The left’s latest attack stems from Gorsuch’s new book on the government going after regular Americans. //

Three years before he threatened him while standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the problem with Neil Gorsuch was that his decisions as a federal judge were awful for the average working American.

“When the chips are down, far too often he sides with the powerful few over everyday Americans just trying to get a fair shake,” the powerful Schumer said against Gorsuch’s nomination.

On the first day of those confirmation hearings, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, “In case after case, you have dismissed or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize their rights or defend their freedoms.”

Now, Gorsuch’s left-wing critics say his problem is actually the complete opposite. They say he cares too much about the little guy and not enough about the bureaucracy that goes after the little guy.

Yes, really.

The criticism stems from a book Gorsuch recently co-authored with Janie Nitze titled Over Ruled: The Human Toll Of Too Much Law. //

The campaign against Supreme Court justices who fail to bend to the will of the left will undoubtedly continue. This particular attack is about as substantive as the previous ones, which is to say not very.

They're something like the "Morning in America" ads where you see the opportunities before you. You can make it happen. "What will we do with this moment?" Trump asks. "Look at the opportunities before us."

Nicole Shanahan @NicoleShanahan
·
It's the people that Make America Great 🇺🇸 Unity 2024
https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1853116147341967534

11:44 AM · Nov 3, 2024 //

The ad also depicts some of the fun and the joy that the campaign has brought in the final days -- from Trump and Vivek with the garbage trucks in response to Joe Biden's demonizing of Trump supporters as "garbage" to the fun and joy of Trump being on Joe Rogan's show and the McDonald's experience.

"The people dreamed this country. And it's the people who are making this country great again," Trump declares at the end. //

anon-uwii
8 hours ago
That is a wonderful ad - that's true unity. It stands in stark contrast to a new Kammy ad that states we must have unlimited abortion in order "to live happy, healthy lives". Apparently babies don't have that same right.

Number of deaths due to extreme weather in the U.S. from 1995 to 2023

Data for previous years can be found here.
https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/

The new microgrid controls accommodate distributed energy power system designs and have the ability to control renewable energy resources (solar and wind) and energy storage - providing a single interface control for a completely integrated microgrid power system.

Based on recent IAEA reports, one nuclear watchdog group concludes that Iran has completed all the steps needed for full nuclear weapons breakout and — whenever it makes the decision to go nuclear — could produce up to nine nuclear warheads in a month, and 15 in five months. Moreover, it was discovered last year that Iran has built a new nuclear facility under a mountain near Natanz that is so deep underground that it might be beyond the reach of conventional weapons. With this facility, it will be able to make nuclear warheads even faster.

Whatever the scope of Iran’s secret nuclear activities, it almost certainly has not been producing nuclear weapons. Rather, what Iran has been trying to do in secret is get ready to produce nuclear weapons. In order to engage in serial production of nuclear weapons, Iran will need the far-flung facilities that it has developed under the guise of a civilian program. All it has to do is to stop cooperating with the IAEA and withdraw from the NPT (whether formally or de facto) so that it can pull a veil of secrecy over the entire program.

From that point forward, we will have to assume that Iran is a nuclear weapon state. North Korea didn’t conduct its first test of a nuclear device until 2006, but by then the U.S. had long since been forced to accept the high probability that it was a nuclear weapons state.

Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT will result in a cascade of disastrous consequences. Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran gets the bomb, it will get one, too. Turkey and Egypt are then likely to join the club. And consider how desperate Israel’s position will become. It will have to assume not just that any ballistic or cruise missile launched from Iran could be nuclear-tipped, justifying the use of its own nuclear deterrent, but that Iran could smuggle a nuclear device into Tel Aviv with plausible deniability that it had done so. //

As practiced by Iran and its proxies, on the other hand, missile terrorism is an entirely different kind of threat, as the July War itself had shown. The 100+ rockets that Hezbollah fired at northern Israel every day for a month caused few casualties. But they scared a third of Israel’s population into bomb shelters for weeks. Many Israelis started leaving for the United States, in many cases indefinitely.

