I remember vividly the first time I saw this speech. Three thoughts raced through my head: 1. Since when does Trump talk like this?? 2. How is this the same man I’ve learned to hate?? 3. How the F have I not seen this before????? Kept rewinding, rewatching. ///

[Trump speech from 2016]

If there is actually any such thing in a standard revolution, things always kick off with the bottom layer…popular dissatisfaction. We aren’t talking about mere disappointment or even antipathy based on the results of an election or two. We are talking deep-rooted angst that has gotten to the point that a significant part of the population is willing to participate in open revolt against lawful authority. We aren’t anywhere near that point. Without that general popular dissatisfaction, the revolution goes nowhere. Therefore popular, widespread dissatisfaction must be created…out of whole cloth if necessary.

This is exactly what has happened. A series of unfortunate police encounters, the vast majority of which the court system has duly exonerated the officers, has been used as a propaganda campaign to create that dissatisfaction. //

So, where are we at this point? As I’ve stated previously, one thing that isn’t going to happen anytime soon is a Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega type barreling into DC in a Jeep to take over the government as President Trump boards a plane to begin his exile. The popular sentiment won’t get us to that point in a country where even the poor have cellphones, flat-screen TVs, and air conditioning.

My personal assessment is that intended or not, this recent series of events has served as a sort of Proof of Concept. It has served as such for domestic subversives and foreign actors that might wish to sow hate and discontent here for their own purposes.

It’s a silly idea, of course. A pointless waste of time and taxpayer money. But the Democrats don’t have a monopoly on those tactics, and we can go back and forth on the history of each party trying to one-up the other with these types of stunts. But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats are so broken by the existence of Trump that they are not thinking clearly, and haven’t been for a while. The whole idea that they can do this with any shred of credibility is absurd, and it will be just as absurd when the Republicans try it in the future.

Did you watch our weird baseball playoffs instead? I can’t blame you, but don’t worry: you can get all caught up with the best tweets of the night here.

Melania Trump, America’s beautiful mystery, is privately a trenchant political analyst with a keener power of observation than just about every sweaty, bespectacled nerd on CNN.

After debate moderator Chris Wallace tried to set a diabolical trap for Biden by asking him for his policy positions, Biden shrewdly saw the trap coming a mile away and refused to answer the question.

"Naw, that's a trap. A bunch of malarkey, I say!" Biden retorted. "I ain't gonna tell you nothin'. You'll just try to use my policy positions to make me look bad! Well, I ain't fallin' for it, Jack. No sir, no how."

"Don't you want to see my policies?" Biden said. "I know I do! Vote for me in November and you may just get a chance to see them! Besides, Donald Trump? Come on, man! Look at that guy! That guy can't even bench press a flea-bitten mink coat in a snowstorm!"

In a closed-door fundraising dinner, Kamala Harris assured supporters that they do in fact have policy positions that can be found on BLM's website or in a book called Das Kapital by a fellow named Karl.

Previously in this series, I introduced a graphic that the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) uses to explain the activities that buildup towards open guerrilla/civil war. Although the activities in the lower levels are not prerequisites for those in the higher ones, there is a definite relationship between the levels. //

Now that we have explored some of the activities and their effects on other activities, let’s move on to another point of analysis, Cui Bono? Who benefits? This is especially important because as I mentioned previously, this isn’t your garden variety revolution with a single leader or even a group of leaders. Although it is possible that one or more of the scrawny pajama boys serving as cannon fodder, actually has visions of being the next El Che’. That’s about as reasonable as Governor Stacey Abrams.

So, back to who benefits. Specifically, which external actors will benefit the most. We’ll discuss internal elements following this piece. To be more accurate, we need to include those who believe they might benefit, even though they might not, or might not as much as they had hoped. We also need to understand that although multiple parties might benefit, that by no means implies that they all have the same objectives. The three major members in that particular category are all state actors with varying levels of overt hostility towards the United States. All three have dreams of hegemony over their area of the world and perhaps beyond. Iran, Russia, and China each have expressed to one degree or another their desire to acquire, or in the case of Russia, to reacquire control over territory not currently their own. Both China and Russia have made overt moves in that regard.

