Hope for conservatism in Canada

Some readers might recall that three months ago Trudeau’s Liberal party in Canada suffered a terrible by-election blow when it lost an inner-city Toronto seat that had been held by the Liberals for aeons. To the shock of many, this past June Team Trudeau lost this blue-ribbon inner Toronto seat to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives by 633 votes. That was bad for Justin. It was also bad for Chrystia Freeland, the Liberal party Deputy Prime Minister, as this by-election loss was for a seat that was next door to her own in the inner-city heartlands of Toronto.

(Second note to readers: the opposition Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre did not throw together lefty policies to try to cater to this inner-city seat full of wokesters. He simply explained how real conservative policies would help them; he shunned all the focus group risk-averse crap; and he ran knowing he could easily win the next general election without such seats but that if the voters in this inner-city constituency wanted to jettison Trudeau they’d be most welcome to come aboard a party with actual conservative values and policies. This approach produced a stunning upset win.)

That was three months ago in June. Then just two weeks ago there were two more by-elections in Canada. One was in Manitoba in the west of Canada where the Liberals generally do badly (to the extent that in the 1980 general election the Liberals won a majority government while taking only two seats, all up, in the four western provinces). And in this just held Manitoba by-election the Liberal candidate won – wait for it – only 4.8 per cent of the vote. Ouch! That is strikingly bad even for the Liberal party in western Canada. The other by-election from two weeks ago took place in Montreal in one of the most historically famous Liberal party constituencies in the country. At the last general election the Liberals had won the seat by over 10,000 votes. Yet in this by-election they lost the seat by 248 votes to the separatist French-Canadian party the Bloc Quebecois that only runs candidates in Quebec. The Liberals gained only 27 per cent of the vote in the by-election. This, by the way, is a riding or constituency that has been held by a former Canadian Liberal prime minister. Hence this was a very, very bad result for Justin.

And what was the Canadian Prime Minister’s response to these two brutal by-election defeats? You can’t make this up. It was a combination of two things.There was the trite, vacuous, vapid, hackneyed, platitudinous slogans that up until recently had served Justin so well – ‘there is lots to reflect on’ and ‘we need to stay focused’ type verbiage. And then there was the blame-shifting founded on a core level sanctimony and smugness. After the two by-election losses Trudeau announced that, ‘Canadians need to be more engaged.’ Got that? He seems to think that he lost because the dumb plebs and Hillary Clinton-type deplorables weren’t paying attention to all the supposedly good things he and his government were doing. (Leave aside that on nearly every front the Canadian economy is bad, the government’s ‘accomplishments’ near-on non-existent and the Trudeau carbon tax is massively unpopular.

Pierre Poilievre promises to get rid of the Trudeau carbon tax; get rid of the federal EV mandate; and get rid of the Trudeau ban on crude oil tankers off British Columbia’s north coast. The lefties are saying Poilievre will ‘lay waste to Trudeau’s environmental legislative legacy’. Oh, and don’t forget that Mr Poilievre continues to pledge to halve the budget of the national broadcaster CBC TV and to turn the broadcaster’s posh head offices into social housing units. When a leader is chosen by the paid-up party members – as in Canada, where there are now over 750,000 Conservative party members who alone can vote for leader and only they can remove him – you can observe this thing known as ‘a backbone’ in right-of-centre party leaders because the views of the party room Black Hand types do not determine policy.)

As I said at the start, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is in deep, deep do-do. He is in his ninth year as PM. His first election win was a big majority government followed by two minority government wins. When Trudeau first won office back in 2015 he scored 63 per cent approval, a sky-high number. Today, after the left-wing economic policies, all the lockdown thuggery, the waning appeal of his vapid pretty boy routine, Trudeau’s approval rating sits at 28 per cent. A few Liberal party MPs are starting to say out loud that Justin should step down.

Polls have consistently shown Trudeau’s Liberals to be about 20 – yes, 20 – points behind Poilievre’s Conservatives. (And in my entire life I don’t recall a Tory party that far ahead in the polls. The Tories lead in every province save Quebec. A couple of recent polls have indicated the Liberals might come in fourth – yes, fourth – in the next election. There are now 343 MPs in Canada’s Lower House, the House of Commons, and some polls put in doubt whether the Liberals can win even 35 of those 343 – so just inner-city Montreal, the bureaucratic capital city of Ottawa (which is like Canberra in being allergic to conservative outlooks), and maybe a few inner-city Toronto ones.

All of this is why the further-left NDP party earlier this month tore up its minority government coalition agreement with Trudeau’s Liberal party. Canada has five-year terms and the next election could be dragged out till as late as next October. But the NDP is just watching to see when a general election might see it replace the Libs as the main party of the left. It’s balancing that against the clear likelihood of a big Tory win and postponing that for another while. But the odds of the NDP pulling the plug on Trudeau go up with every bad poll and every passing day.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/canadian-lessons-for-the-coalition/

*************************************************

Get Ready for Another Mail-In Ballot Fiasco

Many states are sending out mail-in ballots now for the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Yet at the same time that so many more voters are depending on the mail to cast their ballots, the two leading national organizations of election officials wrote the U.S. Postal Service to demand immediate action to avoid confusion and chaos with mail-in ballots.

“We implore you to take immediate and tangible corrective action to address the ongoing performance issues with USPS election mail service,” wrote the National Association of State Election Directors and the National Association of Secretaries of State. “Failure to do so will risk limiting voter participation and trust in the election process.”

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, mail-in ballots accounted for 43% of the electorate in 2020, an increase of 20 percentage points from 2016.

The letter’s list of problems should alarm anyone thinking of voting through the mail instead of going to a polling place to vote in person. That includes U.S. Postal Service staff nationwide who “are uninformed about USPS policies around election mail,” resulting in “significantly delayed, or otherwise improperly processed” absentee ballots.

“Timely postmarked ballots” are being received “10 or more days after postmark,” the election officials wrote, demonstrating USPS’s “inability to meet their own service delivery deadlines.”

This letter follows a July report from the USPS Office of Inspector General, which warned that its audit of primaries in 13 states found that 2.99% of mail-in ballots reached voters too late and 1.83% were returned to election offices after their legal deadlines. Its list of horror stories included the discovery that “local management at one facility stated they were not aware primary Election Day was that week.”

That means that almost 5% of voters are being disenfranchised, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of votes across the country.

There are reports of other nightmares. Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab said he is “extremely concerned” that in the August primary, 2% of ballots sent by mail were not counted “due to USPS administrative failures.”

“The Pony Express is more efficient at this point,” said Schwab.

In July, Utah had a photo-finish Republican congressional primary where the victory margin was 176 votes. But nearly 1,200 mail-in ballots were not counted because they were first sent to a Las Vegas distribution center and not postmarked on time. Most of those ballots were in a county that was carried 2 to 1 by the candidate who ultimately lost.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has sued Nevada officials for failure to fix obvious errors on the voter rolls. The organization has found hundreds of questionable voter addresses that include strip clubs, casinos, bars, vacant lots, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants.

“Nevada’s policy of automatically mailing a ballot to every active registered voter makes it essential that election officials have accurate voter rolls and are not mailing ballots to addresses where no one lives,” the legal foundation notes.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation also points out that in 2022, Nevada’s U.S. Senate race was decided by 7,928 votes, which determined party control of that body. Nevada’s secretary of state, PILF noted, “published figures showing that 95,556 ballots were sent to undeliverable or ‘bad’ addresses and another 8,036 were rejected upon receipt.” Also: “Another 1.2 million ballots never came back to officials for counting.”

This year, Nevada has another competitive Senate race that could determine the Senate majority.

Nationwide, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reports that of the almost 91 million mailed ballots sent to voters in all states in 2020, only 70 million were returned.

What happened to the others? Some weren’t filled out. But other completed ballots were probably lost by an increasingly inefficient Postal Service.

And election officials complained in their letter to the USPS that election mail being “sent to voters” is being returned as “undeliverable” at a “higher than usual rate.” Some voters registered more than once got more than one ballot.

At least 1.1 million ballots went to outdated addresses. Some may have gone to vacant lots and businesses. Some 500,000 were rejected by election officials when they were returned, often due to voter errors that could have been corrected by election officials if the voters had cast their ballots in person.

Registration lists are notoriously chock-full of ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited to commit fraud. Ballots cast by mail can become the object of intimidation and vote-buying schemes.

In 2005, a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker pointed out that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The New York Times admitted in 2012 that “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth.”

Little has changed. In 2019, a congressional race in North Carolina was thrown out over mail-in ballots gathered through illegal vote trafficking. A judge ordered a new election in the Bridgeport, Connecticut, mayor’s race last year after a video appeared to show two women stuffing large numbers of suspect absentee ballots into drop boxes.

