BIG FRIDAY VDH TRIPLE FEATURE

⭐️ ihatediscus2, HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger

▶️ VOTERS HAVE “HAD IT” WITH KAMALA

Victor Davis Hanson Says Democrats Favor The Elites And Voters Have “Had It” With Kamala Chameleon

jjj

oover Institute senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson stated Thursday on his podcast that Democrats “hate” the Middle and Lower Classes, claiming voters have “had it” with Vice President Kamala Harris’ attempts to appeal to them.

Harris has repeatedly faced criticism for her flip-flopping on left-wing policies she once championed prior to 2020 and for her campaign’s association with liberal elites. On “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” Hanson noted that despite giving Harris the “benefit of the doubt,” voters are increasingly fed up with her “desperate” attempts to appease various voter groups.

Hanson said:

“Well, they’ve been giving her the benefit of the doubt for over 90 days, and I think now they’re just saying, ‘You know what? Now she’s desperate, and she’s trying to buy black votes with giveaways. She’s trying to copy Trump’s proposals. She’s flipped on every single issue, from the border to crime. She was for defund the police. She says she has a Glock gun.’”

Hanson continued:

“‘I remember when she was governor, she tried to outlaw models of Glocks. She won’t tell us what, where she bought it, when she bought it. Ditto [with] McDonald’s — where she worked, when she worked. I had it with her, I’m done.’ Jigs up, bam. And I think the left is really hurting themselves because they don’t know what to do.”

Hanson continued to call out Democrats for not interacting with Middle and Lower Classes in America, noting that their appeal through ads to voters amounts to “counterproductive caricatures.”

▶️ 3 Minutes 38 Seconds

“You see everybody, they hate us. They hate the Middle Classes, they hate the Upper-middle Class, Middle-middle Class, Lower-middle Class, and yet they understand that they can’t hang on to power unless they fool that class.”

According to Spectrum News 1, the vice president has sought help from Hollywood elites in her campaign, attending her first fundraiser on Sept. 29 in the Los Angeles area since becoming the nominee. The event featured celebrity attendees like Stevie Wonder, Demi Lovato, Jessica Alba, and Lily Tomlin and was estimated to bring in around $55 million, alongside another fundraiser in San Francisco that weekend.

“They’re never around the Middle Class, so then they make these commercials about what they think the middle class is like, and they end up to be counterproductive caricatures — they’re just laughable. Or when they think they have to talk to middle-class blacks [saying,] ‘You all,” Hanson added.

“She literally, in a week, she faked a Jamaican accent, a Mexican accent and a black accent, and all badly … it’s all fake. It’s fake, and everybody, that’s what I think they’ve concluded.”

However, despite the fundraising efforts from elites, polls and political pundits have warned the Democrat campaign that Harris has been slipping in the polls among men, specifically black male voters.

▶️ 1 Minute 20 Seconds

In an attempt to appeal to these groups, the campaign released a grassroots ad on Friday featuring men boasting about being “man enough” to engage in various stereotypically male activities while also supporting women’s issues and Harris. Additionally, Harris unveiled new proposals on Monday to provide Black men “with the tools to achieve financial freedom, lower costs to better provide for themselves and their families, and protect their rights.” ✪

▶️ KAMALA’S INANE TALKING POINTS

Kamala’s Inane Talking Points

jjj

s Vice President Kamala Harris slips in the polls, the Democratic National Committee/Harris Campaign/mainstream media fusion talking points become even more absurd.

Claiming that J.D. Vance and Donald Trump were “weird” did not work—especially given the genuinely odd behavior of vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and would-be First Gentleman Doug Emhoff.

Nor was the next Harris meme convincing that the frenetic and non-stop Trump was somehow “exhausted, senile,” and “confused.” Voters know the workdays of the younger Harris are usually far shorter—or sometimes not workdays at all.

But Harris also falsely claimed the physically and mentally challenged Biden was, in her words, “absolutely authoritative” and “very bold and vibrant.”

Now Harris asserts that Trump is a “fascist,” a “dictator,” and “unfit” for office. But this new talking point will also not stop the Harris campaign’s hemorrhaging—and for a variety of reasons.

First, voters see the election as a conflict of two absolutely antithetical visions.

On the one hand, is the prior Trump 2017-20 concrete record: border security, no major wars abroad, calm in the Middle East, a deterred Russia, Iran and China, low inflation, low interest rates, lower crime, lower taxes, strong deterrent military—and opposition to mandatory electric vehicle mandates, biological males competing in women’s sports and the woke/DEI agenda.

