out in these pages before, this breakdown of voting by gender and and marital status puts the gender divide in sharp focus

Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/1787170/no-one-benefits-more-from-the-destruction-of-the-american-family-than-the-democratic-party/

Undoubtedly, the abortion issue in the wake of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade has contributed to a widening gender gap.

That is apparent in the New York Times/Siena poll cited above.

Consider the different responses of Men and Women on what is the most important issue in 2024 that will determine their vote in that poll.

The most important issue for Men is the economy---27%.

The most important issue for Women is abortion---22%.

Of course, what is most interesting is putting all of this in context.

The Democrats have spent a lot of time over the last two years demonizing the U.S. Supreme Court due to its decision in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.

The Democrats like to portray the decision as if abortion has been banned in the United States.

It should comes as little surprise that many believe that propaganda even though the decision merely placed the question of what the limits (if any) to abortion should be  determined at a state level by the voters.

Last year a survey found that half of Americans thought overturning Roe v. Wade banned abortion nationally.

That view was held by 63% of Democrats.  I wonder where they got that idea?

What is even more interesting is that while half of Americans seem to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court banned abortions in the United States, abortions in the United States have actually increased after Roe was overturned.

In fact, abortions in the first full year after Roe was overturned reached a decade plus high according to the Guttmacher Institute which is an abortion rights think tank.

Source: https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/health/2024/03/19/abortions-hit-12-year-high-in-first-full-year-after-roe-overturned

In 2023, the first full year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortions within the formal U.S. health care system hit a 12-year high, according to data released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights policy think tank.

There were 1,026,690 abortions performed last year, a rate of 15.7 abortions per 1,000 women, according to the data. That is up from 930,160, or 10.4%, in 2020, the last previous year for which comprehensive data was available.

Medication abortion accounted for 63% of all abortions last year, up 10 percentage points from 2020.

It should be noted in the data above that almost two-thirds of abortions in the last year were medication abortions many of which involved the use of the drug "mifepristone".

Abortion opponents recently sought to have the Supreme Court revoke the FDA's approval of mifepristone. This drug has been available for over 20 years with FDA approval and has been used in over 6 million abortions over that time.

However, there has been little attention by Democrats or the mainstream media to the fact that the same Supreme Court that overruled Roe also UNANIMOUSLY rejected a challenge to the FDA's approval of mifepristone in a decision handed down in June.

Another interesting insight in the gender divide is the the huge difference in the political views of women who are college graduate vs. non-college graduates.

White women who are non-college graduates voted for Trump by a 63%-36% margin in 2020.  White women who are college graduates supported Biden by 9 points. That is a 36 point gap. It is larger than the gender divide between men and women.

Do white women who are non-college grads care less about abortion or other issues important to women than college women?

Source: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Exit-Polls.pdf?x85095

What can we make of all of this?

One of the greatest thinkers of our time was a man named Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

Feynman worked on the Manhattan project in his twenties and went on to win the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in developing an understanding of quantum mechanics. He was on the Physics faculty at Caltech for much of his career

However, his method of thinking, which he applied to everything in life, is what made him standout as a unique human being. He took nothing for granted or at face value. He approached every problem or issue from the ground up.

The Feynman method of thought was developed by a man who refused conventional wisdom at all turns and who sought to build his mental computer from the ground up, starting with an understanding of mathematics at a very young age. (Feynman’s early notebooks are records of him deriving algebra, calculus, trigonometry, and various higher maths on his own, with original results and notation.)

This was how Feynman approached all knowledge: What can I know for sure, and how can I come to know it? It resulted in his famous quote, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Feynman believed it and practiced it in all of his intellectual work. (emphasis added)

 Feynman also said this.

Age 18-29 year old women are better educated than they have ever been in the United States.

Women have outnumbered men in college degree programs by several million in each year for most of the last 20 years.

Undergraduate enrollment numbers in the United States from 1970 to 2031, by genderhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/236360/undergraduate-enrollment-in-us-by-gender/

How do you explain the gender divide?

How do you explain the marriage divide?

How do you explain the college/non-college divide?

Those are tough questions.

However, the divides are real and are big reasons why we see the wide divisions we see in American politics today.

I offered some thoughts on the gender divide in a post earlier this year titled "Mars, Venus and Planet Earth" if you would like to take a deeper look at this issue and some possible explanations as to what underlies all of this. It might be worthwhile reading for additional context on this issue if you did not see it previously.