The following article, New Claims Surface That The Lawless Are PREPARING CONCENTRATION CAMPS For Conservative “Dissidents” (Video), was first published on Conservative Firing Line. Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near… -Amos 6:3 I brought this up on Monday’s The Sons of Liberty radio to bring to my audience the story about secret facilities springing up in all 50 states, and how the talk of ‘reeducation’ of those not going along with the … Continue reading New Claims Surface That The Lawless Are PREPARING CONCENTRATION CAMPS For Conservative “Dissidents” (Video) ...

The Velvet Underground band leader marched to the beat of his own drum. The post “I’m just stunned”: The album Lou Reed said no one wanted first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The Declaration of Independence was, of course, just that. It was an official declaration of independence by the “United Colonies” (upper case), as they were thus described by Thomas Jefferson, his editors John Adams and Ben Franklin, and the Congress in their July 4, 1776, statement for the ages. The document also referred to the colonies as the “united States of America.” Note the lower case “united.” This was not yet the U.S.A. — the United States of America. These were the new “States of America,” here united together. What were they united against? They opposed “the present King of Great Britain” and his “history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” laid out in a litany roughly 1,800 words in length, remarkably brief in light of what they projected. Because of the “long train of abuses and usurpations,” intended to “reduce them to absolute Despotism,” it was the colonies’ “right” and “duty” to “throw off” their governance from Great Britain.  They were thereby declaring their independence. Or as Jefferson eloquently put it in the opening, they set forth to “declare the causes which impel them to the separation” from Britain. These “representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,” did just that. They and their new country and the world and history would never be the same. Even then, the Declaration of Independence was more than just a document declaring independence. It remains a splendid philosophical and moral statement on human nature and governance, acknowledging (among other things) that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  But it wasn’t aimed merely at those governed from faraway Britain. Consider the document’s audience. The first thing any writer considers is the audience. The document’s author, Thomas Jefferson, selected by John Adams and Ben Franklin for the task, knew that his audience was not merely the colonists, King George III, and Parliament. This document was written to the larger world. It was a diplomatic statement to other nations as well.  To that end, my good friend, the late, brilliant Michael Novak, argued that the Declaration of Independence should be read as a declaration of just war. Our founding fathers set out to explain to other nations the injustices against them, and hence why they were justified in declaring this separation. And speaking of war, what the signers did was considered an act of treason against the British crown. They could literally hang for this. The famous exchange between John Hancock and Ben Franklin expressed that well: “Gentlemen, we must be unanimous,” insisted Hancock to his colleagues in Congress. “There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.” Franklin nervously quipped in response: “Yes, we must all indeed hang together, or most assuredly, we shall hang separately.” Dr. Benjamin Rush put it this way: “Stepping forward to sign the Declaration was like signing your own death warrant.” And yet, he and the 55 others did just that. They pledged to one another their lives and sacred honor. It was no accident that they finished the document with this powerful statement of unity: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” There was truly a sacred quality to the document. The 56 signers included four references to God in their statement, with two of the four added to Jefferson’s original text by Congress. The Almighty appears in the Declaration in four forms: Law Giver, Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence. In this, the American Revolution was utterly different from the bloody, ghastly, perverse, deranged, sickening French Revolution. In his A History of the American People, the late, great British historian Paul Johnson, who was a close friend of and longtime contributor to The American Spectator, wrote: “The essential difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event. That fact was to shape the American Revolution from start to finish and determine the nature of the independent state it brought into being.” This was indeed evident from start to finish. It was obvious to anyone watching, especially to John Adams, who warned of France’s revolution of militant God-haters: “I know not what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists.” What they made was the guillotine. That became the stark symbol of the French Revolution. France’s own Alexis de Tocqueville would later observe: “For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other.”  