Month: July 2024

Joe Biden broke the internet when he stumbled through the presidential debate against President Donald Trump.

The Donald J. Trump Campaign released a list on Friday of “50 Times Democrats Lied About Biden’s Cognitive Decline.”

They all lied to the American public.  They knew they were lying.

And they put this country in danger in their quest for power.

For 3½ years, Democrats have lied to the American people about Crooked Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline. Now, in a desperate and futile attempt to protect themselves from the wrath of voters this November, they are changing tune and coming to grips with reality. It’s too little, too late.

The destruction and chaos created by the Biden administration isn’t just on Crooked Joe — it’s on the entire Democrat Party.

In 126 days, the American people will remember these lies from Democrats that have enabled historic inflation, allowed the invasion of our country by millions of unvetted illegals, resulted in skyrocketing crime, and compromised America’s national security.

REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ: “He’s healthy, he’s sharp, he’s a full package.”

 

REP. DAN GOLDMAN: Biden is “sharper than anyone I’ve spoken to.”

 

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: Biden is “energizing”… “and there’s nobody better than Joe Biden.”

 

REP. ILHAN OMAR: It’s “very clear” he has “the energy and the ability.”

 

REP. JIM CLYBURN: “No one is better equipped” than Joe Biden. “He has the experience. He has the wisdom. He has the demeanor.”

 

REP. MARY PELTOLA: “Biden’s mental acuity is very, very on. He’s one of the smartest, sharpest people I’ve met in D.C.”

 

REP. RO KHANNA: Biden “is fully coherent. He is on top of details.”

 

REP. SUSAN WILD: “He’s very sharp, no memory issues, and his only stumbling is when he trips over words.”

 

REP. ANNIE KUSTER: “It’s like, ‘No, he’s fine.’ Most people don’t get an hour with him. He’s sharp. He’s doing fine.”

 

REP. STEVEN HORSFORD: Biden is “very well suited to be our commander-in-chief.”

 

REP. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE: “Everybody knows the president’s age, but when I’ve talked to him, he is incredibly lucid.”

 

REP. PAT RYAN: The Hur Report is “total bullshit. A political hack job.”

 

REP. JAHANA HAYES: “I’m not concerned about his age.”

 

REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ: Biden “still seems pretty sharp.”

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Biden “knows the issues so well and is strategic.”

 

REP. DAN KILDEE: Joe Biden is fit to be president. I know Joe pretty well.

 

REP. SUSAN WILD: “I am hoping to see President Biden look strong and competent, which I believe he is.”

 

REP. GLENN IVEY: Biden “seems to be doing fine.”

 

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: “He puts many of us to shame with his energy.”

 

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Joe Biden was “completely lucid and recalling stories from many years ago.”

 

REP. MARC VEASEY: I’m not concerned “at all” about Biden’s acuity.

 

REP. DONALD NORCROSS: “Can you ask for any more experience? I think he’s the right guy at the right time.”

 

REP. DINA TITUS: “Anybody can have a slip of the tongue…”

 

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: “There are literally thousands of people alive in this nation today because Joe Biden is incredibly competent, and he’s incredibly effective.”

 

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Biden can “run circles around senators inside the Oval Office.”

 

SEN. JON TESTER: Biden is “100 percent with it.”

 

SEN. BOB CASEY: There is “no question” Biden is prepared to do the job “today” and “would be if reelected.”

 

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Biden’s “mental acuity is GREAT.”

 

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: “I was with the president for over an hour … he was focused, his recall was good!”

 

SEN. TIM KAINE: “As I age, I appreciate wisdom even more.”

 

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: “Not only is he fit to do the job, he’s done a hell of a damn job.”

 

SEN. TINA SMITH: Biden has a “limitless reserves of energy.”

 

GOV. J.B. PRITZKER: “He is on the ball. The man knows more than most of us have forgotten.”

 

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: “I’ve seen him up close, I’ve seen him from afar, but here’s my point: It’s because of his age that he’s been so successful.”

 

GOV. TIM WALZ: It’s “ageism” for Americans to be concerned about Biden’s age and stamina.

