Author: Editorial Staff

No comments

The Impact of Hurricane Helene on the 2024 Election

  By ,

 

As the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene continue to unfold, the political landscape in key states is being reshaped in real-time. While the mainstream media (MSM) has been relatively quiet on the disaster’s impact, conservative voices are raising concerns about how this natural disaster could distort the upcoming election. In this piece, we’ll explore how infrastructure damage in Republican-leaning states may suppress voter turnout, the government’s slow response, and the need for emergency voting measures.

Infrastructure Damage and Voter Turnout

Hurricane Helene has crippled major swathes of the Southeast, including crucial “red” states like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. With polling stations destroyed, roads blocked, and many areas still lacking power, access to in-person voting is going to be a logistical nightmare unless significant recovery steps are taken.

These areas tend to lean conservative, which means that a failure to address these issues could unfairly skew the results. Historically, conservative voters have favored in-person voting over mail-in ballots, making the closure of polling places particularly damaging for Republicans. While liberals might embrace absentee voting as an alternative, conservative voters could be left disenfranchised if solutions aren’t found quickly.

From a conservative standpoint, this disaster highlights the vulnerability of physical voting infrastructure, which we’ve seen compromised in past natural disasters. But why is the response so slow, and how might it affect key conservative strongholds in these states?

Slow Government Response: Is It Incompetence or Lack of Resources?

There’s no question that the government’s response has been far from ideal. FEMA and other federal agencies are delivering food and water, but that’s barely scratching the surface of what’s needed. The lack of military deployment for more critical tasks, such as road clearing and restoring access to polling stations, raises serious concerns. The Army Corps of Engineers, typically relied upon for rebuilding infrastructure after disasters, seems conspicuously absent. The conservative viewpoint here is that this sluggish response might reflect broader issues of bureaucratic inefficiency, or worse, a lack of financial readiness due to mismanaged budgets under the current administration.

Under President Biden and Vice President Harris, we’ve seen a continued expansion of federal spending on a variety of programs, which has raised questions about whether resources for emergency management have been stretched thin. The possibility that this administration simply lacks the funds or the resolve to deploy essential resources to conservative areas could have political consequences. Could the failure to prioritize disaster recovery in red states be deliberate?

Drone Bans and Missteps: Government Blocking Private Efforts

Reports of private citizens attempting to conduct rescue missions and deliver aid have surfaced, only to be thwarted by government intervention. Drone usage, which could be instrumental in search-and-rescue efforts, is reportedly being limited by airspace restrictions, stalling recovery initiatives by private citizens and organizations. In disaster-prone states, conservative communities often rely on themselves and local volunteers, rather than waiting on government handouts. The government’s apparent discouragement of these private efforts only adds to the frustration many feel toward federal overreach. Could this be another example of the administration undercutting self-reliance in favor of centralized control?

Emergency Voting Measures: Are They Enough?

While states have some experience with implementing emergency voting measures after hurricanes, the question remains whether these measures will come fast enough to preserve the integrity of the election. Absentee ballots might offer some relief, but this option presents problems in and of itself. Conservative voters have historically expressed distrust of mail-in voting due to concerns over fraud, making it a less than ideal alternative. If mail-in voting is the only viable solution, conservative voices may again cry foul, alleging election interference by pushing a voting method that favors Democrats.

Temporary polling stations and extended early voting are potential solutions that conservative advocates should push for in these affected areas. However, the pace of the government’s recovery efforts raises doubts about whether these measures will be implemented before Election Day.

The Stakes in Key Red States

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina have consistently been battlegrounds where conservative and liberal forces compete fiercely for dominance. Lower voter turnout in these red states could open the door for Democrats to make gains, particularly in tight races. The 2024 election is not just about the presidency; it’s about the future of Senate control, the makeup of state legislatures, and local governments.

If conservative voters in hurricane-ravaged regions are left without adequate voting access, the Republican Party stands to lose crucial votes in an election already stacked against them due to biased media narratives and unfair pandemic-era voting changes. A low turnout among conservative voters in key areas could tilt the scales in favor of Democrats, potentially altering the national political landscape for years to come.

Government Preparedness and the 2024 Election

It’s worth asking: why was the government so unprepared for Hurricane Helene? As conservatives have argued for years, the government excels at waste and inefficiency while neglecting its core responsibilities—like protecting citizens and preserving the democratic process. Rather than focusing on disaster preparedness, the Biden-Harris administration has been prioritizing expansive federal programs, leaving states vulnerable when real emergencies arise.

The conservative perspective is that this disaster exposes the dangers of bloated government spending on social programs and regulatory overreach while underfunding critical infrastructure and emergency response capabilities. If the administration had focused on building resilient infrastructure and cutting red tape, Hurricane Helene’s damage might not have been so catastrophic.

Conclusion: The Election Hangs in the Balance

Hurricane Helene is not just a natural disaster—it’s a political disaster waiting to happen. For conservative voters, the implications are clear: the slow response, lack of preparedness, and mishandling of emergency measures could jeopardize voter turnout in key states, potentially shifting the election in favor of Democrats.

To prevent this, it’s essential for conservative leaders to push for quick action on restoring infrastructure and implementing emergency voting measures. Without these steps, the 2024 election may be marred by controversy, disenfranchisement, and lost opportunities for Republican voters.

No comments

The Impact of a Longshoremen’s Strike: Now vs. January 2025

  By ,

The delay of the Longshoremen’s strike until after January 17, 2025, has raised concerns about the Biden-Harris administration’s potential influence on labor decisions to protect their political standing in an election year. While such a move avoids immediate economic disruption, the consequences of this delay could be felt in both the economy and politics. In this post, we will explore the economic impacts of a strike before and after the election, and how the Biden-Harris administration’s interference could sway the 2024 race. Despite the administration’s promises, many union members currently show little support for Harris.

The Economic Fallout of a Strike: Immediate vs. Delayed

A strike involving Longshoremen, the backbone of America’s ports, could bring the national supply chain to a halt. The flow of imports and exports that feed into vital sectors like electronics, autos, clothing, and food would come to a grinding stop. How this strike is timed could dramatically change its impact on the economy.

