GooTube: Dems' Kiddie Propaganda Arm, by Michelle Malkin

In case you hadn’t heard, Vice President Kamala Harris’ venture into government space propaganda for children was a galactic bust.

The veep’s smarmy performance in a NASA agitprop video touting World Space Week was universally ridiculed and exposed this weekend after a local Monterey, California, TV station interviewed one of five child actors who auditioned for roles in the YouTube production. Canada-based Sinking Ship Entertainment (does it get any better than this?) cast and oversaw the scripted special for YouTube Originals, which the New York Post dubbed “bizarre.” The Sun in the U.K. called it “cringe-worthy.” It was phony-baloney on steroids (or maybe one too many mimosas, judging from Harris’ tipsy delivery).

But there’s so much more to the story.

What the “Get Curious With Vice President Harris” clip really shows is how deep the incestuous ties between the Biden-Harris (mis)administration and Google/YouTube run — and why every parent should be very wary about allowing their children to be exposed to GooTube’s commie-style programming masquerading as educational entertainment.

Did you know, for example, that the creative executive and producer for YouTube Originals is a veteran Obama-Biden operative, consultant on the Biden-Harris administration’s vaccine education campaign, and close former aide of Michelle Obama? YouTube Originals’ staffer Lauren Vrazilek tweeted last week that she “had a blast” making the Harris video. She tagged four top Harris staffers in her tweet: VP communications director Ashley Etienne, VP digital strategist Brenna Parker, VP director of press operations Peter Velz and VP personal aide Opal Vadhan.

Velz promoted the “Get Curious” video last week, tweeting that Harris invited “five kids from around the country to her residence at the Naval Observatory to learn about space and be inquisitive.” He called it “super cute,” but failed to mention that the young performers were not just naturally “inquisitive,” but had all been auditioned beforehand to ensure they could ask Harris questions on cue.

For those who are, ahem, curious, Vrazilek served as former first lady Michelle Obama’s media consultant on her “Becoming” book tour in 2018-2019. Prior to that, the YouTube Originals creative director and producer worked for the Obama White House for nearly six years as an intern, director of correspondence, associate director of digital engagement, and deputy press secretary to Mrs. Obama. When Biden-Harris took office in January, Vrazilek exulted on Twitter:

“Apparently when you don’t work in DC people expect you to work on Inauguration Day? I had a bowl of ice cream and a cry before 8am — the chances of me doing anything but gushing over President Biden and Madam Vice President Harris are slim to none.”


“Slim to none” are also the odds that parents can rely on YouTube to provide anything other than slanted brainwashing to their kids. Google/YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet, forked over $21 million to Democrats in 2020. The revolving door between Google and White House Democrats is notorious. In April 2016, the Campaign for Accountability tracked 61 Google or Google-tied employees leaving the tech conglomerate to take federal government jobs and 171 Obama-Biden staffers jumping ship to work for Google.

Even more insidiously, you must remember that GooTube has repeatedly violated children’s privacy:
— Google/YouTube admitted to data mining children’s emails without consent and in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

— In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission levied a $170 million fine against Google/YouTube over its violation of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

— Last September, Google/YouTube was slapped with a massive class-action lawsuit in the U.K. accusing “the platform of routinely breaking U.K. and European data protection laws by unlawfully targeting up to five million under-13-year-olds with addictive programming and harvesting their data for advertisers.” Lawyers for families lambasted the Silicon Valley giant in their announcement, claiming execs and employees “know full well that millions of children watch YouTube. They’re making money from unlawfully harvesting data about these young children as they watch YouTube videos — and then running highly targeted adverts, designed to influence vulnerable young minds.”

Truly curious journalists in the Beltway might want to know more about how many more Lauren Vrazileks are planted at Google/YouTube and working intimately with Biden/Harris to pump out political programming for young online addicts whose data is being mined, monetized and weaponized by the manufactured-reality managers of Big Tech.
Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected]

Copyright 2021 Creators Syndicate

Read More

Narrative Not News


Posted: Oct 14, 2021 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

While many on the left are still using the mantra “follow the science,” it appears to be a mantra that has no meaning. President Joe Biden made a speech in Illinois last week in a push to get employers to require COVID-19 vaccinations of their employees. Yet during the speech, he spread misinformation when he claimed that vaccinated people (he was referring to health care workers) could not spread the virus. We know that this is not true; vaccinated people can get the virus without showing any symptoms, and they can then spread the virus to others. Science also tells us that if you have had COVID-19 and survived, your body has created antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19. A person who has already had the disease is less likely to get it again than is someone who had not. But in a push to get employers to require the vaccine, Biden ignored this science.