In New York, three Rensselaer County officials are on trial this month, accused of mail-in ballot fraud. A former GOP elections commissioner who has already pleaded guilty testified that looser post-COVID mail-in procedures make it much easier to commit voter fraud.

Before Election Day, Postal Service officials must address concerns about delays and mishandling of absentee ballots. Sloppy U.S. voting rules on everything from vote trafficking by third parties to lax or nonexistent ID laws in many states make it vital there be election observers watching every aspect of the voting and tabulation process.

And after the weeks of litigation and delays in counting that a tsunami of mail-in ballots will no doubt create, we should rethink the advice of those who disparage in-person voting and assure us “that the ballots are in the mail.”

After all, if you won the lottery, would you mail your ticket in or appear in person to claim your jackpot?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/25/get-ready-another-mail-in-ballot-fiasco/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

In Speech on Economy, Trump Calls for ‘New American Industrialism’

“To the autoworkers in Michigan, Georgia, and all other parts of our country, I am pinpointing you for greatness,” former President Donald Trump said in a campaign speech on Tuesday.

In a rally held in Savannah, Georgia, Trump laid out his economic vision for the United States if he is reelected in November. His message focused on reviving domestic manufacturing.

Georgia is a key swing state that’s being courted heavily by both Trump and his Democratic opponent for the presidency, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump called his economic policies “new American industrialism,” where the focus will be on bringing offshored manufacturing jobs back to the United States. The 45th president said that, for years, other countries have stripped American jobs and wealth, but added he would “put America first.”

He said that under his leadership “American workers will no longer be worried about losing [their] jobs to foreign nations. Instead, foreign nations will be worried about losing their jobs to America.”

While many vital industries have moved to other counties in recent years, Trump said, he has a plan to bring them back and restore American prosperity.

“This New American Industrialism will create millions of jobs, massively raise wages for American workers, and make the United States into a manufacturing powerhouse,” he said. “We will be able to build ships again. We will be able to build airplanes again. We will become the world leader in robotics. The U.S. auto industry will once again be the envy of the planet.”

To make that happen, the former president said he would incentivize American companies to hire American workers while reducing burdens to economic growth:

I will give you the lowest taxes, the lowest energy costs, the lowest regulatory burden, and free access to the best and biggest market on the planet—but only if you make your product here in America and hire American workers for the job.

If you don’t make your product here, then you will have to pay a very substantial tariff when you send your product into the United States.

Trump proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% for companies that make their products in the U.S. Harris has proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 28%. The rate currently is 21%.

The former president said that his policies—which focus on rebuilding American industry and creating energy independence—would strengthen the American economy, but that Harris’ policies were too “radical” and would damage the country. He said that while Harris was fine with jobs going overseas, she would place heavy taxes on American companies.

“Kamala the tax queen is demanding a 33% tax hike on all domestic production,” Trump said. This will make companies flee elsewhere, he said.

Worse, Trump said that Harris’ proposal to tax unrealized capital gains would be catastrophic and would send the country into a depression.

“This woman is grossly incompetent,” he said.

He said that the Biden-Harris administration has imported millions of illegal aliens who are lowering wages and taking American jobs.

“So, as we create millions of new manufacturing jobs here in Georgia and nationwide, we will make sure these jobs go to American citizens, not illegal aliens,” Trump said.

Heritage Foundation economic policy expert E.J. Antoni wrote in June that while unemployment has been falling in recent years, most of the job growth has been among foreign-born workers.

“Over the last year, employment rose 637,000 for foreign-born workers, but fell 299,000 for native-born Americans,” Antoni wrote. “There are fewer native-born Americans employed today than before the [COVID-19] pandemic; meaning, American workers have made no progress in over four years. In fact, they’ve fallen behind.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/24/trump-calls-new-american-industrialism-speech-economy/

***************************************************************

UK: Are the Tories brave enough to be conservative?

The Conservative party is out of power – and that’s not easy if you’ve been in power for more than a decade. Even after a short spell in government there are certain aspects of life that you miss. The drivers and others who used to manage your life and get you around. The legions of advisers. The security detail (if you held one of the high offices of state). And the civil servants who do your bidding.

That last one is a joke, of course. I know most readers will, like me, have found it difficult to listen to Conservative ministers complaining about civil servants during their 14 years in power. There might well have been cause to moan that civil servants were all a bunch of lazy lefties for the first couple of years. But after four election victories – or three and a half depending on how you count them – complaints that the bureaucrats are thwarting your wishes come to seem like an excuse. Surely 14 years is time enough to hire new bureaucrats?

Whoever wins the leadership race will discover they have two things they can wield: words and ideas

Then you get a reminder that riding the bureaucracy put in by a previous Labour administration did have consequences. In July, an anonymous civil servant wrote a piece in the Guardian in which they said that the general mood in the civil service after Keir Starmer’s election victory was ‘a profound sense of relief’. The then incoming Chief Secretary to the Treasury had ‘purred’ that ‘the adults are back in the room’. Another long-serving official said: ‘I’ve never been so glad to see the back of a government – of any colour.’ So it is fair to say the Tories certainly had their challenges in trying to steer that ship, not only against the tides but against the will of much of the crew.

Today the Conservatives don’t even have that power. They have nothing to hand. But, as I was reminded recently when reading a couple of books about Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, that does not mean they are completely without arms. Whoever wins the Conservative leadership race will discover that they have two things they can wield: words and ideas. And these two things are not nothing.

When Reagan was out of power in the 1970s, these were all he had, but gosh did he wield them well. Spurred on by his friendship with Buckley and other conservative thinkers, he realised that he had the opportunity to lay out a different vision from that of his Democrat opponents. That vision was not just about nipping around the edges of Democrat policies, but about laying out a separate idea of what America was and what it could be.

Reagan’s vision was one that most conservatives have been able to rattle off for the past five decades: a smaller state, fiscal responsibility, strong defence. Today’s conservatives sometimes do a copy of this. Or a copy of a copy. They talk about free markets, but it’s not always clear that they know what to do to let them flourish. I know it’s not good form to kick someone when they’re down, but it didn’t reassure me when, after leaving office, Liz Truss gave a video interview to this magazine in which she said that conservatives must make the case for free-market economics and, in listing the intellectual foundations for this, referred to the thinker ‘Hay-ak’. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but one got the impression that this was not a name that she had heard said out loud before.

Now, whoever becomes Conservative leader has a choice. They could shadow the Labour government, making comments about wardrobe allowances here, complaining about a national insurance hike there, or they could lay out a different future for the country. One in which, for instance, the state is not the answer to everything, but very often the problem. A country which doesn’t think that the only thing needed to improve public services is more investment. One in which if you do well, half of everything you earn doesn’t go to the government. They could also address the social divisions in Britain that everyone can see but that politicians find almost impossible to address.

The other week one of the Conservative leadership frontrunners, Kemi Badenoch, made reference to the highly sectarian group of MPs to the left of Labour who seem to want to introduce communitarian politics to the UK, specifically by raising issues which they believe will get them ‘the Muslim vote’ (to use the name that one Muslim campaigning group actually calls itself).

What Badenoch said was entirely fair. But one of her supporters was cast in the unenviable position of being her surrogate on talk shows that week and he was asked about her comments. It was an opportunity to give a robust push-back to the expectations of this country’s boring gotcha television interviewers, but you could hear the poor man flailing. Perhaps because he had the disadvantage of being male and white, this was terrain he was especially unhappy on. You could actually hear the man’s mouth dry up as the interview went on.

And yet the Conservative party cannot have truths about the nature of our country policed by the Beth Rigbys of the world, wherever they think the Overton Window of politics should be. If the Conservatives are going to stand any chance of getting back into government they will have to be able to say things that are true – even if they are unpopular with journalists at Sky News.

To do that they will need not just a small degree of bravery but a considerable amount of intellectual and moral grounding. Fortunately they have it, here and elsewhere. I am reminded of what Buckley said at the fifth anniversary dinner for his magazine, National Review: ‘We are probably destined to live out our lives in something less than a totally harmonious relationship with our times.’ Nevertheless, he added that conservatives could take comfort in knowing ‘that for so long as it is mechanically possible, you have a journal, a continuing witness to those truths which animated the birth of our country, and continue to animate our lives’.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/are-the-tories-brave-enough-to-be-conservative/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Say what you want, Bibi and Trump have been vindicated on Mid-East policy

The tragic conflict unfolding in southern Lebanon holds the strangest geostrategic lesson: that the two most reviled democratic leaders in politics today, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, actually understand the Middle East better than most foreign policy professionals. This includes, sad to say, the fatuous posturings of our own government.