If the strike were to happen now, the effects would be felt almost immediately in the most critical season for American retail: the holiday shopping period. The retail sector, along with consumers, depends heavily on timely shipments of goods, particularly imported products like electronics, vehicles, and appliances. Should dock workers strike before the election, these items could become scarce, leading to price spikes. Inflation, which has been an ongoing issue under the Biden administration, could surge again. Empty shelves would dominate the news cycle, with the administration blamed for failing to prevent this economic disaster. The ripple effects would extend to consumer confidence, job losses in manufacturing, and further economic instability—all while voters are heading to the polls.

By contrast, a strike postponed to January would allow the administration to glide through the election with far fewer economic tremors. Retailers would be able to restock shelves after the holidays, and inflationary pressures would temporarily ease. However, a strike in the new year would still cause significant disruption to supply chains, especially in sectors like construction and agriculture. Manufacturers relying on imports could see production delays, and food exporters would suffer from halted shipments.

In either scenario, the economic damage is undeniable, but timing plays a pivotal role in determining the severity of that damage. A strike now would have an immediate and visible impact on voters, whereas a strike in January would shift the burden to a post-election economic recovery.

A Strike Now: Political and Economic Consequences

If the Longshoremen go on strike before the election, the Biden-Harris administration could face severe consequences. A strike now would mean empty shelves during the holiday season, sparking frustration among consumers, small businesses, and large retailers alike. Key imports like electronics, cars, appliances, and clothing would become harder to find, and inflation would worsen due to supply shortages.

A key risk is inflationary pressure. After years of inflation concerns under the Biden administration, a pre-election strike would only add fuel to that fire. The Federal Reserve might raise interest rates further to combat rising prices, making borrowing more expensive for businesses and individuals. All of this would erode consumer confidence, painting a picture of economic instability just as voters head to the polls. With the economy in a precarious position, the electorate may turn away from the incumbents in favor of change. Donald Trump has emphasized his “America First” trade policies, and the contrast between his promises of economic stability and a strike-induced economic crisis could tip the scales in his favor.

Retailers, particularly those dependent on imports, would be hard-hit. Major stores could see their inventories dwindle, forcing them to raise prices on remaining stock. This would be especially evident in consumer electronics, where high demand and short supply could lead to skyrocketing prices. The auto industry, reliant on both imported cars and components, would also be affected, with delays in production and price hikes on new vehicles. All of this would spell political disaster for an administration already battling economic perceptions.

A Strike in January: Less Visible, Still Costly

Postponing the strike until January may delay the immediate crisis, but it doesn’t eliminate the threat. A strike in early 2025 would still create significant disruptions across industries, but it would avoid the politically sensitive holiday season.

After January 17, retailers would be in a slower post-holiday season, which could cushion the blow somewhat. However, manufacturers, particularly those in the auto and tech industries, would still face severe delays due to stalled shipments of parts and materials. The construction industry, dependent on imports like steel and lumber, would see projects delayed and costs rise.

While the Biden-Harris administration would have sidestepped a pre-election disaster, the strike could set the stage for economic struggles early in Harris’s first term, should she win. Delaying the strike to January might allow the administration to win the election, but it could leave them dealing with a fresh economic crisis as they enter 2025.

Political Ramifications: Union Loyalty and Electoral Calculations

While delaying the strike might seem like a smart tactical move, there’s no guarantee it will win over union workers. Polls show that many union members, including those in the Longshoremen’s ranks, do not favor Kamala Harris. Reports of the administration promising to meet union demands after the election could be seen as political maneuvering, and many workers may distrust these promises, especially given the perception that they’re being used as pawns in an electoral chess match.

The union vote has traditionally favored Democrats, but Trump’s populist rhetoric has resonated with many workers who feel abandoned by the current administration. By delaying the strike, the Biden-Harris administration risks alienating workers further. If Harris wins and fails to deliver on the promises made to union leaders, that disillusionment could deepen, creating long-term political damage for the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, avoiding a strike now might stave off immediate political disaster. The economic chaos of a pre-election strike would likely doom the Biden-Harris ticket, as voters would blame the administration for failing to prevent the disruption. By pushing the strike to January, Harris might just avoid the worst-case scenario, buying time to secure votes.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris administration’s decision to delay the Longshoremen’s strike may temporarily shield the economy from immediate damage, but the economic and political consequences loom large. A strike now would wreak havoc on supply chains, causing inflation, job losses, and economic instability during a critical election season. A strike in January would shift the economic burden to 2025, potentially dampening a Harris presidency right out of the gate.

Either way, union members remain skeptical of Harris, and delaying the strike may not be enough to win over their votes. In the end, this tactical delay could sway the 2024 election, but it leaves the administration facing a difficult economic reckoning in 2025. Whether the gamble pays off remains to be seen, but the political and economic landscape is certain to be shaped by how this strike unfolds.

No comments

Top 10 Debate Questions for Walz and Vance: A Conservative Analysis

  By ,

NPR News

The upcoming vice-presidential debate between Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for both candidates. Walz, whose handling of the 2020 Minnesota riots and transgender policies in schools has come under intense scrutiny, faces off against Vance, a rising conservative star whose clear stance on law and order has garnered attention. This debate will allow both candidates to present their visions on law enforcement, the economy, and cultural issues. Below, we break down the top 10 likely debate questions and provide insight into how each candidate may answer from a conservative perspective.

1. Handling of the Minnesota Riots: A Leadership Test

Question: “Governor Walz, you’ve been criticized for your response to the Minneapolis riots in 2020. Do you think your handling of the situation was effective in restoring peace, or would you change anything in hindsight?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely try to defend his decision to allow protests, claiming it was a necessary balancing act between controlling civil unrest and respecting the demonstrators’ grievances. He may argue that his approach prevented further violence.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely condemn Walz’s actions as a blatant failure of leadership. He could point to the destruction of large portions of the city, including retail areas and a police station, which were set ablaze during the riots. Vance will likely emphasize that the area remains economically depressed, showing no signs of recovery, which he will attribute directly to Walz’s unwillingness to enforce law and order. Vance might frame this as proof that Democratic leaders let chaos reign when their priorities are skewed, asserting that a strong leader must protect both citizens and businesses.