 

DHS SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Biden is “remarkably detail-oriented, probing, and operationally focused.”

 

AG MERRICK GARLAND: “The president has no impairment!”

 

DR. JILL: “Joe is 81, that’s true, but he’s 81 doing more in an hour than most people do in a day.”

 

VP KAMALA: I’m not lying. I’m telling you a fact. Of course, I would tell the American public if there was a problem.

 

VP KAMALA: “I spend a lot of time with Joe Biden … This is someone who is tireless in terms of working…”

 

VP KAMALA: “The way that the president’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts.”

 

RON KLAIN: ‘I think his fitness, his vigor, is beyond question.’

 

DR. FAUCI: He asks probing questions. He’s right on point on things.

 

KARINE “SMART ONE” JEAN-PIERRE: People should not even be asking about Biden’s physical fitness.

 

KARINE “SMART ONE” JEAN-PIERRE: “It is hard for us to keep up with this president, who is constantly, constantly working every day to get things done!”

 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR CEDRIC RICHMOND: “About the president’s age — voters will see his vigor!”

 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN SPOX ADRIENNE NIMROD: Biden is “perfectly capable” and “perfectly competent.”

 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR MITCH LANDREIU: “This guy is tough. He’s smart. He’s on his game.”

 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHAIR: “No one who has a better grasp of global issues.”

 

UNNAMED BIDEN ADVISOR: Biden “works out several days a week” and “he’s in better physical shape than he was 15, 20 years ago.”

 

Dylan Johnson

Deputy Director of Communications

Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc.

Follow @TrumpWarRoom | @RealDylanMO

The post Trump Campaign Releases List: “50 Times Democrats Lied About Biden’s Cognitive Decline” …Now They Should Post a List for the Media! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The reformist Masoud Pezeshkian has won Iran’s presidential election with 53.7 percent of the vote, beating the hardliner Saeed Jalili, who took 46.3 percent of the vote. Pezeshkian will take the place of the former President Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash in May.

The first round of Iran’s presidential election saw both Pezeshkian and Jalili progress to the runoff with 44 and 40 percent of the vote respectively. The first round of the election, however, faced a general climate of apathy and record-low turnout. During the election, Pezeshkian called for “constructive negotiations” with the West for a new nuclear deal, while Jalili took more of an anti-Western stance. 

Jalili has been attacked on the campaign trail for religious policies, which have been compared by his opponents, including Pezeshkian, to those of the Taliban. By contrast, Pezeshkian has been accused of pandering to Azeri nationalists due to his half-Azeri, half-Kurdish ancestry and his campaign’s focus on minority rights.

As Iran’s President is very weak, being subordinate to the Supreme Leader in both foreign and domestic policy, it is unclear what effect this result will have on Iran.

The post Pezeshkian Wins Iranian Presidential Runoff appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Democrats argue that Donald Trump’s candidacy poses a threat to democracy. However, he is the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party. By attempting to keep him off the ballot, silencing him, and deplatforming the opposition, they are the ones threatening democracy.

After the Supreme Court ruling on immunity, they are saying that an independently adjudicating Supreme Court poses a threat to democracy, but the opposite is true. The U.S. system is founded on the principle of an independent judiciary.

Furthermore, challenging presidential immunity is perilous. Without presidential immunity, each incoming administration would be able to bring charges against the previous president for policies they disapprove of. Taken together, these three would make the United State a banana republic.

The concept of judicial independence is embedded in the structure of the Constitution and its various provisions. Article III of the Constitution establishes the judiciary as an independent branch of government.

An independent judiciary is integral to the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. An independent Supreme Court is able to adjudicate according to the Constitution, free from political pressure, threats, or retribution.

This is a vital part of the checks and balances system, as it prevents the passage of laws or executive orders that violate the rights protected by the Constitution.

Judicial independence is crucial for resolving election disputes fairly and in accordance with the law, which maintains public confidence in the electoral process and the legitimacy of elected representatives.

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to election practices and procedures. Cases like Bush v. Gore (2000) demonstrate how the Court adjudicates issues related to the fairness and equality of election processes.

