John F. Kennedy Would Not Recognize Today`s Democratic Party

 Religio-Political Talk (RPT)  "What Dennis Prager was asking James Swanson (audio below) was “what about the newer understanding that JFK was conservative?” (Prager has always echoed Reagan’s statement: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” This fresh look at history supports this long held belief  by many ex-Dems.) When historians go through Kennedy’s speeches and candid confessions, as well as policy, they are more-and-more coming to the following conclusion:

"A short excerpt from an article by Ira Stoll, in the October 2013 edition of THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, . . .

…."WHAT I TAKE to be the truth about John Kennedy and his conservatism has, in the years since he died, been forgotten. This is partly because of the work of liberal historians and partly due to changes in America’s major political parties. Yet calling Kennedy a conservative was hardly controversial during his lifetime. “A Kennedy Runs for Congress: The Boston-bred scion of a former ambassador is a fighting-Irish conservative,” Look headlined an article in June 1946. “When young, wealthy and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for Congress, many people wondered why,” the story began. “Hardly a liberal even by his own standards, Kennedy is mainly concerned by what appears to him as the coming struggle between collectivism and capitalism. In speech after speech he charges his audience ‘to battle for the old ideas with the same enthusiasm that people have for new ideas.’”

"The Chicago Tribune reported Kennedy’s election to the U.S. Senate in 1952 by describing him as a “fighting conservative.” In a June 1953 Saturday Evening Post article, Kennedy said, “I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all,” adding, speaking of liberals, “I’m not comfortable with those people.” In 1958, Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a television interview what she would do if she had to choose between a “conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal Republican [like] Rockefeller.” She said she would do all she possibly could to make sure the Democrats did not nominate a candidate like Kennedy." . . .

Nathan Wade’s Testimony Found False, What About Willis’?

  Religio-Political Talk (RPT)

“What I don’t understand is how the court can find that she [Willis] did act improperly in her public statements. He shreds the testimonies, he strongly indicates that he did not believe Mr. Wade, but then he ignores the fact that they testified largely in tandem. Willis adopted his testimony, she supported his testimony. So, if he was false, she was false. And it’s very hard to separate these conjoined twins. It takes quite a surgeon.” — Jonathan Turley

 Turley Says Court 'Ignored' A Key Fact About The Fani Willis Case (rumble.com)

“It really is an astonishing opinion in its disconnect because he clearly did not believe Nathan Wade and many people believe Nathan Wade committed perjury,” Turley said. “But these two essentially testified in tandem – she [Fani Willis] adopted his testimony. So if he lied, then she pretty much lied the same way. They both maintained that the relationship began after he was hired and really held a sort of unified front. I think that what the judge was trying to do in giving these two options to Wade was to gently give a third option to Willis. And that option is to remove yourself, take the ethical course. And I think that’s very clear in his opinion. Nobody reading this opinion with these damning findings could possibly believe that Willis can continue to be part of this case,” Turley continued. “She’s prosecuting people for the underlying conduct she’s accused of committing with Nathan Wade – false statements given to a court, false filings that have been submitted. How could she possibly continue that without damaging her case? But the problem is that she’s had this opportunity to take the high road, repeatedly. She clearly has never wanted to do that, and this will probably be her last chance to do the right thing and remove herself.” — Jonathan Turley, via DAILY CALLER" . . .

Judge Scott McAfee, who ruled on Thursday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue prosecuting her RICO case against Donald Trump, donated to her in 2020.

THE NATIONAL PULSE may have broken a story that would allow the Judge to take the “option is to remove himself, and take the ethical course.” [Adapted from Turley]:*

• 

  Chip Bok

  
  

Joe Biden’s winners (Including millions of smash-and-grab shoplifters)

Who’s not listed in the cast of winners under Joe Biden is the American people.  They are “the losers” in Joe Biden’s America. 

  Earick Ward - American Thinker   "Joe Biden has been a terrible president — the worst in American history — but that does not mean that his term hasn’t had its share of winners.

"While the vast majority of Americans have suffered under Joe Biden, some segments of American society have benefitted.