2. Transgender Rights in Schools: Parental Rights vs. State Policy

Question: “Governor Walz, your administration supports gender-affirming policies in public schools, including allowing transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity and compete in sports accordingly. Senator Vance, what is your stance on these policies?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely defend his stance, stating that gender-affirming policies are necessary to create safe and inclusive environments for all students, particularly marginalized groups. He may argue that his policies reflect modern equality standards and that they are essential for protecting students’ mental and emotional well-being.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will undoubtedly oppose these policies, particularly focusing on the implications for women’s rights under Title IX. He could argue that allowing biological males to use women’s bathrooms and compete in female sports undermines decades of progress in securing equal opportunities for women. Vance may accuse Walz of ignoring the rights of women and girls, whose hard-fought achievements in education and sports are now being threatened by progressive gender policies. Vance will likely frame this issue as not just a moral failing but a breach of fairness and common sense.

3. Economy and Inflation: What’s the Conservative Plan?

Question: “Senator Vance, inflation is hurting working-class families across the nation. What is your plan to stabilize the economy and bring relief to American households?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely argue that inflation is the result of reckless Democratic spending and overregulation. He’ll advocate for conservative economic policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and energy independence, positioning these as solutions to bring down costs, create jobs, and restore economic stability. Expect him to champion small businesses and criticize the bloated federal government for driving up inflation with stimulus spending and subsidies.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely blame external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and global supply chain disruptions. He could argue that Republicans’ tax cuts benefit only the wealthy, failing to offer any real relief to working-class families. Walz may push for more government intervention, such as federal programs to lower costs for essential goods like food and gas.

4. Crime and Public Safety: Law Enforcement vs. Criminal Reform

Question: “Senator Vance, how will you ensure law enforcement remains strong while addressing calls for criminal justice reform?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is expected to take a hardline stance, emphasizing the need for law and order. He will likely call for stronger support for law enforcement, higher penalties for violent crime, and an end to “soft-on-crime” policies that he might attribute to Democratic leadership. Expect him to highlight how cities like Minneapolis, under Democratic leadership, have seen spikes in crime due to defunding or limiting police powers.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue that criminal justice reform is necessary to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. He could claim that his administration has sought to balance law enforcement with reform measures aimed at reducing systemic issues in policing, particularly in minority communities.

5. Immigration and Border Security: A Conservative Approach

Question: “Senator Vance, what steps will you take to secure the border and reform immigration policy?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely advocate for strong border security, pushing for increased border patrol funding and more stringent immigration enforcement. He’ll likely support the continuation or expansion of Trump-era policies, including the construction of physical barriers, while opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. He’ll argue that securing the border is a matter of national sovereignty and security.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may focus on comprehensive immigration reform, arguing that America’s immigration system is broken and that bipartisan solutions, including pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, are needed. He may accuse conservatives of fearmongering and using immigration as a political weapon.

6. Energy Policy: Climate Change vs. Energy Independence

Question: “Governor Walz, where do you stand on balancing climate initiatives with the need for American energy independence?”

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will likely advocate for renewable energy and climate initiatives as long-term solutions to both economic and environmental challenges. He may argue that transitioning to green energy is inevitable and necessary for combating climate change, positioning it as an investment in the future.

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely emphasize energy independence through the expansion of fossil fuel production, particularly oil and natural gas. He may argue that Democratic policies on climate change have led to higher energy costs for Americans and that a focus on domestic production will bring energy prices down, making life more affordable for the average citizen.

7. Healthcare: Government-Controlled or Free Market?

Question: “What’s your plan to ensure healthcare is affordable and accessible for all Americans?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is expected to advocate for market-based solutions, arguing that government involvement in healthcare leads to inefficiency and higher costs. He’ll likely promote competition among healthcare providers and insurance companies to drive down costs, insisting that individuals should have more control over their healthcare decisions.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may push for expanded government-controlled healthcare, arguing that federal intervention is necessary to reduce costs and expand access. He could frame Medicaid expansion as a way to ensure that low-income families receive the care they need, while portraying Vance’s free-market approach as benefiting the wealthy and insurance companies.

8. Education: School Choice or Public School Focus?

Question: “What’s your stance on school choice and the role of public vs. private schools?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance is likely to champion school choice as a conservative solution to failing public schools. He’ll argue that parents should have the right to choose the best education for their children, whether it’s in public, private, or charter schools. Vance will likely frame school choice as a way to introduce competition and improve the overall quality of education.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue that school choice diverts necessary funding from public schools, undermining efforts to improve them. He could emphasize the importance of investing in public education for all students and claim that school choice mainly benefits wealthy families while leaving poorer students behind.

9. Abortion: A Defining Issue

Question: “What is your position on abortion laws, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely take a pro-life stance, celebrating the progress made with the recent Supreme Court rulings. He’ll argue that life should be protected at all stages and may use this opportunity to stress the moral importance of protecting the unborn.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz will almost certainly support abortion rights, framing it as a matter of women’s autonomy and healthcare. He’ll argue that the recent Supreme Court rulings threaten women’s rights and could highlight the need for federal legislation protecting access to abortion.

10. Foreign Policy: A Conservative Vision for America’s Role in the World

Question: “How will you ensure America remains strong on the world stage?”

Vance’s Potential Answer:
Vance will likely push for a more restrained foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of focusing on domestic issues while maintaining a strong national defense. He may call for reducing America’s military engagements abroad, focusing instead on building American infrastructure and economy.

Walz’s Potential Answer:
Walz may argue for continued international engagement, framing alliances and partnerships as key to global stability. He could accuse Republicans of wanting to isolate America from the world stage, potentially weakening its influence.

Conclusion

As the debate between Walz and Vance unfolds, the stark contrasts between their platforms will be clear. Walz, defending his record in Minnesota, will have to face questions about riots, gender policies, and a depressed economy. Vance, the rising conservative figure, will champion law and order, traditional values, and economic freedom. In terms of debate presence, Vance may have the edge as the fresher face with clear conservative convictions, while Walz will need to defend his record. Conservatives will likely find Vance’s positions resonate more with their views on the future direction of the country.

