General

A brief description of the developing situation in Germany

/20 Comments/in /by

From an email list:

“In the latest Civey Sunday poll (31.12.2023) by the ‘Sächsische Zeitung’, the AfD gained a further 4 percentage points. With 37 percent of the vote, the AfD would now be well ahead of the currently ruling CDU with 30 percent.”

 

The SPD and FDP would also both fail at the five percent hurdle and miss entry into the state parliament. The Social Democrats (SPD, Chancellor-Party) lost four percent and are currently at 3 percent.

The FDP (Liberal Democrats, government party) lost one percentage point and is now at just 1 percent in the survey.” (Tagesspiegel, 01.01.2024)

Things don’t look much better across the Federal Republic of Germany, because in 2020 29% of German citizens still had trust in the parties, in 2021 it was only 20% and in August 2023 trust in the system parties had fallen to a dramatic low of 9%. (Koerber Foundation)

The farmers uprising in Germany didn’t allow the green economy-minister Habeck to land on a northern Island. He was forced to go back without delivering his intended speech to the gutted farmers. From now on, the farmers’ protests will be supported by freight forwarders, craftsmen and other important sectors of the economy.

ZDF state broadcaster 05.01.2024

03.30 Min.

“Yes, Europe’s political map is likely to look different at the end of this year than it did at the beginning. In addition to the European elections in June, there are votes coming up in some EU countries and pollsters are predicting top results for right-wing populist parties almost everywhere. In some cases they can even take over power.”

03.35 Min.

Dershowitz and Epstein

/9 Comments/in /by

Two more of Epstein’s victims are suing the government on the basis that the government entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein and his collaborators, one of whom was Alan Dershowitz who was involved in obtaining the NPA. This is an excerpt from their brief.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein.

The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id.

Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly. fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 3 Jane Doe #3’s Circumstances As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 would prove the following:

In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein’s mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3 began giving Epstein a “massage,” Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a “sex slave.” Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on his Epstein’s private planes, and elsewhere.

Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 4 (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor

Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. …

 

Alan Dershowitz on Jewish Power in America

/5 Comments/in /by

What Dershowitz doesn’t address is whether Jewish power and influence conflict with the interests of White Americans. Nor does he address the role of Jewish ethnic networking in their rise to elite status.

 

Black Women in Charge 

/5 Comments/in /by

Black Women in Charge     

      The Claudine Gay affair reminds me that we need a reckoning on how the “intersectionality” project is going.

     The idea was that after centuries of being kept down by racism and sexism — although that didn’t seem to hurt accomplished Black women like Barbara Jordan, Condi Rice, Jessye Norman, Zora Neale Hurston and on and on — Black women would finally be given a fair shot. Think of all that untapped talent!

But so far, intersectionality has mostly placed a lot of Black women in high-profile jobs far beyond their abilities. Or as the former Harvard president once said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

This will be the first in a series of columns I will issue periodically reflecting on the accomplishments of those at the top of the “intersectionality” heap. We’ll start with two heroic Black lady prosecutors.

Marilyn Mosby started the trend of fabulous Black women saving America by becoming prosecutors. One of her first cases involved a notorious Baltimore heroin dealer, Freddie Gray, who sustained fatal injuries while being transported in the back of a police van. A mere 10 days later, Mosby charged all six officers involved (three Black and three White) with crimes up to murder and manslaughter, after summarily blowing off the police investigation, but without having completed her own investigation first.

For this, Mosby was instantly acclaimed as a national hero! She was photographed by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue, invited onstage at a Prince benefit concert, featured on the “Today” show, named the 2015 Junius W. Williams Young Lawyer of the Year by the National Bar Association, given a Woman of Courage Award from the National Women’s Political Caucus that same year, and chosen as 2016 Newsmaker of the Year, among the nonstop accolades.

She told the public that Gray’s switchblade was legal. (It wasn’t.) She said the career criminal in the van with Gray — who said he heard Gray deliberately banging his head against the partition — was a “police informant.” (He wasn’t.) Then her office argued in court that even if Gray’s knife had been illegal (it was), the police didn’t know about the knife when they detained him. (That’s not the law; the stop was legal.)

As a friend of Mosby’s put it in The New York Times, “These are pretty rudimentary things, which is why it’s bewildering that Mosby’s team chose to make them an issue in the case.”

The first three trials against the officers ended in “not guilty” verdicts and one hung jury, after which Mosby dropped all remaining charges.

Her first year in office, the homicide rate in Baltimore increased by an astonishing 60%.