Consequently, it is appropriate for citizens who feel an election violated the law or was conducted unfairly to bring their case to the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2 grants the judicial power of the United States to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. It allows these courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties.

This ensures that all individuals are equal before the law and that legal disputes are resolved impartially, without favoritism or bias, reinforcing public trust in the legal system and the democratic process.

Consequently, it is reasonable for American citizens to challenge an election by bringing their case to the Supreme Court. Additionally, if an opposition candidate feels that proceedings in lower courts are politically motivated and unfair, they can escalate their complaints to the Supreme Court.

Democrats are behaving as if executive privilege is a new concept. However, executive privilege has always existed in the U.S. and in most high-functioning democracies.

While it is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the principle has been inferred from the separation of powers doctrine. Article II, Section 1 vests the executive power in the President, implying the need for confidentiality in executive functions to perform duties effectively.

Article II, Section 3 requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ suggesting the necessity for discretion and confidentiality in executive operations.

Executive privilege has a long and evolving history in the United States. The first use of executive privilege dates back to George Washington, who refused to provide the House of Representatives with documents related to the Jay Treaty negotiations with Great Britain, asserting the need for confidentiality in diplomatic matters.

During the Aaron Burr trial in 1807, President Thomas Jefferson claimed executive privilege to withhold documents, but ultimately provided the documents after a court order, while maintaining the right to confidentiality.

The term “executive privilege” was formally coined during the Eisenhower administration. The concept was further defined and tested during the Watergate scandal, leading to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon (1974).

The Court ruling affirmed that executive privilege exists, but that it is not absolute and can be overridden in the context of a criminal investigation. In addition to Presidents Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama also invoked executive privilege during their administrations.

Executive privilege helps maintain the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to operate independently from the legislative and judicial branches. This independence is crucial for the effective functioning of each branch, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Executive privilege is often discussed in terms of protecting the confidentiality of presidential communications, particularly those related to national security, diplomatic negotiations, and internal deliberations.

However, it also extends to certain actions taken by the President in their official capacity. In the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump v. United States, the Court provided clarity on what constitutes “official acts” that are protected under executive privilege.

“Official acts” are defined as actions within the President’s conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. This includes decisions and actions directly related to the execution of the President’s duties under the Constitution. The Court emphasized that these acts are integral to the President’s role and thus merit protection to maintain the separation of powers.

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) is consistent with previous Supreme Court decisions. In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Court ruled that the President does not have temporary immunity from civil litigation for actions taken before his presidency, but it also affirmed that sitting Presidents have immunity from certain judicial processes that might interfere with their official duties.

In Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), the Court ruled that the President could not be restrained by injunction from carrying out his official duties. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) affirmed that former Presidents have certain protections related to their actions in office. Finally, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Court held that the President has absolute immunity from civil damages for actions taken within the scope of official duties.

By protecting the confidentiality of executive communications, executive privilege facilitates more effective decision-making. Advisors can provide candid advice, and officials can discuss various options and strategies thoroughly, leading to better-informed policies and actions.

Additionally, by protecting the President’s official actions, executive privilege ensures that the President can make policy decisions without fear of reprisal. The concept of executive privilege also underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the executive branch’s need for confidentiality. While the judiciary can review claims of executive privilege, it generally respects the executive’s prerogative unless there is a compelling need for disclosure.

The post Independent Judiciary and Executive Privilege: Essential Pillars of Democracy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A mass gunfight broke out in downtown St. Louis following fireworks late Thursday night. Seven people were injured including a 13-year-old.

There was a mass shooting in downtown St. Louis on Thursday night following the annual fireworks display.

Seven people were shot including a 13-year-old.

The mass shooting was captured on video.

MASS SHOOTING: serious firepower seen here in this morning’s St. Louis bloodbath, resulting in seven victims: a 13-year-old, three 18-year-olds, a 20-year-old and two 23-year-olds. pic.twitter.com/cjiiXmvfFy

— Dapper Detective (@Dapper_Det) July 5, 2024

Dozens of gunshots were fired off as people ran and ducked down on the sidewalks in downtown St. Louis.

