Tag Archives: The American Thinker

Refusing To Use The Power You Have

Posted on by

It seems that every time the Republican party gets control of Congress, it forgets to do anything with that power. We are a year and a half into the second Trump administration, and Congress has passed the Big Beautiful Bill and very little else. At least 80 percent of Americans support the SAVE Act, and the Republicans in Congress can’t get it passed. That is ridiculous. The blame for that falls on both Republicans and Democrats–if Americans support the bill, who does Congress represent?

On Monday, The American Thinker posted an article titled, “Kill the Filibuster—or Make Them Talk.” We know that if and when the Democrats take control of Congress they will end the filibuster and push their agenda through, yet the Republicans sit on their hands waiting for that to happen. If that is their attitude, why in the world should I vote for a Republican?

The article reports:

Five words: Power unused is power surrendered.

That’s the reality Senate Republicans now face.

With a narrow majority and a nation increasingly concerned about election integrity, Republicans face a choice: act decisively or allow procedural relics to dictate policy outcomes. At the heart of this dilemma is the filibuster — not a constitutional safeguard, not a sacred institution, but a Senate rule that has evolved into a minority veto.

And in its current form, it’s not even honest.

Today’s filibuster is a shadow of its former self. Senators no longer need to stand on the floor, speak for hours, or defend their obstruction before the American people. Instead, they merely signal an intent to filibuster, and legislation effectively dies unless 60 votes can be mustered for cloture. No speeches. No effort. No accountability.

That’s not deliberation. That’s abdication.

The filibuster is often spoken of in reverent tones, as if it were handed down alongside the Constitution. It wasn’t.

The article concludes:

Republicans can preserve the current charade and watch their agenda die under silent filibusters, or they can restore accountability by forcing senators to speak and defend their obstruction before the American people.

And if Democrats eventually regain full power—as they inevitably will—they have already signaled that they will eliminate the filibuster entirely to advance their agenda.

Republicans must decide whether they intend to govern or merely to occupy office.

Power unused is power surrendered.

If the Republicans intend to hold power in the midterm elections, they need to show the voters that they understand how to use power.

Three Things The Republicans Need To Do

Posted on by

The North Carolina primary election voting starts in about two weeks. The results of that election will determine who represents the state in Washington. There are a number of significant races–one U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat among them. It is quite possible that the results will hinge on turnout. In both cases, the Republicans are up against a formidable opponent with political experience. In the Senate race, the choice is between a Washington insider and a grass roots candidate. In the House race, there are a number of good candidates, some with better name recognition. It is an important primary, and the results will tell us a lot about who is paying attention.

On January 24th, The American Thinker posted an article about some things the Republicans need to do if they intend to remain in control of Congress.

This is the list:

  1. Why fixing the integrity of U.S. elections is imperative

The fundamental reason why election integrity is of paramount importance is that the whole basis of the United States is the sovereignty of the people. It is the DNA of America. The legitimacy and moral authority of the country come only from the people who express their preferences for their local, state, and national government officials through free and fair elections. When there is vote fraud and election irregularities, the moral authority of government is compromised, causing the people to disrespect and distrust their own government…

2. Why Prosecuting felony crimes committed by private sector and public officials is imperative

One function of our law enforcement and justice system is to punish lawbreakers. However, the more important function of law enforcement is the deterrence and prevention of other lawbreakers and to prevent the continuation, broadening and escalation of crime.

What has most greased the skids of America’s decline toward the status of a banana republic is the emergence and acceptance of two-tiered justice and attendant cronyism and political corruption…

3. Why Restoring Law and Order in American Cities is imperative

The term “sanctuary city” was first used in 1971 in Berkeley, California for the purpose of giving safe haven to U.S. soldiers resisting the Vietnam War. The modern sanctuary city movement to provide safe haven to illegal immigrants began in the 1980s during the surge of Central American refugees into the U.S.

According to radical left training manuals from the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies in the late 1970s and 1980s, there was an agenda to radicalize city and state government to transform America. The radicalization of targeted “blue” cities and states dovetailed with the sanctuary city movement. And today there are about twenty large cities and thirteen states that have adopted sanctuary status with policies, laws, and regulations that impede enforcement of federal law and federal immigration laws in particular.

Unless these problems are dealt with, I see no future for the Republican party. They were elected to support the President and deal with the corruption. We have had hearings and hearings and hearings, but the Justice Department has not sent anyone to jail. That needs to change.

Why Americans Don’t Trust The Mainstream Media

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The American Thinker posted a list of questions the mainstream media never asks Democrats.

Here are the some of questions:

What do you think of Arctic Frost where the Biden administration’s Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, illegally appointed Get Trump special counsel Jack Smith and Judge James Boasberg secretly issued subpoenas to target over 400 Republicans and groups, including Senators, to see what they said about the 2020 election and protest?

…Isn’t it legal to protest an election and have private conversations about it?

Isn’t it weaponization of the Justice Department when they use it in this fashion to target political opponents?

What would the reporting have been if Democrats had been targeted in this fashion after they protested the 2000, 2004, and 2106 elections? I am sure there would have been absolute outrage and wall-to-wall reporting. 

Didn’t Trump ask on Jan. 6 that the protesters march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol?

Why have those words been buried in most reports?

How is that fomenting violence and an insurrection? 

Do you believe that people and families who make over $200,000 should have their health care paid for by taxpayers?

Isn’t that many of the people you are fighting for when you hold the country hostage and keep the government closed?

Why should the rest of us support people and families who make more than almost all of us?

Didn’t Democrats vote that these subsidies would be temporary and end on Dec. 31, 2025 when they passed them and said that COVID was the reason?

Why are they going back on their promise? 

Why do Democrats continue to claim that Obamacare has made health care more affordable when prices have skyrocketed since the bill passed in 2010?

Should mentally and physically able people be required to work or volunteer to get government benefits? If not, why not? After all, Democrats voted for that in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president.

Isn’t it better for people to start moving up the economic ladder instead of being relegated to poverty for their entire lives by being dependent on the government? 

Isn’t capitalism the best method to reduce poverty instead of socialism?
It is a shame that young people have been taught that socialism is a good system.

Didn’t poverty hit record lows during Trump’s term with lower taxes, fewer regulations, low energy prices, and low inflation?

Why do Democrats continue to lie that Trump’s tax rate cuts only helped the rich and cost the government trillions when the facts show the opposite is true? 

Please follow the link to the article for the rest of the questions. I would love to hear the answers!

What Has Happened To Health Care Costs?