By contrast, noted Tocqueville, “In France I had seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.” Michael Novak nicely captured what Tocqueville saw. Novak said that the American revolution was all about faith and reason, fides et ratio (the later name of a wonderful Pope John Paul II encyclical), working together in harmony. These were the “two wings,” said Novak, that lifted the American Revolution, elevated upward toward the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of the founders’ intentions. Whereas the leaders of the American Revolution looked upward, the French Revolution looked elsewhere. Our revolution was a just cause, a righteous one; theirs was not. Ours was launched by a Declaration of Independence that appealed to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”  Whether that nation today, so conceived in liberty — and in faith — remains righteous is an open question. Yes, it’s a free nation, but it’s hard to call it a just nation. Today’s citizens of the United States of America are assaulting the faith of their founders and rejecting it outright, aggressively casting it aside, not unlike the Jacobins. One popular left-wing American magazine proudly calls itself, Jacobin. Many Americans no longer want the faith of their fathers.  Freedom, like reason, needs faith to sustain it. A nation cannot ascend to its noble heights on only one wing. A genuinely righteous nation needs both, in July 1776 and still today. The post The American Righteous Cause — Then and Now appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was the shock that was felt around the world. The reverberations are still causing tremors. This cataclysmic political event, the blank-stared stupor of a dementia patient broadcast to over 51 million Americans and millions more across the Atlantic, astonished even the most cynical of political observers. The bitter partisans in the media universally shielded their eyes and shrunk back in horror either because they were shaken and awed (they were not) or because they knew their credibility was now completely destroyed (it already was) or because their handlers in the deep state apparatus sent the word that Joe Biden must go down. No matter the reason, even these clapping monkeys couldn’t credibly tell Americans to deny their lying eyes. The gaslighting has begun again with renewed passion. A pretend doctor is pretending to be president. pic.twitter.com/J9LT2x1c2I — Scarlett Johnson (@scarlett4kids) July 2, 2024 For July 4 giggles and grins, I thought it might be fun to game out some “What Ifs” because this situation is unprecedented in American history. The actors making up the factions in this tableau are some of the most risible creatures walking the planet. Like all good totalitarians, for whom power isn’t just everything, it’s the only thing, the Democrats are locked into a vicious battle behind the scenes, with some metaphorical blood being spilled publicly. (See Scott McKay’s great post on the topic.) Often, these vicious imbeciles become literally violent. The joke about the Clinton associates un-aliving themselves over the years is nervous-laughter funny because murder isn’t implausible with these power-grasping gluttons. It’s the end result of their ideology. So let’s run some scenarios, shall we? The Democrats face a myriad of bad choices, and all of them portend real danger for them. More importantly, we live in the hell hole they’ve created and we suffer the consequences of whatever they decide. What if … Biden Stays? Today, to answer rumors of him stepping down, President Biden said, “Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running … no one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving. I’m in this race to the end and we’re going to win.” That’s pretty definitive. There are good reasons for Biden to stay. First, it delays legal exposure of his criminal enterprise. His most trusted adviser, Hunter Biden, who is now present for all White House meetings, including ones he’s not even invited to, has a lot to lose if dad isn’t president. Currently, President Trump has said that he would not prosecute any of the Biden kin. There are reasons to believe this is true. He left Hillary Clinton alone when there was a clear case to prosecute. Another reason to stay is that the tainted Democrat brand ship goes down with him and him alone. That is, the Democrats can regroup and come back in four years with a stronger candidate and dismiss Biden as Carter 2.0 and relegate him to the rocking chair. In this way, Democrat operatives and voters can salve their own consciences (yes, I know, that’s a big presumption) that it was the man not the policy that sent Democrats to their demise. The risks to this strategy are manifold. Chief among them: a total electoral wipeout. The polls are unkind to Biden, and the internal polling must be worse because there is general panic amongst the normally cool, calculating, and vote harvesting-organizing criminals who run the Democrat grassroots and organizing apparatus. Biden could lose Democrats not only the White House but defenestrate Democrats downballot. Could a 58-seat Republican majority in the Senate be in the offing? Could total Republican control be possible? This idea is sending shivers down the spines of every other elected Democrat. If Biden is 100 percent committed to staying in as he seems to be today, he better have damn good soup testers, and he better trust his dope dealers because he’s on death’s door, and no one would be surprised if the stress of the situation caused him a “stroke.” Conversely, those in Biden’s orbit, should he be committed to staying, better watch out. This man is mean