Here’s more video.

This is what people experienced leaving the fireworks downtown on the 4th of July. Wonder how City Officials will try to spin this. Children and families were in the area when this was happening. Jeez. #CrimePlan pic.twitter.com/mSsF51gy0V

— Jane Dueker (@JaneDueker) July 5, 2024

Local KMOV reported.

Seven people were shot following the Fourth of July fireworks show in Downtown St. Louis Thursday night.

“We needed to get out of here because there’s just way too many people. I’m so glad that we did that,” Marlen Sanchez, who attended the display, said.

Police say around midnight, gunfire broke out. Four people were shot on 8th and Pine, and three others were shot on Chestnut Street, including a 13-year-old.

“A scary situation. I just can’t believe it,” Sanchez said.

First Alert 4 spoke with one of the 911 callers who said, “I watched the switch from calm to war zone.”

“The failure to communicate about this mass shooting is really appalling,” says Ward 8, Alderwoman Cara Spencer.

Spencer represents the ward where the multiple-victim shooting occurred and blames Mayor Tishaura Jones for the state of downtown.

“We need an administration that says this is where the buck stops, and as mayor, the buck will stop with me,” Spencer said. “We don’t have the police presence we need downtown to keep it safe after hours. We are sitting here with 30% vacancy in our police department, and that’s unacceptable.”

KSDK has more video.

The post Gunfire Erupts in Downtown St. Louis Following July 4th Fireworks Display – 7 People Shot Including 13-Year-Old – SHOOTING CAUGHT ON VIDEO appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Credit: Motley Fool

27% of Americans say they skip meals due to the rising cost of food.
39% say they skip meals to make house payments.

Unusual Whales reported:

39% of Americans say they’ve skipped meals to make housing payments, per Clever Real Estate survey.

And among millennials, that figure rose to 44%. Among Baby Boomers, it was 20%.

Meanwhile, Housing affordability in the US is near all-time-lows, per $GS.

In November, nationwide, households need six-figure incomes to comfortably afford the typical home for sale, according to a report by Redfin.

Last month, the nation’s home buyers needed to make about $107,000 annually, up from about $74,000 a year earlier, to afford a median-priced home, according to Redfin. That’s an increase of nearly 46%.

In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, the annual income needed to afford a home at the median sales price of $260,000 was about $70,000 last month, up from about $50,600 in October 2021. That’s a 38% increase.

The post Bidenomics: 27% of Americans Say They Skip Meals Due to Rising Cost of Food appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Joe Biden was greeted at a Friday campaign rally in Madison, Wisconsin, with an audience member holding a sign behind him which read, “PASS THE TORCH, JOE.”

The event was an opportunity for the president to try to turn the page on his dismal debate performance June 27 against presumptive Republican nominee former President Donald Trump.

A young man carrying a sign could be seen mouthing the words, “Please pass the torch” as Biden took the stage alongside of Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers.

“PASS THE TORCH, JOE”

–audience member sign for Pres. Biden Wisconsin campaign appearance pic.twitter.com/0unHBAyV9B

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) July 5, 2024

Another audience member briefly placed a “Biden – Harris” campaign sign in front of the man’s “Pass the Torch Joe” one.

“Pass The Torch, Joe” pic.twitter.com/yGX09DkPeH

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 5, 2024

There have been increasing calls among Democrats for Biden to step aside and allow someone else to become the party’s nominee.

Axios reported that Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is speaking with his colleagues about the possible removal of Biden from the party’s ticket. Democratic House members and donors have also been moving in that direction.

Biden stated emphatically at his Wisconsin rally that he has no intention of leaving the race.

“You probably heard — had a little debate last week. Can’t say it was my best performance,” he said. “But ever since then, there’s been a lot of speculation. What’s Joe going to do? Is he going to stay in the race? Is he going to drop out? What’s he going to do?”

“Well, here’s my answer,” the president continued. “I am running and gonna win again.”

He noted that people voted for him in the Democratic primaries earlier this year.