Israel’s broad strategic aim against Hezbollah in Lebanon is to remove the constant threat to northern Israeli communities. Rocket attacks are one thing, but after October 7 these communities can’t tolerate the danger of cross-border terror incursions

More than 60,000 Israeli residents have been internally displaced now for nearly a year. This moves Israel’s effective border kilometres inside its nominal border. The October 7 terrorist atrocities have had a similar effect on Israeli communities near Gaza.

Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, smaller than the equivalent of one-third of Tasmania. On every land border it faces enemies or recent enemies. It has been subject to repeated conventional military attack by massed armies, and every possible form of terrorism.

Hezbollah is a Shi’ite terrorist organisation, unlike Hamas, which is Sunni. Both are funded by Iran’s Shi’ite regime. All three are united by a profound anti-Semitism, by an explicit determination to exterminate Israel and by a religious commitment to an Islamist political order.

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated, with Israel launching its most intense bombardment in southern Lebanon following Hezbollah's rocket attacks. President Isaac Herzog denied claims that Israel targeted Hezbollah's communication…
Israel’s strike through exploding message pagers against Hezbollah terrorists was the most precisely targeted military action in modern warfare. Everyone with a pager was a Hezbollah operative. Hezbollah, like Hamas, is proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Australian law.

Yet the Albanese government criticised Israel’s actions. Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets into Israel since October 7 and has long planned October 7-style murderous raids. The Albanese government claims Israel has a right to defend itself but condemns every single act of self-defence Israel takes or could possibly take.

This exemplifies the undergraduate hollowness of everything the government says on this issue. The Albanese government is neither good enough to be good, nor bad enough to be really bad. It lacks the courage of its convictions, it also lacks the courage of its lack of convictions. Abstaining on a plainly offensive UN resolution, which contradicts Australian policy in many ways, rather than just opposing it, illustrates the wretched, dismaying, morally bankrupt nature of Canberra’s approach.

There is no reason for any hostility between Israel and Lebanon. Both are wondrous cradles of civilisation. Australia is the beneficiary of magnificent Lebanese migration over many years. If Hezbollah didn’t constantly attack Israel, there would be no military conflict between them. Hezbollah’s hatred of Israel is ideological, religious, ethnic and tribal. It has caused immense suffering to the Lebanese people.

Yet while Israel is right to reclaim security for its northern towns and villages, the most it can hope for out of these actions is temporary tactical accommodation. Ordinary Lebanese hate the drama and misery that Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel inevitably bring to Lebanon when Israel retaliates.

Israel’s calculation is not only to degrade Hezbollah’s military capabilities but cause enough reaction within Lebanon itself that, for a time at least, Hezbollah returns to an uneasy truce. Israel will want Hezbollah personnel to stay some kilometres away from its border. Israeli towns can live with the danger of rocket attacks. The Israeli Iron Dome intercepts most of them and Israeli civilians are well drilled about air raid shelters.

But they can’t live with the spectre of October 7-style atrocities at a moment’s notice.

So how does this relate to my initial contention that Trump and Netanyahu were historically right and conventional wisdom historically wrong?

Netanyahu once told me in an interview, as he explained to others countless times, that his long-term aim for peace with the Palestinians was “outside in”. That is, that Israel would make peace with its neighbours first. This would lead to a long period of normalisation and eventually, in such an atmosphere, peace with the Palestinians would be possible.

This contradicted every theological dogma of conventional international relations, slavishly held by all Democrat politicians and officials in Washington, and which was of course the wholly derivate Labor Party view here, that the Palestinian issue had to be settled before there could be any broader peace.

Trump, through the Abraham Accords – peace treaties Israel signed with several of its Arab and North African neighbours – gave life to Netanyahu’s dream.

Here’s a key historical point. All up, including the initial partition of the land in 1947, Israel has offered Palestinians their own state four times on the most generous terms imaginable. Don’t take my word for it. Read the memoirs of Bill Clinton and his senior officials.

On each occasion the Palestinian leadership has rejected peace, either because of a hatred of Israel or a rational fear that whichever Palestinian leader makes peace will be assassinated. Until 10 minutes ago, the vast majority of Israeli society supported a two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state. But such an outcome involves enormous risk for Israel, with its tiny territory, and must include binding, credible security guarantees that the Palestinian state won’t be the launching ground for attacks on Israel.

Yet we know that Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and a number of other key actors are dedicated, in their core ideology, to destroying Israel. This history, and this reality, have turned Israelis against any near-term two-state solution.

Therefore, the best hope is to try to “normalise” life as much as possible, including Palestinian life, and revisit sovereignty negotiations down the track. I once had a long discussion with one of Israel’s most hardline politicians who had come to support Palestinian self-government under Israeli control as the best chance of achieving normalisation.

If you got 10 years of normalisation, I asked, would you then support Palestinian sovereignty? Show me the normalisation first, he replied. But with normalisation and a reasonable expectation of peace, Israelis would return to supporting a two-state solution. Before the October 7 attacks Netanyahu allowed billions of dollars of Arab aid into Gaza and also allowed thousands of Gazans to work in Israel for decent wages.

Hamas rendered all that impossible by its barbaric attacks. Tony Blair didn’t resolve the conflicting national and sovereign ambitions in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday peace agreement. He produced instead an arrangement of normalisation, in which sectarian violence became deeply abnormal, as it always should have been.

In retrospect the worst Israeli intelligence failure was not to see that the prospect of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace deal would lead Iran and its proxies, whether Hamas or Hezbollah, to take extreme action to derail it. The October 7 attack succeeded in that derailment.

It’s impossible to say anything more unfashionable than the next sentence, which is nonetheless true: when the dust settles, it will be the Netanyahu/Trump approach that offers the best chance of peace. But that’s a long way off now.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/say-what-you-want-bibi-and-trump-have-been-vindicated-on-mideast-policy/news-story/223c9644a21a89542370a26652573ba0

*********************************************************

Biden’s diplomatic magical thinking

As tensions escalate and bombs fall across the Middle East, President Biden’s emissaries continue to urge all parties to calm down and dial back the violence.

No one is listening, and this brings us to the central paradox of a troubled presidency stumbling toward an inglorious close. Mr Biden may love diplomacy, but diplomacy doesn’t love him back.

No administration in American history has been as committed to Middle East diplomacy as this one. Yet have an administration’s diplomats ever had less success?

Mr Biden tried and failed to get Iran back into a nuclear agreement with the U.S. He tried and failed to get a new Israeli-Palestinian dialogue on track. He tried and failed to stop the civil war in Sudan. He tried and failed to get Saudi Arabia to open formal diplomatic relations with Israel. He tried to settle the war in Yemen through diplomacy, and when that failed and the Houthis began attacking shipping in the Red Sea, the ever-undaunted president sought a diplomatic solution to that problem too. He failed again.

For nearly a year Team Biden has given its all to the diplomatic effort to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Repeatedly, administration officials have hailed progress toward an agreement that would pause the fighting and send the Israeli hostages home. But senior officials are conceding privately that the chances of a ceasefire deal during Mr. Biden’s remaining months in office are slim.

For the past few weeks Washington has been frantically trying to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah from escalating dramatically. Like Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Hamas and the Houthis, neither Israel nor Hezbollah thinks Washington is dispensing sound policy advice.

The Biden administration wants something it can’t have in the Middle East: continued influence with diminished presence.

Its diplomacy is aimed at preserving a regional order that depends on the kind of American power projection the president desperately wants to avoid.

The metastasising conflicts across the Middle East that Mr. Biden hates are the natural and inevitable consequence of his own policies.

As America withdraws, or attempts to withdraw, from the region, its influence over the relevant parties diminishes. The less reliable America looks, the less value anyone attaches to promises of American support. The more obviously America looks toward the exits, the less anyone fears American power.

As Iran’s fear of American power fades, it becomes more aggressive. As Gulf Arabs’ confidence in American wisdom and commitment shrinks, they hesitate between their desire to oppose Iran and the need to conciliate the rising power of a dangerous neighbour. This in turn drives Israel to ever tougher and more dramatic responses as it scrambles to convince both Iran and the Arab countries that it can deter Iranian aggression even as America walks away.

Mr Biden has fundamentally misjudged what diplomacy is and what it can and can’t do.

As a man who came of age politically during the Vietnam War and was politically and personally scarred by his support for the Iraq war, the president knows in his bones that military power projection unrelated to an achievable political goal often leads to expensive disasters.