On the other hand, is the Biden-Harris 2021-2024 record: the unchecked entry of 12-20 million illegal aliens and a destroyed border. People still struggle under Biden-Harris’s earlier hyperinflation and high interest rates. The horrific regional wars in Ukraine and the Middle East continue. Biden-Harris embraces the unpopular DEI/Woke agenda.

Harris herself knows that the Biden-Harris years were a failure. That is why she has shed almost all of their hard left-wing agendas—policies she has embraced for much of her adult life. So suddenly, in the last 90 or so days, Harris has completely flipped and flopped.

Now she is for more of, not defunding, the police. She pivots for a secure border, not 20 million illegal aliens pouring across it. Harris brags about fossil fuel energy, not banning fracking, and for increasing, not cutting, defense.

In fact, several endangered incumbent Democrat senators in swing states are claiming more allegiance to Trump’s issues than identifying with Harris and her unpopular record as vice president.

Voters likely conclude that if Trump doubles down on his record, while even Harris and many senators temporarily piggyback on it, then it must be more effective and popular than Harris’s own.

Second, Harris now claims Trump is a fascist and insurrectionist.

But mouthing ad nauseum “January 6th^” no longer persuades voters that Trump is a danger to anyone. They recall that Harris bragged of the far more violent demonstrations of 2020—35 killed, $2 billion in damage, 1,500 law enforcement officers injured, 14,000 arrested—that the unrest would not and “should not” stop, while drumming up support to bail out jailed violent protestors.

▶️ 6 Minutes 49 Seconds

Nor does the slur that Trump is a fascist resonate. The Obama and Biden-Harris Administrations weaponized the CIA and FBI to interfere in the 2016 and 2020 elections by peddling the fake Steele Dossier and suppressing all the embarrassing news about Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop.

Trump certainly did not coordinate, as Biden did, with local, state, and federal prosecutors to wage lawfare prosecutions to destroy his political opponents. He did not use the FBI to partner with social media to suppress the news.

Neither Trump nor his supporters tried to remove Biden from state ballots.

The Republican House majority did not impeach Biden twice despite the Biden family’s corruption and Joe Biden’s unlawful, decades-long removal of classified papers to several insecure private residences.

Trump and the Republicans never coercively removed the party’s primary-winning nominee. They did not nullify the will of 14 million primary voters. And in backroom fashion, they did not anoint a candidate who had never entered a single primary in her life.

Nor did Trump support packing the Supreme Court. He does not seek unconstitutional means of destroying the Electoral College. He is not demanding an end to the Senate filibuster or the creation of two new states to obtain four partisan senate seats.

Third, as for Trump being “unfit” and lacking “decorum,” it depends on what were the Biden-Harris standards? Having a trans activist reveal his breasts on camera at a White House “pride party?”

Biden’s reportedly calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a f—ing idiot” and “son of a b—ch?” Bragging about locking Trump up, while waging lawfare against him? Unleashing son Hunter Biden with impunity to shake down foreign governments?

The election will not be decided on these empty talking points or fake media-generated narratives. Instead, only two criteria matter: Which candidate’s past record and current agenda best appeal to voters? And which candidate seems the most authentic and genuine? ✪

▶️ A MEDIA BEYOND CARICATURE

A Media Beyond Caricature

mmm

BS’s iconic 60 Minutes has had plenty of scandals and embarrassments in its long 57-year history, most notably the fake-but-accurate Dan Rather mess. Yet never has it found itself in greater disrepute than in 2024.

Donald Trump, for good reason, recently declined to join 60 Minutes for its traditional election-year in-depth interviews of the two presidential candidates. Why?

Last time he consented in 2020, anchor and interviewer Leslie Stahl attacked Trump’s accurate assertion that the Hunter Biden laptop (then in the possession of the FBI) was authentic—and authentically damning to Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy.

Stahl falsely claimed the laptop “can’t be verified.” She further incorrectly asserted, “So this story about Hunter and his laptop, some repair shop found it; the source is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.” The New York Post, in fact, reported the story. The FBI did not deny it.

Yet old Twitter and Facebook, under collaborating FBI tutelage and pressure, suppressed dissemination of the truth. Joe Biden’s then-advisor and now Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in conjunction with former interim CIA Director Michael Morrel, helped round up “51 former intelligence authorities” (among them Leon Panetta, both John Brennan and James Clapper, who had admitted previously of lying under oath to Congress) to claim falsely that the laptop had all the hallmarks of a Russian information gambit to warp the election.

Joe Biden used the “expert” consensus to further lie in the last Biden-Trump debate that the laptop was cooked up by the Russians. And neither CBS, the “intelligence authorities,” nor any of the Bidens have ever since apologized.