Posted on by

Economist Milton Friedman once said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” We have seen what the government takeover of the student loan program did to the cost of college tuition. Now we are seeing what the government takeover of healthcare has done to healthcare and healthcare insurance costs.

On September 29th, The American Thinker reported:

In 2009, when the average cost of an individual health policy was under $100 and family coverage was under $400, democrats decided that health insurance cost too much, and too many didn’t have coverage.

Therefore, without any Republican support, they wrote a 1,000-page bill. They called the bill the “Affordable Care Act,” a misnomer intended to mislead the American people into supporting the bill. The mostly compliant media went along and chastised those who dared question the bill.

…In fact, the bill took away freedom of choice and reduced competition. It got rid of lifetime and annual limits, so small and medium-sized companies couldn’t afford the risk. There was also no incentive for medical providers to control costs.

As prices soared, instead of limiting the scope of their promises about how the government would fix healthcare costs, the Democrats have instead worked to increase subsidies and increase the income levels of individuals and families who can get the subsidies. They needed more people to sign up to make it seem as if the ACA is popular and necessary. This just increased premiums even more and made insurance more unaffordable.

Something the Democrats intentionally left out of the bill that could have potentially reduced premiums and medical costs was any limits on punitive, not compensatory, damages in lawsuits. They left it out because Democrats receive significant sums of money from trial lawyers. Consider that Democrats put severe limits on profit margins for insurers, reducing the number of competitors, but they refuse to put any limits on lawsuits. The potential of unlimited lawsuit damages clearly raises prices.

The article notes the results of this law:

After 15 years of the ACA or Obamacare, the average cost of individual coverage is over $600 per month, up over 500% and family coverage is up to over $2,000 per month, which is up over 400%. Meanwhile, overall inflation was 41.60% for this time period, even including the disastrous Biden years.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. It’s time to get the government out of healthcare and let doctors do their jobs.

Changing Something That Was Not Being Used For Its Original Purpose

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about the Executive Order by President Trump to impose a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visas. This is a step toward protecting American workers. Originally the H-1B visa was intended to help U.S. companies fill rare, high-skilled roles when American expertise was unavailable. Instead, it has become a way for corporations to import cheap labor rather than pay |Americans fair wages.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump’s two recent executive orders, one imposing a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visas and the other launching the “Gold Card” fast-track residency program, represent the most significant immigration reforms in decades.

They flip the incentive structure that has for years favored multinational corporations and global outsourcing firms over American workers, while also tackling long-ignored national security risks.

As a policy, open borders is one area where Democrats and many Republicans agree. Democrats want new voters, while the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street Journal Republicans want cheap labor. President George W. Bush, backed by Senator John McCain, in 2007, pushed for “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty, for millions of illegal aliens, which fortunately failed a US Senate vote.

Enter President Trump, the only president in my lifetime who has recognized that America has a sovereign border. Even President Reagan failed to repair our dysfunctional immigration system. He signed an amnesty bill into law, which NPR heralded as “a Reagan legacy,” and it unsurprisingly turned California from a red to a blue state. No wonder NPR loved it.

The Chamber of Commerce is no longer a friend of the American worker. They support corporate profit margins over American workers. They were also supporters of the Common Core curriculum that has helped lower the test scores of American students.

The article notes:

This approach addresses two issues simultaneously. First, it monetizes efficiency by having applicants pay for expedited processing instead of taxpayers funding an overcrowded immigration system. Second, it makes sure that those who skip ahead are likely to be job creators and investors, not liabilities. As CBS News reported, Trump explained: “We’re going to have great people coming in, and they’re going to be paying.”

Such programs are common. Portugal offers a Golden Visa program that requires a five-year investment in monetary assets for residency, which is less direct and efficient compared to Trump’s proposal.

For conservatives cautious about unrestricted immigration, this presents a strong bargain: America gains capital instead of bearing costs.

Unsurprisingly, Big Tech is unhappy. Venture capitalists argue that the $100,000 H-1B fee could hurt America’s competitiveness, but this overlooks how the current system has suppressed domestic innovation by discouraging Americans from pursuing STEM careers. Genuine innovation thrives when American students and workers believe they can compete fairly.

Foreign governments have also expressed concern, especially India, which depends heavily on exporting workers to the U.S.

Not everyone in America wants to ‘put America first.’

There Is Actually A Legal Precedent

Posted on by

The ruckus in Texas over redistricting has been entertaining to watch. The last I heard, the Democrat Texas representatives were up in Chicago being tourists. Obviously, this could change quickly. It is interesting that there is a historical precedent for what the Democrats have done and how it should be handled.

On Thursday, The American Thinker reported:

In the sweltering summer of 2025, Texas governor Greg Abbott is wielding a firm grip to crush the cowardly tactics of House Democrats who fled the state to dodge a redistricting vote. These runaway lawmakers, skulking in blue-state hideouts like Illinois and New York, think they can paralyze the Texas Legislature by denying a quorum. But history stands squarely behind Abbott’s iron-fisted response, echoing a decisive moment in 1787 when Commodore John Barry and his sailors dragged dissenting delegates back to the Philadelphia Convention to secure the U.S. Constitution. Abbott’s resolve to force these deserters back to Austin is not just justified — it’s a patriotic act to preserve the will of Texas voters, backed by the same bold spirit that forged our nation.

In 1787, the fledgling United States teetered on the brink of collapse under the feeble Articles of Confederation. The Philadelphia Convention was tasked with crafting a new Constitution, but a handful of Pennsylvania delegates, leery of a strong federal government, tried to sabotage the process by bolting to avoid a quorum. Their absence threatened to derail the entire convention, risking the republic’s future. Enter Commodore John Barry, a Revolutionary War hero who didn’t hesitate to get his hands dirty. On September 18, 1787, Barry and his band of sailors hunted down the absconders, dragging them back to the State House. One delegate, clothes in tatters, was reportedly thrown over a railing into the chamber, protesting the rough treatment and said “I object to being carried into the Chamber.” Benjamin Franklin, carried in a sedan chair due to his failing health, shot back with a razor-sharp quip: “So was I.” That forceful action restored the quorum, secured Pennsylvania’s vote, and saved the Constitution — and with it, the United States.

…The parallels are undeniable. In Philadelphia, the dissenting delegates weren’t just shirking duty; they were endangering the nation’s future by obstructing a process critical to its survival. Today’s Texas Democrats are doing the same, undermining the democratic process by refusing to face a vote they know they’ll lose. Their flight is a tantrum, not a strategy — a weak attempt to subvert the will of Texans who elected a Republican majority to draw fair maps. Abbott’s threats of arrest and seat vacancies mirror Barry’s no-nonsense tactics, proving that sometimes a heavy hand is needed to keep democracy on track. Just as Barry’s sailors didn’t coddle the runaways, Abbott shouldn’t hesitate to drag these lawmakers back, metaphorically or otherwise, to do their damn job.