There has been little coverage of this on mass media outlets. Maybe they give him a pass because his vaccination push fits their narrative.

According to a research publication titled, “Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Data Gaps for Coronavirus Disease Deaths,” some people are at greater risk from COVID-19 than others. “The mortality rate for COVID-19 infection varies greatly based on patient characteristics,” the publication says. “Age and preexisting health conditions (hereafter comorbidities) have been associated with increased risk for death from COVID-19.” Comorbidities associated with a higher risk of death include “cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension, diabetes, respiratory disease, cancer, kidney disease, and obesity.”

While this science is clear, neither the media nor public officials have sought to educate people about these comorbidities nor have they tried to improve the underlying health of people who have these comorbidities. While individuals may not be able to control all of these comorbidities (such as age), they can control some of them (such as high blood pressure). Yet there has been almost no effort made to improve people’s underlying health. Again — that would go against the prevailing narrative.

This push by Biden and his administration for near-universal vaccine coverage is not based in science, as it does not address the specific challenges or barriers to taking the vaccine that individuals might have due to their specific situation. Instead, it is a one-size-fits-all approach that fits the narrative of the day. Do what we tell you to do, and it will make you safe. The media is all-in, pushing the narrative.

For over a decade, we have been talking about narratives, or stories, as effective ways to communicate. It is through them that people learn and remember. It’s through them that, before people learned to write, stories were passed down from generation to generation. There is a pattern to them, and they are comforting to hear. The challenge is that, in today’s work environments, the narrative is the message and facts have no meaning if they don’t fit the narrative.

Only 7% of Americans have “a great deal” of trust in the media, while 29% have “a fair amount of trust of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting,” according to a Gallup poll released last Thursday.

Since 1997, trust in the media has averaged 45%, it has not been over 50% since 2003. Trust in the media is politically polarized, given that “68% of Democrats, 11% of Republicans and 31% of Independents say they trust the media a great deal or a fair amount.”

Let’s take a recent article written by Daniel Bates and published on Thursday by the Daily Mail. “In her new memoir, Going There, (Katie) Couric writes that she edited out a part where (the Supreme Court member Ruth Bader) Ginsburg said that those who kneel during the national anthem are showing “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.” Couric decided that Ginsburg, who was sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, probably didn’t understand the question. “However, David Westin,” Bates wrote, “the former head of ABC News, advised Couric to keep it in.”

In selectively editing the story to fit her narrative, Couric makes clear why most Americans don’t trust the media. They report the news that fits their narrative.

Read More

Defund the FBI, Re-Fund the State and Local Police

If there was ever a time to quit treating politics like a game, it’s when the FBI comes after parents who dare to fight for the last hope for this country, their children. What happens next decides the fate of the American experiment in self-government. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is no joke, despite its recent and not-so-recent directors. This institution is immensely powerful, and patriots would be sensible to fear it. But good sense and virtue also demand a proper people’s rebellion against it.   

Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies to coordinate with local law enforcement on strategies for responding to “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.”

Now, there’s not enough room in this column to expose every B.S. claim made in Garland’s letter, but it shouldn’t be necessary anyway if you just contrast his words with the hours and hours of school board meetings that have gone viral on social media in recent weeks and months.

Parents shouldn’t be discouraged from speaking out passionately, even indignantly at school board meetings. However, they may wish to consider that this letter from Garland signals the same sort of operations that followed his last Chicken Little declaration in May 2020 about white supremacism and far right radical extremism.

Don’t forget that the “kidnapping plot” of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer quickly followed that May 2020 pronouncement. According to Buzzfeed News, some of the 12 FBI informants involved “had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception.” 

“The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them,” the left-leaning news outlet reported.

Would the FBI infiltrate school board meetings or groups of parents planning to attend those meetings? Of course they would, and likely already are doing so. After all, the head of the Detroit office for the FBI was promoted after the Whitmer incident to the Washington, D.C. office to oversee investigation of the January 6 protest and riot in the U.S. Capitol. 