Biden: “You probably heard — had a little debate last week. Can’t say here’s my best performance. But since then, there’s been lot of speculation. What’s Joe going to do? Is you’re going to stay in the race? Is he going to drop out? What’s he gonna do? Well, here’s my answer. I… pic.twitter.com/kCNUe4ZZpH

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 5, 2024

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: I’m staying in the race!” Biden yelled. “I will beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020.”

“I’m staying in the race. I’ll beat Donald Trump,” President Biden reassured voters at a campaign event in Wisconsin. “I’m not letting one 90-minute debate wipe out three and a half years of work.” https://t.co/tD94Qnuy1u pic.twitter.com/Z7it1LyiyZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 5, 2024

Perhaps realizing he misspoke, he added, “By the way we’re going to do it again in 2024.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Camera Catches Sign Begging Joe Biden to Step Aside RIGHT BEHIND HIM at ‘I’m Running’ Speech appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

100,000 supporters come out to see Donald Trump in blue state New Jersey vs. 120 supporters come out to see Joe Biden in a middle school gym in deep blue Madison, Wisconsin.

On Friday, Joe Biden flew to Wisconsin to hold another small rally in the Sherman Middle School gymnasium.

The crowd was neither large or enthusiastic.

Reporters made up at least 20% of the crowd.

Biden rally in Madison, Wisconsin

Scheduled to start in less than an hour pic.twitter.com/FiZn7XxION

— Gabe Gutierrez (@gabegutierrez) July 5, 2024

The enthusiasm for Old Joe peaked sometime back in his sixties.

After the small rally, Joe Biden sat with George Stephanopoulos for an interview that aired on Friday night.

Stephanopoulos was much kinder and gentler with Old Joe than he ever was with President Donald Trump.

During the interview Joe Biden strangely bragged about the size of the crowds who were coming out to see him.

George Stephanopoulos: What’s your plan to turn your campaign around?

Joe Biden: You saw it today. How many people do you think can draw crowds like I do? You find anymore enthusiastic than today? huh?

Stephanopoulos was stunned and rightly pointed out President Trump’s mega MAGA rallies of tens of thousands of supporters.

George Stephanopoulos: I don’ think you want to play the crowd game. Donald Trump can draw big crowds, there’s no question about that.

That’s when Joe Biden stopped making sense. Can anyone decipher what he was talking about here?

Joe Biden: He can draw a big crowd but what does he say? Who does he have? I’m the guy supposedly in trouble.

Whatever, Joe.

Biden tries to claim he gets big crowds, gets demolished as @GStephanopoulos reminds him of Trump’s very large crowds.

pic.twitter.com/kbJ2MRqfFI

— Cryptid Politics (pro-DeSantis) (@CryptidPolitics) July 6, 2024

The post “You Saw It Today!” – Joe Biden Brags About His “Large Crowds” in Middle School Gyms – Then Makes Strange Remarks About Trump’s MAGA Crowds (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In an exclusive Friday interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, President Joe Biden Biden fell back to the claim that his poor debate performance was due to a cold, and claimed that he was ill enough that he required a Covid test prior to the debate. 

When asked directly by Stephanopoulos about his health in recent months, Biden retorted, “Can I run a 110 flat? No, but I’m still in good shape.”

Stephanopoulos, who is best known for his role as Bill Clinton’s White House Communications Director and a staunch Clinton-loyalist, tried to keep the conversation about Biden’s health rather than policy. For instance, at one point Biden stated that in a hypothetical second term, he would “straighten out the tax system,” “make sure we’re in a situation where we have healthcare for all people,” and have taxpayer-funded childcare and eldercare. Stephanopoulos declined to inquire about the substance of these major policy proposals and instead pivoted back to asking about Biden’s health. 

On top of bringing up large policy proposals, Biden also highlighted his foreign policy record, touting NATO expansion and aid to Ukraine.

Stephanopoulos also questioned Biden’s electability against Donald Trump. Biden claimed that the race is a “toss-up” and that he does not think “anybody is more qualified to be president or win this race than me.” In response to questions about whether Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or Hakeem Jeffries would be able to persuade him to drop out of the race. Biden countered, “I’m not going to answer that question; it’s not going to happen.” 