and always has been. Kamala Harris has been floating her lead balloon over the voters and induced more body-crippling cringe than her boss did during the debate. How is this level of cringe even possible? (See below.) Anyway, she’s been showing signs of avarice and ambition, and she’s a terrible candidate. Biden could swap her out for someone more likable as veep. Expect him to punish those he feels are disloyal. Kamala Harris: “Yeah girl, I’m out here in these streets… The majority of us believe in freedom and equality, but these extremists, as they say, they not like us.” This is so bad…. pic.twitter.com/1PNrigFmof — ALX (@alx) July 1, 2024 Since Americans are disloyal to Biden, you all better watch out, too. Democrats bomb things and start wars when they’re perceived as weak. Expect bombs to be dropped somewhere. In the past, that might have helped Democrats, but Americans have had it up to their eyeballs with Biden’s foreign adventurism. Rage against him could grow. And even more alarm. A cornered Democrat is dangerous. America, and the world, is in grave danger. What if … Biden drops out and gives the $160 million to Kamala Harris? Just writing that is laughable. The idea of the Biden clan letting $160 million campaign dollars out of their meaty paws is almost impossible to fathom, but work with me here. There are benefits to this play. First, if Kamala Harris loses (she would, she’s terrible), that would take out the second-worst politician on the Democrat side and clear the field of two terrible candidates. Democrats are going to have to contend with her spine-tingling hyena-like bark as the “leader of the Democrat Party” as the Drudge headline blares today. If Biden stays on and then loses, Kamala is instantly the front-runner. No one likes her, but she possesses two key characteristics that will make the Democrat base (aka single women) happy: she is partially black and she’s female. Trump’s take on Kamala Harris is GOLD pic.twitter.com/4mCaJdyTOs — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 3, 2024 Another benefit to Biden if Kamala is the candidate and loses: It makes him look better. Hey, he was just giving the party what they wanted. They thought she had a better chance. They were wrong. Biden and his supporters can all pretend that he was the stronger candidate. It gives everyone a way to save face. Finally, it gives Democrats fuel for their Antifa and BLM rage: See, America is still racist and sexist (is that still a thing with transgenders? Oh, never mind, we’re in fantasy land anyway here) and deserves to be destroyed. The problem with this play is that it feels played out. The ante would have to be raised. It will be anyway, if Biden loses, but it would be of a magnitude worse if the psychotic women that make up the Dem party cut loose from their moorings. What if … Biden dies before the election? There will be a state funeral, lots of pretend weeping and gnashing of teeth, and calls for emergency fixes. Kamala becomes the top of the ticket, see above. What if … Biden’s Cabinet initiates Article 25? Well, now that would be a doozy. The Republicans are already drafting Article 25 paperwork and Chip Roy (R–TX) put forth the resolution with the support of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Will the Biden Cabinet be convened? Let’s defer to Scott McKay on this: Will the Biden cabinet depose their president? No. They won’t do it over the Fourth of July holiday, they won’t do it next week, they won’t do it this month. They won’t do it. (READ MORE: Biden Voters Get the Red Pill) You will not get anywhere asking Jennifer Granholm, Pete Buttigieg, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lloyd Austin, Antony Blinken, Xavier Becerra, and the rest of Biden’s collection of otherwise unwanted accomplices to depose the man who made them cabinet secretaries. In truth, these people have been central to maintaining the fraud of Biden’s mental competence for the last four years. For them to turn on Biden now is not going to be in their interests. The Republicans should continue to push this because it is the right thing to do. President Joe Biden does not have the capacity to preside. No one elected Jill Biden president. Her sing-song grade school teacher “Who’s a good boy?” routine with her husband was painful to watch. “You answered all the questions!!” she enthused like she was talking to a toddler who made it to the bathroom in time. If ever Article 25 was necessary, it is now. It won’t happen. What if … there’s a brokered convention? How strongly do I believe this is a possibility? Strongly enough to encourage our young writer Ellie Gardey Holmes to write a book about Gavin Newsom a year ago. Read about Newsom here, here, and here. Buy Ellie’s book here. The Democrats will have an interesting convention. Their candidate will not be the candidate until the delegates and superdelegates vote for their candidate. Could delegates throw their votes to other candidates? Yes. What would happen, for example, if California delegates decide to throw their votes toward Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom? What if the word goes out that Biden is toast, President Obama doesn’t want him, and the convention is going to be, in a sense, an open primary? Charles Pierce over at Esquire dismisses it out of hand and says this: The Brokered Convention is a glorious fantasy for people who cover politics and know absolutely nothing about political history. The 