Illegal Aliens

"The top of Biden’s winner list has to be illegal aliens.  As the saying goes, what you promote, you get more of.  Joe Biden and his surrogates have actively promoted the arrival of more than 7–8 million new illegal aliens since his inauguration, when he overrode Donald Trump–era policies and instituted new executive orders, opening the floodgates.  Illegal aliens are being housed, fed, given stored value cards, free medical treatment, and “the promise” of amnesty.  A peripheral beneficiary of our open border is the Mexican cartels, who are making bank, trafficking drugs, adults, and children.

NGOs and other Leftist Activist Groups

"On the heels of illegal aliens are non-governmental organizations and other leftist activist groups, who are grifting the government to the tune of billions of dollars per year.  Woke Catholic charities, woke Protestant charities, woke attorneys, woke hotel chains and housing authorities all benefit from the continuation of the border surge.  Leftist homeless groups benefit from the continuation of, not the elimination of, homelessness.  If they “solved” the homeless crisis, they would be out of work.

Sanctuary Cities/States

"Not the “people” in said sanctuary cities and states, but leftist Democrats, who benefit from the increased number of congressional seats afforded them, by the increased counts in the Census, soon to be the right to vote.

Iran, Hamas, Gazans. . .

Keep reading...

The Enduring Wholesomeness of 'Little House on the Prairie': 50 Years Later

PJ Media

"I recently saw that a producer is trying to “reboot” the series. I shudder to think what a 21st-century version of “Little House on the Prairie” would look like. The wokes would ruin it."  Bonchie 

No farmer or rancher would have this for a dog. TD

"Next week — March 30, to be exact—brings one of those milestones that makes me feel ancient. That date marks the 50th anniversary of the debut of one of the most enduring series in television history: “Little House on the Prairie.”

"I don’t remember that night since I was a toddler when the TV movie that served as a pilot for the show aired, but my family watched the show without fail. My siblings and I grew up with the Ingalls family, and my mom made sure that my nieces were familiar with the show, too. With nine seasons and over 200 episodes, the show tackled a host of issues, usually with happy endings.

"The show is notably different from the books, which I’ve also read. They diverge enough that I almost think of them as separate entities in my mind. “Little House on the Prairie” doesn’t suffer from the political incorrectness that made Laura Ingalls Wilder a victim of cancel culture. The characterizations on the show take on a life of their own, and the show concentrates on one era, whereas the books are more expansive.

"Looking back at “Little House on the Prairie” today, the show holds up remarkably well. Sure, the scenarios, the acting, and some of the music are over the top, but other than some of the hairstyles, it doesn’t come across as dated to the ‘70s and early ‘80s. The historical subject matter stands up as well, even if some of the minorities on the show benefit from a post-civil-right-era treatment. Above all, it’s still entertaining." . . .

Desperate Biden Falsely Claims Trump ‘Told Us to Inject Ourselves With Bleach’

  PJ Media

"So, where did the fake news that Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach come from? Later,  during the same briefing, a reporter asked the acting undersecretary of science and technology for the Department of Homeland Security, Bill Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that could be injected into a person, is there?”

Biden, flanked by Obama and Pelosi, again peddles the debunked lie that "Trump told us to inject ourselves with bleach." pic.twitter.com/tJKLIzAwmD

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2024

"Joe Biden has released a new campaign video with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Though the video claims to have been recorded live, it hilariously features an insane number of jump cuts, suggesting it actually took multiple takes throughout the recording process to get Biden's performance on the mark.

"But, that aside, the video made it quite clear that Joe Biden is so desperate, that he's trying to rehash long-debunked accusations against Trump in the hopes of trying to turn his faltering campaign around.

" 'This is the guy who doesn't care about science and reason," Biden claims in the video. "Remember, during the pandemic, Donald Trump told us to inject ourselves with bleach. He said there's nothing to worry about if you do that."

"The big problem with this claim is that it never actually happened. 

