Commentary
The Communicator
When former President Trump took the stage in Butler, Pennsylvania Saturday, where a would-be assassin’s bullet grazed his right ear 12 weeks ago, he turned slightly to the right for seconds before saying, “As I was saying.” The crowd, in excess of 100,000, roared.
Who, other than Trump, could begin drawing a crowd at 6 a.m., four hours before the gates were to open, and fill all the bleacher seats by 10:30 a.m. and the open field for a speech scheduled mid-afternoon in 100-degree heat, that lasted nearly two hours?
He doesn’t miss an opportunity. Upon his arrival, Trump Force One, did a flyover of the crowd and an interview he had promised to Salena Zeto 12 weeks ago was fulfilled on this trip.
Proper respect was given to the family of Corey Comperatore, who was killed during the first attempt on Trump’s life, and two others seriously injured. There was a moment of silence before the acclaimed tenor Christopher Macchio sang Ave Maria.
Billionaires and “Fair Share”
When Harris and Walz tell voters that billionaires paying their fair share will pay for their Opportunity Economy their audiences of supporter erupt with applause.
It figures. As long as I have had an interest in political messaging, the thought of ‘soaking those rich bastards’ has been the mantra of the Democrat Party, but strangely, Democrats are now among the wealthiest. Of course, they will say they are willing to pay more taxes.
I was delighted that David Lanza, writing in American Thinker, wrote what I have contended for years, “the total net worth of American billionaires is a fraction of the total consumer debt. Were the federal government to confiscate all wealth of the richest Americans and use it to pay consumer debt, consumer debt would still exceed at least a staggering 12 trillion dollars.
While Harris and Walz continue playing the fair share card, they are unable to define “fairness,” while they promote class warfare and denouncing wealth, profit, and greed. Then there’s the accusation of “price gouging.”
Loss of Freedoms
While Harris and Walz tell supporters that Trump will take away our freedoms and ruin our institutions, Hillary Clinton told CNN viewers that the Democrat party is losing control of the social media and that censorship conservative misinformation must be increased.
‘How incredibly ironic for someone like Clinton, a purveyor of misinformation,” noted Nick Arama in RedState.
Democrat VP candidate Walz says “misinformation and hate speech are not protected under the Constitution.” Hearing that, law professor Jonathan Turley reminded that “The First Amendment was specifically created to protect incendiary speech, speech people may not have liked or might find wrong. That’s the very purpose of the Amendment.”
In case you missed it, Elon Musk, spoke of free speech and the first amendment during his appearance with Trump at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally Saturday.
Smith’s Obsession With Hate
In my October 3, 2024 edition, I referred to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s latest attempt to influence former President Trump’s election as a “not so October surprise,” because Smith is known for his unrelenting plan to get Trump.
If you are among the few who doubt Attorney General Merrick Garland has weaponized the Department of Justice, you need to know that the DOJ has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election to avoid allegations of political manipulations of cases.
Even Judge Tanya Chutkan described the move as “procedurally irregular,” but still ordered the release of Smith’s filing. It is so irregular that even CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, called it “an unprincipled, norm braking practice,” adding that “Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense, he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice, so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”
Reading law professor Jonathan Turley’s remark that “Smith’s raw political calculation should be troubling for anyone who values the rule of law,” reminded me of the frequent reminders by Garland, Biden and Harris that it is the Biden-Harris administration that respects the rule of law.
Liz Cheney’s Endorsement
“I do not begrudge Liz Cheney her decision to endorse Kamala Harris,” writes Charles C.W. Cooke in his National Review piece Liz Cheney Hurts Her Own Cause, “I do question her sincerity in doing so.”
Writing of Cheney’s appearance with Harris in Wisconsin, Cooke notes that a simple announcement on paper is one thing, “Campaigning is an all-or-nothing activity. Stumps demand the showering of adulation.”
Cooke reminds his readers of Cheney’s endorsement remarks that the pair “may disagree on some things,” and “ may not see eye to eye on every issue,” but to say Harris would be “a president that can inspire our children,” while campaigning is “absolutely ridiculous,” he says. Noting that this kind of thing “breeds cynicism.”
Obama the Closer?
The left is hoping former President Obama still has it as he will be hitting the swing states to press for voters to pull the lever for Harris-Walz. Considered to be the party’s elder statesman, he will also be making robocalls and appearing in campaign commercials.
They hope he can court young blacks who have been reportedly moving to Trump.
“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
May God continue to bless the United States of America.