Revolver News has covered the federal government’s undercover involvement in the January 6 event, but even that incident seems quaint compared to what’s going on now with the targeting of parents at local school board meetings. 

The National School Boards Association lit the match that started this federal inferno coming down on parents. It was their letter to President Joe Biden on September 29 that claimed “domestic terrorism” and “hate crimes” were imminent threats at these local meetings.

One case cited on page four of the letter was that of Scott Smith in Loudon County, who was charged with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct after public comment was shut down at the June 22 school board meeting.

Smith didn’t attack or threaten anyone. Quite the contrary. His ninth-grade daughter was allegedly raped and sodomized in the school bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt claiming to be gender-fluid. The school is accused of covering it up, the Daily Wire reported.

“Our nation’s public schools,” Garland calls them. Give me a break. His letter and the NSBA’s both clearly pander to one side of the debates over mask mandates, anti-white Critical Race Theory indoctrination, and hypersexual literature on kids’ library shelves. This notion of national public schools is absurd, but it’s useful for grabbing up more and more power.

The FBI must be stopped, defunded, and abolished.

Thankfully, the American people have at their disposal a rich tradition and legal doctrine that the FBI ultimately can’t overcome. It’s called saying, “No,” and this defiance is most effective when it takes the form of nullification or simply non-compliance, known and upheld by the Supreme Court as anti-commandeering.

None of this requires shuffling Republicans in or out of federal office, be it the House, Senate, or even the presidency. There’s no need to bring a lawsuit to federal court.

The agency’s origins go back over 100 years, roughly half the whole history of the federal government itself. Yet no national police or investigative force was ever inscribed in the U.S. Constitution. 

What is in the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, which includes the Tenth Amendment. That amendment, the cornerstone of the entire framework of our republic, makes clear that the federal government has quantifiable, delegated powers, while the states and their respective peoples have all the powers not delegated nor prohibited to them. 

State and local police aren’t perfect, but they’re inherently less prone to the longstanding corruption of the FBI. The best, perhaps only way to rein in the feds is a locally-based movement to reclaim the policing powers that D.C has usurped.

There are 16 states with Republican super-majorities in both state legislative chambers. What’s stopping them, or any red county for that matter, from introducing bills or ordinances to forbid their respective law enforcement entities from cooperating with the federal government on this matter? 

Notably, Florida state representative and candidate for U.S. Congress Anthony Sabatini has introduced a like-minded bill against the U.S. Capitol Police.

The FBI’s budget is nearly $10 billion. Split 50 ways, that’s $195 million per state. Isn’t senseless violence up nationwide? Imagine what could be done with that money if it left D.C. and wasn’t put to use stoking the flames of a culture war or threatening a civil war?

Americans can take their country back and even come together on a platform of decentralization. The centralizers in D.C. predictably demonize nullification and anti-commandeering, but the fact is they depend on local and state support for their programs.

The American people must focus ever more deliberately at the local level and interpret this latest action from the FBI for what it truly is, an admission that they fear losing their unconstitutional powers to local resistance.

Read More

Is America Becoming Rome Versus Byzantium?

In A.D. 286 the Roman emperor Diocletian split in half the huge Roman Empire administratively — and peacefully — under the control of two emperors.

A Western empire included much of modern-day Western Europe and northwest Africa. The Eastern half controlled Eastern Europe and parts of Asia and northeastern Africa.

By 330 the Emperor Constantine institutionalized that split by moving the empire’s capital from Rome to his new imperial city of Constantinople, founded on the site of the old Greek polis of Byzantium.

The two administrative halves of the once huge empire continued to drift apart. Soon there arose two increasingly different, though still kindred versions, of a once unified Romanity.

The Western empire eventually collapsed into chaos by the latter fifth century A.D.

Yet the Roman eastern half survived for nearly 1,000 years. It was soon known as the Byzantine Empire, until overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D.

Historians still disagree over why the East endured while the West crumbled. And they cite the various roles of differing geography, border challenges, tribal enemies and internal challenges.

We moderns certainly have developed unfair stereotypes of a supposedly decadent late imperial Rome of Hollywood sensationalism that deserved its end. And we likewise mistakenly typecast a rigid, ultra-orthodox bureaucratic “Byzantine” alternative that supposedly grew more reactionary to survive in a rough neighborhood.