Hence, missile terrorism poses a threat to the existence of Israel that is far beyond the potential casualty figures: A state that cannot make its people feel safe going about their daily lives, that can’t even keep its airports open because of terrorism, is in danger of failing. Whereas Palestinian terrorism targets Jews for the sheer satisfaction of murdering them, Iranian terrorism targets Israelis’ faith in the state of Israel. Iran has realized what too many Israeli leaders have not: that missile terrorism is an existential threat. Missile defenses such as Iron Dome have lulled too many Israelis into thinking that the threat is manageable. It isn’t.

So here is the question. After holding back from helping Hamas in its confrontations with Israel for nearly 20 years, why did Iran decide to join the fight this time? Perhaps Iran sensed a unique opportunity to combine the missile terrorism of all its proxies and the mayhem that antisemites and wannabe terrorists could cause in Western cities and universities to deliver a fatal blow to the morale of Israel.

Maybe. But alas, Iran’s decision to fight Israel now was likely part of a much more dangerous plan. //

The NPT allows states to withdraw with 90 days’ notice. When North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 1993, it waited to see what America’s reaction would be. When it seemed that Clinton might be prepared to use force, North Korea went down to the wire and “suspended” its withdrawal from the NPT a few days before the 90 days were up. North Korea then bluffed its way to nuclear weapons by threatening to unleash war on the Korean peninsula, a real bluff considering North Korea’s dictatorship could not have survived three days of such a war.

We should expect similar gamesmanship from Iran. We are at “the River” in Texas Hold’em. All the community cards have been revealed. Iran has a weaker hand than its enemies but is willing to risk far more. Israel is keeping its cards close to the vest, American surveillance and leaks notwithstanding, but its one ace — nuclear weapons — is worthless now. America has by far the strongest hand in the round, but it has become risk-averse to the point of torpor: its increasingly besotted national security establishment equates deterrence with provocation, which is the strategic equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Iran likes its chances.

Obama Undermined the Diplomatic Option to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program.

When Iran’s nuclear program was first discovered in 2003, the U.S. could have nipped it in the bud with a single airstrike. The argument against that move at the time (and against military action since) was that Iran would quickly reconstitute the program.

If that was the right answer, it was the wrong question. The military option on Iran’s nuclear program has to be assessed in terms of what Thomas Schelling would call a “tacit negotiation” between the U.S. and Iran: Properly conceived, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program would be an important but incidental benefit of military force; the right goal — as with sanctions — would be to convince Iran to abandon the program.

And for that strategic objective, the target list is much broader and includes everything the regime needs to survive in the short term. That means oil refineries, power plants, ports, and military command-and-control, up to and including Iran’s Ministry of Defense and the offices of the Atomic Organization of Iran. Targeting any of those early on could have fatally undermined the internal influence of Iran’s nuclear hawks.

Solving problems before they become crises is always a good idea. In international relations, the time to stop a dangerous deterioration in the status quo is at the start, before it has run its course. That is the single most important lesson of the chain of events that led to World War II, and it is particularly true in the case of a rogue nuclear program. It would have been much easier to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions when it had just one pilot facility that it half-expected somebody to bomb at any moment.

Now the nuclear weapons program is the crown jewel of the Islamic Revolution, to which the mullahs have subordinated all other priorities. As Henry Kissinger wrote, in order to avoid the use of force, it is sometimes necessary to threaten its use. Because we have not done that, we are now playing defense at the one-yard line and may have no other option.

Though its chances of success were never very high, there was a diplomatic option for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program — until President Barack Obama cashiered it in his Joint Comprehensive Plan Action (JCPOA), one of the most consequential examples of aiding and abetting terrorism in world history.

During the administration of George W. Bush, the U.S. was able to orchestrate a powerful Iran sanctions regime, backed by the U.N. Security Council with the support of Russia and China. That was a remarkable feat considering that Iran is an important client of Russia and China is more dependent on Iranian oil than any other major economy. Obama, to his credit, built on those sanctions, which soon brought Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse. In 2014, Iran’s currency lost more than half its value.