"The false claim originated from the following exchange during the White House Coronavirus Task Force Briefing in April of 2020. During the briefing, potential COVID-19 treatments were discussed, including UV light treatments, and Trump said, “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see, it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”

"It's obvious here that he wasn't advocating for ingesting or injecting bleach; rather, he was exploring the feasibility of using disinfectants internally. He emphasized the necessity of medical supervision, cautioning against any attempt to replicate such measures independently.

“It wouldn’t be through injection," Trump responded. "We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

Natasha Bertrand and Trump misinformation

 

CNN Draws Major Backlash for Giving Promotion to Notorious 'Russian Collusion Hoaxer' (msn.com)  "Where do you go after peddling dual lies in the establishment media -- the Donald Trump Russiagate hoax and the fiction that Hunter Biden's toxic laptop was Kremlin disinfo?

"To the top, of course. At least at CNN.

"On Monday, the network you probably only end up watching when your flight is delayed for a few hours announced that Natasha Bertrand, a former reporter at Politico whose stances on the Steele dossier and Hunter's laptop remain controversial blunders that she hasn't disowned to any significant extent, was being promoted to correspondent.

"In her new role, the network said in a media release, Bertrand will be "covering national security, the news organization announced today. She is based in Washington, DC and will continue to focus on national security and politics across CNN’s platforms.". . .

Opinion | How Did So Much of the Media Get the Steele Dossier So Wrong? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)   . . ."So his alleged sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels, who appeared in pornographic films, became the backup for the dossier’s claim of a lurid round with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

 “The count is growing higher and higher of porn actresses,” Slate’s editor at the time, Jacob Weisberg, said on MSNBC, adding, “The whole picture starts to be more plausible, the picture that’s painted in the dossier.” Natasha Bertrand, who was then a staff writer at The Atlantic, chimed in, “It makes it much more plausible that Trump did go to Russia and he did have these kinds of sexual escapades with prostitutes.”

The dossier’s credibility suffered a grievous blow in December 2019, when an investigation by the Department of Justice’s inspector general found that F.B.I. investigations “raised doubts about the reliability of some of Steele’s reports.” 

Another RINO bites the congressional dust, or is something more sinister going on?

 Andrea Widburg - American Thinker

. . ."As of January 2023, Republicans had a very narrow majority in the House. After the rebellion against Kevin McCarthy, the latter, in a fit of pique, withdrew on October 3, 2023, long before finishing his term, diminishing the Republican majority. Then, the Republicans, proving that they truly are the stupid party, decided to show their “moral superiority” by kicking out Rep. George Santos." . . . 

. . ."Then, the Republicans, proving that they truly are the stupid party, decided to show their “moral superiority” by kicking out Rep. George Santos. Yes, Santos is an odd bird, but he wasn’t so bad that he needed to be tossed. Doing so shrank that slender majority still more.

"Last week, Rep. Ken Buck, a RINO’s RINO from Colorado, withdrew from the House, announcing that he was leaving effective yesterday. That means that there’ll be a special election for his replacement at the end of June. In Colorado, that’s not a good thing and could well mean a Democrat goes to Congress in his place.

"And then, just today, Charlie Kirk notified people via Twitter that Rep. Gallagher is heading out of Congress almost immediately, in the most damaging way possible for Republicans."

"With Gallagher’s departure and a possible Democrat victory in Colorado, there’s a real likelihood that Democrats will soon control the House. That means that, between now and January (when I devoutly hope there really is a red wave), Democrats will control Congress. Packing the Supreme Court and Puerto Rican statehood will suddenly be back on the agenda while Biden’s trembling hand can still sign those two bills into law. Once again, Joe Manchin is the only thing between us and a majority hard-left Supreme Court.

. . ."So, what are the four reasons you might suddenly have this new phenomenon of people leaving the House early when the party with which they’re affiliated has a razor-thin majority?

One: An emergency. If the House member or someone in his family becomes ill or has another crisis, that’s a good reason to pull out.

Two: Personal pique. That’s why McCarthy pulled out. It was a lousy, selfish reason because it diminished the majority, but it’s still a reason.