To help refresh our leftist buddies’ recollections, here are a few high (low) -lights from the person they’re so revved up about:

Kamala Harris gets wrecked by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) in a late July ’19 debate:

The White House appears to be fully prepared for the political bar fight that will erupt once the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett begins on Oct. 12. An exclusive Fox News report revealed that the Trump administration has assembled a team of “knife fighters” to deploy when the brawl breaks out. ///

Be prepared to defend and protect your nominee, thank you

Lanny Davis is a long time Democratic political operative, Clintonista and lawyer.

So he’s a good window into the Democratic thought.

But doesn’t his letter/tweet thread tell you everything about what they think of you if you live in a red state?

Reporter: how are you going to make everyone hold hands and sing Kumbayah?
Becton: I’m not going to.
Reporter: aren’t you concerned about all the really bad thoughts out there?
Becton: No. I can’t change what you believe but I can damn sure modify your behavior.

It had an elegant simplicity that has stuck with me ever since. You can’t waste your time trying to change what people think. You need to focus on what you can change, which is behavior. When Becton left VII Corps in 1981, he left a combat-ready organization that, though it still had problems, had largely vanquished the racial divisions that had made it nearly combat ineffective.

I think the people questioning Trump’s sincerity have to ask themselves three questions. First, do the Democrats act on their promises to Black America, or are they pandering? Second, if the Democrats are pandering, how is Trump’s pander more offensive? And third, if Trump delivers on his promises, even if they are a pander, are the results less valid?

Let’s take, for instance, sentencing reform. Assuming sentencing reform is just a pander, the questions that must be answered by those carping are a) were federal sentencing procedures changed, and b) are the people released from long prison sentences under the reforms actually out of prison?

We, on the right, have gone through the same thing with President Trump and abortion. Is President Trump, in his heart, pro-life? I really have no way of answering that? Are his pro-life rhetoric and acts a pander, or do they represent an actual conversion? Again, I have no way of knowing. Putting that aside, though, I can look at his actions. He has put overtly pro-life judges on the bench. He is the first president to ever speak at a March for Life. He’s defunded Planned Parenthood and defended the Mexico City rule. He’s signed an executive order that attempts to protect the lives of children who’ve survived abortion.

I hope he’s had a spiritual conversion because we should always pray for the salvation of all souls, but do I set up night worrying about it? No. I do not doubt that George W. Bush was, deep down, pro-life. I also know that Donald Trump has done more for the cause of life in less than four years than Bush, who I admired, did in eight.

My advice to the people worrying about pandering is that they are concerned with the wrong issue. There is no way they can ever truly know the answer to that question and it is not important. They should have precisely two concerns. Does Trump deliver on his promise, and is the initiative executed in good faith, that is, is it resourced and managed properly?

I don’t care about what you believe. I do care about your actions.

What conservatives oppose is top-down authority-powered pseudo-progress. The kind that liberals are trying to invent right now in Seattle, as they propose to “re-envision the way we handle public safety” to fix methods of policing that they consider “broken.”

What liberals don’t get is that conservatives don’t oppose progress, we just don’t believe that humans are all that good at making it happen. It seems obvious to us that humans advance by trial and error, in small increments. We try things. Most things we try don’t work, at least not as well as we’d hoped. But a few do. Those we keep. The others we toss over the side. People copy good ideas from each other, and they warn each other about the ideas that went bad. To our minds, this is how progress happens. It bubbles up from the bottom in what the Quality Assurance fraternity calls “continuous improvement.”