Stay tuned.

Fake News Isn’t Only About What You Say–It’s Often About What You Don’t Say

Posted on by

The majority of the American media is owned by a few large corporations. None of them are conservative. Thus, if you watch the mainstream media, you are not getting the whole story. If you are looking for media that is actually reliable, I strongly recommend NewsMax and One America News. The lack of coverage of the newly declassified documents released by  Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is one example of the news media controlling the narrative to avoid telling the truth.

On Tuesday, The American Thinker reported:

Most fake news isn’t incorrect facts or flat-out lies; that’s way too obvious and easy to prove wrong.  Instead, most fake news is done by omission — telling part of the story so the reader comes to a different conclusion or completely omitting the story so the reader has no idea that it ever happened.  A great example of fake news by omission was during the 2020 election cycle, when most “mainstream” media refused to report on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Recall October 2020: The N.Y. Post published the explosive story about the contents of Hunter’s laptop.  The laptop contained thousands of emails, documents, photos, etc. that proved that Joe Biden (and Biden Inc.) is completely corrupt.  The laptop had been in the FBI’s possession for almost a year.  They had verified its authenticity and had certainly informed their leftist and Democrat media sources of the laptop’s veracity.

The hardcore leftist media completely ignored the laptop story.  They engaged in fake news by omission.  It was almost impossible to find the Post’s story anywhere.  And when they were called on it, they used all kinds of excuses that centered on “the story couldn’t be verified” and “fifty-one former intel officials claim it was Russian disinformation.

…Last Friday (July 18), previously classified documents were released that prove that the Trump-Russia-collusion story was concocted and initiated by then-president Obama and executed by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI.  Tulsi Gabbard, former Democrat presidential candidate and now Trump’s director of National Intelligence (DNI), released over 100 documents that prove that on Dec. 7, 2016, the Intel Community told Obama that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 election.  Two days later, Obama then “tasked” the intel agencies to look “into Russia election meddling,” meaning the intel agencies should fabricate intel reports to appear as though Russia had interfered in favor of Trump.

The article concludes:

The blockbuster story broke almost exclusively on conservative media because the leftist, liberal, Democrat media newscasts and websites almost completely ignored the story in the same manner that they ignored Hunter’s laptop.  CNN did cover it but at the very bottom of the webpage and only after such stories as the Texas floods, Superman goes “woke,” Americans at risk of extreme heat, Colbert’s Late Show canceled, Sergio García snapped golf club in frustration, man plows car into crowd, David Beckham’s haircut mishap, and CEO resigns after viral Coldplay concert video.

Ignoring this story is the ultimate fake news by omission.  However, it really doesn’t matter as long as the DOJ follows through and investigates what all American Thinker readers have known for years.

Final thought: In a just world, those guilty of perpetrating the Russia hoax would spend years in prison.  However, the world is not fair.  I doubt if any Dem will ever be prosecuted for these treasonous crimes, further proving we have a two-tier standard of justice.

Let’s hope there are enough people who care about America to hold the people who dreamed up this hoax responsible.

This Is Not Surprising

Posted on by

Money does not totally control elections, but it can easily make a difference. If money could buy the Presidency, Hillary Clinton would have been elected in 2016. According to The Financial Times, Kamala Harris spent $1.9 billion on her 2024 campaign (in just a few months) and President Trump spent $1.6 billion in 2024. Again, money was not the determining factor. However, it can make a difference.

On July 13th, The American Thinker posted an article about some of the money behind the New York City mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani.

The article reports:

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry has uncovered an interesting fact about leftist mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani:

BREAKING: Alex Soros has funneled $24 mil to the NYC mayoral campaign of Muslim Zohran Mamdani thru his fundraising arm Working Families,which means Soros’ wife HUMA ABEDIN,whose parents are Muslim Brotherhood, “will control the mayor of NY,” a lawyer investigating Abedin told me

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 12, 2025

 The article also notes:

The New York Post reported something similar:

Socialist Zohran Mamdani has declared billionaires shouldn’t exist, but it’s unlikely he’d be the front-runner to become the Big Apple’s next mayor if it wasn’t for one — far-left kingmaker George Soros, financial records reviewed by The Post show.

…

 … in less than a decade, Soros’ ultra-woke grant-making network Open Society Foundation has indirectly funneled a combined $37 million to the Working Families Party and at least other nine left-wing groups whose endorsements and get-out-the-vote groundwork played a pivotal role in helping Mamdani upset ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary, the foundation’s records show.

The article concludes:

Sperry notes the additional detail that Huma Abedin, who must be viewing control of the New York City mayor’s office with irony given that she almost had it when she was married to Anthony Weiner, and now sees it within reach again, has ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, as does Mamdani himself. That’s an ugly twist, if not the center of the plot.

In addition, Fox News notes that 70% of Mamdani’s support comes from not just Soros, but the Hollywood elites, the Silicon Valley elite and other usual suspects well outside the purview of New York City.

It’s a grotesque picture. What indeed is the real agenda here, other than complete and total power of the kind the Soviets could only dream of?

One can only hope that as news like this gets out, the New York public isn’t going to fall for it. Chicago did, Los Angeles did — but is New York a little smarter?

Time will tell, but obviously, some loathed moneybags are propping this ignorant socialist clown upward. In San Diego, news of a woke district attorney candidate’s involvement with Soros did sink such a candidacy. Forewarned is forearmed.

One can only hope that this sunlight will see the same response from New York’s voters.

The results of this election will probably have a noticeable impact of the population of New York City after the election.

Amazing Perspective!

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about America’s destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The article reports:

Something called the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has won a Nobel Peace Prize for its opposition to the existence of nuclear weapons.

Its slogan is, “We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.”

Good plan. So, ICAN (what happened to the ‘W?’) must have applauded the Trump administration’s recent beatdown of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, right?

I mean, the U.S. used non-nuclear bombs to (hopefully) prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, at least for a while.

Nope. ICAN denied that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and blamed America for refusing to give up its nuclear weapons. Much as it also condemned Israel for striking Iran’s nuclear-development facilities.

Americans would be speaking Russian and/or Chinese now if we had surrendered/destroyed our nuclear weapons, and Israel might not exist.