But just in the nick of time, Obama came to the mullahs’ rescue with the JCPOA, which dismantled the sanctions regime and provided Iran with a massive infusion of cash, just to secure Iran’s forbearance to go nuclear for a few more years. Needless to say, Iran took the money and ran.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. moved quickly to abandon the JCPOA. But alas, its benefits for Iran had already largely accrued. Obama’s cash infusion (which his dunce Secretary of State John Kerry had promised would not be used for terrorism) allowed Iran to lavishly fund the IRGC and Hezbollah. Even worse, the international sanctions regime could not be resurrected. The U.S. imposed “maximum pressure” through sanctions of its own, but while those exacted a heavy price, the reality was that Obama had fatally undermined the diplomatic option for stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

In the supposed interest of peace and stability, the U.S. has waited until its most virulent enemy is in a position to turn the world upside down. The moment that the mullahs have been waiting so patiently for, suffering through decades of sanctions and privations, is finally here. They have a nuclear weapon within their grasp. They need but seize it, knowing that the odds of America’s folding are in their favor, and overwhelmingly so, as long as Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is in power.

All Iran needs to do now is withdraw from the NPT, and it will be a brave new world.

Data from elections in Texas and Georgia disproves the left’s phony narrative that ID requirements ‘suppress’ voters.

NBC, backed into a corner over the blatant FCC violation, was forced to throw the GOP nominee a bone. That bone came in the form of two ad spots during Sunday's NASCAR coverage, together with another aired during Sunday Night Football. //

Rain or Shine Colorado 2022
2 hours ago
Hooray for the FCC rule.........amazed it is being followed

Shanahan has released a great new ad about Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's savage and funny at the same time.

https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1829291690277966165

It asks if you deny the problems of historic inflation and illegal immigration — and are you willing to elect someone who was the "least popular" person to occupy the office of the Vice President "in modern history" and offers no policy simply because you are being told "anyone but Trump"? You might be suffering from TDS.

You can solve that all with "Independence" and free yourself. Independence allows for constructive critical thinking. If you are cool with being lied to about your leader's cognitive decline, "support Orwellian totalitarianism, or are excited about Communist fiscal policy, Independence may not be right for you," the ad intones.

What makes it even more intriguing as an ad is that it is Shanahan's story as well as the story of other former Democrats who have traveled that path into the light about the mainstream media. She's willing to admit it, talk about her journey, and help bring others into the light.

As of this writing, it's just two days before the final votes of the 2024 election are cast, and things could not be closer. That is unless you saw the new poll conducted by Ann Selzer in Iowa, which was released on Saturday evening. According to the "gold standard" pollster, Kamala Harris is leading Donald Trump by three points in the Hawkeye State.

For context, Trump won the state by eight points in 2020 against Joe Biden, and it has become solidly red over the last decade. For Harris to be up there at all, much less by three points, is legitimately shocking. Expectedly, the news has Democrats jazzed, with some extrapolating the result nationally and suggesting a landslide is on the way for the vice president. //

To be frank, I don't think Selzer's final offering in Iowa is anywhere close to reality, and there's empirical data to support that viewpoint. For example, the poll has Harris leading with seniors by 19 points. Trump won seniors there by nine points in 2020. The idea that Trump has lost 28 points among seniors in a relatively red state just doesn't compute. //

Further, according to the poll, the top issue for people in Iowa isn't inflation or the economy. It's "democracy." Iowans supposedly also care more about abortion than the economy. //

Lastly, it's worth noting that Selzer had Trump up 14 points just a few months ago. Are we really to believe Iowa, a red state, has shifted 17 points toward the Democrat nominee? I mean, come on.

How did we end up here? Did Ann Selzer release this poll to juice Harris given her long history of being allied with figures like Hillary Clinton, Claire McCaskill, and J.B. Pritzker? I don't know, and I'm not going to go that far. It's possible she genuinely ended up with an outlier and had the guts to go ahead and release it anyway instead of massaging it like some other pollsters would have done. //

Bruce427
8 hours ago edited
When your poll makeup is +3 Democrat in a State that is +8 Republican, you get a Garbage result such as Selzer's. Selzer's "result" is like saying Harris is leading Trump in Texas (which is R+10).