No comments

Project 2025 – Exposing the Rhetoric: How Democrats Weaponize Conservative Policy

  By ,

Introduction: Project 2025 – How Democrats Weaponize Conservative Policy

Project 2025 has ignited a firestorm in the media and political circles, portrayed by Democrats as a threat to democracy. But is this portrayal grounded in reality, or is it a calculated political weapon designed to demonize Donald Trump and conservative values?

Let’s set the record straight: Project 2025 is not an extremist manifesto but a well-thought-out plan to restore American governance to its constitutional roots—less government, fewer regulations, and more power to the people. Yet Kamala Harris and her Democratic allies continue to link Trump to the project, despite Trump’s own statements that he was not involved in drafting it. What’s happening here is clear—this is election rhetoric at its most deceptive, and we need to cut through the noise to focus on the facts.

In this post, we’ll take a closer look at how Democrats are twisting the narrative, why Trump’s distance from Project 2025 is politically smart, and how this entire episode reflects a larger pattern of manipulation by the Left to scare voters with baseless accusations of “extremism.”

Project 2025: The Blueprint for a Conservative Comeback

At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive guide prepared by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation to ensure a future GOP administration can make immediate strides in dismantling the administrative state and restoring executive authority. The goal is clear—streamline the federal government, slash burdensome regulations, and put America First, ensuring that the people’s voices are heard, not bureaucratic elites’.

The Left’s outcry over Project 2025 tells us something important: They fear its success. They know that a smaller, more efficient government means less room for their bloated, nanny-state policies. They understand that a Republican victory in 2024, armed with this roadmap, could undo the damage inflicted by the Biden administration’s regulatory overreach.

But instead of engaging with these ideas on their merits, Democrats have launched a campaign to label the entire project as “extremist.” That word—extremist—has become the go-to tactic for the Left. It’s designed to scare voters away from rational debate, making it easier to vilify conservatives rather than address their arguments head-on.

Trump’s Wise Move: Distancing from the Left’s Trap

One of the most strategic moves Trump has made in recent months is to distance himself from the specific drafting of Project 2025, even though many of its principles align with his America First agenda. Trump knows that Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, are desperate to tie him to any policy they can weaponize as “radical” or “dangerous.”

Let’s be clear: Trump’s distancing doesn’t mean he disagrees with the values espoused in Project 2025. On the contrary, Trump’s administration exemplified many of the policies the project supports—cutting taxes, deregulating industries, bringing jobs back to the U.S., and restoring law and order. But by maintaining some distance, Trump cleverly avoids playing into the Left’s narrative. It gives him the flexibility to champion these ideas without getting mired in the Democrats’ desperate smear campaigns.

Trump has always been a master of political maneuvering, and this is no different. He knows the Left will stop at nothing to paint him as a threat to democracy, so why give them more ammunition by embracing a document they are already mischaracterizing?

Harris’ Campaign of Fear: Manipulation Masquerading as Concern

Kamala Harris has seized on Project 2025 as a centerpiece of her attacks, despite having little to no understanding of its true content. She calls it a dangerous plan that would dismantle democracy—though, notably, she never delves into specifics. Instead, Harris uses sweeping, baseless accusations that appeal to fear rather than facts.

What Harris is doing is classic left-wing fearmongering. Instead of discussing the merits of limiting government or decentralizing power, she paints any attempt to do so as “extremism.” But let’s be honest, the real extremism comes from those who wish to expand the federal bureaucracy beyond recognition, forcing socialist policies down the throats of Americans without regard for liberty, economic growth, or the Constitution.

This isn’t about Trump, Project 2025, or even the conservative agenda. Harris and her Democratic allies are fighting to maintain their grip on power by manipulating voters with lies about what conservatives truly stand for. It’s an effort to create an emotional response rather than an informed one, and it’s deeply dishonest.

The Real Extremism: The Left’s Attack on Conservative Values

Harris’ attacks on Project 2025—and by extension, Trump—are emblematic of a larger problem: the Left’s outright refusal to engage with conservative ideas in good faith. Every time conservatives put forth a policy that challenges their vision of a bloated government, the Democrats cry “extremism,” hoping to scare voters into submission.

We’ve seen this tactic over and over again. When Republicans call for fiscal responsibility, the Left brands it “austerity.” When we demand secure borders, they scream “racism.” And now, when conservatives propose limiting the government’s overreach through Project 2025, it’s painted as a threat to democracy. This is not a genuine debate about the future of America; it’s political theater aimed at suppressing any opposition to the Left’s ever-expanding agenda.

The truth is, Project 2025 offers a vision of government that empowers Americans—not bureaucrats. It’s about getting Washington out of the way so that families, small businesses, and communities can thrive without the constant interference of an out-of-touch federal government. But to admit this would force Democrats to engage in actual debate, something they seem wholly unwilling to do.

Cutting Through the Election Rhetoric

So what’s the truth about Project 2025, and why should Trump supporters care? The truth is, this plan offers the tools needed to restore order, economic vitality, and national sovereignty. It’s the antidote to years of failed left-wing policies that have bloated the government and eroded the freedoms of everyday Americans.

Yet, the Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, want you to believe it’s a radical document written by extremists. They want you to think that Trump, by mere association, is endorsing an agenda that will destroy America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Trump’s smart distancing from Project 2025 is not an abandonment of conservative values but a calculated move to avoid giving Democrats more opportunities to mischaracterize his positions. What matters most is the principles at play: reducing government overreach, protecting American jobs, securing the border, and returning power to the people.

Conclusion: Don’t Fall for the Left’s Rhetorical Games

As we head into the 2024 election, we can expect more of the same tactics from the Democrats—fearmongering, distortions, and outright lies. They will continue to try to paint conservatives, Trump, and Project 2025 as radical threats to democracy, all while ignoring their own reckless expansion of government power.

But here’s the reality: Project 2025 represents a return to the values that made America great—limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. Trump’s distancing from the project is not an indication of disagreement but a refusal to let the Left control the narrative. And the more we allow ourselves to be distracted by the rhetoric, the more we lose sight of what’s really at stake.

The 2024 election is about one thing: reclaiming America’s future from those who seek to undermine it with lies and manipulation. Don’t let the rhetoric fool you—conservative principles, embodied in Project 2025, are the path forward.