Yet in both cases, separate geography multiplied the growing differences between a Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian and older civilization in the east, versus a more or less polyglot and often fractious Christianity in the Latin West.

Byzantium held firm against ancient neighboring Persian, Middle Eastern and Egyptian rivals. But the West disintegrated into a tribal amalgam of its own former peoples.

Unlike the West, the glue that held the East together against centuries of foreign enemies, was the revered idea of an ancient and uncompromising Hellenism — the preservation of a common, holistic Greek language, religion, culture and history.

By A.D. 600, at a time when the West had long ago fragmented into tribes and proto-European kingdoms, the jewel at Constantinople was the nerve center of the most impressive civilization in the world, stretching from the Eastern Asia Minor to southern Italy.

There is now much talk of a new American red state/blue state split–and even wild threats of another Civil War. Certainly, millions of Americans yearly self-select, disengage from their political opposites and make moves based on diverging ideology, culture, politics, religiosity or lack of it, and differing views of the American past.

More conservative traditionalists head for the interior between the coasts, where there is usually smaller government, fewer taxes, more religiosity and unapologetic traditionalists.

These modern Byzantines are more apt to define their patriotism by honoring ancient customs and rituals — standing for the national anthem, attending church services on Sundays, demonstrating reverence for American history and its heroes, and emphasizing the nuclear family.

Immigration in fly-over country is still defined as melting pot assimilation and integration of new arrivals into the body politic of a hallowed and enduring America.

While red states welcome change, they believe America never had to be perfect to be good. It will always survive, but only if it sticks to its 234-year-old Constitution, stays united by the English language, and assimilates newcomers into an enduring and exceptional American culture.

In contrast, the more liberal blue state antithesis is richer from globalist wealth. The west coast from Seattle to San Diego profits from trade with a thriving Asia. It is bookended by the east coast window on the European Union from Boston to Miami.

The great research universities of the Ivy League, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and the University of California system are bicoastal. Just as Rome was once the iconic center of the entire Roman project, so blue Washington, D.C., is the nerve center for big-government America.

The salad bowl is the bicoastal model for immigration. Newcomers can retain and reboot their former cultural identities.

Religion is less orthodox; atheism and agnosticism are almost the norm. And most of the recent social movements of American feminism, transgenderism and critical race theory grew out of coastal urbanity and academia.

Foreigners see blue coastal Americans as the more vibrant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan — and reckless — culture, its vast wealth predicated on technology, information, communications, finance, media, education and entertainment.

In turn, they concede that the vast red interior — with about the same population as blue America but with vastly greater area — is the more pragmatic, predictable and home to the food, fuels, ores and material production of America.

Our Byzantine interior and Roman coasts are quite differently interpreting their shared American heritage as they increasingly plot radically divergent courses to survive in scary times.

But as in the past, it is far more likely that one state model will prove unsustainable and collapse than it is that either region would ever start a civil war.

Read More

Democrats Show Their Bias Against Stay-at-Home Parents


Posted: Oct 14, 2021 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

The relentless pursuit of the American Left to occupy more and more territory in American culture continues. 

Tucked away in the Democrat’s massive $3.5 trillion spending nightmare is a $450 billion provision to subsidize child care while also providing free pre-K for every American family. This measure may seem politically popular on its face. But it reveals a bias that, if enacted, will further marginalize families that opt to keep a parent at home rather than enroll in daycare.

To get to the root of it, hear this statement Democrat Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) made in defense of his party’s plan: “The average family cannot afford child care, and without child care, you cannot go to work.” 

He’s completely missing the point. When given the choice, a large portion of American families don’t want both parents to go to work. More than half of married mothers would rather stay home (or have a husband stay home) to care for kids under five years old. When it comes to lower- and working-class families, 58% and 68%, respectively, prefer to have one parent stay home during their kids’ early childhood years, while the other goes to work. It’s mostly upper-class Americans—the ones who would least need government childcare subsidies—who actually prefer to hire childcare providers so both parents can work full-time. 

The innumerable factors that play into childcare decisions look different for every family. Many moms and dads make a simple calculation that they can provide better care for their child than someone else. Others conclude that out-of-home care is the best solution. 