Not to be outdone, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW?), which helped found ICAN, also condemned Israel and urged it to create “a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.”

The article concludes:

Iran’s nuclear weapons program was dealt a significant setback at the very least. And the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is too upset to admit it.

Wow.

It seems clear that the International Campaign to Abolish Reason and Sanity has been successful.

What would happen if the Middle East were free of nuclear weapons? Does anyone actually believe that Israel would exist if it were not assumed that it has nuclear weapons? I don’t think Israel has ever officially admitted that it has nuclear weapons. It doesn’t have to–just the idea that it might has been enough to provide some degree of safety for the country. Israel lives in a really bad neighborhood. Any weapon they need to keep their country from being overrun is okay with me.

Two Weeks That Changed America And The World

Posted on by

On Sunday, Clarice Feldman posted an article at The American Thinker about the last two weeks of the Trump administration. The successes of the Trump administration in the past two weeks include tariff negotiations, peace deals in various locations, lower inflation, closing the border, and deporting illegal aliens. The article chooses to concentrate on Iran and the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

Despite CNN and much of the legacy media misusing a leaked preliminary assessment (of “low confidence”) the bombing was of great value to both Israel and the United States. 

Israel’s use of the F-35 was an absolute success for the U.S. for the following reasons:

1. Combat-Proven Validation — Israeli F-35s successfully struck deep into Iranian territory without losses, proving the jet’s stealth and precision in real-world combat.

2. Global Surge in Demand — The success triggered a wave of interest, with countries like Romania, Greece, and Germany accelerating purchases, boosting U.S. defense exports.

3. Massive Economic Benefit — Lockheed Martin gains billions in new deals, creating thousands of American jobs and expanding the U.S. defense industrial base.

4. R&D and System Improvements — Israeli combat experience helped identify and fix performance issues, saving the U.S. billions in research and development.

5. Strategic and Tactical Edge — Insights from Israeli operations now inform U.S. Air Force tactics, improving readiness and increasing pilot survivability.

In short, this wasn’t just a success for Israel. It was also a major win for Lockheed Martin and the U.S. economy.

The article includes the Pentagon assessment of the raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

Pentagon Assessment Operation Midnight Hammer : Planned Over 15 Years #Iran

Chairman Joint Chiefs GEN Dan Caine @thejointstaff

 Strike at Fordow exploited two ventilation shafts

Days before, Iran tried to cover shafts with concrete cap

First US weapon removed concrete cap

Weapons 2, 3, 4, and 5 entered main shaft, traveling at 1000 feet per second  to Iran’s underground mission center

Weapon 6 “flex” capability

The “kill” mechanism was the combination of blast and overpressure on the target

Officer from DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) began the mission 15 years ago when the underground target was identified and the officer recognized the US did not have a weapon to counter it. 

Years of highly classified (likely special access program) development and testing followed.

Caine said he talked with the two DTRA officers who “lived this single target” for years. 

Post mission, they described hearts “ filled with pride to be a part of this.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It’s been a good two weeks.

The Impact Of The Tariffs

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The American Thinker posted an article about the tariffs President Trump has put in place since he took office.

The article reports:

Far from igniting the inflationary firestorm predicted by his critics, Trump’s sweeping tariffs — including a 10% universal import duty and targeted hikes on 90 nations — have coincided with the lowest inflation rate since early 2021.

In a striking reversal of the narrative pushed by many economists, The Economist—a publication not known for its support of Trump’s policies — published a June 5 article acknowledging the muted inflationary effect of the tariff wave. The magazine pointed to hard data: in April, year-over-year inflation cooled to just 2.3%, far below the 0.8-point spike predicted by a University of Chicago survey of 48 economists.

Instead of tariff-fueled price hikes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that prices for heavily impacted goods like clothing and new cars actually declined.

Car prices dropped by 0.5% from March to April, despite 25% tariffs on auto imports going into effect on April 3. Clothing prices remained flat through March — even as progressive economists sounded alarms. Far from passing on costs, many retailers and foreign producers appeared to absorb them, underscoring the competitive nature of global commerce in a post-pandemic landscape.

Even groceries — arguably the most politically sensitive prices of all — held steady through May, despite new duties on Canadian produce and other perishables. Consumers, in short, weren’t being punished at the checkout line.

Of course, none of this was supposed to happen.

The article concludes:

As the trade deficit narrows and the factory floors hum a little louder, it’s increasingly clear: this was no reckless gamble. It was strategy. And it’s working.

While some still mutter darkly about future price spikes, the facts on the ground are sobering — and for Trump’s critics, humbling. Inflation remains tame, shelves are stocked, and voters aren’t paying more to put dinner on the table. The tariffs are not only holding; they’re delivering.

This is what happens when a businessman instead of a politician becomes President. Can you imagine how much celebrating there would be in newsrooms if a Democrat had accomplished even half of what President Trump has accomplished? I am hoping that as Americans begin to realize the economic gifts they have received in the past six months, they will at least vote to keep control of Congress in the hands of the Republicans. That is the only way this success will continue.

The Lies We Have Been Told About Taxes

Posted on by

As Congress debates “one big, beautiful bill,” they need to consider the benefits of the 2017 tax cuts and the impact of not extending them. On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about the lies the media is publishing about the 2017 tax cuts.

The article reports:

Lie #1: Saying numerous independent analyses have shown anything. There is not one independent analysis that could have shown what they say in the paragraph.

Lie #2: Saying it was skewed for the rich. Every taxpayer benefited, and the poor and middle class got bigger percentage reductions than the rich. The rich got penalized greatly with the limits on state and local tax deductions. The rich pay a bigger share of taxes than they ever have.

Lie# 3: The tax cuts drove up deficits and debt. That is the most obvious lie. Federal revenues have risen substantially for the eight years following the rate cuts, and higher revenues do not raise debts and deficits. Only increasing spending much faster than revenue increases causes debts to rise.

Lie #5: The tax rate cuts failed to deliver on their promises. This is another obvious lie.

The promise was that the cuts would help the economy and help people have higher real wages. And the cuts’ results were that poverty hit record lows and real wages were rising for everyone, especially those at the bottom and people of all races:

Real median household income increased by $4,400 in 2019, reaching an all-time record high of $68,700. This represents a 6.8 percent one-year increase, which is the largest one-year increase in median income on record. Since 2016, real median household income has increased by 9.7 percent (after adjusting for a Census survey redesign in 2017).

Income gains in 2019 were largest for minority groups. Real median income grew by 7.9 percent for black Americans, 7.1 percent for Hispanic Americans, and 10.6 percent for Asian Americans (see Figure 1). These one-year increases were all record highs, and the new income levels reached in 2019 were all record highs, as well.