No comments

Noncitizen Violent Crime Convictions: A Crisis Ignored by Sanctuary Policies and the Biden-Harris Administration

  By ,

Recent data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reveal a troubling situation: more than 13,000 noncitizens have been convicted of homicide, and over 15,000 have been convicted of sexual assault. Republican Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas brought these alarming figures to light, sparking a heated debate about immigration enforcement. ICE also reported that about 7 million migrants are on their non-detained docket, meaning they face deportation but have not yet been detained. Among these individuals are over 425,000 with criminal convictions.

This data raises serious concerns about immigration policies, which critics say prioritize politics over public safety. The number of noncitizens with violent criminal records in the U.S. demands urgent attention. Yet, the lack of detention for many of these individuals raises questions about the system’s ability to protect Americans from violent criminals.

ICE attributes the problem in part to sanctuary city policies. These policies prevent local authorities from cooperating fully with ICE, which can lead to convicted criminals remaining free within U.S. borders. Sanctuary policies aim to protect immigrant communities, but they can inadvertently allow dangerous individuals to avoid deportation.

Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters

The Extent of the Problem

As of July 2024, ICE’s national docket included over 662,000 noncitizens with criminal histories. Within this group are 13,099 convicted murderers, a number that demands action. Many Americans are asking why the system continues to tolerate such a high level of criminality among noncitizens.

Sanctuary policies make it difficult for ICE to detain and deport criminals in certain jurisdictions. While these policies aim to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, they often protect individuals who pose significant threats to public safety. This contradiction has caused a growing backlash, particularly in states along the southern border, where immigration issues are felt most acutely.

Many believe that the Biden administration’s approach to immigration enforcement has made the problem worse. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green pointed to what he called the “mass-release” of illegal aliens, accusing the administration of allowing dangerous criminals to move freely throughout the country. Vice President Kamala Harris, tasked with addressing the border crisis, has faced criticism for not doing enough to address these concerns.

The Role of Sanctuary Policies

Sanctuary city policies, though well-intended, can have disastrous consequences when violent criminals are allowed to evade deportation. In cities where these policies are in place, illegal immigrants with criminal records are often shielded from ICE enforcement. Advocates argue that sanctuary policies help immigrants feel safe reporting crimes without fear of deportation, but the reality is that these same policies often protect violent offenders.

This creates a dangerous situation where local law enforcement agencies are unable to remove criminals from the streets. For example, many individuals convicted of serious crimes like homicide and sexual assault remain free in sanctuary cities. Proponents of sanctuary policies say that cooperation with ICE could deter immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement, but critics argue that shielding violent criminals ultimately does more harm than good.

Representative Tony Gonzales summarized the frustration many Americans feel: “Americans deserve to be safe in our own communities.” The statistics suggest that current policies do not provide that safety, especially when jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with federal authorities. The growing number of noncitizens with violent criminal convictions highlights the urgency for a change in immigration enforcement.

Impact on Communities

The consequences of these policies are severe. When violent criminals are allowed to stay in the U.S., they pose a direct threat to public safety. Sanctuary policies, which were originally designed to protect immigrant communities, now enable criminals to remain free and potentially re-offend. This puts all Americans at risk, particularly those living in cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE.

The issue isn’t confined to illegal immigrants; it affects immigrant communities as well. Often, the very people sanctuary policies aim to protect end up being the victims of the criminals these policies shield. Local law enforcement agencies are often powerless to act when sanctuary policies prevent them from detaining violent offenders on behalf of ICE.

The data reveal that as of July 2024, over 15,000 noncitizens convicted of sexual assault were still in the U.S., along with 1,845 individuals facing pending homicide charges. These numbers emphasize the scale of the problem and the risk posed to both citizens and immigrants alike. Many lawmakers, including Representative Gonzales, have called for a change in policy that prioritizes public safety over political considerations.

Political Fallout and the Biden-Harris Administration

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green has linked the rise in noncitizen crime directly to the policies of the Biden administration. He argues that the administration’s lenient approach to immigration enforcement allows violent criminals to remain in the country, placing Americans at risk. Vice President Kamala Harris, who was appointed to manage the border crisis, has faced widespread criticism for her perceived inaction.

Green’s critique reflects a broader conservative view that the administration’s policies are failing to protect American citizens. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has seen a surge in illegal immigration, particularly at the southern border. Critics argue that the government’s focus on humanitarian concerns has left local communities vulnerable to violent crime.

The administration, however, has defended its approach, emphasizing the importance of humane treatment for migrants and the protection of immigrant rights. But critics contend that extending those rights to individuals convicted of violent crimes undermines public safety.

The Path Forward

For many conservatives, the solution to this growing crisis lies in stricter immigration enforcement, the elimination of sanctuary policies, and a renewed focus on deporting individuals with violent criminal convictions. They argue that public safety should come before political considerations, and that the government must act swiftly to restore order.

One possible solution would involve increasing federal oversight of sanctuary cities, requiring them to cooperate with ICE in cases involving convicted criminals. Another approach might involve expanding ICE resources to expedite deportations, ensuring that violent offenders are swiftly removed from the country. Both approaches would necessitate a shift in the Biden administration’s current stance on immigration.

Additionally, addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, such as poverty and violence in migrants’ home countries, could help reduce the number of individuals entering the U.S. illegally. However, while these long-term strategies are debated, the immediate threat posed by convicted criminals still needs urgent attention.

Conclusion

The presence of over 13,000 convicted noncitizens of homicide and 15,000 convicted of sexual assault within U.S. borders is a public safety crisis. Sanctuary policies, while intended to protect immigrant communities, have allowed dangerous criminals to remain free, putting all Americans at risk. The Biden-Harris administration’s handling of immigration has only worsened the situation, leaving local governments struggling to manage the influx of criminal noncitizens.

Immediate policy changes are necessary to prioritize public safety. Sanctuary policies must be reconsidered, and enforcement efforts should be strengthened to ensure violent offenders are detained and deported. Americans deserve safety in their communities, and that safety is currently at risk under the current immigration framework.

No comments

The Unanswered Questions Surrounding the Killing of Ashli Babbitt: A Case for Justice?