What we don’t get is why liberals fail to notice that virtually all of their Great Leaps Forward that are carefully planned by Smart People Wearing Suits, and then executed by government, either waste vast resources without accomplishing anything or waste vast resources while making things worse. //

Law enforcement has a long history in our culture. Our word sheriff is a contraction of the Old English ‘shire reeve’, a local official responsible for property management, supervising peasants, and so on.

Shire reeves were already common in England before the Norman Conquest. What this means for us is that today’s modern police force — the way it’s organized, the way it operates — is something that millions of humans have contributed to, thought about, puzzled over, worked on, and improved via trial and error for a thousand years. This is not a good place for liberals to go looking for improvements by starting over, by “re-envisioning” how we do things, from the top down.

The liberals on the Seattle City Council will not care. They won’t be deterred no matter what we tell them. Liberals never have any respect for the people who came before, who worked the problems, who tried and failed and tried again, to produce the methods we use every day and now take for granted. They always think they are so smart that they can start over and do it better.

The conditionless optimism that the Republicans emanate is absent in the Democrats. They want you to know things are really bad and they’re only going to get worse if Trump is reelected. They seldom talk about the tenacity and relentlessness of the American people or the way they conquer one problem after another that creates a society of limitless possibilities.

Democrats seem to believe our society is in a state of arrested development and that it will continue to stay that way, or at least they want you to believe that.

There’s something dark and depressing about it. Even their attempts at humor seem sad.

The Daily Wire’s video perfectly highlights these differences.

Something is missing. Like a couple that stays together but no longer really likes each other, the Democrats don’t seem to like America but they do want to stay because they don’t have any other option.

Republicans, meanwhile, truly love this country and want the best for it. They think it truly is something great and could even be greater. They believe in it and want to support it under the knowledge that it’s not done achieving heights yet.

This attitude is important to understand. One party will take us nowhere, the other to the stars both figuratively and probably very literally.

During the course of the last four years, we have heard every excuse in the book as to why Republicans can’t do something that they are entitled to do. Most of the time, it is some appeal to fairness, or justice, or some other appeal to emotion, but never do Democrats argue that the Constitutionally-appointed rules are being broken. The issue isn’t that Democrats are actually being treated unfairly. The rules have been clear. The communicating of ideals has been equal. They have run for the same offices, in the same states, in the same country as Republicans. It is that they have lost. Now that their failures have mounted to the point of cementing their legacy of failure for the next couple of decades, they want to change the rules. //

The rules of the game are written in advance so that all parties participating in the game, know how to succeed from the onset.

The rules for our country have long been written. //

The rules for the “game” are clear. Democrats don’t hate Republicans for their ability to conduct the business of government as they see fit. They hate the Constitution and many of the rules they’ve instituted because now, they’ve lost.

It isn’t like they haven’t tried to play the game. It’s just that… well… they suck at it. //

Here we are, beating the Democrats at their own game again and again, so what do they propose? Changing the rules again. Dems, instead of trying to appeal to voters in areas they know they are losing, are proposing to make D.C. and Puerto Rico states, //

Democrats aren’t mad that Republicans get to nominate and confirm a Justice of their choice. They are mad that they don’t. End of Story.

Which brings me to this thought exercise: Take a minute and try to think of a time, in the last 50 years, that Republicans have either changed procedural rules (or threatened to do so) in response to Democrats’ exercise of a legal, Constitutionally-appointed power? Sure, they’ve threatened to use the newly appointed power or rule change once they are in power, but when have they ever explicitly changed or threatened to change rules? Can’t think of a time? Neither can I. Now, do the same with Democrats.

The old sayings “the rules are rules” and “elections have consequences” have never been more true. The only difference is that Democrats don’t want to live by either. Sorry guys, those are the rules.

The Founding Fathers were incredibly brilliant and visionary people. They were establishing a nation that was almost entirely agrarian. But they knew it would not always be thus.

The aforementioned Jefferson then wisely warned:

“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.”