Three: A desire to help the opposing party. At this point, given the huge chasm between left and right, it’s weird to believe that someone who calls himself a “moderate” Republican would want to help the Democrats. And if the person isn’t a moderate anymore, why not announce that he’s a Democrat and help create an instant Democrat majority? So, Buck and Gallagher might be protesting MAGA Republicans, but throwing the House to Democrats is a strange way to do it.

Four: The person is being pressured to leave immediately.. . .

 

Tucker: Joe Biden has put hundreds of his political opponents in jail. Here’s the latest

 Whatfinger News' Choice Clips

Whatfinger Video

Former Trump Defense Sec Says Liz Cheney, J6 Committee Threatened to 'Make My Life Hell' If He Contradicted Their Preferred Narrative

  The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew  

It is far from the first time that the J6 Committee has proven to be a witchhunt against Donald Trump. In January, an explosive report from Fox News revealed how the panel had secretly deleted over 100 potentially critical pieces of evidence right before the GOP took over the House of Representatives in 2022.

 "Donald Trump’s former acting Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller, has revealed that he felt “threatened” by former Congresswoman Liz Cheney and other members of the January 6th Committee after he refused to endorse their version of events.

"In an interview with Daily Mail, Miller said that he became “fearful” of the panel’s tactics after they tried to stop him making claims that ran contrary to their preferred narrative.

"According to Miller, the panel were particularly upset by a Fox News interview he gave with Trump national security official Kash Patel in which he pointed out that the former president authorized the National Guard to step in quell the protests taking place in and around the Capitol.

“ 'The two of us were on [the Fox News show] and the next day my lawyer got a call from the Jan. 6 staff director – I forgot exactly who it was – but basically saying, very legalistic: ‘Well, if your client has additional information he wants to share, we’d be happy to have him re-interviewed,'” Miller explained.

“ 'It was more that latent threat of: ‘If you want to keep going on TV, we’re gonna drag you in here again for additional hours of hearing testimony.’ So that was the nature of that whole thing,'” he continued.

"He also outlined his view that the Committee’s Vice Chair Liz Cheney was the person “running the show” and that she was concerned about the “optics” of his claims that Trump attempted to restore order.

"Miller, who was appointed as acting Secretary of Defense in October after his predecessor refused to act on evidence of widespread election fraud, added that he had not wanted to publicly discuss his concerns until now.

" 'I didn’t talk about it with anybody else because of the fear or the concern,” he said. “I wasn’t communicating with anybody, because I knew any interactions I had on it would result in me having to… acknowledge that I’d been in communications with other people. And then that just sort of opens up a whole can of worms with the investigators that I just didn’t want to do.’ . . .

Former Obama Fundraiser: Letitia James’s Trump Vendetta a ‘Very Slippery Slope’

Headline USA

"(Headline USA) A former fundraiser for President Barack Obama admitted this week that New York Attorney General Letitia James’s case against former President Donald Trump was “so wrong.”

"Trump was ordered last month to pay a massive $400 million fine by New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over James’s civil lawsuit against the former president and his business empire. Trump now has to remit a $464 million bond if he wants to appeal Engoron’s decision.

"Don Peebles, a millionaire who helped fundraise for Obama’s first campaign, said the case could have a serious chilling effect on business in New York and that James never should have pursued it.

" 'I have expressed concern that I think that this is a very slippery slope to selectively enforce an archaic law that has got no victim,” he told Fox News host Neil Cavuto.

"Peebles added that the hefty remittance bond being forced on Trump was an effort by James and the state to do as much damage to the former president while it could.

“I think they are confident—or think it’s likely—that this will get reversed, and then there will be no punishment,” he said. “So they’re rushing to inflict as much pain on him as they can right now because once the appeals court puts an end to this, then there will be no repercussions.”his, then there will be no repercussions...'