  By , ,

On January 6, 2021, the U.S. Capitol became the epicenter of chaos. Amid the events of that day, one of the most controversial and tragic moments was the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran. Capitol Police shot her as she attempted to climb through a broken window in the Speaker’s Lobby. Now, with a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit looming, we must confront the critical questions: Was Babbitt’s death justified, or did the system fail to deliver justice? And why has her shooter never been held accountable?

Ashli Babbitt – CBS News

The Incident: What Led to Ashli Babbitt’s Death?

Ashli Babbitt joined the group of protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol, convinced that the 2020 election had been fraudulent. Footage from that day shows her at the forefront of a crowd, attempting to enter a restricted area. Capitol Police Officer Lt. Michael Byrd stood on the other side of a barricaded door with a gun drawn. Babbitt, unarmed and unaware, tried to climb through the broken window when Byrd shot her at close range.

The Video: Examining the Footage

Video evidence shows Ashli Babbitt standing near the window before attempting to climb through. She made no threatening gestures and held no weapon. Just as she began to climb, Lt. Byrd fired a single shot, killing her instantly. The video has sparked outrage among many, particularly those who argue she posed no immediate threat.

Supporters of Babbitt insist the video proves she wasn’t given any verbal warning and was shot without cause. To them, the footage paints a clear picture of excessive force, especially given the close proximity and lack of any aggressive actions from Babbitt.

Why Was the Shooter Never Prosecuted?

After the Department of Justice investigated the shooting, it cleared Lt. Byrd of any wrongdoing. The DOJ concluded that Byrd acted reasonably under the circumstances, citing the volatile environment and the perceived danger to lawmakers. But many Americans, particularly conservatives, question this conclusion. Why was Byrd never held accountable in a court of law?

Babbitt’s family, along with numerous critics, argues that Byrd’s actions never faced sufficient scrutiny. The decision not to convene a grand jury or hold a public trial has fueled widespread frustration. Critics believe political considerations may have influenced the decision to clear Byrd without holding him to the same standards applied to other police-involved shootings.

The $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Babbitt’s family has filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming her killing was unjustified. The lawsuit contends that the officers on duty could have employed non-lethal measures to subdue Babbitt instead of using deadly force. They argue Byrd fired his weapon without issuing a warning or attempting to de-escalate the situation.

The lawsuit, set for trial in July 2026, promises to be a significant moment for this case. It will put the government’s handling of the January 6th events back in the spotlight, raising difficult questions about the use of force and the selective application of justice.

Was Babbitt Really a Threat?

Central to the controversy is whether Ashli Babbitt posed any genuine threat to lawmakers or officers. According to the DOJ, Byrd perceived Babbitt and the crowd as a serious danger, given their attempts to breach the Speaker’s Lobby. But Babbitt was unarmed and made no aggressive moves before being shot. Video footage shows her merely climbing through a window, not charging at officers or wielding a weapon.

Could Byrd have used a taser or pepper spray instead of lethal force? Were there other officers nearby who might have restrained her without resorting to violence? These are the questions that will likely come under close scrutiny during the upcoming trial.

A Double Standard in Justice?

For many conservatives, the death of Ashli Babbitt represents a troubling double standard in American justice. They argue that if Babbitt had been involved in a different type of protest, such as those associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, there would have been an outcry for justice. In their eyes, the system failed Babbitt because of her political beliefs and her involvement in the January 6th protests.

Conservative commentators have also criticized the media’s portrayal of Babbitt as an “insurrectionist.” They argue this label has been used to justify her death, obscuring the fact that she was an unarmed American citizen exercising her right to protest.

The Upcoming Trial: What’s at Stake?

The wrongful death trial, set for July 2026, will reignite debates over the use of force, government accountability, and political bias. Ashli Babbitt’s family will have their day in court, and many Americans will be watching closely. Will the trial expose weaknesses in the Capitol Police’s handling of the protests? Or will it reaffirm the DOJ’s decision that Byrd acted within his rights?

If Babbitt’s family wins the case, it could have far-reaching implications, not only for the government but also for the broader conversation about how law enforcement handles protests. On the other hand, if the government prevails, it could solidify the narrative that Babbitt’s death was an unfortunate but justified consequence of that chaotic day.

Was Justice Truly Served?

The killing of Ashli Babbitt forces us to ask whether justice was served or denied. The decision to clear Lt. Byrd of wrongdoing has left many feeling that Babbitt’s death went unanswered. Her family’s wrongful death lawsuit could be their last opportunity to seek accountability.

At its core, this case is about more than just one woman’s tragic death—it’s about the rule of law, accountability for government officials, and the equal application of justice, regardless of political beliefs. As the country waits for the trial, the debate over Babbitt’s death continues to divide the nation.

Conclusion

Ashli Babbitt’s death and the ensuing legal battles raise fundamental questions about justice in America. Was she wrongfully killed, or was her death a necessary measure to protect others? The trial in 2026 may provide some long-awaited answers, but the scars left by this case—both political and personal—are likely to remain for years to come.

No comments

Kamala Harris Skips the Al Smith Dinner: A Costly Mistake?

  By ,

K Harris – CNN 2024

As the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris recently declined an invitation to the prestigious Al Smith Dinner in New York City, a charity event with deep ties to the Catholic Church. Her decision sparked numerous speculations, with many questioning whether it signals her disregard for Catholic values or simply her discomfort with off-the-cuff speaking. In either case, this move could have severe political consequences, particularly among Catholics and Christians, a voter base that is more influential than many recognize. Could Harris’ absence from the event alienate these critical groups, costing her and the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election?

The Al Smith Dinner: A Catholic Tradition

The Al Smith Dinner has long been a symbol of political civility and unity, bringing together prominent political figures and Catholic leaders. Established in honor of Alfred E. Smith, the first Catholic to be nominated for president, the event has traditionally been a platform for candidates and political leaders to showcase their ability to connect with religious communities while maintaining humor and grace. Declining such an invitation is unusual, particularly for a high-profile political figure like the sitting Vice President.