More recently, CBS got caught selectively editing the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, cutting and pasting an incoherent Harris response to lessen her embarrassing word salad. And in a subsequent interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson, the network once again edited and pruned his answers, but in contrast, on this occasion, to make him seem far less persuasive.

In yet another current CBS interview with author Ta-Nehisi Coates, network host Tony Dokoupil honestly questioned Coates about his new, one-sided, anti-Israeli book The Message. The result was that the left-wing icon Coates was almost immediately revealed to be abjectly ignorant of the Middle East, unapologetically biased, and completely uninterested in any viewpoint other than his own partisan prejudices.

Yet what followed proved yet another network embarrassment. An internal CBS division with the eerie Orwellian title of “CBS News Race and Culture Unit” attacked Dokoupil for not providing “context” for Coates’s self-condemnatory and embarrassing interview. The subtext was that CBS, under pressure from woke zealots, simply disowned Dokoupil and sought to subject him to correct thought training. His apparent crime was not insisting on different—softball—journalistic standards for woke black authors like Coates. In other words, CBS blamed Dokoupil for revealing Coates to be a fool on the air.

The network further diminished its eroding reputation yet again through the unprofessional conduct of recent moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan during the J.D. Vance/Tim Walz vice presidential debate.

After the earlier ABC-sponsored debate between presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, in which the moderators became partisan fact-checkers (and often wrongly so) of Trump alone and drilled him on follow-up questions in a way not accorded Harris, CBS promised not to repeat such a network embarrassment. So, it pledged not to fact-check the two vice presidential candidates and instead to present a “fair” moderation of the event.

Instead, the CBS moderators were even more patently one-sided than the prior disastrous ABC performance. The two broke their own pre-debate rules by indeed fact-checking. But, even worse, they fact-checked Vance alone. And, once again, did so erroneously in a way that only exposed their unprofessional partiality.

Given the prior ABC debate sham, CBS was supposedly determined not to turn off the public with more moderator partisan distortions. Instead, the network proved that if it was a question of further eroding its professional brand or helping elect the Harris/Walz progressive ticket, then CBS would predictably choose to jettison its reputation to further the progressive cause.

Just as CBS is no longer the network television standard, so too has the current generation of partisans done their best to sully the New York Times. Within just a few days, the Times embarrassed itself in ways similar to the partisanship so toxic at CBS.

The Times just published an op-ed, “65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza.” What followed were testimonials from medical officials and doctors in Gaza with truly harrowing stories of Israel’s collateral damage and the shooting of civilians, accompanied by X-ray photos of small children with IDF bullets allegedly lodged in their bodies and heads.

But even if one was not aware of the fables promulgated by Hamas and the history of propagandistic attacks on Israel, and even if there was no corroboration of how the victims died and under what conditions, a novice might have sensed that something was not quite right with the evidentiary X-rays.

Experts pointed out that the embedded bullets in the scans appeared pristine, without any fragmentation after entering skulls or midriff sections. There were no apparent entry and exit wounds on the images—suggesting either that it was unlikely the bullets came from IDF-issued high-velocity weapons or that the X-rays might simply have been rephotographed with IDF bullets placed beneath them. In any case, the New York Times did not cite any expert outside reviewer to authenticate the scans.

Recently, the New York Times again rushed to partisan judgment to persuade the public that current charges of abject plagiarism by presidential candidate Vice President Harris were baseless. Accusations arose that Harris and her coauthor in a past book on crime had plagiarized a number of sources multiple times.

Yet the Times claimed the copying was minor and did not rise to the level of actionable plagiarism. It “proved” this by quoting a plagiarism “expert,” Jonathan Bailey, who, it implied, had consulted all the alleged plagiarism passages.

But once the public saw just a few of the passages in question, almost immediately it concluded otherwise: that Harris and her co-author were indeed plagiarists. That forced Bailey, the original Times expert, to reconsider his initial opinion:

“At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my ‘initial reaction’ to those allegations, not a complete analysis.”

Bailey then concluded that Harris had indeed committed plagiarism but not “maliciously” so. Once again, the Times had not verified its assertions before publication, and once again it had erred on the side of its known partisanship.

The Times and CBS are just a small example of current once-prestige outlets—such as ABC (cf. its moderators during the Harris-Trump presidential debate) and NPR (that just retracted its scurrilous charges against journalist Rich Lowry)—who have consistently abused the public’s trust for the partisan benefit of progressives or their causes.

In sum, the trust and prestige that took prior generations of journalists decades to earn have been thrown away in just a few years by incompetents and partisans—on the ancient, flawed principle that the supposedly superior moral ends justify any means necessary to achieve them. ✪