Lie #6: The tax bill is unpopular with the public. According to a poll, 85% want the tax rate cuts extended. That is pretty popular.

The article concludes:

Another lie that we constantly hear is that extending the tax rates will cost $4.5 trillion. Keeping the rates the same costs nothing, and revenues will continue to rise. Only in the DC fictional world will raising rates back to 2017 rates raise $4.5 trillion when the lower rates have provably raised more money.

The higher rates would slow down the economy and further destroy Americans’ purchasing power, especially among the poor and middle class, people whom the media and other Democrats only pretend to care about. All they really care about is more power and money for the government.

Conclusion: Don’t ever believe any organization that pretends to be a non-partisan think tank. These organizations have an agenda, and they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to intentionally mislead the public.

Don’t you wish people’s pants did catch fire when they lied?

The Double Standard In The Church

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about some of the recent comments made by the Catholic Church.

The article reports:

Within days of Donald Trump’s November landslide, Bishop Mark Seitz, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ migration committee, warned that Their Eminences were preparing to “’raise our voice loudly’” if Trump’s immigration policy “’violates basic human rights.’”

This episcopal loudness signals the end of the USCCB’s scrupulously-maintained four-year vow of silence through the entire presidency of the “devoutly” Catholic Joe Biden.

Their silence spoke volumes to Catholics witnessing Biden doing his utmost to wage open war on the most fundamental teachings of the Church. Not only was this “‘good Catholic’” (Biden claimed Pope Francis described him this way during a 2021 audience), the most extreme pro-abortion president in history, but his DoJ used federal law enforcement to imprison peaceful pro-lifers, and target traditional Catholics as “potential domestic terrorists.”

Biden proclaimed “transgender equality” to be “the civil rights issue of our time,” and weaponized his administration to pressure international medical experts to abandon limits on trans surgeries for minors. He transformed the White House lawn into a Pride Celebration freakshow of gender deviants, which went viral thanks to one particularly repulsive “transgender woman” flashing his fake breasts for the cameras.

The article concludes:

Last October, a survey of Catholic Trump supporters showed an astounding 76 percent agreeing with the statement, “I support Trump because of his stance on immigration.” Are Pope Francis and the American bishops really telling all these Catholics their consciences are “wrongly-formed”? and their sole recourse is to renounce MAGA and embrace the Left’s disastrous erasure of our national borders?

This is a grave indictment. Yet, for some reason, Catholic Democrats are spared such pastoral rebukes. On one side we have a formal papal letter effectively anathematizing any Catholic who agrees with deporting illegal immigrants; on the other, an offhand interview remark entrusting President Biden’s intransigent abortion extremism to his “‘good Catholic’” conscience. 

As far as the bishops go, too much of this incoherence is the fruit of Marxist thought prevalent in Catholic seminaries in the 1960s. The USCCB’s one-sided social-justice hectoring exemplifies Herbert Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” — “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.”

Millions of Catholics, watching how their bishops publicly fawn over politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden — whose progressive views on climate change or income redistribution they share — infer falsely that “good Catholic” and “good Democrat” are interchangeable. The Babylon Bee headline, “Pope Francis Announces That God Agrees With Whatever It Is Democrats Want To Do Right Now,” has a disturbing basis in reality.

President Trump has emerged as a sort of litmus test to see if people in authority actually have principles. When they become so anti-Trump that they will justify open borders knowing that it includes drug and human trafficking in order to support a Democrat President, they have lost their moral compass.

Scandal Central

Posted on by

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about some of the scandals we have seen in recent years.

The article  includes a list:

All four of the biggest scandals in U.S. history have happened in just the past few years:

(a) the cover-up of Joe Biden’s decline;

(b) lawfare against Trump;

(c) the cover-up of Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling, and now; and

(d) billions wasted, by not just the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also by many other agencies, and being uncovered by Elon Musk’s DOGE.

In this writer’s opinion, it’s all a series of causes and desired effects.  The Democrat party Deep State (DPDS) loathe Trump.  They used every trick in their trick bag, from “Russia collusion” to lawfare to assassination attempts, to beat him and present Hillary, then Biden, then Kamala as a superior candidate.  The scams are the “why.”

The worst example is the vanishing migrant children.  Some of the NGOs getting contracts from Team Biden to house unaccompanied minors (now known as “child-trafficking victims”) were getting multi-billion-dollar contracts.  Over 300,000 of those children have simply vanished.

The article notes:

USAID, created by a JFK executive order in 1961, was intended to steer foreign aid in a manner that benefited America’s national interests.  Instead, it’s been scattering taxpayers’ billions like candy at a Santa Claus parade, for any left-wing initiative (or terrorist group) that raised its ugly head and extended its tentacles.

Billions of dollars have vanished, so USAID has been shut down, and it’s being audited.  What was created by executive order can be stopped by executive order, despite the caterwauling from DPDS propaganda minions that it’s “illegal.”

They spent $40 million on HIV medications for transgender hookers in South Africa, $47,000 on a trans opera in Colombia, $2 million on sex changes and LGBT initiatives in Guatemala, and $1.5 million to promote DIE in Serbia.  They spent $8 million to study the “effect of flavored cigarettes on bisexuals and lesbians” and another $8 million to train Sri Lankan journalists to avoid using “binary-gendered language.”  Then there’s the $20 million for a Sesame Street TV show in Iraq.

The article concludes:

We can only infer that all these scandals are a series of causes and desired effects. Thus, they’re one gigantic scandal, making Watergate look as though Nixon deserved only a stern reprimand.

Everybody apparently got his cut of the billions in loot. Biden pardoned the top-level offenders.

A Hollywood studio would make a lot of money with documentaries on all this. Producers could track down perpetrators — from the $130 billion missing in Ukraine to a $70,000 DIE musical in Ireland to the $32,000 for trans comic books in Peru to the electric vehicles in other countries — and document, on film, any measurable results.

This writer’s guess is that the actual results are either nonexistent or very tiny and symbolic, to provide a façade camouflaging what really happened to most of that money.

Then, at the end of each documentary, the producers could track down Democrats who approved each of the pallets of cash bulldozed out the door, and show each Democrat’s net worth “before” and “after.” Viewers could draw their own conclusions.

They could start with every Biden pardon recipient, and the 51 intel executives who signed the “Russian disinformation” letter, with zero evidence.