Why Harris’ Absence Stands Out

The absence of Kamala Harris at this event stands out for several reasons. First, it deviates from the norm; in the past, both Republicans and Democrats have made it a priority to attend, regardless of their personal religious affiliations. The event’s significance transcends religious lines, representing an opportunity to demonstrate respect for the Catholic community’s charitable work and moral influence.

Speculation is rife over why Harris opted to skip this important dinner. Some argue that Harris has a fraught relationship with the Catholic Church, particularly due to her positions on controversial issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage—stances that clash with Catholic doctrine. Others believe her decision may have been driven by a more practical concern: her well-documented difficulties with impromptu public speaking. Her reputation for delivering awkward, sometimes nonsensical “word salad” answers has made her handlers cautious about putting her in situations requiring spontaneity.

Kamala Harris and Catholic Values: A Tense Relationship?

Harris’ stance on key issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage places her at odds with many traditional Catholic values. The Catholic Church remains staunchly opposed to abortion and holds to a conservative definition of marriage. As a strong proponent of abortion rights and LGBTQ+ advocacy, Harris has often found herself in conflict with these views.

Some speculate that this ideological rift may be a driving force behind her decision to skip the event. After all, attending a Catholic event while holding positions antithetical to the Church’s teachings might feel hypocritical, or at least uncomfortable. This is not an entirely far-fetched theory. Throughout her political career, Harris has faced criticism from conservative religious groups who argue that her policies reflect a broader liberal agenda that is dismissive of religious freedoms and moral principles.

The Speaking Issue: Harris’ Struggles with Public Address

However, many observers suggest that Harris’ decision not to attend has less to do with her ideological differences and more to do with her weaknesses as a public speaker. Harris has, on numerous occasions, struggled to articulate her points clearly in unscripted moments. Her speeches are often filled with repetition, vague generalities, and nervous laughter—a pattern that has led to widespread criticism and mockery.

The Al Smith Dinner traditionally involves light-hearted speeches filled with humor and wit. For a politician like Harris, who is often stiff and uneasy in such settings, the pressure to perform could have been a major deterrent. It’s entirely possible that her handlers, aware of her vulnerabilities, advised her to avoid the event altogether. By skipping it, they might have thought they were avoiding an embarrassing moment that could have fueled further criticism of her speaking abilities.

A Missed Opportunity to Connect with Catholic and Christian Voters

Regardless of the reason behind Harris’ absence, the political fallout could be significant. The Catholic vote is not something any candidate can afford to ignore. Catholics make up approximately 20% of the U.S. population, and while the community is diverse, a substantial portion leans conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion. By skipping the Al Smith Dinner, Harris has potentially alienated a significant group of voters who might view her absence as a sign of disrespect or disinterest.

Moreover, the event is not only about connecting with Catholics. Many Christians, even those from different denominations, hold similar views on issues like abortion and traditional family values. These voters are often skeptical of politicians they perceive as dismissive of religious concerns. By opting out of the dinner, Harris may have reinforced the perception that the Democratic Party is out of touch with religious America—a narrative Republicans have been pushing for years.

The Broader Political Ramifications

Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner could play into a broader narrative that may harm her in future elections. With President Biden’s age frequently cited as a concern, many voters are looking closely at Harris as the potential next leader of the Democratic Party. Her ability to connect with religious voters—particularly Catholics and Christians—will be crucial in any national campaign.

In 2020, Biden was able to appeal to many Catholic voters, partly because of his own Catholic faith, even though he holds some positions that diverge from Church teachings. Harris, however, does not have the benefit of shared religious identity. Her more liberal views on social issues, combined with a perceived disregard for important religious traditions like the Al Smith Dinner, could cost her and the Democratic Party dearly in the next election cycle.

Conclusion: A Potentially Fatal Mistake

Kamala Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner may seem like a small, isolated choice, but it could have far-reaching consequences. Whether driven by ideological conflict or concerns about her public speaking abilities, her absence sends a message—one that could alienate Catholics and Christians who see the event as a bridge between faith and politics.

In an election that will likely be hard-fought and closely contested, every voting bloc counts. By turning her back on an opportunity to engage with a key segment of the electorate, Harris risks deepening the divide between herself and voters whose values she has already alienated. This could be a costly mistake for both her and the Democratic Party as they look toward the future.

No comments

Why This Matters: The Consequences of One-Sided Education

  By ,

An education system that only promotes one side of the political spectrum does a disservice to students and to society. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are challenged and debated, not where students are spoon-fed one version of the truth. When students are only exposed to progressive ideologies, they become less equipped to critically evaluate opposing viewpoints, and democracy suffers.

Harvard University

Creating an Intellectual Echo Chamber

By stifling conservative thought, universities create intellectual echo chambers that limit true critical engagement. This lack of ideological diversity is not only unfair to conservative students but also detrimental to liberal ones. If students never encounter opposition to their ideas, how can they refine their arguments or understand the full complexity of an issue?

A Conservative Argument: Why Equal Representation is Essential

Conservatives believe that a balanced academic environment would better prepare students for the real world, where political diversity is a fact of life. Conservatives value individualism, free markets, and limited government—values that are often dismissed or even demonized in liberal-dominated academic settings. The conservative worldview has much to offer in fields like economics, history, and political science, yet it is rarely given a platform in today’s universities.

Freedom of Thought

One of the core tenets of conservatism is the belief in individual freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom from government overreach. A balanced faculty would ensure that students are not just taught what to think but how to think. When universities promote one ideology over another, they limit intellectual freedom, essentially indoctrinating students rather than educating them.

Is Private Schooling the Only Answer?

As public education at both the high school and university levels becomes increasingly dominated by liberal ideologies, many parents and conservative students are beginning to wonder if private education is the only option left for balanced, ideologically diverse schooling. Private schools, particularly religious institutions, tend to have more freedom in designing curricula and hiring faculty who align with their values, including conservative principles.

Homeschooling and Charter Schools

Another option that is growing in popularity among conservatives is homeschooling or charter schools, which often offer more control over the curriculum. Homeschooling allows parents to ensure that their children are not being subjected to progressive indoctrination and that they are being taught conservative values from a young age. Charter schools, while still part of the public system, often operate with more flexibility and can offer alternative viewpoints that are absent in traditional public schools.