No matter where families fall on this, one thing is clear: The government should not be nudging families in one direction or the other—especially when studies show that infants and toddlers who spend a lot of time in daycare face challenges that their peers who are raised at home don’t. Families who opt to keep a parent at home are often able to shepherd their children in ways that yield better grades in school and less stress for children.

For these reasons and more, many Americans make immense sacrifices so that one parent can stay home with the kids. Maybe dad takes on extra hours at work. Or mom doesn’t take a desirable job because she values time at home over time at work. Or the family chooses a smaller house over their dream home to free up more wiggle room in their budget. 

Yet it’s these families who the Democrats’ childcare takeover leaves behind. Laws are never morally neutral. A law always says something about the values of the people who made it. Passing this legislation pushes families toward non-parental child care while failing spectacularly to acknowledge the real sacrifice made by families who decide to keep their children home.

It’s another classic example of government bureaucrats butting in where they don’t belong and saying they know what’s best when they really don’t. Every parent has a different financial setup. Every kid has unique learning, emotional, and physical needs. No family is exactly like another. Yet Democrats are presumptuously suggesting that out-of-home childcare is the right choice for every American family. 

And what’s worse, they want to provide child care for “free,” even though, first of all, taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost. And second of all, the government hasn’t given us any good reason to trust it with our kids’ early education. We’ve all seen America’s government-funded public schools ramp up efforts to indoctrinate K-12 students with anti-American, discriminatory propaganda (ie. critical race theory). The Democrats haven’t laid out specific plans for their new child care system yet. But when the government dishes out money, it always comes with strings attached. One can only guess which radical, politically biased strings they’d attach to preschool curriculum. 

Worse still, this influx of federal funding—and the regulations that would undoubtedly come with it—would force a dilemma on religious childcare centers. If they take the government subsidies, they’ll also have to accept the liberal canon and water down their values. If they don’t take the subsidies, then the heavily subsidized secular daycare centers will undercut them in pricing and force them out of business.

In the best case scenario, Democrats would keep their paws off our toddlers’ education. But if D.C. politicians insist on giving their two cents (or $450 billion, in this case) toward child care and pre-K, they should at least do it in a way that doesn’t actively discriminate against parents who have chosen to keep one parent at home to guide their children through their earliest years.

Washington doesn’t know best. The American people do. It’s time for the Democrats to stop pushing their one-size-fits-all solutions—especially one that a majority of Americans agree isn’t the solution for their families at all.

Read More

Be Glad About Pompeo’s Doomed Primary Challenge To Trump

Let’s face it – the news that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intends to challenge former president Donald Trump in a 2024 primary puts one to mind not of Godzilla v. King Kong, but of Godzilla v. Bambi. It’s Muhammad Ali stepping into the ring against Don Knotts. Pompeo is doomed. But we should be glad that he is offering up himself for sacrifice. Many conservatives are open to a competitive GOP primary, not because they dislike Trump (they like him) but because they want to make sure we nominate the strongest candidate in 2024. Moreover, Trump needs a challenge to prepare him for the real fight in the general. And he’s not afraid of one.

Will Pompeo really run? Reporters with good sources are saying Pompeo is telling his donors he is. And I have heard the same thing from inside sources who would know. Of course, the buried lede is that Pompeo has presidential campaign donors – well, there’s one born every minute. 

Other top-flight potential GOP candidates are not jumping in. Ron DeSantis is focused on his family (we’re all pulling for his wife) and winning reelection. Robert O’Brien, the former (excellent) National Security Advisor, is busy helping win back the House and intends to endorse the President the day the President announces. DC establishment darlin’ Nikki Haley, the Jeb! of 2024, will do whatever she has to do to get ahead, and right now she thinks that means staying out if Trump gets in.

But will Trump run? I originally did not expect him to run, but now I do. Between Asterisk’s floundering poll numbers and Trump’s public words and actions, as well as people who would know telling me that he’s running, it’s clear he’s leaning that way. He’s biding his time, and he should. There’s no reason to do anything now but build up his team for a third campaign – and it seems that’s what he’s doing.

All this is setting up a clash of the titan…and Mike Pompeo. 