Such a series of documentaries would be cheap to produce and well received. It would surely make millions. But it counters Hollywood’s Prime Directive (“Never say anything bad about a Democrat”), and it makes too much sense. Perhaps some independent studio could strike gold with such documentaries.

For now, every member of Team Trump should start every interview by speaking directly to American voters: “If you ever vote for a Democrat again, you need your head examined.”

And I have a feeling we have only scratched the surface!

A Mystery That Remains Unsolved

Posted on by

It is interesting to see what files the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is refusing to turn over to the Trump administration.You would think that now that President Trump is head of the Executive Branch of our government, everything would be handed over. Well, it’s not working that way.

On Wednesday, The American Thinker reported:

Seth Rich was a DNC operative. He was “mysteriously murdered in the summer of 2016” just “weeks before” Wikileaks released the results of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. The matter of who leaked Clinton’s emails to Wikileaks directly pertains to the Russian Collusion Hoax that was perpetrated against President Trump. The murder is still unsolved. And the FBI still refuses to turn over records pertaining to the case to attorney Ty Clevenger, despite a federal judge ruling that the agency must do so way back in November of 2023. Even earlier, in September of that year, a judge demanded that the FBI and DOJ provide everything they had regarding Seth Rich to Clevenger.

The FBI responded by requesting another 66 years before they’d be required to release the information.

66 years?! “If we put our best people on it, and maybe work a little overtime, I think we should be able to get our notes and emails together for you in, say, 66 yeas.”

What the hell?! How can they get away with this preposterous intransigence? 66 years is essentially the span of time from the invention of the automobile until we landed on the friggin’ moon! They should be able to get any and all materials relevant to this investigation together in 66 hours! 66 days, tops.

This is just another example of a massive DNC-weaponized agency protecting itself…and the Democrat party…from a catastrophic public relations disaster and any subsequent accountability or penalties.

The quickest way to start a conspiracy theory is to withhold information on an event. Unfortunately, we are running out of conspiracy theories because too many of them are turning out to be true! It is time to tell the truth.

Common Sense Is Arriving Quickly

Posted on by

The claims that CO2 is a pollutant responsible for climate change may be coming to an end. On Wednesday, The American Thinker posted an article about some changes in the narrative regarding CO2. We need to remember that some farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses in order to help the plants grow.

The article reports:

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions (methane, nitrous oxide, and some other stuff) are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the government has the authority to curb them.

Since then, the world has been subjected to numerous climate-related laws and treaties, along with assorted governmental, academic, and corporate pressures — all serving to hype the “existential threat” that is climate change.  The number-one culprit all along has been atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is nothing inherently wrong with qualitative versus quantitative statements, but there has been an inordinate amount of hand-waving to explain away the failure over the last 50 years of global temperatures to rise nearly as fast as predicted by the climate alarmists.

“Watts Up With That” claims to be the “world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” for which Collister Johnson recently wrote a short but powerful article with an unassuming title: “The saturation effect questions the prevailing narrative on CO2.”

Over that last decade, several pedigreed scientists have performed qualitative analyses and experiments to disprove the assumption that “increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperatures.”

…In recent years, other prominent scientists have performed studies that confirm that this saturation effect causes minimal increases in temperature as CO2 levels rise. There is no linear relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. This explains why the Earth “has never experienced runaway warming in the past when CO2 levels were 5–10 times more concentrated than today.” The planet was, however, more lush with vegetation than it is today.

CO2 is our friend. It will help us feed the world’s population. Maybe that’s the reason the zero population people are so against it.

A Review Of The Presidency Of Jimmy Carter

Posted on by

I will admit up front that I am not a fan of President Carter. His work with Habitat for Humanity was commendable, but his policies as President and meddling in foreign affairs after he left office were not.

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about President Carter’s legacy.

The article reports:

I grew up in a Democrat household, and we all wanted to like Carter. Nevertheless, by the end of his term, my parents disliked him intensely. They were right to do so because some of his decisions were dreadful at the time, and some had terrible consequences for America:

He pardoned draft evaders, which my father, a veteran of two wars, found unforgivable.

He gave away the Panama Canal. Now that China has a foothold in Latin America, its very presence threatens our trade and our national security.

He created the Department of Education, which my father, a teacher, instantly realized was going to be a boondoggle and a disaster that wouldn’t raise up teachers but would bring down education. Dad was right.

He presided over inflation, stagflation, and the energy crisis. The latter was partly a result of his policies, but even if it hadn’t been, these economic crises happened on his watch, and he was stuck with them.

He was a dour, unpleasant person whose very presence was a drag on America. Americans disliked his moralizing from the White House. His very personality defined malaise.

The article concludes:

On the plus side, Carter did broker the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which have held up for a long time. However, my Dad (a really smart guy) recognized Carter’s nascent antisemitism, something that came into full flower after he left the White House. Even Jonathan Greenblatt, the leftist leader of the ADL, couldn’t tolerate Carter’s animus toward Israel, something that could only be driven by Jew hatred.

Also, after he left the White House, Carter never met a corrupt election he wasn’t willing to certify. Why? I have no idea. But I dislike him a great deal for that.

Ultimately, Carter was a guy who lived a life of personal rectitude (he had the same wife for almost 80 years, went to church, etc.), but he left the United States and the world in much worse shape than they were when he found them.

Some History About President Jimmy Carter

Posted on by

On Monday, The American Thinker posted an article about President Jimmy Carter that reflects a view of the President that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore. The article is written from the perspective of a then young reporter who worked on President Carter’s 1976 campaign.

Some highlights from the article:

I was on the press bus when he campaigned in the primaries in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. I had press credentials to attend the Democrat National Convention in New York City in July when his party nominated him, and I had credentials to cover his inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 1977.

During his one-term presidency, I reported from time to time on what he and his administration were doing.

This blog, written several hours after Carter passed away yesterday at his home at age 100, mainly focuses on the time (1976-’77) when I had the closest, most in-person view of him including as one of the “boys on the [campaign] bus.”

What I have never forgotten in the almost half-century since then is how the reality I observed of Carter, as he dispatched his more well-known opponents on his ascent to the presidency, differed substantially from the carefully crafted image that helped to get him elected.

…Most American voters wanted to “throw the bums out,” and Carter – a little-known Southern governor when he embarked on his campaign the same year that Nixon was ousted – took full advantage of his supposed outsider status.

In fact, however, Carter already had covert and deep roots on the inside, in particular as a carefully chosen member groomed by the Trilateral Commission, a shadowy group of globalist elitists organized by David Rockefeller in 1973. With their help, Carter already had a leg up with the mainstream mockingbird media. His shtick was to present himself as an aw-shucks Southern gentleman, but a man of the people, the “grinning Georgian” as I called him in a cover story I wrote in 1976 about California Gov. Jerry Brown. 