1924 Democratic convention in New York, to name just one example that’s been bandied about recently, was a four-star political calamity. It took the party 103 ballots to nominate a faceless lawyer named John W. Davis, largely because William McAdoo, a prohibitionist backed by the revived Ku Klux Klan, and New York governor Al Smith, the Catholic and a “wet,” couldn’t get out of each other’s way. Thus did Calvin Coolidge win his own full term as president. Imagine all that with social media and television. On second thought, don’t. The president is the candidate if he wants to be. If not, Vice President Harris is. All else is chaos. Don’t believe, no, don’t believe, don’t believe everything you hear… This makes sense, but there are a couple things to consider. First, Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, runs the Democrat Party. Two, no one likes Kamala Harris, even most black people. Now, black women might like her more than Trump, but that’s not saying much. These 6 percent of Democrat voters form a rock-solid base, but could they be made up by people switching away from Trump if a truly viable candidate appeared? More importantly, could vote harvesting be more plausible with a better candidate because the polling would be within the margin of error? Yes. The other thing to consider is that the Democrats are more monolithic than ever. They would have learned their lessons from that New York historical debacle and engineer one or two candidates to replace Biden. Who could that be? Gretchen Whitmer: She helps secure a Michigan win (she has a strong machine there). She’s female. She pretends to be moderate. She’s not old. Downsides: COVID policy. Name recognition. Gavin Newsom: He’s handsome. Vacuous in the way women love. He’s slick. He can raise money. He’s already been doing the presidential tour and also been overseas. If one of these candidates becomes the nominee, even if they lose, they win. Their loss can be ascribed to the last-minute nature of the nomination or political division. They also gain name recognition and elbow out Kamala as the presumed Democrat frontrunner. In addition, the convention becomes a way for frustrated Democrat factions to air their grievances, and more importantly, do something about them. Could the powers in the Democrat Party make this happen? I think so. Could Democrats potentially win against Trump doing this? I think this, too, is possible. President Trump has a vote-getting ceiling. The 20 percent of the GOP primary voters who wanted someone, anyone, other than Trump may be amenable to voting for a slick young Democrat who would promise them sweet things. Democrat voters and Never Trumpers (but I repeat myself) yearn for someone “cool” to vote for. This is about vanity. They put their credibility on the line for Biden, and they have been utterly humiliated. (Though their shamelessness seems to be a bottomless well.) Some of these folks, including Jen Rubin, have preposterously defended Biden even after the debate disaster. But these fickle pickles would jump at an opportunity to save face. A brokered convention lets them do this. Conclusion Don’t bet that the final word has been given on Joe Biden’s political future. Totalitarians are a sinister and malevolent bunch. They crave power, yearn for it, and their whole being is bent on having it. The idea of four years of Trump is unfathomable. Unconscionable! Expect blood to be spilt — both the metaphorical, and even the literal, kind, before this is all over. A Trump presidency is in the offing. A weak, injured Biden is cornered. Anything is possible. The post What If? Biden Edition appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Eight-thousand souls are deployed in a single carrier strike group. The multitude is spread across the aircraft carrier as well as its satellite submarines and destroyers. Every night afloat, the 1MC, the announcement system, sounds. These speakers — which would at other times call sailors to war or carry the captain’s instructions to his men when making ready to leave homeport for up to a year — at 2200 sound the voice of God. A prayer, theologically simple and universal but undoubtedly Christian, passes into the diesel enclosures, the reactor departments, and the ammunition storerooms. While the prayers are rendered, it is expected that all hands halt in their transits and receive the benediction. Sinners, all — some saved, others agnostic, and a few militantly atheistic — still themselves. The only lights allowed in most parts of the ship at night are red in order to reduce the distance that the illumination travels; it is in this scarlet glow that a sailor can feel the smallness of his sleeping rack (which measures 6.5 feet by 2.25 feet by 2.5 feet) and easily imagine himself as either Ebenezer Scrooge in his grave or Jonah in the belly of a mechanical whale. These moments are a comforting, unsettling, and blessed interlude in a day that, in all other aspects, is a simulacrum of the one that preceded it. The ancient maritime tradition of the evening prayer connects those souls with the multitudes who did the same in those very racks.  This article is taken from The American Spectator’s latest print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. Our mariners need ministering, but men of the cloth are difficult to come by. This must change, for almost nowhere is there a more profound need for the spiritually palliative effects of God’s love. Like the country it protects, the military is spiritually adrift. But while civilian pastors must compete with seemingly endless distractions for their flock, the chaplaincy has the opportunity to reach out to servicemen who are away from many of those distractions (phones, freedom, etc.).  While this may sound exploitative to the skeptic — “Ha ha, yes, get the troops Christianized through coercive, state-funded proselytizers” — it’s more true that deployments are a rare opportunity for a young man or woman to reflect on mortality. This was certainly true for me. Adolescence is frenetic, and kids operate off of preloaded scripts from parents or reject those scripts with just as much carelessness. In such instances, when the specter of death looms large, sailors or marines require a confidant outside the chain of command with whom to work through human emotions and existential dread. This is the good and proper role of the chaplain, who, unlike a psychologist, can do more than offer coping strategies — he can offer eternal perspective while occupying a nonmedical role in a serviceman’s life. Oftentimes, those who seek help through counseling are viewed by shipmates as broken or as a liability. The chaplain, while uniformed, occupies a liminal space between medicine, hierarchy, and fraternity.  Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Unfortunately for our deployed forces, there simply are not enough chaplains to go around. The US military has fewer than 6,000 chaplains to serve its 1.4 million active-duty members, with the best ratios of chaplains to servicemen going to the Air Force, which has a chaplain for every 146 airmen, and the Army, which has a chaplain for every 162 soldiers. Meanwhile, the Marines and Navy, joint branches, share 800 chaplains between them for an unacceptable ratio of one chaplain for every 643 sailors and marines. The Navy recently announced an effort to get chaplains aboard every surface combatant — destroyers, cruisers, and the like — but, for now, the chaplains that are available to a carrier strike group are often exclusively on the carrier. With a crew of over 5,000 on an aircraft carrier, the chaplain has more than enough to occupy himself aboard that one vessel, so he may only visit the other ships a couple of times during a deployment. Having not worked and eaten alongside the crews of those smaller vessels, the chaplain will find that the sailors have little reason to seek his counsel outside of moments of acute distress — and those who do sign up for the few available appointments will be scrutinized by their peers for weakness. While that scrutiny may seem uncharitable, the reality is that deployments introduce petty rivalries, frustrations, and dramaturgy that civilians — who only deal with their coworkers for 40 hours a week — cannot understand.  Having a full-time chaplain on board offers organic interaction that can more naturally engender personal dialogue in a way a four-hour stop could never produce. A fleet chaplain, Captain Richard Ryan, put it this way in an interview with the military news service Defense Visual Information Distribution Service: “There’s an old saying that no one cares what you know until they know that you care. That saying is rooted in relationships. That’s chaplaincy care. Just being there and being available can mean the world to someone going through a difficult time. It’s those moments that I treasure the most.” Art by Bill Wilson Such a change would be expensive in terms of manpower and would require serious recruiting efforts from Christian sects, especially the Catholic Church. The Catholic World Report writes: “In 1965, with U.S. Catholic population around 50 million, 95 percent of the country’s 36,467 diocesan priests were engaged in active ministry; last year, 73.5 million Catholics were being served by 66 percent of the 24,110 priests (most of the other 34 percent were retired). Ordinations dropped from 805 in 1970 to 451 last year.” Still, an increasing cultural unfamiliarity with Catholic rites and representation brought about an episode in which priests were barred from practicing at a VA hospital after a for-profit religious services group won the chaplaincy contract despite having no priests to conduct Roman Catholic services and sacraments. Catholic believers need their priests, and Rome, to fight for them.  Protestants, especially low-church evangelicals, have picked up most of the slack for those who wish to be buried beneath a cross. However, the Protestants aren’t able to entirely fulfill demand either, which is worrisome for a couple of reasons. The first is that it increases the chances that other religious groups — Islam and pagans, foremost — may fill those positions. Call me bigoted, but I want Christian chaplains. Islam and paganism in their many forms are antithetical to American ideals, and we should tolerate them but do all we can to limit their influence in the armed services.  To be sure, it has never been a more challenging time to serve as a chaplain, outside, of course, of war: chaplains now face demands that they preside over non-Christian ceremonies and questions about how to handle same-sex “marriages.” For instance, there was a controversy at Fort Bragg in North Carolina that involved a Baptist chaplain, Jerry Squires, who faced confinement in military prison because the Army alleged that he had engaged in discrimination by not allowing a same-sex couple to attend a marriage retreat he was leading. The chaplain testified that he had attempted to find another chaplain to take over the retreat, and, because he was endorsed by the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board, an organization that does not affirm same-sex marriage, he was within his rights to opt out.   Persecution by protocol and peers is not new to the armed forces, of course, with the story of Desmond Doss, World War II’s pacifist-medic-turned-superman, standing out as a powerful example. Nevertheless, for those of principled faith, serving can be daunting, especially with the current administration’s prejudice against Christian teaching. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need chaplains who teach the truth and can be turned to when on patrol in the valley of the shadow of death. It’s a heavy calling, but it will be fulfilled by lesser alternatives if Christian men do not answer it. Luther Ray Abel is the Nights & Weekends Editor for National Review. He is a veteran of the Navy. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print magazine on the future of religion in America. The post Chaplains Needed appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It is painfully clear what evil lurks ahead if Americans foolishly fail to elect Donald Trump as our 47th president. On one hand, by now it should be a shoo-in for President Trump 45 to “Do the Grover” and notch 47, too.  If serious national polls show him ahead of Biden by 3 to 7 points, recall that two exceptionally populous blue states, New York and California, provide lopsided numbers for Biden. In a process that is based on the Electoral College, Trump’s standing today therefore is even stronger than the numbers suggest. However, Americans include as many foolish voters as perspicacious ones, and nothing ever is certain. Can you imagine placing your nation’s future, your own and family’s safety and security, your financial stability and capability to pay for food and keep a roof over your head, all based on the voting recommendation of a filthy dirtmouth like Cardi B or a nonbinary TikTok influencer whose skin is so completely covered by tattoos and piercings that, for a skin-cancer check-up, they need to see a metallurgist or painting authenticator instead of a dermatologist? Should an intelligent person vote based on what Taylor Swift or her latest male BFF thinks or a favorite basketball player or Julia Roberts or George Clooney? To ask the question is to answer it. Yet, fools comprising half the electorate often do just that. So nothing is certain. Mothers who cry bitterly on television after their precious children, while reading innocently in their bedrooms, get murdered by outside drive-by gangfire still vote again — and again thereafter for eternity — for the same inner-city Democrat politicians and district attorneys whose policies give rise to those drive-bys. Those who bewail the abductions and rape-murders of close friends and relatives by illegal aliens still repeat-vote for the same politicians who open the sealed border to the “undocumented” entrants who are multi-documented experienced rapists. That’s how fools vote. So nothing is guaranteed — even amid the Democrats’ Biden Panic of 2024. Let’s say, therefore, that Joe gets the nod even as he is nodding off. What then? Each and every person in this country and around the world, from the Aborigines of Australia to the Ilhans of Somalia, regardless of how little they follow or understand politics, knows Biden will not serve four more years. Given how much he declined in four years from his Obama Veep days to the 2020 election, when he actually had to be sequestered in a basement throughout the campaign, and how much more severely he has declined before all the world between his 2020 election and his recent 2024 debate performance, he may already be gone and certainly will not be about his wits (using the term liberally) as late as 2028 — 1,461 days hence. It may be derivative of his age, but it truly has nothing to do with his age per se.  Betty White still was there at 99. So was my beloved and honored father-in-law, dear Robert Groh of blessed memory, who was born on the same day as she, and passed away the same week. We all know of people in their 90s who still are wise. Many Supreme Court justices — left and right — remain very sharp, even wiser with more age and experience, well into their 80s, sometimes 90s. Likewise, many of the greatest rabbinic scholars and “Torah giants,” as they are known. Also many great popes. Queen Elizabeth II was sharp through age 96. The current Dalai Lama is 89. Pope John Paul II was a powerful world spiritual force to age 85. Pope Benedict XVI still had an influence beyond age 95. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was vibrant through age 93. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein to age 91. It is not about age. It is about the bells clanging, the lights flashing, but no train coming. So Biden definitively will not make it four more years before the 25th Amendment outranks the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, the 14th, and every other Amendment out there in news coverage. The 25th will catch up with him any day now, and definitely before November 2028. Which brings us to the impending ugliest catfight of all time (UCOAT). Of all time. In one corner, Dr. Jill Biden Ed.D. (By the way, why aren’t all law school graduates, all of whom are conferred a “J.D.” (Juris Doctor), also titled “Doctor” the way that this Doctor of Education is?) It never has been more clear to the American public that Dr. Jill has been dominating Joe’s head and running Joe’s life for many years, at least since he lost it. It never has been more clear. Not only does she lead him forward, backward, left, right, up, and down — all of which might be deemed simply as decent spousal caregiving for a physical handicap akin to those affecting FDR or Gov. Greg Abbott. Beyond that, Dr. Jill encourages him to nibble on her finger as long as he does not bite. If she wants him to roll over, he will roll over. On the rare occasion that she is not on site, he needs Jill surrogates to do it, like Easter rabbits. She is the power behind that throne, such as it is. Dr. Jill is politically smarter than Hillary or Michelle ever were. They let their obsessions for power show. Dr. Jill masks it because she knows that results are what count, not column inches. So the media cover Joe and his various apologists while Dr. Jill sits back and influences. If she truly loved him, she would have persuaded him privately months ago, when his polls were better, to announce a decision to pass the torch to a new generation. If she truly loved him, she would not want to see him further subject himself to the punishing demands of the presidency, the 3 a.m. wake-ups (after the non-presidential 2:30 a.m. wake-ups). He already had achieved his legacy: the presidency of the United States. He had made it through before senility overwhelmed. Now in his later years, flush with more cash than he and Hunter ever will need, he and she could have looked forward to spending several years traveling the world, giving low-value interviews, adorning magazine covers, sitting front-center at Broadway plays on opening nights, writing books, being guests of honor throughout the world, being feted and honored everywhere, offering advice, and spending time with grandchildren. But she did not do that because his retirement would have taken away her power, whatever is left of it. And that is the catfight contender in one corner. In the other corner is someone so painfully stupid that she actually is smart, sort of like Columbus sailing to India and ending up in America. Kamala ran for president in 2020, correctly called out Biden as a lifelong racist, told a tear-jerker about being on a school bus, and then sank a few weeks later like the murder victim dumped in a cement bag at 1:27-1:43 in “Mack the Knife” — super fast and super deep. She was finished politically on the national stage. End of annoying interlude. And then along came Biden, and he went on a DEI spree. Transportation secretary? Homosexual (totally incapable of handling train and airline crises). United Nations ambassador? Black woman (albeit quite intelligent). Press spokesperson? A two-fer: Black lesbian (dumb as a doornail). Supreme Court justice? Black woman (thoroughly undistinguished career, frequently overturned on appeal, even by Democrat appellate judges, unable to define “woman”). And vice president? Black woman, part Indian, part Jamaican. Stupid as they come, as proven not by nasty name-calling but simply by her own performance for four years on the national stage. Even so, as painfully moronic as Kamala is, someone in her camp finally has figured it out: If Biden-Harris are elected this November, and given that Biden assuredly will not make it four more years before the 25th Amendment discharges him, she will become the president of the United States of Americ. Believe it or not. Do you see where this leads? Two deeply ambitious women, no different from Hillary and Michelle but better positioned by the vacuum at the top, with diametrically opposing interests will be left on the central stage in Washington to duke it out for the right to rise above dutchess. If Joe outmaneuvers the 25th, then Dr. Jill remains holding power.  If the 25th outmaneuvers Joe, then Kamala becomes Kween. The decision will come down to Biden’s cabinet, and the lobbying behind the scenes will be furious. The promises, the threats, the payoffs, the punishments. Dr. Jill’s surrogates will make clear that Joe (i.e., she) will remember who votes for him (i.e., her) to remain in office and will not forget those who vote against. Kamala’s surrogates will do the same. There will be vitriol, threats, intrigue. And, in the end, it will come down to the Ugliest Catfight of All Time. The Catfight in ’25 over the 25th. READ MORE: The Worst Week in Memory for Democrats Who Can Remember Biden Slouches Toward November The post Kamala v. Jill: The Ugly Catfight Ahead appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

YOU CAN NOW CALL IN and send us videos to react to by signing up to https://wearechange.org/subscribe/ Please super chat/donate via: https://streamlabs.com/infowrc/tip $10.00+ = displayed on screen $49.99+ = read/answer $99+ = INSTANT TTS (text to speech) $199+ = Canadian school teacher Cohost - https://www.youtube.com/@LibertyLockdown Ian's channel - https://www.youtube.com/@IanCrossland Subscribe to our main channel http://Youtube.com/WeAreChange

by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit: Anyone paying attention already knows that the left thinks the First Amendment goes too far.  And by going too far, they mean letting conservatives share their opinions and hamstringing the government’s ability to crack down on speech they don’t like. And they have no problem, or shame sharing, this […]