The post Biden Faces Stephanopoulos in Confrontational Interview appeared first on The American Conservative.

Taiwan’s government often argues that its security is closely linked to that of Ukraine, while also downplaying concerns that U.S. military support for Europe comes at a cost for the Indo-Pacific. The most prominent example yet comes courtesy of Taiwan’s former Foreign Minister Joseph Wu,  who recently claimed that the world should be “defending Taiwan by defending Ukraine.” Shortly after, Wu took over as Secretary General of Taiwan’s National Security Council, making it clear that linking Taiwan to Ukraine is a priority of Taiwan’s government. 

Secretary General Wu, a fierce freedom fighter who spent his years at the foreign ministry pushing back against China’s aggression, has a rational basis for claiming that Taiwan’s security is linked to democratic countries’ support for Ukraine. Yet going all in on this strategy and dismissing legitimate concerns about U.S. military credibility in the Indo-Pacific may not be the best approach for Taiwan’s engagement with a United States facing costly security challenges in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. 

Ukraine has a major advantage over Taiwan in generating and maintaining international support: The world clearly views Russia’s invasion as an aggressive violation of a sovereign country’s borders. Conversely, China has been dangerously successful in spreading the lie that Taiwan’s fate is an “internal affair” of China. Taiwan is right to underscore that China’s efforts to “reunify” Taiwan by threatening or using force are matters of international concern. Secretary General Wu directly addresses this in his essay, arguing that “peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait can be maintained only by viewing and treating it as an international issue.” 

Wu is also speaking to the U.S. Congress by drawing parallels between Taiwan and Ukraine. From Taipei’s perspective, Taiwan’s most urgent existential threat is not the Chinese Communist Party, but the loss of bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. Since the U.S. severed diplomatic relations and our defense treaty with Taiwan in 1979, Taiwan’s near-universal support in the American legislature has been the defining enabler of its continued existence, technological development, democratic transition, economic success, and military capabilities. Congressional support counterbalances U.S. presidents’ tendencies to embrace Communist China and undergirds other countries’ relations with Taiwan. Taiwan just can’t afford to alienate the majorities in Congress that continue to vote in favor of U.S. assistance for Ukraine. 

Wu went further, however, with the unqualified statement that U.S. military support for Ukraine “does not detract from the defense of places such as Taiwan.” Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true. 

American support for Ukraine draws on finite resources that are also needed to support Taiwan and ongoing American entanglements in the Middle East. This applies both to scarce munitions and weapons systems that the U.S. defense industrial base is failing to produce sufficiently, and the political will of a justifiably war-weary American public. Taiwan needs the support of the Members of Congress who are concerned with those tradeoffs, not just the majorities who recently voted in favor of further Ukraine aid. 

Unlike Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a military contingency involving Taiwan would probably involve the United States as a combatant. The U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” reserves the right to come to Taiwan’s defense because a Taiwan conflict would have a direct, severe impact on the economic wellbeing of American families and significantly harm American national security. Even were this not the case, to ensure the success of an attack on Taiwan, China may also attack U.S. treaty allies Japan and the Philippines. Beijing would possibly make a preemptive strike on the U.S. military itself, including in Okinawa and Guam. 

All that adds up to mean that Taiwan’s defense is a weightier debate on a more consequential conflict for U.S. interests than U.S. aid to Ukraine. In that debate, the support of the realists and skeptics among our elected leaders will be even more decisive. Taiwan needs to account for this when engaging with the U.S. Congress.

Today, it is no surprise that Taiwan’s leaders continue to highlight Taiwan’s connections to Ukraine. But as Taiwan engages Congress, it should avoid dismissing the substantive concerns of those who are worried about the material capacity of the United States military to deter China as conflicts proliferate around the globe. 

It will do us no good to know, as Secretary General Wu writes, that “the agendas of Moscow and Beijing” are linked, only to conclude that having taken on the former, we aren’t able to fight back against the latter. 