Rounding out Mosby’s record of accomplishment, this past November, a jury found her guilty of two counts of perjury for lying about her loss of income in order to withdraw money under the CARES Act so she could purchase two vacation homes in Florida. She is currently facing disbarment by the Maryland Supreme Court.

Another groundbreaking intersectional prosecutor was Kim Gardner, who became St. Louis’ first Black circuit attorney in January 2018, promising to end the “flawed tough-on-crime rhetoric that has never been successful.” (Actually, it’s always been successful, but why not give soft-on-crime policies a try?)

Gardner proceeded to drop 75% of the felony cases brought to her by the police, while becoming Elliot Ness when pursuing police officers and White homeowners.

In 2011, Officer Jason Stockley shot a convicted drug dealer, firearms offender and thief, Anthony Lamar Smith, following a high-speed car chase, whereupon Smith refused commands to show his hands and “open the f-ing door!,” and instead reached for his gun — as proved by the gun found in the car, along with a bag of heroin, the forensic evidence of the angle at which shots entered Smith’s leg, and the fact that, earlier, he’d brandished the gun at the officers chasing him.

As the judge observed, “based on [my] nearly thirty years on the bench … an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly.”

State and federal prosecutors declined to prosecute, but six years later, Gardner was still trying to send Stockley to prison for first-degree murder. He was found not guilty

The year of Stockley’s trial, St. Louis had the highest crime rate in the country.

Under top law enforcement officer Gardner, in 2020, the city set a new record of having the highest murder rate in the country.  Children in St Louis were being killed or injured by guns at 10 times the national rate. In a 12-hour period in May, 17 people were shot.

But Gardner threw herself into prosecuting a White couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who did not so much as fire a gun, much less kill anyone, but merely brandished guns from their property at BLM protesters passing by, whom they feared were coming to destroy their home.

As Gardner had explained her “reform” agenda, “we’re looking at how we can use innovative data to direct decisions of who we charge.” Turns out, the “innovative data” involved determining whether the suspects were White.

She charged the McCloskeys with firearms felonies. They eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, paid fines and were pardoned by the governor.

Gardner had a secret “exclusion list” of 28 veteran police officers with unblemished records for their allegedly “racist” posts on Facebook. (One egregious example: calling Gardner “kimmy g.”) Her office refused to accept cases or testimony from those on the exclusion list, resulting in destroyed careers and forfeited murder cases.

In 2019, she falsely accused the police of trying to intimidate her by pulling her car over on Christmas Eve for no reason whatsoever and holding her for 15 minutes. Video evidence established that she was pulled over for driving without her lights on and was detained for only six minutes. Also, it was two days before Christmas.

Within a few years, more lawyers had left Gardner’s office than were on staff when she took over.

In November 2022, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt issued a report in anticipation of removing her from office for not doing her job, detailing Gardner’s “persistent refusal to prosecute.”

On May 16, 2023, she resigned just before being forced out of office.

I think we’re all on board with the idea that one shouldn’t be denied a job because of his race or sex. What we’re learning the hard way is that no one should be given a job for these characteristics, either.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Disunion, Slavery, and the Causes of the Civil War By Steven Calabresi in Reason.com

/4 Comments/in /by

The post Disunion, Slavery, and the Causes of the Civil War appeared first on Reason.com.

Nikki Haley recently downplayed the role of slavery in the actual starting of the Civil War.  Technically, she is absolutely right.  President Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address said that he would fight to keep the Union together, and that he would ban slavery in the western territories, but he pledged to forever protect slavery in the southern States that had it, and Lincoln even endorsed the infamous Corwin Amendment that would have forbade by constitutional amendments that would outlaw slavery altogether.  …

Consider what Lincoln said when he took the oath of office on March 4, 1861:

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.”

For Lincoln, his first priority even ahead of abolishing slavery was avoiding disunion.  As a man from Illinois, he was acutely aware of the fact that all the Midwest’s farm produce floated by barge down the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi River to New Orleans. If Louisiana seceded, the economy of the Union would be at her disposal. It was essential to prevent this result.

In pledging to outlaw slavery in the Western territories, Lincoln was girdling the tree of slavery in the southern states where it existed in 1861.  Such a strategy would end slavery in 100 years but not sooner.

In September 1862, the United Kingdom considered recognizing the independence of the Confederacy, exchanging ambassadors, and resuming trade and commerce with the South.  But, Lincoln knew that anti-slavery opinion was very strong in the U.K., so he announced in September 1862 that all three million slaves in areas still in rebellion against the Union as of January 1, 1863 would be emancipated by presidential executive order thus turning the Civil War from being a war about keeping the Union together into a war to free the enslaved people.  And, all four millions enslaved people were freed when Lincoln helped steer the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery to passage in Congress and after Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865.  The U.K. DID, as Lincoln predicted it would, stay out of the Civil War once it became a war to free the slaves, which is undoubtedly what Lincoln hoped would happen.

Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, but Nikki Haley is right that from March 4, 1861 to January 1, 1863, the Civil War was about keeping the Union together. Only after Emancipation did the Civil War became a fight to end enslavement in the United States.  And, at that point the U.S. was on the North’s side of the fight.

Nevertheless, anti-slavery sentiment was strong in the north and likely provided the affective motivation for many Puritan-descended intellectuals who were quite influential at the time. From Chapter 6 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth century it was directed at the entire country. The moral fervor that had inspired Puritan preachers and magistrates to rigidly enforce laws on fornication, adultery, sleeping in church, or criticizing preachers was universalized and aimed at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism and slavery.

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins—perhaps a form of altruistic punishment as discussed in Chapter 3. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans.[1] Puritan moral fervor and punitiveness are also evident in the call of the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York during World War II for “exterminating the German people . . . the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.”[2]

[1] Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, 477.

[2] Ibid., 556.

Happy Kwanzaa! The Holiday Brought to You by the FBI

/6 Comments/in /by
Happy Kwanzaa! The Holiday Brought to You by the FBI

One of this year’s major news stories is how Republicans, like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, are trying to BAN the teaching of history — which, as everyone knows, consists exclusively of lessons about slavery; queer studies; Lewis Latimer, the Black inventor of the light bulb (“not a white guy named Edison,” as President Biden said); “mass incarceration”; Jim Crow; Emmett Till; Cleopatra, who was Black (according to Netflix, over the outraged objections of the Egyptians); Garrett Morgan, traffic light inventor; Rosa Parks, and so on.

Well, today is Kwanzaa, so here’s some of that history that liberals are so red-hot for.

Celebrated exclusively by White liberals, Kwanzaa is a fake holiday invented in 1966 by Black radical/FBI stooge Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga, founder of United Slaves, the violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves.

In what was ultimately a foolish gambit, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme Black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better. (It’s the same function #BlackLivesMatter serves today.)

By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the Black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. The United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (I will not be shooting any Black Panthers this week because I am Kwanzaa-reform, and we are not that observant.)

It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public schoolteachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize Nigerian newspapers claimed that certain American Black radicals were CIA operatives.

Now we know the truth: The FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police. Whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe or just a dupe remains unclear.

In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot two Black Panthers to death on the UCLA campus, Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as the chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University at Long Beach.

The esteemed Cal State professor’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, Black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are identical to those of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another invention of The Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patty Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, famously posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snakehead stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani. These are the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate Whites. (And here’s something interesting: Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” (mass murder or the seizure of private property?), Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.”

Or as we know it today, “Lesson plan for K-12 students.” (Except in Florida, thanks to miracle governor DeSantis.)

Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black Americans celebrate Christmas.

Sing to “Jingle Bells”:

Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell

     Whitey has to pay;

     Burning, shooting, oh what fun

     On this made-up holiday!

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

_______________________________________________________

RELATED:

Young [Bimbo] Columnist Had Never Heard Ann Coulter’s History Of Kwanzaa

“Ann Coulter’s Kwanzaa column is an annual institution, because some stories need to be told every year. (It has nothing to do with one of the hardest working conservative pundits needing a day off once a year.) …

“[T]hat’s why it’s so funny that Muslim columnist Noor Al-Sibai has just published a story called Ann Coulter Pens New Racist Screed, Just in Time for Kwanzaa, Raw Story, December 28, 2017. …”

Biden’s Three Paths to Victory

/9 Comments/in /by
Biden’s Three Paths to Victory

Democrats have three paths to victory next November, all being eagerly embraced by Republicans.

PLAN A: Enrage Republicans by bringing a string of ludicrous indictments, civil suits and ballot disqualifications against Donald Trump, thus tricking the GOP into making him the nominee.

RESULT: Joe Biden easily wins a second term. If Trump behaves as we know he will, Biden wins even if he’s dead.

Wait, but why would Republicans make Trump the nominee just because — OH MY GOSH, IT’S WORKING!!!

When Trump declared his presidential run on Nov. 15, 2022, he was dead in the water. November, December, January, February — polls all put liberal-slayer Gov. Ron DeSantis in the lead, or within striking distance. He wasn’t even a candidate yet.