He isn’t wrong about this, but like many in the Democratic policy world, Mr. Biden rejected a misguided overconfidence in military force only to attribute similar magic powers to diplomacy. Diplomacy in quest of an unachievable political goal is as misguided as poorly conceived military adventurism and can ultimately be as costly.

In the 1930s, the U.S. thought Japan’s attempt to conquer China was both immoral and bad for American interests, but a mix of naive pacifism and blind isolationism blocked any serious response. Instead, Washington settled on a diplomatic stance of nonresistance to Japanese aggression mixed with nonrecognition of Japanese conquests and claims. The policy failed to help China.

What it accomplished was to persuade a critical mass of Japanese leaders that America was irredeemably decadent. They gradually came to believe that a nation so foolishly led would respond to the destruction of its Pacific fleet with diplomats rather than aircraft carriers.

Mr Biden’s diplomats must struggle against the near-universal global perception that the administration’s Middle East policy is similarly blind. Allies as well as adversaries increasingly disregard American wishes and discount its warnings.

That isn’t good for American interests, and it won’t bring peace to the region. As events slide out of control, Mr. Biden’s diplomats can do little more than wring their hands and wish for better times. The failure isn’t their fault. Like soldiers sent into a war their leaders don’t know how to win, America’s diplomats were tasked with an impossible mission their leader never thought through.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/bidens-diplomatic-magical-thinking/news-story/bc752d3b3a2e4f82bd256d362957a934

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Biden Claimed For Months That Gaza Ceasefire Was In Sight — Now His Own Officials Reportedly Think It’s A Pipe Dream

Even after multiple assurances from President Joe Biden over recent weeks and months that an Israel-Hamas ceasefire could be right around the corner, U.S. officials are reportedly privately starting to concede that he won’t be able to help secure a deal before his term ends.

Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7 sparked a broader regional war and sent an already chaotic Middle East further into turmoil, prompting the Biden-Harris administration to try to pursue diplomatic solutions to end the conflict and reduce tensions between Arab states. Biden has routinely touted his efforts to secure a ceasefire agreement and hinted on several occasions that a deal was close at hand, but these efforts have largely been fruitless — and now U.S. officials are beginning to believe that it may be impossible to secure anything before Biden leaves office, given the roadblocks that remain between Israel and Hamas, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke to The Wall Street Journal. (RELATED: Israel Keeps Foot On Pedal, Reportedly Goes After Terrorist Wanted By US For Bombing Marine Barracks In 1983)

“No deal is imminent,” one of the U.S. officials told the WSJ. “I’m not sure it ever gets done.”

The private concerns that a deal is out of reach aren’t fully reflected in public statements recently made by Biden officials, who have maintained that an agreement is still on the table while expressing frustration with Hamas’ obstinance in negotiations. A senior administration official told reporters in early September that “90 percent” of the deal had been agreed to between Israel and Hamas, which White House spokesman John Kirby reaffirmed during a press briefing on Wednesday.

But former State Department official Gabriel Noronha told the Daily Caller News Foundation that it’s often the remaining, narrower aspects of such a deal that are the hardest to resolve.

“Generally, you take care of the easier-to-agree items first, and the last items are the ones that are the hardest,” Noronha told the DCNF, pointing to disputes over whether Israel should keep some troops in Gaza as one of the sticking points of a deal. “Those are the tough items.”

In recent weeks and months, Biden has seemed more positive about reaching a ceasefire agreement. Biden told reporters at the end of August that he was “optimistic” a deal could soon be reached because most of the terms had been agreed to and that talks were continuing between Arab partners.

Biden said weeks earlier that he “may have something” on a deal but didn’t want to “jinx it,” claiming that his team was “closer than we’ve ever been” to securing an agreement.

“It’s much, much closer than it was three days ago. So, keep your fingers crossed,” Biden told reporters on Aug. 16.

Biden had been adamant for months that a ceasefire was needed urgently, putting forward his own proposal for a deal in May, which has yet to be accepted, and before that warning that a deal had to be reached by March, which never happened. Even as early as February, Biden was predicting that a ceasefire could be reached within days.

“Well, I hope by the beginning of the weekend — I mean the end of the weekend [that a deal will be reached],” Biden told reporters in February.

In the last couple of months, U.S. officials have become increasingly pessimistic that a deal could be reached, largely due to Hamas, which has been stubborn in negotiations and set unrealistic terms for an agreement. Hamas has frequently set new demands for proposals — and after the U.S. and Israel agree to the terms, the terrorist group still rejects offers, according to the WSJ.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with the families of the remaining American hostages in Gaza on Wednesday, relaying the current status of negotiations and reaffirming that Biden won’t stop until their relatives are brought home, according to Hostage Aid Worldwide. But the families “expressed frustration with the lack of tangible progress and stressed that everyone needs to play a larger role in reaching an agreement.”

Adding to the complications are Israel’s tensions with Iran, and its terror proxy group, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both Hezbollah and Iran have engaged in either direct or indirect skirmishes with Israel since the war broke out last October. Israel is suspected of carrying out a highly-targeted, remote attacks against Hezbollah in recent days, prompting warnings of retaliation from the terrorist group, which is already engaged in cross-fire skirmishes with Israel over the Israeli-Lebanese border.

“There’s no chance now of [a deal] happening,” an Arab official told the WSJ following the attacks in Lebanon this week. “Everyone is in a wait-and-see mode until after the election. The outcome will determine what can happen in the next administration.”

With the convoluted rift between Israel and Hamas over a deal and the compounding factors emanating from Hezbollah and Iran, the Biden-Harris administration has too little control over negotiations at this stage in the game, and it’s unlikely that any deal will be reached between now and the end of Biden’s term, Noronha told the DCNF.

“They’re probably not going to get one before the election, or before January either. But that’s not on them, per se. It speaks to the difficulty of how far apart [Israel and Hamas] are,” Noronha said.

Still, securing a ceasefire agreement in Gaza would represent a notable success for Biden’s foreign policy approach and potentially unlock the possibility of broader regional peace. A deal could pave the way for talks to open up between Israel and Saudi Arabia over establishing formal diplomatic ties, although Saudi Arabia has said such relations aren’t possible until Israel agrees to a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

For the time being, the U.S. is continuing to help broker negotiations between Israel, Egypt, Qatar and Hamas negotiators, with a specific focus on how to overcome the hurdles currently barring a deal from being reached — if it is even possible at this juncture.

“We have run into some resistance,” Kirby told reporters Wednesday. “And we’re just not … any closer today than we were a few days ago.”

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/22/biden-claimed-for-months-that-gaza-ceasefire-was-in-sight-now-his-own-officials-reportedly-think-its-a-pipe-dream/

*******************************************************

‘Real Ground To Make Up’: ABC Political Director Warns ‘Kamala Harris Has Issues’ With Hispanic Voters

Vice President Kamala Harris is struggling compared to past Democratic candidates among Hispanic voters, which could cost her key states in November, ABC News Political Director Rick Klein said Sunday.

Harris led former President Donald Trump by 17% among likely Hispanic voters in an ABC News poll released September 15. Klein said that the vice president’s margin meant Trump could win Arizona and Nevada.

“Right now, our latest polling shows a solid lead among Latino voters for Kamala Harris, 17 points in our latest ABC-Ipsos poll from just a couple of days ago, but that isn’t nearly the edge she has among black voters or Asian voters and it isn’t nearly the edge that previous Democratic candidates for president have had — 30-plus point advantage for Joe Biden in the exit polls among Latino voters from four years ago,” Klein told “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.

“Hillary Clinton won Latino voters by 40 points and, of course, she still lost the presidency, so there’s some real ground to make up across demographics, but particularly with Latino voters. Kamala Harris has issues that she’s got to attend to,” Klein added.

Trump picked up substantial support among Hispanic voters in polling before President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection July 21, due in part to issues like immigration and the economy. Harris has regained some support from Hispanic voters since replacing Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket.

The U.S. Border Patrol encountered nearly 7.4 million illegal immigrants since the start of fiscal year 2021, according to figures released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Trump trails Harris by 2.2% in the RealClearPolling average of polls from September 3 to 18, with the vice president’s lead increasing to an average of 2.6% when Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, independent candidate Cornel West and Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver are included in surveys.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/22/abc-kamala-harris-issues-hispanic-voters/

****************************************************

‘That’s Enormous’: Steve Kornacki Describes Massive ‘Gender Gap’ Between Trump, Harris In New Poll

NBC National Political Reporter Steve Kornacki said during a “Meet the Press” appearance that Vice President Kamala Harris is benefiting from a significant “gender gap” among voters in a new poll.