The post Taiwan Should Not Present Itself as Another Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Democrats don’t want Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot. In early March, the Kennedy campaign announced that volunteers had collected over 15,000 signatures for the candidate’s name to appear in the voting booths of the swing state of Nevada. Later that month, Cisco Aguilar, the state’s Democratic secretary of state, threw cold water on the campaign’s excitement by rejecting the campaign’s signatures for having failed to include a running mate on the candidacy petition. 

Kennedy’s campaign staff reacted with frustration, claiming that the “Kennedy campaign intends to depose the Secretary of State to find out exactly which White House or DNC official concocted this scheme.” 

The campaign’s ballot access attorney, Paul Rossi, insisted in a press release, “The DNC Goon Squad and their lackeys in the Nevada Secretary of State’s office are outright inventing a new requirement for the petition with zero legal basis.”

Most recently, the campaign announced Friday that it submitted a second round of signatures for a spot on the ballot.

In the middle of a 20-day period during which the campaign announced it had gathered enough signatures in Nevada and Aguilar announced that their petition was insufficient, NBC News reported that the Democratic National Committee had been building a legal and communications infrastructure to weaken third-party candidates. Pat Dennis, president of a Democratic opposition research group called American Bridge 21st Century, told NBC, “We see [Kennedy and No Labels] essentially as an arm of the Trump campaign and we intend to treat it as such.”

Despite the pending litigation, the campaign continues to include the state in its running list of 27 states in which it has collected the necessary number of signatures for ballot placement. 

The campaign also includes the states of Illinois, New Jersey, and New York and the swing states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania on the list of states in which it has collected the necessary number of signatures, even as the campaign finds itself in active litigation or disputes with state Democratic committees in each of those states.

Whether Kennedy will make it on the ballot in Indiana is also up in the air. The campaign’s press office has mentioned the state twice this year, once to confirm that volunteers were collecting signatures in the state in late March and once to lament that Indiana law “permits county clerks the unilateral authority to prevent otherwise valid ballot access petition signatures from being filed with the Secretary of State by simply failing to validate petition signatures in time.” 

While the state of Indiana’s deadline for independent candidates to file a petition of nomination with a county voter registration office for the verification of petition signatures was on Monday, the state will further require the same candidates to file a petition of nomination with the state after county verification on Monday, July 15. One June 21 report indicates that county officials certified about 5,400 signatures of the 36,943 required. Because of the campaign’s relative silence regarding its status in the state amid a passed deadline, Kennedy’s sustained claim that he will appear on the ballot in all 50 states is now open to question. The campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Regardless of whether the campaign fulfills its desire to land on the ballot in every state across the country, how its candidate fares during Election Month is the determining factor. And right now, the response from swing state voters is largely uniform. In Kennedy’s most hotly contested state, Nevada, the former President Donald Trump holds almost a 4-point lead over President Joe Biden, while Kennedy attracts about 8 percent of the state’s electorate, according to an average of last month’s polls. 

In North Carolina, Trump has secured a 7-point lead over Biden, while Kennedy has captured about 7 percent of the state. In Arizona, Trump leads by 5, and Kennedy has about 8 percent. In Georgia, Trump leads by almost 7 percent, and Kennedy has almost 7 percent. Voters polled in Wisconsin have been more discerning, giving Trump a slight edge over Biden and awarding Kennedy about 6 percent. Pennsylvania voters offer Trump almost a 2-point lead and Kennedy squeaks out about 5 percent. In Michigan, Trump holds the same 2-point lead and Kennedy pulls almost 7 percent. 

The aggregates of these polls have Trump winning in each swing state. What’s worth noting is that Biden took a marginal lead over Trump in three discrete polls last month in the swing states: One each in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Each of those polls asked voters to choose between Trump and Biden in a head-to-head matchup. On the other hand, Trump wins every swing state poll when Kennedy and his third-party competitors are included in the calculus. 

But things have changed on the national scene even since these poll numbers were collected, and the DNC is scrambling for a chance to beat the betting markets. Some have floated the independent candidate’s name as a solution to the Democrats’ sorry position. With Kennedy, though, they appear to have made their position known. 

The post Kennedy Could Play the Spoiler—If He Gets Onto the Ballot appeared first on The American Conservative.