Then the indictments started rolling in. The media went back to 24-7 unhinged Trump commentary, and the former president’s numbers soared. The more liberals indicted him, the more it juiced his presidential campaign. (And they get to enjoy themselves while doing it.)

Defying all expectations, by me at least, Republicans have reacted to these garbage prosecutions by saying, Watch this, liberals! We’re going to punish you by handing Democrats the presidency, the House and the Senate. You disqualified Trump from the ballot, Colorado? We’re going to put Democrats in a position to pack the court!

I can’t enstupid myself enough to understand why being the victim of legal persecution is supposed to make someone a great candidate for president. Please draw a diagram from “These Trump indictments are outrageous!” to “Let’s make him our nominee!”

Lots of people — or at least several — have been victimized by viciously unfair criminal prosecutions.

The Innocence Project framed an innocent Black man, Alstory Simon, for a double murder in Chicago in 1999. He sat in prison for 15 years until a couple of federal agents reinvestigated and exposed the rotten truth. (Watch the documentary “A Murder in the Park” — free on Prime!)

Should Simon be president?

Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three men who were trying to kill him in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was the victim of a blatantly political prosecution. He could have gone to prison for life.

Should he be president?

The only way Jake Gardner could possibly have been indicted for defending himself during a BLM riot in Omaha, Nebraska, was to create an all-new legal system just for him. The Democratic district attorney concluded it was self-defense, then — for no legal reason — abdicated his responsibility and appointed a sleazy Black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Should Gardner be president? Too late! With the deck stacked against him, he committed suicide.

And by the way, did any of you warriors for Trump — I’m looking at you, Clay Travis — ever make a peep about these other miscarriages of justice? [Answer: No.] What was done to Simon, Rittenhouse and Gardner was a million times worse than anything being done to Trump.

You want to punish liberals for their maniacal pursuit of a standard-issue, extra-obnoxious Republican ex-president? Nominate a candidate who will win, not the guy who’s lost the last three elections for us and is guaranteed to lose again.

PLAN B: Keep telling the public that Trump is the prohibitive front-runner. Talk about him as if he were already the nominee. This will discourage sane Republicans from voting.  What’s the point? It’s going to be Trump anyway; the media say so.

RESULT: Trump’s the nominee; landslide for Biden. (It’s very similar to Plan A.)

To be sure, the polls are grim for those of us who would prefer a GOP nominee who could conceivably win. But most poll respondents don’t even know who’s running for president right now. Saying “Trump” is just another way of saying “Let’s Go Brandon” or “FJB” (and just as clever!).

People think polls are IQ tests. They’re afraid to get the answer wrong but know absolutely nothing. Literally nothing. This week, two liberals independently told me they liked Nikki Haley, but thought she was “too isolationist.” Yes, the neocons’ Frankenstein, who couldn’t care less about America but has demanded war on three continents at every debate, is too “isolationist.”

They know nothing.

As I keep saying, polls the year before an election are mere name-recognition contests — and the media are never going to let anyone forget Donald Trump. They’ll still be talking about Jan. 6 in the 2064 election.

Another media bete noire, Newt Gingrich, was crushing the polls, at least before the voting started. These were the polls in December 2011, just a few weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire:

“Gingrich sits atop the Republican presidential field in Iowa … according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. … [W]ith 33 percent support among likely caucus-goers in the new poll, Gingrich runs well ahead of his two main rivals, Romney and Paul … at 18 percent.” — The Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2011

“[According to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll] … Mr. Gingrich … would be supported enthusiastically as his party’s presidential nominee by more voters than any of his rivals, the poll found.” — The New York Times, Dec. 7, 2011

“Gingrich also leads Romney in Iowa polls and has been gaining on him in New Hampshire, the state holding the first primary.” — The New York Post, Dec. 9, 2011

“Gingrich is leading the field in Iowa [and] closing fast on Romney [in New Hampshire], raising the possibility he could score a stunning upset in a state long considered Romney’s firewall.” — The Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 2011

“Gingrich … recently rocketed to the lead in Iowa, which holds the first caucuses Jan. 3, and he is in second place in the polls in New Hampshire, which votes Jan. 10.” — The Boston Globe, Dec. 16, 2011

Two weeks later, Gingrich came in fourth in Iowa, and a week after that, fifth out of five in New Hampshire. Apparently, before actually casting their ballots, voters did some reading.

My message of hope to Republicans who prefer winning to losing: Ignore the media. They haven’t made Trump the nominee yet.

PLAN C: Get Republicans to nominate Nikki Haley.

RESULT: Either way, a Democrat wins.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER