Month: June 2024

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp says he voted in his state’s Republican primary but did not vote for a candidate.

Kemp made the strange admission during an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

“Speaking of the Georgia primary, who did you vote for?” Collins asked Kemp on CNN’s The Source.

Kemp replied, “In the Georgia primary? I didn’t vote for anybody. I voted, but I didn’t vote for anybody. I mean, the race was already over when the primary got here.”

“But you didn’t vote for Donald Trump?” Collins followed up.

“I didn’t vote for anybody,” Kemp stated.

Collins asked, “Why not?”

“Because the race was over with,” Kemp claimed.

The ultra-liberal CNN talking head responded, “Wow, that’s pretty interesting.”

Brian Kemp bizarrely says he voted in the Georgia GOP primary, but didn’t vote for anybody for president

“The race was already over” pic.twitter.com/cll1HyO6TE

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) June 27, 2024

Kemp continued, “I mean, I wanted to go vote. I always try to go vote and, you know, play a part in it, but look, at that point it didn’t really matter. I’ve said for a long time, as you know, I’ll support the ticket. That’s what I’m doing now and we have a lot of races on the ballot here in Georgia, not just the presidential race.”

“But there were a lot of other Republicans who came out and voted in that primary and voted for Donald Trump, so I think it would be pretty interesting for them to hear why you didn’t feel the need to vote for him or didn’t want to,” Collins replied.

The governor explained, “Well, it would be, for me, personally, politically, I mean it would be interesting if I had’ve voted for him, it would be interesting if I didn’t, it would be interesting if I didn’t vote at all. But the bottom line, it doesn’t really matter. I mean, he was the presumptive nominee before the primary ever got here. I mean, I didn’t support anybody in the race. I mean, I was thinking about it, but just ’cause a lot of circumstances and the way things played out, didn’t end up doing that, but said all along for the most part that I would support the ticket, and that’s what I’ve always done, that’s what I’m doing this November.”

Asked if he would campaign for Trump, Kemp stated, “Well, I mean, we’ll see how the race plays out and, you know, what they might ask for or need, but I mean like right now, I’m focused on turning the ticket out so we win.”

Kemp added, “Regardless of our history together, I have a vested interest in Georgia, you know, remaining in Republican hands.”

The post WATCH: RINO Georgia Gov. Kemp Says He Did Not Vote for Anyone in Republican Primary appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Liz Harrington, the longtime spokesperson for former President Donald Trump’s campaign, published a must-read analysis of the 2020 stolen Georgia election on The War Room on Wednesday.

This is the most comprehensive investigative piece on the fraudulent election in Georgia to date.

There is no way you can read this thorough analysis and not believe that Georgia was stolen from President Donald Trump in 2020.  It took numerous dishonest individuals to make it happen.

Illustration.by The Gateway Pundit (Getty Images)

How Georgia Was Stolen by Liz Harrington

It was noon on Dec. 3, 2020, and Richard Barron had a problem.

The 2020 Presidential Election results, already declared by the deep state to be the “most secure in American history,” had just undergone a machine recount in Georgia. Fulton County was meeting to certify the results in less than 24 hours, and the then-Elections Director was more than 17,000 votes short.

Joe Biden, a despised corrupt career politician who had been running for president (and failing spectacularly) since 1987, allegedly received the most votes for president in U.S. history, yet simultaneously could only sneak by in Georgia by some 13,558 votes. It didn’t add up, and neither did the numbers in Fulton County.

The first machine count had dragged on for days after Nov. 4, the day Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger promised the counting would be finished and President Trump’s over 103,000 vote lead was insurmountable. The 17,234 votes Fulton County had to come up with were important.

“The recount, we concluded that on Wednesday night [Dec. 2],” Barron said at the Fulton Election Board meeting to certify the results. “We submitted our results and then yesterday the state allowed us to do reconciliation. The results changed.”

That was an understatement.

When you have a problem like a 17,000 vote discrepancy in an election you’re claiming was decided by less than 13,000 votes, who do you call? The Elections Group, of course. They seemed to pop up everywhere, out of nowhere, in 2020. Setting up drop boxes and training election officials in Madison, Wisconsin. Programming the machines in Maricopa County, Arizona. Its members briefing CISA on how to “#PROTECT2020.” Protect it from whom?

Barron sent an email to Ryan Macias, of the Elections Group, at 12:13 p.m. There was no subject and nothing in the body of the email, only a file attached, a very important file, entitled, “Batches Loaded Report.”

Three and a half years after that email was sent, the Georgia State Election Board heard the results of an investigation into the recount, and confirmed Fulton County violated election rules.

The evidence brought by independent investigators showed over 20,000 ballots were inserted into both the original results and the second machine count out of thin air. Simply put, Fulton County did not have the paper ballots to justify their original results, and they got caught.

Of course, investigators and lawyers from Brad Raffensperger’s Secretary of State office, who handled the investigation into the complaint, claimed otherwise. Don’t worry about the electronic record of the votes (which are counted…electronically), they said, we have the paper ballots — they just won’t let anyone else see them.

And Fulton County is seeking to destroy them. Sure, the investigation confirmed there are missing ballot images and duplicate ballots. Were they counted? Who’s to say? It’s not like they could go check the cast vote record and the paper ballots. Oh, wait.

The mantra during the hours-long review of the case at the Georgia State Capitol last month was, “Let’s just move on.” Tell that to President Donald J. Trump and 18 others who Fulton County is trying to put in jail over the 2020 Election.

It was something to behold. The “experts” from the Secretary of State’s office tried to characterize the complainants as plebes and know-nothings, while exposing that they know next to nothing about their own elections. They say what they’re told to say. Despite their efforts to discredit the complaint, they were forced to admit the truth: Fulton County does not have supporting documentation to back up its election results in 2020.

Charlene McGowan, the general counsel for the Secretary of State, admitted as much when she said ballot images are “part of the paper trail that we use to confirm the accuracy of the results.”

All in-person votes in Fulton County, roughly 375,000, have no ballot images from the original results, and, according to the complaint, there are 17,852 missing ballot images from the recount. Statewide, there were 1.7 million ballot images missing or destroyed after the Election. By McGowan’s own admission, Georgia does not have a paper trail to justify its results.

McGowan confirmed ballot images are still missing, and duplicate ballots were scanned, they just didn’t bother to check if they were counted, which would have been easy to do since they were given a list of the exact ballots with corresponding batch numbers. They didn’t want to have to reveal the answer. According to the cast vote record, they were.

The Secretary of State’s office passed the blame off to Fulton County, which they said “used improper procedures” during the machine recount. They never addressed how it was their own office that ordered Fulton to reconcile the count when it was off by over 17,000. Yes, Fulton County did send its results to an outside group, but that was okay because he was a paid consultant, according to a memorandum the state investigators did not produce publicly. It was the same for all their claims. Nothing was made public, and the complainants were not allowed to address the board, outside a two minute public comment period. Investigate yourselves, keep the findings hidden, and allow no rebuttal. Nice work if you can get it.

Even the newly-appointed Republican Board member Rick Jeffares, hand-picked by Lt. Governor Burt Jones, was conveniently missing from the proceedings, leaving Dr. Janice Johnston the sole member to ask tough questions and offer motions for accountability, none of which were seconded.

The rest of the Board seemed content, along with Fulton County and the Secretary of State, to brush the whole thing under the rug.

“There is a concept called res judicata, which is the civil equivalent of double jeopardy,” said Sara Tindall Ghazal, a Democrat Board member, wincing, when the fact that the hand count audit, which was the second count of the ballots, also included thousands of duplicates and false Biden votes, was brought up. “We have already heard this. It has been done. It is finished.”

The only problem is, no one has been held accountable or prosecuted once over the stolen 2020 Presidential Election, let alone twice, except, of course, those who objected to it. And if America is to have free and fair elections again, the matter is far from over.

Case Number 2023-025

It has been nearly 2 years since Joseph Rossi and Kevin Moncla sent an official complaint to the State Election Board, revealing Fulton County had “no physical ballots” for the votes it added to the recount. In all, Rossi, a retired PepsiCo executive and chemical engineer, and Moncla, an independent investigative journalist, discovered there were at least 42,000 votes in the certified count of the 2020 Presidential Election that have no actual paper trail, including duplicate votes, and over 20,000 from tabulators that “do not exist.”

Rossi and Moncla are emblematic of the countless patriots who have dedicated their lives since November 2020 to getting transparency and accountability to America’s voting systems. That transparency and accountability is sorely lacking in Georgia, and in Fulton County, in particular. Election after election, Georgia certifies and re-certifies results that are tangential to reality. Close races turn into unbelievable landslides, and landslides turn into unbelievably close results.  Outcomes are flipped, and only discovered if you’re lucky enough to get a real hand count. Years after the fact, it might come out that Fulton County’s results were “incomplete,” or they will cop to a consent order (the underlying facts of which reveals they counted at least 4,081 false votes for Joe Biden), and agree to “implement written policies” and “train all of its election staff.” But nothing ever changes. The results are whatever they say they are, regardless of the facts and evidence.

The evidence shows President Trump won Georgia. That was a problem for the powers that be, so the count was dragged out, and results were exchanged in order to create margins necessary for Biden to overcome a landslide defeat. When by 5 p.m. on Election Day in Atlanta only 14,152 people had showed up to vote, they knew they had a problem. That’s the turnout equivalent of filling a dozen circles at a campaign rally. They were not going to have the votes to overcome President Trump’s massive lead, even with their drop box stuffing on the front end, and their “QR Code mismatch” error, skimming rural Republican votes off the top. This is why there are no ballot images for in-person voting in Fulton County. This is why they kept scanning late at night after observers had left, “so the number would go up.” This is why none of the early in-person votes were witnessed to and signed, why their machine seals were broken, the memory cards swapped out, and their “results” were printed on different tabulators. This is why the records they do have show 4,000 absentee ballots were scanned at the exact same time. This is why after three counts, they ended up with three different results. And this is why the last two, both the hand count audit and the certified second machine count, had to rely on thousands of duplicate votes in order to try to replicate their first bogus result.

Rossi and Moncla’s complaint makes this obvious. The State Election Board assigned case number SEB2023-025 to the complaint in April 2023. After slow-walking the investigation for months, it was finally set to be heard on December 19, when at the eleventh hour it was pulled from the Board meeting’s agenda. Raffensperger’s general counsel took the investigation over, and five months later, the Secretary of State’s office was finally ready to unveil its cover up.

‘It Did Not Come Up With the Same Number…’

Results of the second machine count were due by midnight on Dec. 2, 2020. Fulton County announced it had completed the recount at 12:52 a.m. But they didn’t have enough ballots. Twelve hours later, Barron was sending the insufficient totals to someone who was not an employee of Fulton County, the Secretary of State, or any office in the state of Georgia. Instead, he was sending the results, which came nowhere close to matching the original count, to the “Elections Group,” a shadowy outfit that showed up in 2020 in very select places that happened to be the most important election offices in the country.

By 11:15 p.m. the next evening, the news media was reporting there were “about 3,200 votes outstanding” in Fulton County, a number eerily close to the 3,125 duplicates that would end up in the final count. The Batches Loaded Report — which contains the actual results as recorded as the votes are scanned — from the same day showed a 17,234 ballot shortfall. The media was checking the results on the Secretary of State’s website, which hadn’t been “updated since earlier in the evening.” But where were these numbers coming from, if not the Batches Loaded Report, which is what Dominion uses to total the results, and shows when they were loaded into the server? Perhaps it was a second Batches Loaded Report, obtained by Moncla via a public records request for the Recount Batches Loaded Report, that showed Fulton County had managed to add over 16,000 votes to the total, but yielded yet a different result, at 527,741 votes, than the 511,543 of the first report, and the 527,925 Fulton County ultimately certified. As Dr. Johnston said, “I would think that the third count…that took those very same ballots, and ran them through the big [ImageCast Central] ICC fast scanners, should have come up with the same number, and it did not come up with the same number.”

This second Batches Loaded Report shows 13,000 early in-person votes were scanned between 10 p.m. and midnight on Dec. 2. But that’s impossible, according to the Batches Loaded Report Barron sent to Macias. Those votes were not there, and it was processed at 12:06 p.m. on Dec. 3, after those votes were supposedly scanned. Someone was fudging the numbers.

‘I didn’t go that far with this.’

Read the rest of this amazing investigative piece at The War Room.

The post Your Must-Read of the Day: Liz Harrington on ‘How Georgia Was Stolen’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Disclaimer: The Gateway Pundit is actively seeking additional details on this story, as information remains limited at this time. We have already contacted the police department as we are committed to providing accurate and timely updates as more facts become available.

An Atlanta resident has exposed a horrifying human trafficking operation in broad daylight.

Langston Proper, the brave driver, noticed something strange while driving on an Atlanta freeway and took decisive action that ultimately saved numerous children from a grim fate. The incident happened five days ago.

Proper was driving when he noticed what appeared to be a hand or some other body part sticking out from a Budget rental truck.

Source: Langston Proper/Facebook

Trusting his instincts, he immediately contacted law enforcement and followed the truck.

This was not a scene from a Hollywood thriller but a grim reality unfolding on the streets of Atlanta. The truck was later discovered to be part of a human trafficking operation.

The driver of the truck was reportedly arrested thanks to Proper’s quick thinking and decisive action.

Langston Proper took to Facebook to share his harrowing experience:

“[Human trafficking] is real… I followed them from midtown Atlanta all the way to [Gwinett County] almost damn near to [Lake Lanier]. My ancestors and GOD said don’t stop, give in or give up. Stay with them, we will guide you and protect you along the way! We must bring awareness to this matter…I need your help guys, human trafficking is a major thing here in the city of Atlanta.”

Screenshot: Langston Proper/Facebook
Ta’Coy Jarmaine, one of Proper’s Facebook friends

A friend of Langston’s on Facebook, Ta’Coy Jarmaine, claimed that they are now receiving death threats due to their involvement in exposing this operation.

“Side note! Me and my boyfriend is the ones in the viral video of the people in the budget truck! The video keeps being deleted and death threats! We’re both trying to navigate the situation… Either Way Shouldn’t no kid be in the back of a truck in 100+weather so [I don’t know]! We know it has legs of its own now it create awareness & is as people to be aware! And conversation”

Screenshot: Ta’Coy Jarmaine/Facebook

The Gateway Pundit cannot confirm the relationship between Jarmaine and Proper at this time. We have reached out to both individuals for more details regarding the trafficking incident. Additionally, we have contacted the Atlanta Police Department and Gwinnett County Police for further information.

The video initially went viral after being shared by Raws Alert on X and some TikTok users.

WATCH:

This is a developing story, and we will continue to provide updates as new information becomes available.

The post Brave Driver Exposes ‘Human Trafficking’ Operation After Spotting a Body Part Sticking Out of Budget Truck on Atlanta Freeway appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The good news for Republicans is that the Trump base in Michigan remains strong and energized—just look at the rallies. In 2016, Trump garnered 2,279,543 votes, which was 10,704 more than Hillary Clinton. That was a slim margin, but still enough to get 16 electoral votes in the winner-take-all Michigan race.

In 2020, Trump increased his vote total in Michigan to 2,649,852, a 16 percent increase, but lost to Biden by a whopping 154,188 votes. What happened? In 2018, the Democratic Party won the races for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state, who set out to execute the party’s playbook. According to the Center for American Progress, these initiatives were championed by the Dems: 

Increasing voter registration and turnout and closing the racial gap in voter participation by implementing numerous voting and registration options

Ending partisan gerrymandering through an independent redistricting commission

Promoting citizen-initiated ballot measures—particularly constitutional amendments—to increase direct democracy and enact popular policies

Even though most of those initiatives were focused on the state level and were fulfilled after the 2020 election, the momentum started in 2018, receiving a confidence-boost for having blocked a “Red Wave” carried through the 2020 election. These additional voters that were added in 2020 are more interested in principals than parties.

In 2016, Trump had benefited from the “Anyone but Hillary” sentiment. In 2024, the Dems have whipped up the “Anyone but Trump” emotions through overreaching court cases, fabricated racial fears, perfervid nonsense about impending dictatorship, and character assassination. The natural instinct of a fighter like Trump is to sink to that level and start counterpunching. 

Yet the average voter is disgusted with that playbook by both parties. We want to know specific issues and policies that will make our personal lives better and our republic stronger. For Trump to win in Michigan, he must convince swing voters that he has the best ideas to lead the country.

What Michigan swing voters should the Trump team focus on? They are not what you think… In addition to stroking the Trump base through large rallies, the Trump team needs to reach out to Michigan’s more than 610,000 manufacturing workers and more than 1.5 million seniors over age 65.

Trump needs to launch a series of media ads on television, radio, and social media, as well as local Talk Radio appearances. They must focus on “Kitchen Table Issues” that are specifically important to Michigan and not broader issues that are most appealing to the Trump base. In these ads, Trump must come off as presidential. Everyone already knows his views on America First, “Crooked Joe,” the weaponization of the judicial system, and the porous border, but what specifically is he going to do to improve the lives of those swing voters?

Michigan is a proud state. We have abundant resources, hard workers, and a rich manufacturing heritage. Michigan was the center of the Arsenal of Democracy. Had our working men and women not stepped up to manufacture bombers, tanks, gliders, trucks, engines, and other wartime supplies, we would have surely lost the Second World War.

Manufacturing workers need to hear:

No country can remain independent and strong without a robust manufacturing base.

Unfair trade practices have cost Michigan valuable jobs and companies

You have lost almost 20% of your buying power due to governments’ wasteful spending and progressive initiatives.