Now, to point out that Mike Pompeo’s chances of prevailing in the primary are about the same as Kamala Harris winning “Border Czar of the Year” is not to throw shade on him. Pompeo would make a fine president. I have heard him speak on the Trump Doctrine, the America First foreign policy that he helped execute and that the current crusty occupant of the White House’s serial failures have fully vindicated. He was excellent, demonstrating a deep and thorough understanding of the challenges we face, which – contrary to our current pseudo-leadership’s view – are not climate change or systemic racism. He’s very conservative. Despite him being a West Pointer, should he be nominated we can all give him our enthusiastic support. And if he is nominated over Trump, we can all ride on our unicorns to the polling places to vote for him.

Pompeomania is just not a thing and isn’t going to be. 

The best argument for Pompeo is that, unlike Trump, he doesn’t scare the unsatisfied suburban wine women who make up the Democrat base like Trump does, but don’t worry – he’ll be literally Hitler when the time comes. The argument against him is that he’s bland. Trump oozes charisma (and, to leftists and cruise ship cons, its opposite) while Mike Pompeo inspires, at best, “Well, I guess he’s okay. Yawn.”

To want a real primary challenge is not the throw shade on Trump either. A real campaign will sharpen Trump, hone him, and get him ready for a real fight, be it against Kamala or someone remotely competent. 

This should not be a coronation. Trump has to earn his right to make his Grover Cleveland move. That means a real primary with a real challenger, not a media-driven, toobinesque vanity run by some Never Trump doofus like Larry Hogan or the Beltway Cowgirl, who will have nothing to do after being tossed from office next year. 

We saw what not having a challenge did to Hillary. She was out-of-shape, soft, unready, and unprepared. Trump needs to go into the general with momentum, the momentum one gets from crushing his primary opponents. And Trump thrives on competition – if you want him to win the general in 2024, then you want him to spar hard in the primary.

Trump has to work out some kinks in his delivery. As Byron York observed, at a recent rally he had the crowd rocking when he was roasting President * over his myriad failures, from the border to Afghanistan to inflation and beyond. Yet, when Trump started going on and on about 2020 in excruciating detail, the rally got off to a flying stop.

If his campaign is about relitigating the last one, we lose. We all know 2020 was rigged. I was in Nevada lawyering for the president in the aftermath, so I saw the traditional fraud, the unlawful rule changes, the zillionaires’ ”donations” to government election agencies, and the informal rigging of the media and corporations in 2020. But that’s the past; the 2020 fight is over. The only thing I want to hear about it is how Ronna McDaniel is preparing – with lots of lawyers and lots of money – for the fight in 2024, because her inexcusable failure to prepare for the legal fights in the half-dozen blue cities where the shenanigans took place caused that fiasco. The Arizona audit revealed a bunch of corruption. Great. What is the name of the GOP law firm currently filing lawsuits in Arizona to fix those issues? Tumbleweeds.

And they are boring tumbleweeds. A boring Trump is a losing Trump, and talking about 2020 won’t win is a single new voter, Conversely, the Democrats whining like little female doggies over the January 6th insignificant “insurrection” is their own losing tangent. Fix the problems, then talk about how Democrats suck. There’s your winning strategy.

We also need assurance that Trump has fixed his personnel problems. The fact that Ronna McDaniel is still around after botching the election integrity fight for him is unsettling. But the fact that, towards the end, he hired solid folks, including Mike Pompeo, is hopeful. It would be good to see Pompeo ask Trump in a debate why he didn’t fire Tony Fauci and Chris Wray – and for Trump to answer “I should have, and I learned that lesson. No slack during Trump 2.0!”

Oh, hell to the yeah!

Bringing up tough questions and having Trump address them is the most important reason we need a primary challenge, even one that’s relatively hopeless. We need Trump to confront his mistakes and assure us he’s learned is lessons. The guy accomplished amazing things even with the entire establishment against him and despite his self-inflicted wounds. We can’t assuage the establishment’s fury, but imagine what he will do with fewer own-goals. And imagine how angry the establishment hacks will be when he beats them again.

Trump is likely to triumph in the end, but he also needs to be circumspect. He could crush Pompeo like a bug if he wished, with the cutting invective that put the gooey likes of Jeb! away in 2016. But he’s not the outsider this time. Like it or not, Trump is the insider, the voice of the GOP base, and now he has to build the movement and reinforce party rather than just lay waste. He needs to thread the needle and prevail over Pompeo and any other non-Conservative, Inc., candidates without leaving them smoking craters. Save the nukes for the Liz Cheneys.