Grid-Draining Electron Guzzlers And The End Of Driving

 Issues & Insights (issuesinsights.com)

"In their way of thinking, only the elites should have the freedom that automobiles deliver. Everyone else must be sardined into mass transit. The EV fetish is nothing but a navigation point on the left’s route to a world in which a car is a luxury item that only few will have." I&I

"In perfect Democratic Party form, the Biden administration has dropped another government burden on the private sector. Two days ago, the White House rolled out “the toughest-ever” automobile emissions standards. The objective, of course, is to force Americans to buy the cars that the ruling class wants them to drive. There’s a big problem here, though – the grid won’t be up to the task of keeping tens of millions of electric vehicles charged.

"The headline from a Bloomberg story last week summed up the plan: “​​Biden Set to Crack Down on Auto Emissions to Accelerate EV Sales.”

"Rules decreed by the Environmental Protection Agency are intended to “propel electric vehicle sales well beyond current levels,” says Bloomberg. “The EPA has projected that to meet proposed mandates, electric models would need to make up roughly two-thirds of car and light truck sales in 2032 — up from less than a tenth last year.”

"This is no noble effort to prevent a climate catastrophe. Democrats, eco-activists and the thoroughly compromised media continually argue that we have to move to EVs to save the sky, but the federal rules and state mandates they propose and issue are part of a larger plan to drive Americans out of cars and into public transit, which is failing across the country.

"There are a number of problems with the march to EV-topia. They’re not zero-emission vehicles, they’re an extravagant purchase, costly to repair, expensive to insure, hazardous to own, and they create a new class of hazmat problems.

"On top of all that, charging them is a hassle, which is only going to become worse. America, in 2024, is already running out of power." . . .

Blinken Completely Beclowns Himself in Israel, Netanyahu Tells Him to Jump in a Lake

 I'm so ashamed of the American leaders and the public that supports them. TD

Bonchie – RedState  

"In the end, I think Blinken knows the Israelis aren't going to listen to his dollar store foreign policy demands. He's just playing for the cameras, trying to make Iran and the pro-Hamas contingent in the United States feel better. It's gross but predictable." 

"U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrapped up a trip to Israel on Friday, having failed to convince Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the rest of the leadership there to essentially surrender to Hamas. 

"Members of the Biden administration suffered embarrassment earlier in the morning after their "ceasefire" resolution went down in the flames at the UN. They are such amateurs that they can't even throw Israel under the bus without screwing it up. 

"Blinken continued to try, though, meeting with Netanyahu and lecturing him on the finer points of combating Hamas. You know, because if anyone knows about defeating terrorists, it's the guy who helped lead the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and has more recently overseen the resurgence of the Islamic State. 

"Here's a bit of what transpired behind closed doors.

Behind the scenes: Blinken told Netanyahu and the war cabinet that he came to Israel as a friend who spent the past five months defending Israel around the world.

• But he warned that on the current trajectory, without a clear plan for the day after the war, Israel will be left with a major insurgency it can't handle.
• "You need a coherent plan, or either you're going to be stuck in Gaza," Blinken said, according to the source. 

"This is like a high-school drop-out telling a post-grad how to study. Blinken's record is one of abject failure. Everything he has touched has turned to rubble, and his only "achievement" has been to empower Iran as a major force in the Middle East. To mouth off to Israel about having a "coherent plan" is laughable. They have a coherent plan. It's called defeating Hamas in the physical battlespace that exists, which means going into Rafah.

"What happens after that? That's not Israel's problem, is it? Hamas, which is supported by the vast majority of Palestinians, chose to attack on October 7th. They brought this on themselves, and Israel is not going to stop its mission simply because there's uncertainty on the horizon. Perhaps the "international community" I'm always hearing about can handle the relief work.

"Besides, the idea that Hamas should be left in place lest there be a "major insurgency" is nonsensical. Was what was in Gaza before the war somehow safer? Less violent? Less prone to carry out murderous rampages? Sometimes there is no perfect answer to every concern, and victory is the only path to pursue. If there's an insurgency, then there's an insurgency. That's preferable to having an openly hostile terrorist government operating next door with impunity.

"No matter, though. Blinken wants everyone to know that he believes Hamas should be defeated but that defeating Hamas isn't the right way to do it. Wait, what?" . . .