Harris leads former President Donald Trump, 49% to 44% in a new NBC poll released Sunday, with her lead expanding to six points when third-party candidates are included. Kornacki noted that the lead was powered by Harris leading Trump among women, which “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker said “completely reshaped” the campaign after Biden announced he would not seek reelection July 21

“One of the things powering that lead, we should note, too there is a pretty pronounced gender gap. Harris, among women, is leading in our poll by 21 polls,” Kornacki told Welker. “Among men, Trump is leading by 12. That is a 33-point gender gap. That’s enormous what we’re seeing right here.”

“Take a look at this, too, the debate, of course, happening in the last couple of weeks,” Kornacki continued, referencing the Sept. 10 debate hosted by ABC News hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis. “Nearly 30% said that debate made them more likely to support Harris, much smaller number for Trump, that might be helping her as well here, and then there’s this: the view, the overall perception of Kamala Harris. Remember, before she got in the race there was a lot of talk that her numbers didn’t look better than Biden’s. She was 32 positive, 50 negative before getting in this race and now this is what you see.”

Harris currently leads Trump by 1.9% in the RealClearPolling average of polls from September 3 to 18, with her lead increasing to 2.1% when Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, independent candidate Cornel West and Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver are included in surveys. The averages did not include the NBC poll as of Sunday morning. (RELATED: MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki Claims Harris Provides ‘More Paths For Democrats’ To Win)

“We have to pause here, because this is the largest increase that we’ve seen for any politician since George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11th attacks on this issue,” Welker gushed after Kornacki showed a graphic showing 48% of respondents to the NBC poll viewed Harris favorably compared to 45% who viewed her unfavorably.

The NBC poll of 1,000 registered voters was conducted Sept. 13-17, with a 3.1% margin of error.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/22/steve-kornacki-gender-gap-voters-trump-harris-poll/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

A response to censorship

I had a variety of ideas about the cancellation of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH by Google. One idea that I thought I would try out was to repurpose one of my dormant blogspost blogs as a replacment of the "lost" blog. So I have done that

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com is the address of the "new" blog.

I have called it Skeptical Notes and will try to avoid post on it that might inflame Google

Another blog down

Since Google started to use AI to evaluate my blogs, what I write has come under heavy attack. Two of my blogs no longer exist. That is a bit demoralizing.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH has now joined the legion of the lost. Google has wiped it. It is however still going up on my backup sites. For today's postings see:

http://jonjayray.com/pcsep24.html

The science of voting for Kamala Harris

Toby Young

The latest issue of Scientific American, a popular science monthly published by Springer Nature, contains an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. She is the candidate that anyone who cares about science should vote for, apparently. Her positions on issues such as ‘the climate crisis’, ‘public health’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are ‘lit by rationality’ and based on ‘reality’, ‘science’ and ‘solid evidence’, while her opponent ‘rejects evidence’ in favour of ‘nonsensical conspiracy fantasies’.

There’s something a bit odd about a science magazine getting embroiled in the grubby world of politics

On the face of it, there’s something a bit odd about a storied science magazine getting embroiled in the grubby world of politics. Indeed, the editorial acknowledges how unusual this is, suggesting that’s all the more reason we should take the recommendation seriously. The editors have descended from Mount Olympus because the fate of America – nay, the world – is at stake: ‘That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president.’ True, the previous occasion was only four years ago when it endorsed Joe Biden, but the editors have a point. It is rather unorthodox.

So how can science tell us how to vote? My admittedly primitive understanding of the history of science is that it only really began to transform our understanding of the world when a firm distinction emerged between fact and value – between descriptive propositions, which depict the world as it is, and prescriptive ones, which tell us how it ought to be. That is, the Scientific Revolution occurred when students of nature eschewed politics and religion and embraced reason and empiricism. In that context, the editors of Scientific American, in seeking to muddy those waters again, seem to want to return to an era in which the evidence of our senses – ‘reality’, as they put it – tells us how to behave. In defiance of the naturalistic fallacy, they are smashing the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ back together.

This seems a little unwise, to put it mildly. If believing in ‘the science’ means you have to vote Democrat, how are you going to persuade Republicans to embrace your ‘evidence-based’ policy on, say, Roe vs Wade? A paper in Nature Human Behaviour last year found that the endorsement of Joe Biden in 2020 by Nature, the prestigious science journal, caused Trump supporters to distrust the publication, lowered the demand for Covid-related information it published (i.e. downloads of articles on the efficacy of the Covid vaccines fell substantially) and reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. I can’t quite get my head around just how stupid this is. It’s a bit like a group of evangelical Christians telling potential converts that if they vote Democrat they’ll go straight to hell. If you’re in the proselytising business, as Scientific American clearly is, it seems a bit daft to alienate roughly half the US population.

There’s also the fact that, in the event of Trump winning, he’ll be more likely to cut federal spending on scientific research and public health. In fact, this is one of the reasons given by Scientific American to vote for Kamala, but talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy! After all, why would Trump give billions of dollars to a community that’s aligned itself with his opponent? Wouldn’t it be more prudent for these panjandrums of the scientific establishment to remain above the political fray?

One explanation of why the editors of these high-profile science publications are behaving in such a bizarre way is that they’re just partisan hacks, determined to persuade people to vote Democrat. According to this theory, they don’t really believe science has anything meaningful to say about who to vote for – how could it? They’re just pretending it does to gull their less sophisticated readers into supporting Kamala.

But I don’t buy that. More likely, I fear, is that the editors of Scientific American really do believe in the snake oil they’re selling. It’s not science they’re committed to, but scientism – a weird hybrid of technocratic managerialism and radical progressive ideology. If the modern era was made possible by the separation of knowledge and morality, the worshippers at this new altar seem determined to usher in a new post-modern utopia in which science and religion are fused once again. In that light, they cannot help but endorse Harris because their consciences won’t allow them to do otherwise. It’s not a choice dictated by science, but by theology. Trump, who gleefully trespasses over their sacred values, is the devil and they must stop him. The title of their magazine should be changed to Scientistic Americans.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/the-science-of-voting-for-kamala-harris/

*********************************************************

The Harris Campaign Is Pure Run-Out-the-Clock Cynicism

Cynically running out the clock has been the overarching principle of the entire abbreviated 105-day presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris—ever since President Joe Biden, at the 11th hour, dropped out in July.

Harris seems unwilling or unable to answer any impromptu question that she has not been previously prepped for. Her answers at the debate were memorized and canned. They never addressed the questions asked.

Her single, 11-minute postdebate Philadelphia interview was a shipwreck of dodging and dissimulating—even though the host was sympathetically left-wing.

Even socialist Bernie Sanders pointed out that for Harris to get elected, she must temporarily disown her lifelong leftist credentials.

As vice president, she must further deny co-ownership of the unpopular record of the Biden-Harris administration.

Left unstated is that whether she wins the presidency—or loses it and continues as vice president for another three months—nonetheless she will inevitably revert back to her hard-core, lifelong leftist beliefs.

In addition, Harris has reconstructed her privileged upbringing as a child of two PhDs, living in a posh Montreal neighborhood into a struggling, middle-class Oakland childhood.

How can she stage such a complete makeover—and contemptuously count on the voting public to be so easily deceived?

She avoids all news conferences, one-on-one nationally broadcast interviews, and town halls. And like Biden, she will debate only on leftist venues with impartial pro-Harris moderators.

When asked to provide the details of her past responsibility for the open border, inflationary economy, spiraling crime, attacks on fossil fuels, and collapsing foreign policy, Harris smiles, makes hand gestures, and dodges. She changes the subject to her empathetic personality, her “joy” campaign, and her iconic profile as a supposedly dynamic black woman.

When pressed, Harris outsources the task of squaring her hypocrisies and subterfuges to the stonewalling campaign, Democratic surrogates—and the media.

Harris is also certainly not running on her demonstrable experience, vision, or intelligence as much as she is not Donald Trump (or, for that matter, her former partner, Biden).

To make that distinction stark, Harris must demonize and bait Trump nonstop and make the country fear him.

So, she paints Trump as a racist and violent insurrectionist, not a former president whose four-year term saw a superior foreign policy, economy, border, and security than during the Biden-Harris term.

Instead, Harris has repeatedly claimed Trump is a dictator and a threat to democracy—as if he had politically weaponized the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, or IRS as had former President Barack Obama and Biden.

Trump as Hitler has become a staple Democrat smear for the past decade.

That vicious caricature is so entrenched that major Democratic figures assume it’s OK to joke about, or seriously call for, Trump’s demise.

So, Harris’ current prominent adviser David Plouffe years ago warned the nation that “it is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”

Just last year, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., claimed that Trump “is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be, he has to be eliminated.”