And so it became. //

For decades and decades, Democrats could continue to over-government cities into oblivion. Because their prisoners – oops, I mean citizens – were shackled to their metropolises by their jobs.

Well, Democrat victims – are prisoners no more.

Because our fabulous free market – has delivered us the Information Revolution…a successor to the Industrial Revolution. //
Democrats have forced us to work from home. And we have discovered – thanks to the free market Internet and ISPs – we actually can:

“(G)igabit-speed home broadband availability has skyrocketed from 6% to 86% in just over three years. //

Which is leading more and more of us to realize:

“We can work from home. Which means our homes – can be anywhere. We no longer have to remain in the confining confines of Democrat municipal awfulness.”

Oops. Torpedos are turning on their overreaching Democrat launchers – all across the land.

And the next great American migration – is now underway.

We’re About to See Biggest Exodus from Cities in Fifty Years

The Great Exodus Out of America’s Blue Cities

Exodus: The Migration From High Tax To Low Tax States

People Are Fleeing Democrat-Run States in DROVES for Republican-Run Ones

Which leads to pathetic pathetic-ness like this….

‘Come Back So We Can Tax You,’ New York City Begs Departed Residents //

Americans are realizing the free market Internet – allows them to escape America’s huge government Democrat fiefdoms.

Here’s hoping they achieve self-realization – and stop voting for the Democrats from whom they’re fleeing.

We have become insanely driven by the idea that the other side is the enemy and that they must be defeated in court for a victory to have any real meaning.

And what is it that we’re fighting over, here? It’s a broken race for a broken court. We are, as a society, so dependent on lifetime political appointments because we have given up on things like legislating and negotiating. We would rather allow a group of nine people to tell us what is right and what is wrong than fight in the legislative chambers to get the most done for as many people as possible.

The Supreme Court’s job is to tell us what is constitutional and what is not, with the great irony being that the power to do so has no constitutional grounds whatsoever. It was invented by the Court early in its history, and ever since — though particularly in the modern era — we have deferred so much to it that we have created the power it wields. Power the Constitution never originally gave it.

The system, from our political values to our political system, is broken. That, in turn, has broken the branches of government and thrown out the balance of power the Constitution built.

With sincere apologies to William Shakespeare:

Friends, Americans, fellow defenders of liberty, lend me your ears.

I come to bury Ginsburg, not to praise her.

The very little and well-disputed good she has done will be celebrated, living long after her.

The evil she has enabled shouldn’t be ignored by interring it with her bones.

Let that not be so with Ginsburg.

One of my long time Army buddies put it this way (with minor edits for innovative language):

What’s all this RIP stuff coming from Conservatives? How about BIH?

Have y’all even read Lady Creepo’s decisions, or evaluated the Luciferian effects of them on our society? WTH?

Oh! I see; You are trying to show human decency for the opposing team. You are above the fray. Hearts & Minds (how’d that work out in Iraq) Love thine Enemy, etc.

Do you think this “kindness” is really gonna put a dent in the thinking of the Left that is intent on destroying this country?

This is the same mentality that got Bush 1 unelected, got Romney and McCain slaughtered in elections, for their “above it all” attitude—and also why Iraq is now fully in the hands of Iran. //

But when you balance the books, she’s not fit to be viewed as some sort of respected American judicial icon.

For one thing, the philosophy that Ginsburg actively promoted and defended has been and continues to be responsible for the deaths of more Black babies than the Holocaust or Soviet pogroms. Some folks might assert that she never directly ordered the murder, rendering asunder, or later sale of “usable parts” of unborn children. I agree. However, when you review her advocacy and later rulings from the bench, the best thing you could say about her is that she hid behind the artificial construct of Stare Decisis while others did and profited from the dirty work. //

They don’t want Roe versus Wade overturned. That is their single-minded purpose. Pure and simple evil.