Trump should say that these specific policies will be enacted if he retakes the White House:

Balance the budget by eliminating wasteful spending and foreign handouts to countries that are not our friends.

Punish unfair trade practices by China and other countries.

Stop being policemen to the world.

The Society of Certified Senior Advisors stated on their blog, 

Seniors are not a monolithic group. The oldest of the group, what is known as the Silent Generation, is more likely to be Republican, while Baby Boomers are somewhere in between the Silent Generation and the younger Millennials, who lean toward the Democratic Party. Among Baby Boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, there are also notable differences. Boomers born in the middle (between 1950 and 1953) tend to vote more Democratic than their cohorts. The middle group came of age during the height of the Vietnam War and the battle for civil and women’s rights, as well as during the free love and drugs hippie era. Meanwhile, the youngest Boomers became adults during an economic downturn and during events that questioned the strength of the U.S. role in the world, such as the Iranian hostage crisis.

There is one topic that does unite them: earned benefit programs, namely Social Security and Medicare. Both parties have been guilty of negatively talking about these programs. Several Republicans, especially, have wrongly referred to Social Security and Medicare as “entitlement programs.”

Most seniors rightly believe that they contributed from every paycheck to Social Security which would provide them a pension like monthly stipend, which would allow them to exist as they aged. It is not a government handout. For instance, if I had taken the 6.2 percent the government took out of my paycheck and the matching employer contribution, invested it in a compounding S&P 500 fund, instead of Social Security, I would have almost $3,900,000 today. If I deposited that in a 5-percent investment, I could draw over $16,000 per month, which is far better than my estimated government payout of only $3,341.

Trump needs to promote these specific policies to make sure seniors’ future is secure:

Balance the budget, as above.

Make sure your hard-earned Social Security is protected against reappropriation and adequately funded for you and future generations.

Targeted, presidential messaging on these popular points will bring over the most important swing voter demographics of Michigan.

The post A Winning Strategy for Trump in Michigan appeared first on The American Conservative.

China and the Philippines are battling over control of contested waters in the Pacific. So far there has been no shooting, but there have been casualties. And the Biden administration has committed Americans to go to war if even one Filipino dies—or so Manila apparently believes.

That would be madness, of course. The Philippine archipelago isn’t vital for America’s defense. No one imagines a Chinese armada proceeding inexorably eastward, set to conquer Hawaii and then California. Of course, Washington would prefer to hem in the People’s Republic of China with a network of allies and bases. Most of Asia would like to see the PRC’s military so constricted. Nevertheless, that desire is not worth war with a nuclear-armed power determined to prevent the U.S. from dominating its own neighborhood, rather as the latter does the Americas.

The latest outburst is focused on Manila’s attempt to resupply the occupants of a naval outpost—the Sierra Madre, an old vessel given the Philippines by Washington and beached on a reef—in waters also claimed by the PRC. Several Filipino sailors were injured, one seriously. 

“We will not be deterred,” insisted Roy Trinidad, a Philippine navy spokesman. Last month, President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., declared that “I do not intend to yield. Filipinos do not yield.” He also promised a response that would be “proportionate, deliberate and reasonable in the face of the open, unabating, and illegal, coercive, aggressive and dangerous attacks by” Chinese agents. 

Any country planning to go mano-a-mano with the world’s second greatest naval power should possess at least a capable, even if not equal, military. That is not the Philippines. America’s first colonial conquest is a semi-failed state. Politics is corrupt and economics is inefficient. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are no better. 

With what does Marcos plan to take on the PRC? In Asia alone the Philippine military lags behind those of Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and India, as well as China. A quarter century ago, Defense Minister Orlando Mercado observed that his nation had “a navy that can’t go out to sea and an air force that cannot fly.” At the time, Manila had precisely one frigate, along with 60 coastal and patrol ships. The government had 47 combat aircraft and 97 armed helicopters. Readiness was dismal. 

Alas, not much has changed. Today the Philippines has two frigates and 52 coastal and patrol vessels. There are 36 combat aircraft and 80 helicopters. Reported the International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Despite modest increases in defense funding in the decade up to 2023, the capabilities and procurement plans of the [AFP] remain limited.” That puts it mildly.

With these “armed forces,” Manila is aggressively challenging the PRC—which possesses 101 principal surface combatants (including 49 frigates), 59 submarines, 142 coastal and patrol combatants, 2919 combat aircraft, and 117 helicopters. Beijing’s forces are much better trained, equipped, and supported. The Chinese state is anything but failed.

Manila, however, expects America to do any real fighting. Unfortunately, as an ally the Philippines brings to mind the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany’s main military partner in World War I. German officers recognized that their country was “shackled to a corpse.” In making the Philippines a major military commitment, one could be forgiven for believing that Uncle Sam views alliances as an eleemosynary exercise, a gift for the incompetent and ineffective. The less desirable you are as a military partner, the more likely, it seems, that Washington will insist on protecting you. In this case, if Manila and Beijing come to deadly blows, there will be wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments on a Biblical scale in the Philippines, along with demands for the U.S. to put China in its place.

How did it come to this? A half century after battling against Filipino independence activists, killing some 200,000 Filipinos along the way, the U.S. government granted the archipelago independence. Washington inked the “Mutual Defense Treaty” in 1951, during the Korean War. Although Washington was forced from its bases in 1992, ties have since increased, with the U.S. gaining access to several Filipino facilities. Joint exercises, including cooperating to sink the ships of an unnamed power, also have expanded. However, the US wants even more. Aries Arugay of the University of the Philippines Diliman opined, “This is really a big deal and a big shift from where the alliance was.” In his view, “it shows that the U.S. is really eyeing the Philippines as a critical part of its geopolitical strategy in the Indo-Pacific.” 

Thus, the administration says it will defend everything in the archipelago, even contested territory and water. A couple years ago, Vice President Kamala Harris sought to reassure Filipinos. She declared “an unwavering commitment,” explaining: “As an ally, the United States stands with the Philippines in the face of intimidation and coercion in the South China Sea.” In 2001, State Department spokesman Ned Price said: “An armed attack against the Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, will trigger our obligations under the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.” 

In March, Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited the Philippines. He tied Americans more tightly to the Filipino state corpse, declaring,

It’s why we stand with the Philippines and stand by our ironclad defense commitments, including under the Mutual Defense Treaty. Article IV extends to armed attacks on the Filipino armed forces, public vessels, aircraft—including those of its coast guard—anywhere in the South China Sea. Most important is we stand together in our determination to uphold international law—for the Philippines, for everyone else—against any provocative actions.

A month later, the Financial Times reported that administration officials planned to warn the PRC that the military pact specifically covered the Sierra Madre.

Marcos, son of the dictator ousted during the Reagan administration, has won favor in Washington by taking a tough stand against China. Two years ago, Marcos announced, “I will not preside over any process that will abandon even one square inch of territory of the Republic of the Philippines to any foreign power.” Last month, he reinforced his position, declaring that “If a Filipino citizen is killed by a willful act, that is, I think, very, very close to what we define as an act of war and therefore we will respond accordingly.” 

Not only that, however. he added, “Our treaty partners, I believe, also hold that same standard.”

The Marcos government is not unique in this regard. The former President Rodrigo Duterte, who served 2016–2022, had a tempestuous relationship with both Beijing and Washington. Amid similar violent naval maneuvers five years ago, Duterte entered a pro-American phase and announced that “I am invoking the RP-U.S. pact, and I would like America to gather their Seventh Fleet in front of China.” 

What then? “When they enter the South China Sea, I will enter. I will ride with the American who goes there first. Then I will tell the Americans, ‘Okay, let’s bomb everything’.” 

Like America’s “mutual defense” treaties with South Korea and Japan, the Philippine pact is mutual in name only. Manila’s main commitment is to agree to be defended. Washington forever takes on new and expanded military responsibilities, while its allies cheer it on. The US hopes that the Philippines will provide base access to fight China over Taiwan, but in 2022 the Philippine ambassador to America, Jose Manuel Romualdez explained that Manila would assist only “if it is important for us, for our own security.” In short, the Philippines would continue to look after number one, probably a wise course given internal divisions over confronting the PRC.

Should the U.S. go to war because of a few violent bumps between Filipino and Chinese vessels? The RAND Corporation’s Derek Grossman contended that the latest incident “clearly shows a Chinese attack on Philippine military assets,” which is supposed to trigger an allied response. Manila has yet to declare war, at least temporarily taking the Biden administration off the hook. 

Nevertheless, China hawks are proposing to confront the PRC directly. Suggestions include detailing American engineers to bolster the rusting Sierra Madre, sending U.S. vessels and warplanes through the region, and even providing Philippine missions with an American escort and daring China to intervene. Grant Newsham of the Center for Security Policy would go even further: “Don’t just resupply. Help the Philippines build a permanent structure on Second Thomas Shoal—and help them defend it. And send the U.S. Navy along with Philippine ships to Scarborough Shoal and remove all Chinese boats squatting in the area. Make it clear to Beijing that if it wants a fight it will get one.” What could possibly go wrong with such a strategy?

American national security should be defined by U.S., not Philippine, interests. Deescalation is essential, lest Americans find themselves fighting and dying over geopolitical trivialities. Even Marcos recognized the danger: “We worry in the Philippines because [war] could come from not a strategic decision by anyone saying, ‘OK, we’re going to war,’ but just by some servicemen making a mistake, or some action that’s misunderstood.”

More fundamentally, the U.S. should step back. Washington should shift responsibility to rather than share responsibility with allied and other friendly states. Americans have an interest in preserving the Philippines’ independence, which, notably, Beijing has shown no inclination to threaten. Yet there is no reason to ensure Manila’s every territorial claim. 

A looser cooperative relationship with the Philippines would avoid putting the US on a collision course with the PRC. Manila should both enhance its military forces and improve security relationships with its neighbors. Just as China is following an anti-access/area denial policy, the Philippines and its neighbors should do the same. The U.S. should assist them in moving toward strategic independence, cooperating among themselves to constrain Chinese activity in the region. In doing so Washington would be putting the interests of the American people first.

The post Should Americans Die for a Single Filipino? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Washington hawks may get their war with Iran at last.

The chances are now greater than at any time since October 7 that Israel and Hezbollah will come to blows in a full-on war, and military and regional experts warn it could be uglier and more kinetic than in 2006, when a 34-day conflict killed upwards of 1300 Lebanese and 165 Israelis.

“The escalation is really significant and in my opinion we are really right now at a dangerous moment. [It] can basically move into an all out war at any time—any mistake, any miscalculation by either party can really push the confrontation which so far has been limited to border clashes,” said Randa Slim, who spoke this week to DW News in Germany, noting that Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, part of the so-called “axis of resistance,” were already lining up and pledging military support. 

The Israeli government has been signaling all over the place that it may launch an operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon this summer—and that Iran won’t be far behind. 

“We are in an existential war on seven fronts,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Monday. Netanyahu claimed that this war was led by Iran, which is “working in obvious ways to destroy us.”

“At any cost and in any way, we will thwart Iran’s intentions to destroy us,” he said. 

The militant wing of Shi’a Hezbollah, a powerful political bloc in the Lebanese government, is backed by Shi’a Iran. Some say an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, particularly if it poses an existential threat to Hezbollah, would be a “red line” for Iran, and Tehran would have to get involved at some level in order to maintain the credibility of a major security patron. Iran’s resolve to restart a nuclear weapons program would be further hardened. 

This is where the U.S. comes in. As Israel’s primary ally and longtime adversary of Iran, if the Islamic Republic would lean in—whether directly, or by activating the “axis of resistance” militias against U.S. assets and troops in the region—Washington would be compelled to meet the challenge, experts say, and are probably preparing for that scenario today. 

This would, in a perverse way, satiate the long held desires of many in Washington—people like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, H.R. McMaster, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), and others who have insisted that the U.S. must “cut off the head” of the problems in the Middle East, including that of Hamas in Gaza. That head is Iran.

“I think it’s very important that we’re crystal-clear to the world that if Hezbollah escalates and goes against Israel, the target (for retaliation) will not just be Beirut; it will be Tehran. I am telling my Senate colleagues that they should be thinking that way,” declared Graham, who said this week that he will be introducing a resolution holding Iran responsible for any all-out attack by Hezbollah.

Major American newspapers are all but goading Israel to push for the very conflagration described above. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, Seth Cropsey, a former Naval officer, wrote that Israel should attack Hezbollah now via Iran, with or without Washington’s backing: “It should take the form of a large-scale air campaign that hits Iranian command nodes and Iranian allies in Syria and Lebanon. The strategic conditions aren’t ideal, but waiting won’t make them any better.”

Meanwhile, the Journal’s editorial board on the same day complained that the U.S. is holding Israel back, pointing to reported comments by CQ Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which he “said the U.S. won’t likely be able to help Israel defend itself against a broader Hezbollah war as well as it helped Israel fight off an Iranian barrage of missiles and drones in April.”

“That’s a calculated red light to Israel—don’t count on U.S. help, do count on Iran’s wrath—but what message is the general sending to Hezbollah? In the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah’s bunker, it probably sounds like: ‘Go ahead. You can get away with more,’” claimed the WSJ.

Experts who spoke to The American Conservative say this is what Israel and its most ardent supporters here in the U.S. want, for the attention to be fixed on Iran.

“Hezbollah is Iran’s most important ally and a Shiite group, and Iran will react very strongly, because otherwise it will lose all credibility. I believe the Biden Administration does not want this war, but if Israel starts it, and Iran reacts strongly, which it will, Iran and the U.S. will be on a collision course,” charged Iran observer Muhammad Sahimi, who teaches at the University of Southern California, in an email with TAC. 

He went further. “Israel has always wanted to start a war with Iran to get the United States sucked into it. This is particularly true since the latest round of war between Israel and the Palestinian people began on October 7, “ he said. “This is of course also what the Iran hawks in the U.S., such as Lindsey Graham and (Sen.) Tom Cotton, want.”

This talk has others very worried, particularly military experts who believe that a war between Hezbollah and Israel, which has been burning through its own arsenal in daily air assault and ground attacks in Gaza for eight months, would look nothing like 2006. Today, the group has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, which could overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome without assistance. The “axis of resistance” militias have their own drones and rockets that could be activated instantly.

“Any escalation with Hezbollah would be far more significant than what we’ve seen with Israel and Hamas, and the U.S. would likely have to step in directly to defend Israel from Hezbollah’s robust rocket and missile arsenal,” said Michael DiMino, a former career CIA military analyst and counterterrorism officer. 

“A major war between Hezbollah and Israel has been my greatest fear regarding a plausible scenario that could lead to a regional conflagration since day one of this conflict, and the U.S. and international community should do everything it can to prevent it. It would not benefit Israel, the United States, or global security writ large.”

Right now, for all the bombast and cajoling from the Wall Street Journal and others, the Biden administration seems determined not to let it get to that point. Nevertheless, as Paul Pillar writes Wednesday in Responsible Statecraft, “its peacemaking efforts, however, have only slim prospects for success.” This is mostly because the White House continues to send mixed messages about support for Israel, and does not take seriously that continued operations in Gaza, which have resulted in a self-evident humanitarian nightmare, cannot be removed from the equation. 

“I think the last thing Joe Biden wants is a big war in the Middle East right before the election—especially one that entangles America,” said John Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society, noting that U.S. officials have acknowledged that the order calling off Iranian militia attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria came from Iran’s Supreme Leader. That order could be rescinded at any time. 

“Significant U.S. casualties would create the opposite pressure…. [Biden] wouldn’t want to look weak,” Gay added. “Precedent tells me he’d order strikes on the militias that did it, not Iran itself. But it is also possible that the Israelis will be acting in Syria, Iraq, and even Iran if there’s a big conflict in the region—and that could both reduce the U.S. ability to separate our forces from the conflict and lower the anticipated costs of more extensive U.S. action.”

Despite the comments by Brown suggesting that the U.S. would not likely lend the same kind of assistance as it had in April, deflecting Iranian attacks against Israel in retaliation for the consulate bombing in Syria, other signals indicate the opposite. 

Last week, CNN reported that in talks with U.S. officials, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi got “in person assurances” that “if a full-out war were to break out on Israel’s northern border between Israel and Hezbollah, the Biden administration is fully prepared to back its ally.”

Greg Brew, Iran analyst for the Eurasia Group, tells TAC that “it’s still possible for a collision to be avoided—should a ceasefire emerge in Gaza, it is possible Hezbollah de-escalates and agrees to a settlement that permits Israeli civilians to return to towns near the border. Despite its assurances that it will support Israel, the U.S. is putting most of its energies into finding a diplomatic solution that avoids an escalation.”

Sina Azodi, who teaches at George Washington University, agrees that the last thing the Biden team wants right now is to get dragged into a war with Iran. “In the past (both sides) have been able to communicate (indirectly) through the Omanis and Iran’s Mission to the UN and drawing red lines,” he said.

It will depend on whether the pressure to act decisively on behalf of Israel overwhelms the White House caution there seems to be against a wider war. Certainly there is a tug-and-pull going on, but as Slim and Pillar point out, no one can anticipate what happens if a miscalculation or provocation happens on the Israel–Lebanon border today. 

The U.S. appears to be preparing Arab states for that very moment, insisting that the U.S. would not be able to rein in its Israeli partners—despite the risk of American involvement. In a POLITICO story published Tuesday, an unnamed U.S. official was blunt. “Israel’s gotta do what they gotta do.” 

The post A U.S.–Iran War At Last? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Screenshot: TCN/X

In an explosive segment, former Fox News reporter Tucker Carlson eviscerated a far-left Australian media reporter during a Q&A session at the Australian Freedom Conferences on Tuesday for her nonsensical and misleading questions.

The exchange began with a reporter questioning Carlson about immigration and the Great Replacement Theory, accusing him of promoting the idea that white Australians, Americans, and Europeans are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants.

However, Carlson quickly shut down her insinuations, stating that he had never claimed that whites are being replaced. Instead, he emphasized his concern for native-born Americans of all races who are being overlooked by their leaders.

Carlson promptly corrected her: “I said native-born Americans are being replaced, including blacks, native-born Americans… Their concerns are every bit as real and valid and alive to me as the concerns of white people whose families have been there for 400 years.”

Tucker went on to express his concern that the leaders of countries have shifted their priorities from their own citizens to people around the world. He criticized this as immoral and argued that it’s leading to the replacement of people born in their own countries.

TUCKER CARLSON: I didn’t say it and I don’t believe it, and I’m telling you that to your face. So why don’t you just accept me at face value? My concern is that the people who are born in the country are the main responsibility of its leaders. And as noted earlier, when those leaders shift their concern from the people whose responsibility it is to take care of to people around the world, to put their priorities above those of their own citizens, that’s immoral.”

“They are being replaced. In my country, people who were born in the United States, and the birth rate tells the whole story. They are not at replacement rate. And so the U.S. population is growing because we’re importing people from other countries.”

Carlson further lambasted the reporter for implying his views were racist. Although she denied calling Tucker a racist, he wasn’t convinced, as it was clear she was insinuating it.

TUCKER CARLSON: But of course, you are suggesting it. My view is that happy people have children, and a functioning economy allows them to do that, and we don’t have that. So you need to fix the economy and fix the culture and make it so that people who want to have kids can. You don’t just go for the quick sugar fix of importing new people. That’s my position. If you think that’s racist, that’s your problem.”

REPORTER: I never called you a racist.

TUCKER CARLSON: But of course, you are suggesting it. I must say one of the reasons why people don’t like people like you in the media is that you never say exactly what you mean. Your slurs are all by implication. You’re about to tell me the Great Replacement Theory is racist or anti-Semitic, whatever. I’ve said what I’ve said to you right now like 100 times in public. I hope to, if I live long enough, to say it 100 more times. I think it’s completely honest and real, not racist or scary. It’s factually true. It’s not a theory; it’s a fact. The whole point of your question was to be like, “You’re a scary racist.” And my response is, “No, I’m not.” How about no more lying in your questions, and then I’ll answer them.”

In a particularly fiery exchange, the reporter suggested that Carlson’s views could have inspired the Buffalo shooting in New York where 11 Jewish Americans were killed. However, Carlson swiftly condemned the insinuation, calling the reporter dumb and stupid.

REPORTER: This is the same theory, or as you say, idea, that has inspired the New York, Buffalo shooting where 11 Jewish Americans were killed.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh God! Come on! First of all–

REPORTER: It’s inspired the worst, one of the worst Australian —

TUCKER CARLSON: “How do they get people this stupid in the media? I guess it doesn’t pay well. Look, I’m sorry, I’ve lived among people like you for too long. I don’t mean to call you stupid; maybe you’re just pretending to be. But I’m totally against violence. I’m totally against the war in Ukraine, for example, which doubless you support and, like all dutiful liberals, support more carnage. I don’t. I hate mass shootings, actually. Nothing I said would inspire anything. My views are not bigoted against any group. They’re honest. They’re factual. That’s not hate; that’s reality. My views derive from my deep concern for Americans. Americans aren’t having kids because they can’t afford to, and nobody in charge cares. So that’s my position. That doesn’t inspire mass shootings. How dare you try to tie me to some lunatic who murdered people. How dare you, actually?

“I mean, do you know what I mean? It’d be like, “Hitler wore those shoes. A lot of people are saying that you’re like Hitler. Can you explain those shoes? Hitler wore exactly the same shoes.” And you’re like, “I’ve got nothing to do with Hitler.” That’s how I feel about your absurd, disingenuous question.”

The conversation took a bizarre turn when the reporter then asked if Carlson supported gun control. He responded by affirming his belief in the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families. He also pointed out his opposition to disarming citizens so that the government has a monopoly on violence.

REPORTER: So, therefore, you support gun control.

TUCKER CARLSON: What?! I thought it couldn’t get dumber but it did. No, I don’t support disarming law-abiding people so they can’t defend themselves, so the government has a monopoly on violence. I don’t think so. First of all, in my country, that’s illegal, as you know. But moreover, it should be illegal in every country. A sovereign person has the right to defend himself and his family, period. That said, I’m opposed to harming anyone, anyone.

Are you concerned about the war in Ukraine and the countless innocents being murdered there every single day?

I doubt you are. Probably, “Putin bad.” I am. I’m a Christian. I hate violence. I hate mass shootings. I have guns at home and often on my person when I’m in the United States, I’m proud to say, because I want to defend myself and those I love against violence. That’s the point. I’m not perpetrating crimes. I’m not shooting strangers. I’m defending what I love. If you’re against that, I guess I would ask why. Why would you be against that?

REPORTER: So you don’t think you harbor any kind of responsibility for these hate crimes?

TUCKER CARLSON: I’m sorry, I’m trying to be charitable. I’m trying to be charitable. I was like, maybe you’re just pretending to be dumb. Now I don’t think it’s an act.

I just feel sorry. I mean, because I got here and the country is so unbelievably beautiful, and the people are so cheerful and funny and cool and smart. I’m like, your media has got to be better than ours. It can’t just be a bunch of castrated robots reading questions from the boss, and then it turns out it’s exactly the same. Maybe even a tiny bit dumber.

WATCH:

Meet the Australian media. pic.twitter.com/IyiEqihPkb

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 26, 2024

The post MUST WATCH: Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Photo: Cori Bush/Fox News

Now that Jamaal Bowman has lost his seat to a primary challenger, people are looking at other members of the Squad and wondering if this week’s contest strategy can be replicated.

One Squad member who seems particularly vulnerable is Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri. Bush has a primary challenger who is now leading her in the polls.

Like other members of the Squad, Bush has done next to nothing for her constituents, opting instead to pursue a national profile.

Breitbart News reports:

Another Squad Member in Trouble? Rep. Cori Bush’s Primary Opponent Ahead in Poll

After Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY)’s primary defeat in New York, a second Squad member could be in trouble, according to a new poll that shows Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO)’s opponent, Wesley Bell, pulling ahead.

The poll, conducted by Democrat pollster Mark Mellman’s group and published by Politico, showed that Bell has overcome a double-digit deficit to pull ahead of Bush.

Bell, St. Louis County’s prosecuting attorney, is only one percentage point ahead of Bush, but analysis by the group said Bell’s image is improving, while Bush’s is moving in a negative direction, “leaving him with an underlying image advantage.”

“This primary race is essentially tied but clearly moving in Wesley Bell’s direction,” the analysis said.

The poll was conducted June 18-22, with a sample of 400 voters, and a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points.

There are some six weeks to go until the August 6, 2024, primary, and 11 percent are still undecided. However, the analysis said Bell has “achieved a slight advantage,” at 43 percent over 42 percent.

Bush was apparently shaken by Bowman’s ouster.

My statement on AIPAC’s threat to Democracy.

Their far-right SuperPac and allies spent $20M to unseat my brother @JamaalBowmanNY.

Read more here: pic.twitter.com/NHKNyqJU1z

— Cori Bush (@CoriBush) June 26, 2024

You’re next… https://t.co/YxeTmuiifD

— EducatëdHillbilly (@RobProvince) June 26, 2024

People are tired of these left wing ideologues who do nothing for the people they’re supposed to represent.

The post Will Cori Bush be the Next Member of the Squad to Lose Her Seat to a Primary Challenger? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Swing state voters trust Trump to protect democracy more than Biden, according to new polling from the Washington Post.

This poll must be driving Democrats positively bonkers, because it is the opposite of their entire strategy. They have been saying for months now that Trump is a threat to democracy. Yet voters in swing states trust Trump on this issue more than the Democrat candidate. That’s hilarious.

So much of what Democrats have tried to do has backfired right into their faces.

The Hill reports:

Swing-state ‘deciders’ trust Trump more than Biden to protect democracy: Poll

Voters in key states who will likely decide the election trust former President Trump more than President Biden to handle threats to democracy, according to a survey released Wednesday.

The poll, conducted by The Washington Post/Schar School, surveyed voters across six swing states and identified a subgroup of respondents labeled as “deciders.” It found that 38 percent of “deciders” said Trump would do a better job of handling threats of democracy to the U.S., while 29 percent said Biden and 23 percent said neither…

Those labeled as “deciders” include respondents who voted in the 2016 or 2020 election, are under the age of 25, have been registered to vote since 2022, are undecided and may not vote or someone who changed the party they support between 2016 and 2020.

Among all swing state voters, 44 percent said they trust the presumptive GOP nominee more to protect democracy, while 33 percent said the incumbent. About 16 percent said they trusted neither, and 7 percent said they trusted both equally, per the poll.

How’s that for irony?

Turns out voters think prosecuting your political opponent isn’t very Democratic. https://t.co/Cvrrrj1uDf

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) June 26, 2024

Devastating poll for the Regime.

Their Stalinist law-fare has backfired tremendously.

— David Giglio (@DavidGiglioCA) June 26, 2024

Turns out you can’t save democracy by ending democracy

— Cash Loren (@CashLorenShow) June 26, 2024

Do you think Jake Tapper will bring this up at the debate? Doubtful.

The post POLL: Swing State Voters Trust Trump More Than Biden to Protect Democracy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck devoted part of his show on Wednesday to discussing the upcoming debate and offered Trump some pretty sound advice.

Beck suggests that Trump sort of freeze Biden out of the discussion, ignore attacks from the moderators and speak directly to the American people.

The way Beck lays this out actually makes sense.

Partial transcript via WBEX Radio:

GLENN: Uh-huh. Now, Donald Trump could come in and debate with Joe Biden. I wouldn’t.

I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t debate with Joe Biden. I wouldn’t debate with Joe — with Jake tapper. I would just say, look, what was your question, Jake?

It was about Ukraine. And what we’re going to do with Ukraine?

Okay. I’m not going to debate a guy on foreign policy.

He’s responsible for the disaster of Afghanistan. For the Taliban of being back.

For the Russia Ukraine war.

For the Middle East.

The Russia/Ukraine and now the Middle East has brought our gas prices. Our food prices. And inflation to record highs!

So I’m not going to — I’m not going to even talk about what he’s doing.

I’m just telling you right now, the American people, cannot take it anymore.

The American people cannot afford these kinds of decisions coming again. Well, what do you talk about, he’s created X-number of jobs? No. He hasn’t. And have the facts. The New York Times even says. The — the Los Angeles Times just reported. And you could find them. There’s been no job growth in California.

The last year of all of the reported job growth in California, was bogus. If you look at our job growth right now, you know who is getting jobs? Illegals. You know who is not? There has not been any job growth since this man got into office, with Americans. Other than part-time jobs. More and more people have to take part-time work. Work two, three, even four jobs just to support the family.

They can’t afford rent. Why? Why did all of this happen?

Because of his policies. So don’t ask me to debate him on any of these things. He’s so wrong, it’s not worth anyone’s time. Here’s what I promise the American people: Your inflation is going to take a while to turn around. But I — I agree, it exists. This man told you, it didn’t exist.

Watch the video below:

Here’s my advice to Trump for his debate with Biden: Don’t “debate.” Don’t even acknowledge Biden. Speak to the American people who can’t afford 4 more years of this. Let them know how you’re going to turn it all around. pic.twitter.com/YsgQSTj9vl

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) June 26, 2024

The debate is going to be closely watched by millions of people. Trump has a real opportunity to win over more voters.

The post Glenn Beck Offers Trump Some Excellent Advice for the Debate (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.