Even after an assassin sought to kill Trump last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared, “Extreme MAGA Republicans are the party of a national abortion ban and Trump’s Project 2025. We must stop them.”

Harris’ dehumanizing of Trump, outsourcing the campaign to the media, avoiding all public dialogue, and temporarily reinventing one’s politics and biography have taken a toll on the country.

Harris was coronated the Democratic candidate without ever entering a primary or winning a single delegate by vote. Some 14 million Democrat primary voters were reduced to irrelevancy.

Like the 2020 Biden campaign, Harris has nationalized a new kind of cynical campaign in which leftist candidates seek for a few months to deceive the public into thinking they are centrist and moderate—until elected.

Avoiding all cross-examination and outsourcing the campaign to the obsequious media is now the new norm.

Most news stories deemed unhelpful to Harris—the left-wing, pro-Harris politics of the recent would-be Trump assassin, the distortion that dozens of bomb threats were called in against Springfield schools by Trump supporters when most, if not all, were perpetrated by foreign actors, or prominent Democrats before and after the recent assassination attempt blaming Trump for being the target of an assassin—are suppressed by the media.

The recent two foiled assassination attempts on Trump logically follow a near-decade pattern of trying to destroy rather than outvote him.

The Russian collusion hoax, the laptop disinformation con, the two impeachments, the effort to remove Trump from some 16 state ballots, and the attempt to jail and bankrupt Trump through five criminal and civil “lawfare” indictments and suits also led to the current hateful climate of Trump assassination attempts.

Harris thinks her delays, deceptions, and vilifications for the next 47 days will ensure her victory.

But if so, it will be because she, her stealth campaign, and her self-proclaimed guardians of democracy have been willing to systematically destroy it.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/20/can-harriss-cynical-run-out-the-clock-campaign-succeed/

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

The new Puritans: Climate Alarmists Want To Take Away Everything That Makes Life Good

When climate alarmists criticized gas stoves, people warned that they’d try to ban them, the zealots ridiculed the claim and then… tried to ban gas stoves

Then, Climate Depot alerts us to a Bloomberg piece claiming refrigerating food is for planet-destroying losers.

Next they’ll insist they’re not coming for our fridges.

No, really. . Indeed Canary Media, having relabeled natural gas “fossil gas” (nature good, fossil bad), notes with pleasure that:

“After the courts squashed its first-in-the-nation natural gas ban, the city of Berkeley, California, has emerged with a new strategy to curb the planet-warming fossil fuel: taxing large buildings that use it.”

There was a time when people would have celebrated an achievement like having huge numbers of people able to eat fresh, varied food at all kinds of times of year, cooked with a marvelous source of heat that goes on when you want, adjusts instantly, and goes off without requiring a “hot surface” warning that lingers for an hour, in a building whose temperature was Goldilocks, neither too hot nor too cold.

But no, they’re just one more disaster in our catalogue of sins against Gaia, now including your stinking fridge:

“The ‘cold chain’ that delivers our food is inconspicuous but vast. The US alone boasts around 5.5 million cubic feet of refrigerated space (that’s 150 Empire State Buildings!) and three-quarters of the average American plate has spent some time in a commercial fridge. Now, the developing world is catching up.”

Boo developing world! Boo United States! Boo preserving food. Yay pease porridge in a pot three days old. No, wait…

Among the odd things in this puff piece about “Nicola Twilley, author of Frostbite: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves” is that the author “says this expansion of the world’s ‘distributed winter’ has wide-ranging climate implications.”

No, sorry. That’s not the odd bit. That’s the bit so obvious it almost didn’t need to be written. All bad things cause ‘climate change’, and ‘climate change’ only causes bad things, and all human actions are bad.

The odd bit is the claim that:

“‘Food waste is often touted as the reason to build a cold chain,’ Twilley says on the week’s Zero podcast. ‘The problem is that in the developed world, we are throwing away 30 to 40 percent of our food at the retail and consumer end.’”

Tell us about it. We just took Roz Chast’s classic “Journey to the centre of the refrigerator” and found some items that we had believed were extinct and which, had we eaten them, we might well have become so.

Even so, we feel the wrath of our (especially Scottish) ancestors’ ghosts when we discard anything. But surely a crucial point is that for 99 percent of human history, there was so little to eat that throwing food away really was an act of insanity and people were willing to, say, eat an oyster or a snake, or have an egg somehow get so hot it went white and cloudy and eat it anyway.

Indeed, the piece goes on to mention that:

“More than 30 percent of all food produced on farms in poor nations never makes it to a store, and a cold chain can help reduce that food waste.”

And in those countries, the food that is wasted does result in hunger, even starvation, though thanks to massive expansion of ‘fossil fuel’ use the amount of acute poverty and actual famine in the world has dropped dramatically in the last century and even the last 50 years, outside places where maniacal governments and movements deliberately starve people directly or by waging such a violent war on normal life as to do it as a byproduct.

Of course we in the rich world should be less wasteful. But a degree of abundance so staggering that we can afford to waste food is actually a sign of progress, if also of certain inherent defects in human nature.

Consider Twilley’s complaint that:

“The abundance that refrigeration has given us has translated into a sort of lack of care, a willingness to waste. The food is so plentiful and so cheap that people would rather go and buy something else.

I mean honestly rather than sniff their milk – because obviously sniffing off-milk will kill you, everyone knows that – they would rather pour it out and buy, just trust the sell-by label and buy another pint. And that is an impact of refrigeration too.”

Another way of looking at it is that food is now so cheap that people throw it out because of the government-mandated misleading label about when it’s still good. What a recommendation for capitalism and what an indictment of the state.

Or vice-versa if you’re a climate activist.

Speaking of capitalism, we have even known people with walk-in fridges. And we’re not bitter about their wealth. Well, not very. On the other hand we are a bit annoyed that the author of the book admits she didn’t understand the basic mechanics of fridges until very recently, especially as people like her are generally big enthusiasts for heat pumps.

It’s also annoying that after describing the various economic revolutions including refrigeration that let ordinary people and then the poor in the West eat a lot of meat, she dismisses the notion that meat protein is good for you as “sort of a sad mistake in the history of science”.

We might reserve that description for the government’s advice from the 1970s on to shun “cholesterol” and fat for carbs leading to a populace that didn’t just gorge on muffins but looked like them.

But according to Twilley:

“we could have had a very different world if those scientists had been like, ‘We all need to eat lentils.’ It’s all a sort of misunderstanding, but it shaped our modern food system.”

Either that or steak just tastes better. It’s not as if the poor didn’t have lentils, or know how to stretch food to the utmost, or that nobody knows what they like until some state-funded scientist tells them.

On the contrary, it’s that meat isn’t just a more efficient source of nourishment, it’s also more enjoyable. To the point that those who could afford to would spike the pease porridge with bacon or ham.

Just as those who could get it preferred wheat bread to bean bread back in the Middle Ages, but either way would make do without a bunch of nattering from their betters.

Don’t think it’s just some journalist and some writer prating. Twilley claims the “cold chain” accounts for more than eight percent of global electricity use before she and the interviewer get into the global-warming contribution of refrigeration gas, and then add that the ‘climate-change’ panic (they don’t call it that) is pushing industry back toward poisonous alternatives like ammonia.

From the government, and here to help you… use a substance that:

“wants your crevices apparently, it goes for your eyeballs. It is just really a nasty chemical.”

So yes, the upshot of this apparently fringe prattle really will be compulsory limits on the size and effectiveness of fridges, of the same sort that increasingly make your dishwasher run for two hours or more, and then a push to ban them altogether in favour of root cellars and (organic, locally-sourced) hair shirts.

We do agree with her on one point:

“you really don’t need to have a tomato in December, it’s going to taste like nothing anyway, just don’t do it.”

Except we’d say grow it yourself. And wait for them to snatch away the grow light and irrigation system with a finger-wag about the climate footprint of home gardens, good-tasting food and anything else you like.

https://principia-scientific.com/climate-alarmists-want-to-take-away-everything-that-makes-life-good/

*********************************************************

Stick to the Weather, World Meteorological Organization, Africa’s GDP Is Not Declining

The Associated Press (AP) posted a story describing a study by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) which claims climate change is costing Africa as much as 5 percent of its GDP. Data show this is false. Extreme weather has not become more frequent or severe in Africa, and GDP in the different African regions and particular countries cited by the WMO and discussed in the AP story has grown substantially during recent period of climate change.

Monika Pronczuk, the writer of the AP story, “African nations are losing up to 5% of their GDP per year with climate change, a new report says,” uncritically parrots the WMO’s claims that “African nations are losing up to 5% of their GDP every year as they bear a heavier burden than the rest of the world from climate change.”