This isn’t just empty rhetoric, they mean it. And packing the court with at least two additional seats—one for Ginsburg and one for Merrick Garland, whom Democrats feel is entitled to a seat simply because President Obama nominated him—is just the beginning of what Democrats will try to do if Biden wins the election. Schemes are now afoot to pack the court, abolish the Senate filibuster, and grant statehood to Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.

What all these moves have in common is that they would erode the constitutional mechanisms in place that Democrats see as impediments to their complete control over the levers of government power.

Expanding the number of states, for example, is a work-around for what they would like to do but can’t quite bring themselves to say outright: abolish states’ equal representation in the Senate. Why, they ask, should sparsely populated conservative states like South Dakota get as many votes in the Senate as California and New York? By adding what Democrats believe would be permanently blue states, they could cement their control over the Senate and stop worrying about what Americans in South Dakota or Wyoming think.

The same logic applies to getting rid of the Senate filibuster. Once Democrats are in control of the Senate, why should a minority of GOP senators be allowed to stop them from carrying out their designs? The common thread here, from court-packing to new states to ending the filibuster, is that Democrats believe they have an obligation, once they gain power, to ensure they never lose it again. If that means shredding the parts of the Constitution that have held them back in the past, then so be it.

That, in turn, means there’s more at stake in November than the electoral fortunes of one Donald J. Trump. The Constitution itself is on the ballot.

Since 2015, George Soros has been executing a plan to reshape the country through local district attorney elections by pumping unprecedented amounts of money into races that typically only see candidates spend in the low five figures.

Here’s why he has an interest in these local races. Soros is exploiting the reality that all politics are local in some way. To transform America, you have to transform the way towns and cities operate. //

Since 2015, Soros has pumped tens of millions of dollars into local races in Texas, Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, and New York, as well as swing states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona. In 2016, Soros spent $2,000,000 on a single sheriff race in Maricopa County, Arizona, helping the leftist candidate, Paul Penzone, win.

In Philadelphia, Soros spent an insane $1,700,000 to elect Larry Krasner DA. Soros has also given millions of dollars in grants to candidates in other states. These enormous contributions have a correspondingly enormous impact. //

In 2018 The Los Angeles Times reported that Soros spent $2,700,000 on California DA races alone, and another $16 million on 17 DA races in other states. //

San Francisco’s new DA, Chesa Boudin, is a perfect example of the ideological temperament of the candidates Soros has been backing. Boudin is a former translator for the late Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez.

He’s also the son of two Weather Underground domestic terrorists who were convicted of murder for their roles in a Brink’s armored car robbery that resulted in the killings of three people. Due to the incarceration of his parents, Boudin was raised by former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers. //

After watching the Fox News exchange involving Gingrich, Francis, Harf, and Faulkner, I wondered how anyone who works in the news business could be so uninformed about what Soros has been up to. The left-wing billionaire’s plan clearly operates on the understanding that all politics are local and takes advantage of small-ball local DA races to remake the American justice system — and, by extension, remake all of America into the far-left world of his dreams.

That leap from remaking our justice system to remaking America may seem like a long jump to some, but law and order is the core of America’s existence. Without law and order, you don’t have a country.

“Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.” — Proverbs 18:2

We love to share our own opinions and thoughts on all manner of things; we are loath to listen, much less understand those of others. And the pointed question from the Pastor: “Does that do the Kingdom any good? Does it do your insides any good?”

He then pivoted to the perfect analogy — Statler and Waldorf (of Muppet fame — I expect most readers are old enough to recall these curmudgeonly fellows.) As he noted:

We live in this anxious world…angry world…we’ve talked about that. What I want to do for just a second…I want to see if I can explain to you just how it is that we — if we’re not careful — fall into a trap and start dancing a dance that is presented to us, and before you know it, we are like those angry muppets in the balcony….Some of you are old enough to remember Statler and Waldorf — they’re the two old guys, you know, they’re cynical, they’re cranky…they’re always lobbing judgment bombs and zingers and one-liners over the edge of the balcony, but here it is — they’re always spectators.