It's meant to be a "suppression poll" designed/calculated to depress Republican turnout (e.g., it's meant to produce the mindset of: What's the use in voting if Harris is up by 5 points?).

Iowa Republicans, don't let this happen!!! Get out and Vote!!!

The Atlas poll (the most accurate in 2020) has Trump up in all 7 swing States (albeit only by .2% in a couple of the Leftist dominated States).

While Harris is up in ... None. //

anon-be74
10 hours ago
Or the fix is in and they are only predicting what will happen as a result of that fix. Maybe not in Iowa but in Pennsylvania, NC etc…. There was an article yesterday about the seismic shift to Harris after the MSG rally. They are planting stories out in the media and they all point in the same direction. That way, after Harris wins (god help us all) they can point to those “outlier” polls as evidence of a massive shift to Harris. No such thing as coincidence. All is planned ahead of time. They will cheat by all means available. //

Scholar
9 hours ago edited
The golden rule in statistics/polling is that when your results don't make sense go back and check the survey instrument and turn it totally upsides down. Selzer is a reputable pollster yet she has either broken the golden rule or she has lost her mind or both. Interestingly, Emerson College poll released on the same day has Trump up by 10%, at 53%-43%. //

anon-x8p1
9 hours ago
Iowa has no use for Kamala Harris. Gaining zero traction in 2010 in Iowa is when she make the choice to drop out before a single pimratry vote was cast or caucus was won.

She knew she would lose her home state California than so she scrambled t take her name off the California ballot to avoid that lasting humiliation.

Harris is selling cow dung if she claims Iowa is wildly in her camp.

Lex Naturae anon-x8p1
9 hours ago
Agreed. Look at what the campaigns actually do, which reveals their relatively-accurate internal polls. And neither candidate is scheduled to be in IA! //

cyberjockey
5 hours ago
Here's my .02 worth. Just consider EVERY SINGLE poll BS. And look at the fact that Trump has been packing venues to overflowing for his rallies, while Harris has to bus in people and is lucky to have a few thousand.

From a Red State article by Ward that had an excerpt of Brit Hume talking about how they used to predict before polls became the "end-all be-all" regarding the state of the race: "You relied on their events, how the events seemed to go, how well-organized they seemed to be. You looked at the response of the audience at these events."

And if you go by those metrics, Trump is killing it at his rallies. And I honestly think that is 100% more accurate than the polls.

If you see Trump filling venues for his rallies, while Harris is struggling to get a few thousand, yet you still believe the polls saying the race is close, maybe it's time to stop watching and listening to all the propaganda media. //

Phantom1973 cyberjockey
5 hours ago
But remember in the last 'fair and free' election there were captured instances where the total vote remained constant and the percentages changed dramatically. Such things happen when you move a 'mouse' prematurely.

But never made the light of day due to 'lack of standing' which the the judicial equivalent of 'hear no evil, see no evil.'

These polls are 'pre-framing' the public for another 'fair and free' repeat.

But forget that ever did or could happen our electronic voting machines are infallible and impenetrable.

How about some oceanfront property in Arizona if you believe that. //

Lex Naturae
10 hours ago edited
Selzer has a checkered history of accuracy. A better guide IMO is the most accurate pollster in 2020, Atlas Intel:

🔴 Arizona - Trump +6
🔴 North Carolina - Trump +3
🔴 Georgia - Trump +2
🔴 Nevada - Trump +5
🔴 Pennsylvania - Trump +2
🔴 Michigan - Trump +2
🔴 Wisconsin - Trump +1

Atlasintel #A - LV - 11/2

Or just start with the RCP polling average: Trump is up by 1.0 percent in the battleground states. RCP was off by 2.7 percent in 2020, in favor of Biden-Harris, so add 2.7 percent. And Trump is up by (roughly) 3.7 percent in the battleground states!