“‘Over the past 60 years, Africa has observed a warming trend that has become more rapid than the global average,’ said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo, warning that it is affecting everything from food security to public health to peace,” wrote Pronczuck.

She should have checked the data.

As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly, hard data from the United Nations and other government and international agencies refute any claims that climate change is making Africa’s weather worse or causing food insecurity. The latter claim has been debunked in repeated Climate Realism articles, here, here, and here, for example, which show that crop yields and production across the continent, except in areas of civil and cross border strife driven by religious and political conflicts, have regularly set records amid modest climate change.

Climate Realism has also shown that recent extreme weather events have not, in fact, been unusual in Africa’s history nor have they been more severe in recent decades, here, here, and here, for instance. In the few countries where food production has been hampered and economic growth has declined across multiple years in Africa, research shows it is consistently due to political strife, from civil wars, cross border conflicts, or political corruption. Climate change has not been a factor.

The main thrust of the WMO report is that because climate change has caused increasingly severe weather, it has also resulted in a GDP decline with African countries having to spend a disproportionate percentage of their incomes mitigating climate change. But since the former is false, the latter is as well. And, indeed, data consistently show substantial GDP growth across the period of recent climate change in the regions and countries discussed in the AP story, and one would presume the WMO report. In fact, the growth rate there has been at or above the world’s average GDP growth rate as a whole. For instance:

Data from the African Development Bank (ADB) shows GDP growth in the region of West Africa at or above 3 percent since 2000, topping 4 percent two of the four years. The further projects growth in each of the countries for the remainder of 2024 and through 2025, stating; “[g]reater agricultural output, expansion in the services sectors, and reforms to strengthen private sector participation in energy and mining are expected to drive growth in Benin (6.4 percent), Gambia (6.2 percent), Togo (6 percent), Mali (4.8 percent), Sierra Leone (4.6 percent), and Burkina Faso (4.1 percent).”

Data from the World Bank show that, excluding the high income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, since 2000, GDP growth in the poorest countries has topped 6 percent five different years, five percent once, 4 percent five times, and only experienced negative growth in a single year, in 2020, the year of the pandemic. The poor countries in Sub-Saharan Africa experienced GDP growth rates of 4.3 percent, 3.7 percent, and 3 percent respectively in 2021, 2022, and 2023.

The AP mentioned Mali and Zambia in particular as countries suffering economic hardship due to climate change, but the data tells a different story. Over the past decade, Mali has seen its GDP grow every year but 2020, with growth topping 5 percent five of the past 10 years (spiking to 7.1 percent in 2014), and topping three percent every other year.

Zambia’s GDP history tells a similar story. Zambia’s growth in 2023 was 5.8 percent, the highest single year during the past decade, and except for the pandemic year of 2020, Zambia’s annual GDP increased, topping 3 percent growth in all but two growth years.

The WMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations whose mandate covers weather, climate, and water resources. It is staffed with meteorologists and other scientists who specialize in weather, not economists, and as such it is not known for its incisive economic acumen or analysis. No one goes to the WMO to analyze economic trends or for its forecasts of economic growth. Based on its uninformed, deeply flawed analysis climate change’s purported threat to Africa’s GDP, it might be a good idea for the WMO to stay in its lane and leave economic forecasting to economists.

Also, it might behoove the AP to do some simple fact checking (it takes just a few minutes through the magic of the internet), looking at existing hard data on trends before promoting economic analyses from organizations without apparent economic expertise. In fact, even when economists pronounce something, its would still be a good idea for the AP to check the data before uncritically parroting a claim as if it were the gospel truth.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/09/stick-to-the-weather-world-meteorological-organization-africas-gdp-is-not-declining/

******************************************************

Is Climate Change Fanaticism the Greatest Killer of All Time?

How many people are dying each year from climate change lunacy? The left’s immoral war on energy has now become one of the planet’s leading causes of death and infant mortality.

This is the only conclusion from a new 2024 study, finding more than 1 billion people STILL lack access to reliable electric power.

We quote from this deeply disturbing analysis:

Since 2000, access to electricity has increased dramatically across the globe, jumping from 75% of the global population to 90% by 2020. But having access means little when the power is not working, is unreliable, or is too costly to use. For too many around the world, newly gained connections to electricity services have not resulted in meaningful benefits to their daily lives. In a newly released paper, we report that at least 1.18 billion are energy poor and unable to use electricity, a total that is 60% higher than the 733 million people who lack any electricity connection at all in 2020, according to official data.

So here we are in the year 2024 and a population TWICE the size of the United States still has no electricity some 125 years after Edison’s invention of the light bulb!

Energy poverty has become one of the leading causes of death. Then we have a half-trillion-dollar climate change industrial complex (funded by the U.S. government and leftwing tax-exempt foundations) instructing poor nations in Africa and Asia to use LESS electric power and to avoid using coal and natural gas – the most plentiful and cheapest forms of energy.

If this continues, the climate change movement will be responsible for more deaths than Hilter and Stalin combined.

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/is-climate-change-fanaticism-the-greatest-killer-of-all-time/

****************************************************

Australia: Clare O’Neil says Greens holding nurses and childcare workers hostage after they managed to delay Help to Buy vote

Greens were right for once. "Help to buy" will simpy jack up prices

Labor has intensified its assault against the Greens after Anthony Albanese was forced to delay a vote on a signature housing bill by two months, with Clare O’Neil accusing the minor party of holding the home ownership aspirations of childcare workers and nurses hostage.

The Prime Minister will visit the Queensland battleground seat of Leichhardt on Thursday to talk up his government’s plans to increase housing supply after the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet backed a Greens amendment to put off a Senate vote on the Help to Buy scheme until November 26.

Independent senators Jacqui Lambie, David Pocock and Tammy Tyrrell sided with Labor to reject the extension, as Mr Albanese warned: “Australians want their leaders to act now to make housing more affordable. This is too important to wait.”

Greens leader Adam Bandt declared the government had two months “to get serious about the housing crisis” and negotiate, while Housing Minister Clare O’Neil insisted the party had offered no amendments.

“What the Greens are doing is holding the aspirations of childcare workers and nurses to own their own home hostage, to generate media and attention,” she said. “This bill is not the silver bullet to Australia’s housing crisis, because there isn’t a silver bullet. Help to Buy is an important piece of the puzzle that would change the lives of 40,000 Australians and their families.”

Under the Help to Buy plan, which was a 2022 Labor election promise, eligible Australians would be able to purchase a home with a minimum deposit of 2 per cent. The government would own up to 40 per cent of a person’s home and recoup its funding, plus its share of capital gain, when the property is sold.

The Greens argue it would help just 0.2 per cent of Australia’s 5.5 million renters and push up housing prices for those who can’t access the program. They have demanded a cap on rent increases, a winding back of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount and money for a “massive” public housing build in exchange for their support.

As Peter Dutton labelled the tensions between Labor and the Greens a “civil war”, Mr Albanese and Queensland Premier Steven Miles will go to the state’s biggest social housing project – with 490 homes due to be built – ahead of work commencing next week.

“In spite of the No-alition of the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and One Nation we are determined to increase housing supply,” Mr Albanese said.

“This project will deliver hundreds of homes in regional Queensland, while complementing our plan to deliver thousands of homes through our Housing Australia Future Fund all around Australia.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/clare-oneil-says-greens-holding-nurses-childcare-workers-hostage-after-they-managed-to-delay-help-to-buy-vote/news-story/b9305b34913f7877b40a826eedbc140a

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Taylor Swift’s Endorsement of Harris Has Had Minimal Effect, Poll Finds

The night of the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, pop star Taylor Swift decided to use her platform to endorse the Democratic nominee. But as some have pointed out, it did not seem to have the impact the Left thought it would.

The singer, widely known for her catchy tunes about breakups and poor life decisions, wrote, “Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight. If you haven’t already, now is a great time to do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most.”

As part of the multi-paragraph post, Swift officially announced, “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election”—a decision she said she made in light of Harris being a “steady-handed, gifted leader” and Walz “standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body.”

And yet, as a recent YouGov poll revealed, that did not appear to sway the minds and hearts of very many. In fact, Swift encouraged her Instagram followers to do their own research and make their own choices, and it seems they are doing just that—independent of Swift’s opinion, for that matter.

According to the survey, which polled 1,120 potential voters Sept. 11-12, 66% of the respondents felt Swift’s public endorsement made no difference in how they would vote. Eight percent—made up of females registered as Democrats—said it made them “somewhat” or “much more likely” to vote for Harris. But notably, 20% said Swift’s post made them “somewhat” or “much less likely” to cast a vote for the Democrat.