The fact is that 2024 is neither 2016 nor 2020. This third campaign needs to be different. So, if you want to see Trump win in 2024, bring on the challengers.

Conservatives Must Stand Together and Fight. Join Townhall VIPAnd Check Out Last Week’s Stream of Kurtiousness, The Left’s Desperate Toilet Politics. And my podcast, Unredacted.

Brace yourself for action and liberal-bashing with the sixth Kelly Turnbull conservative action thriller, The Split. It describes what happens when America splits into red and blue countries. Get all six bestsellers, including People’s Republic, Indian Country, Wildfire, Collapse, and Crisis!

Read More

Terry McAuliffe Lies


Posted: Oct 14, 2021 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

Washington — Several years ago, while perusing material for my favorite department of “The American Spectator,” the Current Wisdom, I came across an obvious lie perpetrated by Terry McAuliffe, this season’s Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia. It was a pretty bold lie, too, and he was quite proud of it as you will see.

The Current Wisdom is a department of “The American Spectator” that includes quotations that are obviously foolish but rarely out-and-out lies. This time the quote in question was an out-and-out lie. It was also quite foolish, but more to the point it was a lie, and it was perpetrated by the future governor of the great state of Virginia who now hopes to serve yet again. His opponent is Glenn Youngkin, and he better be on his toes with this Democratic opponent who seems to be getting desperate in his race with Youngkin.

On page 58 of his 2007 memoir, “What A Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,” McAuliffe wrote that in past issues, “The American Spectator” published articles “alleging” that Bill Clinton “ordered the murder of political opponents.” I very politely asked him during a chance encounter in the green room of MSNBC where I might find the errant quote or quotes. Which issue was it in? I then followed up with a letter to Terry. (And I think I might call him Terry. After all, he ended our correspondence calling me Bob.) Remember, I edit “The American Spectator,” and if any of our aggressive young editors are pulling a fast one on me, I would want to know. Moreover, murder is a crime even in Arkansas.

By the way, there was another lie in my long-going correspondence with Terry. On July 11, 2007, he accused us at “The American Spectator” of taking “under-the-table money from an ultraconservative named Richard Mellon Scaife and used it to send reporters out to do just enough digging to give the veneer of truth to wild, unfounded charges.” What nonsense! Seth Lipsky, the founder and editor of the “New York Sun,” has called “The American Spectator” probably the most thoroughly investigated magazine in the country (thanks to Terry’s friends, the Clintons), and we were never investigated for taking money “under the table,” or for that matter, murder. He then prattled on about his “homeland of Ireland.” Actually, he was born in Syracuse, and he assumed the posture of a schoolmarm in lecturing me on the stylistic elements of a paragraph. In as much as I doubt he even wrote his memoirs, I would not go into such issues of grammar with me.

For that matter, concerning the outcome of our investigation with the federal government and Bill’s outcome with his investigation with the federal government, I would caution Terry to follow another course. At the Spectator, we at least ended the investigation hearing the word “exoneration” directed at us. That was a word that the Clintons have never heard directed at them, and Bill ended up paying tens of thousands of dollars in fines. He had his law license suspended for five years, and he was impeached before the Senate let him off the hook.

But back to Terry. Why would a public figure lie about a matter so easily verified? “The American Spectator” is a magazine easily accessed in many public libraries, starting with the Library of Congress. Anyone seeking to verify what we have said about Bill or Hillary merely has to go to a local library and look up our back issues. In fact, we provide a yearly index at the back of every bound issue. Moreover, if we suggested a public figure of Bill Clinton’s stature was ordering murders, I am sure there would be hell to pay. I would think the Secret Service would have paid me a visit long ago. As I said before, Terry McAuliffe has obviously lied, but why would he tell such a whopper?

I think it is because Democrats such as Terry lie all the time. They trade in a regular discourse of lies, and their supporters are used to it. They probably believe his lies. So, Glenn Youngkin had best get used to Terry’s lying. I would suggest that every time Terry tells a lie, Youngkin responds with, “There you go again.” That line has a familiar ring to it, no?

Read More