Please follow the link to the article for the complete story. President Carter’s work for Habitat for Humanity was wonderful, but the decisions he made as President were not and the person who the media is currently painting is not real.

I Don’t Seem To Remember This Happening Before

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about some informal meetings now taking place at the Pentagon (as reported by CNN).

The article reports:

If this story of a cabal of Pentagon officials meeting to undermine the incoming constitutional commander-in-chief of the U.S. military had been a rumor circulating on X or I’d received in an email from some random source, I would have discounted it. But that’s not the case; it comes from CNN. This suggests that something is deeply wrong in the Pentagon—the same Pentagon that “forgot” to send absentee ballots to U.S. troops serving overseas, a gross violation of their civil rights, and one that ought to result in courts-martial all the way up to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

According to CNN, Pentagon officials are trying to figure out how to block any orders Donald Trump might issue to protect the Southern border or remove from U.S. soil the millions of unvetted illegal aliens currently occupying the U.S.:

Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, defense officials told CNN.

Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment.

Trump in his last term had a fraught relationship with much of his senior military leadership, including now-retired Gen. Mark Milley who took steps to limit Trump’s ability to use nuclear weapons while he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president-elect, meanwhile, has repeatedly called US military generals “woke,” “weak” and “ineffective leaders.”

Officials are now gaming out various scenarios as they prepare for an overhaul of the Pentagon.

“We are all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is that we don’t know how this is going to play out yet,” one defense official said.

I believe that the President is required by the Constitution to uphold the law. Border security is part of that law. It is my hope that any military or civilian personnel that interferes with the carrying out of immigration law will be shown the door (or worse) very quickly.

Let’s Return The Government To The People

Posted on by

On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article suggesting ten ways President Trump can bring our government back to the people if he is elected (His wanting to do that may be the reason some people are fighting so hard to keep him from being elected.)

Here is the list:

  1. Seal the border and deport all 30 million illegal immigrants.
  2. Resurrect the 10th Amendment.
  3. Restructure the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon. Fire the leadership of all four, up to and including the top 100 senior managers/officers of each, with severance packages.
  4. Ban every DEI program and race- or sex-based program in the United States government. Make it crystal clear to Americans that every single job, scholarship, or contract associated with the federal government is based on one single thing: merit.
  5. Abolish the IRS and the income tax and implement a flat tax or, better yet, the FairTax.
  6. Negotiate a peace between Russia and Ukraine. Neither wanted this war and a month after Russia invaded, there was a peace deal on the table that both sides supported until Joe Biden torpedoed it.
  7. Remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.
  8. Craft a plan that sunsets every law and regulation in the federal register within a decade.
  9. Pass a law that explicitly states that it is illegal for government agencies to coerce or motivate private enterprises to accomplish desired tasks that are illegal for the government to do on its own.

Every one of these things will bring us closer to the government our Founding Fathers envisioned. If President Trump really wanted to bring us back to the government our Founding Fathers created, he would find a way to overturn the 17th Amendment.

Planning A Further Invasion Of America

Posted on by

Pm Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article about the construction of a complex in southern Mexico for moving illegal migrants north into America.

The article reports:

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Todd Bensman, who’s done groundbreaking reporting on the border surge, has been in southern Mexico documenting what is going on there and in Central America as the election battles out in the U.S.

He found this:

This, despite his earlier reporting that migrants are anticipating a Trump victory in November, and making a rush towards the U.S., before the anticipated drawbridge will be pulled. Bensman reports that Trump is known as ‘el diablo‘ to the would-be illegal border crossers.

So the idea of building a huge permanent complex to house migrants, United Nations agencies, and NGOs would almost seem counterintuitive, given that migrants are unlikely to have it as good as they have had it under the Harris-Biden administration, with Border Patrol enforcers ordered to escort them on in, vetted or not.

The article concludes:

If they’re building a huge migrant gathering complex for the journey northward, it would seem they are attempting to institutionalize this phenomenon and have some kind of inside word that the fix is in and President Trump will lose the election. After that, they’ll rev up their migrant conveyor belt and make illegal, unvetted migration into the U.S, at the numbers they determine, the new normal. If Kamala Harris is elected, that’s exactly what will happen. If President Trump is elected, they may wait it out, they may flood the U.S. with international lawfare to force him to take all comers, or they may have word that he will never be ‘allowed’ to take office.

The plan of course, is to normalize illegal migration and effectively erase the U.S.’s legal borders. They’ll send the migrants in, and the U.S. taxpayers will pay for them — and pay, and pay, and pay. That’s all the better from their perspective, to have two dependent classes for the Democrats to minister to. After that, they’ll expand the operation to send even more migrants until the final end is clear, a complete change in the electorate.

It sounds like a terrible project that is overdue to be shut down. At a minimum, we need more information on this. But if Trump is elected, it will be a day-one task to deinstitutionalize the migrant surge, given the apparent masterplan to institutionalize illegal immigration into the U.S. for as long as it takes to change the electorate.

This is something to keep an eye on in the next three weeks.

Another Accomplishment By The Private Sector

Posted on by

On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article about the latest accomplishment of SpaceX. The company captured a massive 20-story booster as it broke away to return to the launch pad for reuse. The government space program has never done that. A private company is more likely to want to save money by reusing the booster. Although the government bids out contracts, it is not genuinely concerned with cost cutting.

The article reports:

The consequences of such a brilliant endeavor is truly revolutionary. A reporter for a T.V. program from India called “The Breakfast Club,” saw that right away.

Sonal Mehrotra Kapoor of “The Breakfast Club” excitedly reported on Elon Musk’s scientific and engineering accomplishment in capturing a 20-story reusable booster rocket.

…The reporting on the event is truly thoughtful fact-based journalism that accurately describes the massive achievement of SpaceX ambitious plans.

What is noteworthy is the clip also shows the SpaceX team’s heartfelt pride in their accomplishment. In essence, a team led by a visionary consisting of a diverse crew of scientists, engineers and technicians, all a product of a meritocracy-based selection process, made history and were joyous in that moment.

Meanwhile, The Daily Breeze reports:

Elon Musk‘s SpaceX rocket company has sued the California Coastal Commission, alleging in federal court that the panel’s members are biased because of the billionaire owner’s conservative political views, according to papers obtained Wednesday.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles, alleges “unconstitutional overreach” by the commission after members criticized Musk’s political leanings during a meeting about whether to approve more frequent SpaceX launches off the California coastline.

“Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO,” SpaceX alleges in the 45-page lawsuit.

Driving Elon Musk out of California is not going to help California balance its budget.

The Real Debate Is At The Kitchen Table

Posted on by

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about the real debate in this presidential election cycle–it wasn’t on television–it is at the kitchen table.

The article reports:

ABC staged a debate this week.  A presidential debate.  Ostensibly between former president Donald J. Trump and former senator Kamala Harris, but in actuality between Trump and the partnership of Harris and ABC.

There is always media bias.  To some extent, unconscious media bias is unavoidable.  But we don’t expect it to be blatant; the viewer doesn’t expect antics like we saw this week, when the ABC moderators repeatedly declared Mr. Trump’s statements lies, and never called out Ms. Harris’s blatant lies. 

We call it “fact-checking” today, a term coined in social media for when our high-tech overlords punish a writer for stating something with which the gurus disagree.  But it’s not really fact-checking, is it?  It’s an invasion of a conversation, a denial of free speech, a thumb on the scale.  In the case of a presidential debate, it’s electioneering.

And it virtually invalidates the value of our constitutionally protected free press in this process.  ABC’s refusal even to try to act as an impartial host rendered this debate useless.

So let’s look instead at the other debates — millions of them — going on in America, both that day and every day in 2024.

Across the country, there are millions of families shopping in their local grocery store.  More of them must choose the discount grocery compared to five years ago; more must use coupons, or activate their store’s discount app on their cell phones today.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. When we vote on election day, we need to remember the impact the change of administration in 2020 has had on almost all Americans. Some of the ‘celebrities’ who are supporting Kamala Harris have not been impacted by the economic policies of the past three years–so until everything collapses, the economy is not a concern of theirs. However, the rest of us will be living with the results of the coming election.

The article concludes:

There are many more such debates taking place across America, in the family car, over the kitchen table, or in the bedroom after the kids are asleep, as hardworking everyday American couples try to compromise on some way to get through these hellish years of Bidenflation.

It’s not one mistake, one policy choice, one single culprit. It’s the entire Biden-Harris regime — their executive orders, their agency regulations, their foreign policy, and their general incredibly thoughtless wastefulness, in everything they touch and everything they do.

Every American knows that the election of Kamala Harris would mean four more years of all this.

These are the debates that matter to the American public this week.

These personal, private, tragic debates — as the cost of living has gone up by three, four, five times as much as salaries have — are the debates on the minds of American working families, and small business owners, and retirees, and young adults desperately trying to look ahead to a future that can’t possibly seem promising.

Forget the debate that ABC ruined on Tuesday.

These other conversations, these other tough choices and compromises — these are the debates to which we should be paying attention.

We Can Predict The Future Based On The Past

Posted on by

On Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article pointing out the differences between the Trump administration and the Biden administration in the area of law and order. The contrast is stark. Logically, whichever administration is elected in November will implement policies similar to those they have espoused in the past.

The article reports:

As the November election approaches, the choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could not be clearer, especially for working-class Americans and business owners alike.

After four tumultuous years under Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s administration, where economic policies have faltered and crime rates have surged, Trump’s track record provides a compelling case for his return to the White House.

His administration’s unparalleled support for law enforcement and focus on economic prosperity stand in stark contrast to the failures of the current administration, promising a restoration of safety and stability that America desperately needs.

Under Trump’s leadership, the nation saw a significant decline in violent crime, a trend that reversed under Biden. By 2019, violent crime had fallen for the third consecutive year, with a decrease of over 5 percent since 2016 and a reduction in the murder rate by over 7 percent. This progress was not accidental but the result of deliberate, effective policies.

Trump’s administration launched Operation Legend to combat rising violence in cities, leading to more than 5,500 arrests and demonstrating a robust response to escalating crime.

…Contrast this with the Biden-Harris approach. Under their tenure, the FBI reported a rise in violent crime, exacerbating the struggles of American communities. Their administration’s reluctance to fully back law enforcement agencies has led to weakened public safety and heightened fears among citizens. The surge in violent crime under Biden’s watch starkly contrasts with the progress made during Trump’s presidency.

The article notes:

As we approach the November 2024 election, the choice is clear. Donald Trump’s track record of supporting law enforcement and fostering economic stability stands in stark contrast to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s failed policies. Trump’s administration demonstrated a commitment to restoring safety and order, which directly contributed to economic growth and stability. His policies not only addressed crime effectively but also ensured that businesses and communities could thrive.

Biden-Harris’s administration, with its record of rising violent crime and economic instability, has proven that his approach is not effective. Kamala Harris, as Biden’s successor, promises to continue these failed policies, further undermining public safety and economic prosperity.

For working-class Americans and business owners alike, supporting Donald Trump this November represents a vote for a proven leader who understands the critical link between law enforcement and economic stability. Trump’s track record of reducing violent crime, supporting law enforcement, and fostering a conducive environment for business growth underscores his capability to lead the nation towards a safer and more prosperous future.

This November, you are not only making decisions that will impact your pocketbook, your vote will impact your family’s safety and the safety of your community.

 

Is Germany Still Germany?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about the changes in the population demographics in Germany.

The article reports:

According to the data, five percent of the global Syrian population now live in Germany alone, accounting for a “16-fold” increase in just a decade, which works out to be a staggering 1,520% jump in the numbers; here’s the story from a new report by the editorial staff at Remix News:

Ever since the 2015/16 migrant crisis, Syrians have arrived in Germany in ever-increasing numbers, and now number at least 972,000 at the end of 2023, according to Statista. There are 22 million Syrians living in Syria itself, meaning those in Germany represent nearly 1 for every 20 in their native country.

This is extremely rapid growth since 2013 when there were only 60,000 Syrians in Germany. Since then, the population has grown 16-fold.

…[D]espite promises that Syrians would integrate into the German economy, the numbers still tell a very different story, with 513,534 Syrians receiving the German welfare benefit known as citizen’s money (Burgergeld), according to the current data from the Federal Employment Agency. However, even those who are not receiving this payment receive money, housing, and other benefits from the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act.

The article notes:

Germany’s welfare costs are “exploding” while the German citizens bear the brunt—the article reports that the state spent around €50 billion on migrants during 2023, which was a little over 11% of the total annual budget (€445 billion). (486.17 billion in US dollars)

This is not good for Germany. First of all, the costs of providing food, housing, and medical care for these immigrants will far outweigh any contribution they will make to the German economy. Secondly, how can you assimilate that many people into your culture all at the same time?