Additionally, a plurality of those polled, 41%, said Swift should “not speak publicly about politics,” as opposed to the 38% who said she should, and 21% who were unsure. Very few felt Swift’s endorsement would have a negative effect on the Harris campaign, while the majority, 32%, believed it would have a positive impact. And this was true despite the fact that 66% of those surveyed did not consider themselves fans of the singer.

A similar story unfolded in 2018 when Swift decided to endorse Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s, R-Tenn., opponent, Phil Bredesen, the former governor of Tennessee. The performer reportedly had been “reluctant” to engage in the political arena earlier in her career, but noted that at the time, “due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now.” However, similar to her recent endorsement, it had very little impact, with only 11.7% of surveyed voters saying it “made them more likely to vote for Bredesen.” Blackburn ended up winning that Tennessee election, 54.7% to 43.9%.

Experts at that time noted that “celebrities don’t really have these huge overall game-changing effects” in terms of elections, and “we shouldn’t expect them to.” But that hasn’t stopped Americans from speaking their minds.

Outside of the YouGov survey and inside the world of social media, one user posted, “If you’re old enough to vote, a celebrity endorsement shouldn’t have any effect. Voters need to look at issues not multimillionaires with no world experiences.”

In some cases, moms have posted videos about selling their Taylor Swift concert tickets originally intended for their daughters. And several others have hopped on the “I hate Taylor Swift” trend on X, in which users have been sharing their grievances with both the singer’s announcement and her music at large—a movement being countered by the “I love Taylor Swift” crowd.

The Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm shared with The Washington Stand not merely what Swift’s endorsement or the resulting poll data means, but what Christians specifically can take away from current events. First, he stated, “Celebrities have the same right to speak their mind as everyone else.” And given America’s First Amendment rights, “no one should feel like they aren’t free to say what they think.”

And while there’s “a lot of evidence [celebrities] don’t make a meaningful difference” in elections, “it’s the most natural thing in the world to be influenced by the people around us,” he pointed out, and it’s “probably unavoidable.” It’s not our responsibility to stop celebrities from sharing their opinions, Backholm said, but “the trick is being aware of who is influencing us and the direction they’re pulling us in.”

For believers, Backholm emphasized, “A key to the Christian life is knowing what voices we should listen to and what voices we [should] ignore,” because “the fact that there will be voices is just a reality of life.” As humans, “We tend to listen to the people we admire or want to be admired by,” which means “we have to make sure the people we esteem are worthy of it in a biblical sense.”

“In voting,” he continued, “as in every decision in life, we should be most interested in God’s opinion” above all else. Because even though “He doesn’t formally make endorsements, He has given us instructions about how to evaluate leadership and the kinds of character traits we should value.” Ultimately, “Scripture also helps us understand what choices will bring blessing, security, and prosperity and what kind of choices will lead to pain.”

“Unless we are more concerned with God’s opinion than the opinion of a celebrity or our social circle,” Backholm concluded, “we will be easily deceived and manipulated.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/17/taylor-swift-support-harris-minimal-impact-poll-finds/

************************************************

Trump Is Ultimately Responsible for Assassination Attempts Against Him, Traitor Vindman Says

Alexander Vindman, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel of Ukrainian descent whose testimony led the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump in 2019, blamed Trump after a second gunman reportedly attempted to assassinate the former president on Sunday.

Vindman’s brother, Yevgeny who goes by Eugene, is running for Congress as a Democrat in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and his Republican opponent has called on Eugene Vindman to condemn his brother’s statement as a matter of character.

“Only one presidential candidate, [Donald Trump] has called for persecution and violence against his opponents,” Vindman posted on X. “Trump has provided the permission for political violence and likely engendered from the mentally ill, the attacks on himself.”

Eugene Vindman condemned the assassination attempt, but appears not to have condemned his brother’s rhetoric.

“I am deeply disturbed by yet another attempt of political violence in our nation,” the candidate posted on X. “I am grateful that no one is hurt, and thankful for the law enforcement agents who acted bravely and swiftly in the line of duty.”

Alexander Vindman’s wife, Rachel, published three posts after the shooting, before deleting them and apologizing on Monday. “No ears were harmed,” she posted, referencing the first assassination attempt, in which a bullet grazed Trump’s right ear. “Carry on with your Sunday afternoon.”

She added a post with laugh emojis stating, “Sorry you’re triggered. I mean no I’m not. I don’t care a little bit.”

“Trump has been inciting violence against his enemies for years,” she added in a third post. “He douses a situation in gasoline, lights a match, & walks away claiming no responsibility.”

Derrick Anderson, Eugene Vindman’s Republican opponent, faulted the Democrat for failing to condemn “the horrible statements by his family members and political advisors.”

“In fact, the Vindman family has actually doubled and tripled down on their hateful rhetoric and are now justifying the second failed assassination attempt on Trump,” Anderson said. “A dangerous precedent.”

Anderson is running in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, a swing district that could go Republican or Democrat in November. Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the incumbent, declined to run for reelection, announcing that she would run for governor in 2025 instead.

“While my opponent is failing the leadership and decency test as we speak, I will always stand up to do what is right for [Virginia’s 7th Congressional District], my home, the place that raised me,” Anderson added. “The American people must be our priority over partisan politics right now.”

After The Daily Signal reached out to Eugene Vindman and Alexander Vindman for comment, Rachel Vindman deleted her posts and issued an apology.

“I have deleted my tweet,” she wrote. “It was flippant & political violence is a serious issue. Whether it’s aimed at a former president, the media, immigrants, or political ‘enemies’ & every incident should be addressed appropriately if we want to change the tenor of our political discourse.”

She added that she has “known the instant fear of receiving an unknown package or letter” and has had her child ask “if we were safe and if someone was going to hurt our family.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/17/trump-ultimately-responsible-assassination-attempts-alexander-vindman-says/

**************************************************

12 Influencers Who Called for Violence Against Trump, Called Him an ‘Existential Threat to Democracy’

Ahead of the second assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, many influential actors, journalists, and influencers warned that Trump is an “existential threat” to democracy, compared him to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, and suggested he or his supporters should face violent attacks. Some continued attacking Trump even after the first assassination attempt July 13.

The New Tolerance Campaign, a nonprofit watchdog aimed at confronting “intolerance double standards” practiced by “establishment institutions, civil rights groups, universities, and socially conscious brands,” compiled a list of extreme rhetoric against Trump that may have contributed to the second assassination attempt.

“New Tolerance Campaign research has shown two kinds of consistent and consistently charged rhetoric surrounding President Trump: insistence that his reelection would lead to the collapse of the country, and calls for the former president’s death,” Gregory T. Angelo, New Tolerance Campaign’s president, told The Daily Signal in a written statement Monday. (New Tolerance Campaign has taken to exposing extremism on the Left, to balance the impact of left-leaning groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.)

“These proclamations aren’t sarcastic; they’re literal, and they’re being spoken by high-profile politicians and members of the mainstream media with massive audiences,” Angelo added. “It’s shocking that there have been two attempts on President Trump’s life, but not surprising given the existential hyperbole about him pounding Americans’ ears day in and day out.”

Other Violent Threats to Trump

Both Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, who authorities say shot Trump in the right ear July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, and Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, the man suspected of planning to assassinate the former president Sunday at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, got surprisingly close to the former president.

However, New Tolerance Campaign identified five others who faced charges for threatening to harm or kill Trump.

In January 2021, a judge sentenced 53-year-old Connecticut resident Gary Joseph Gravelle to nine years in prison after his conviction for sending a letter threatening to kill Trump in September 2018.

In January 2022, police arrested and charged New York City resident Thomas Welnicki, 72, with calling the Secret Service and threatening to kill Trump. He proclaimed that he intended to “stand up to fascism” by assassinating the former president.

In August, police arrested Arizona resident Ronald Lee Syvrud, 66, and charged him with threatening Trump’s life during the former president’s campaign trip to the Copper State.

In July, police arrested and charged Florida resident Michael M. Wiseman, 68, with making written threats to kill Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, after the assassination attempt in Butler.

Last month, police arrested and charged Illinois resident Justin Lee White, 36, with repeatedly threatening Trump, police, and Republicans with violence if the former president didn’t “play fair” during the election campaign.

Where would Welnicki get the idea that standing up to “fascism” involves targeting Trump? The full list of left-leaning pundits, celebrities, and politicians who compared Trump to Hitler would be too long to compile. But New Tolerance Campaign highlighted many examples

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/16/climate-hate-12-actors-journalists-influencers-compared-trump-hitler-second-assassination-attempt/

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************