What Can Be Done? Possible Solutions

While private schooling and homeschooling may offer some reprieve, we should not give up on public education altogether. There are several potential solutions to the current imbalance in academia that conservatives should advocate for:

1. Hiring More Conservative Faculty

One clear solution is to ensure that conservative professors are hired in equal numbers to their liberal counterparts. University hiring practices should aim for a balanced representation of political viewpoints to create a truly diverse academic environment.

2. Curriculum Reform

Another important step is to reform high school and college curricula to include a wider range of political and ideological perspectives. Textbooks and reading lists should reflect conservative thinkers as well as liberal ones. This would prevent the one-sided presentation of history, economics, and political science that currently dominates.

3. Free Speech Protections on Campus

Conservatives should push for stronger protections for free speech on campus. Students and faculty should not face repercussions for expressing conservative ideas. By ensuring that universities remain places of open debate, we can counteract the current trend of liberal indoctrination.

4. Parental Involvement

Parents must take an active role in their children’s education, particularly in high school where indoctrination often begins. By staying informed about what is being taught and encouraging critical thinking at home, parents can help offset the progressive bias in public education.

Conclusion: The Future of American Education

The dominance of liberal ideologies in academia is a serious issue that must be addressed if we are to preserve intellectual diversity and freedom of thought in our education system. Equal representation of conservative and liberal faculty members is essential for creating an environment where students can engage with a variety of ideas and develop their own informed opinions.

While private schools and homeschooling offer short-term solutions, the ultimate goal should be to reform public education so that it no longer serves as a vehicle for progressive indoctrination. Conservatives must demand that their ideas be represented fairly in the classroom, from high school to university, for the sake of both current and future generations.

No comments

Who is Running the Country?

  By ,

For the past few years, concerns about the leadership of President Joe Biden have swirled. These concerns were initially dismissed as partisan attacks, but recent events have given even staunch supporters reason to wonder: Who is actually running the country? The latest revelation, that First Lady Jill Biden reportedly led a Cabinet meeting while her husband was elsewhere, raises serious questions about whether President Biden is still capable of performing his duties. This situation has compounded speculation that others—notably senior advisors, bureaucrats, and unelected officials—may be the ones wielding real power in Washington.

In light of these concerns, it’s time to ask whether Vice President Kamala Harris should step in as president now, rather than waiting until January 2025. Doing so would not only address the immediate issue of leadership but also prove, once and for all, whether Harris is truly capable of running the country.

Biden’s Fitness to Lead: The Growing Concerns

Joe Biden was elected on a promise to restore normalcy to the White House after the turbulent Trump years. Yet, over the past two years, there have been increasing signs that President Biden is struggling to fulfill the basic requirements of his office. His public appearances are limited, his speeches are riddled with errors, and his interactions with the media are tightly controlled. These issues have gone beyond mere gaffes; they suggest a president who may not be mentally or physically up to the demands of his role.

The claim that Jill Biden led a Cabinet meeting is particularly troubling. The First Lady is not an elected official and has no constitutional authority to govern. Her involvement in such a crucial function raises red flags. If the president’s spouse is stepping in to fill gaps in leadership, it’s a clear indication that something is deeply wrong.

For over a year, there have been rumors that key decisions are being made by senior advisors or unelected officials rather than the president himself. Whether it’s Ron Klain, President Biden’s Chief of Staff, or other high-level officials, there is a growing sense that the person sitting in the Oval Office is no longer the one making critical choices. And now, with reports of the First Lady’s involvement, these rumors are no longer the stuff of conspiracy theory—they are rapidly becoming mainstream concerns.

More troubling is the administration’s continued assurances that President Biden is fully capable of performing his duties. If that were the case, why would Jill Biden be stepping into roles that are clearly meant for the president? Why does the administration continue to limit Biden’s public appearances and shield him from unscripted press interactions? The American people deserve answers. More importantly, they deserve leadership.

Harris: The 25th Amendment and Her Role

K. Harris

Nathan Howard/AP Photo

The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism for situations just like this one. The 25th Amendment allows for the transfer of power to the vice president when a president is unable to perform his duties. While it has been invoked in temporary situations, such as when a president undergoes surgery, it has never been used to permanently remove a sitting president. However, the current situation may demand that it be seriously considered.

Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If such a declaration were made, Kamala Harris would assume the role of acting president. This would not be a hostile takeover but rather a constitutional safeguard designed to ensure that the country has a leader who is fully capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency.

Many conservatives may bristle at the idea of Kamala Harris stepping into the presidency. Harris has been a divisive figure, both within her party and across the nation. Her performance as vice president has been lackluster at best. She has been criticized for mishandling key assignments, such as addressing the border crisis, and for her poor communication skills during interviews and speeches. In many ways, Harris has struggled to prove that she is ready to lead.

But the country cannot afford a president in name only, especially in these perilous times. From rising inflation to growing global tensions with China and Russia, the United States is facing real challenges that demand strong, decisive leadership. Allowing Harris to step in now, rather than waiting until January 2025, would at least resolve the question of whether she is truly capable of leading the nation. If she proves competent, the country can move forward with a clear understanding of her abilities. If she fails, it would become abundantly clear that the 2024 election will require a fresh face on the Democratic ticket—and possibly a more robust conservative candidate.

The Conservative Case for Early Action

Many on the right might be tempted to let Biden ride out the remainder of his term, hoping that his continued failures will make it easier to defeat him—or his eventual successor—in 2024. While that may seem like sound political strategy, it is not in the best interest of the country. The United States cannot afford to coast through the next two years with ineffective leadership. The stakes are too high. In fact, pushing for Harris to step in sooner rather than later could serve conservative interests in several key ways.

  1. Holding the Biden Administration Accountable: If President Biden is no longer fit to serve, the American people deserve to know it. Continuing to allow unelected figures to steer the country in his stead undermines the very foundations of representative democracy. Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability—two things that have been sorely lacking from the Biden administration.
  2. Forcing Harris to Prove Herself: Harris has largely been kept on the sidelines during Biden’s presidency, leading to speculation that even her own party does not have faith in her ability to lead. Allowing her to step in as president now would give her the opportunity to either prove herself or fail spectacularly. If Harris flounders under the weight of the presidency, it would provide conservatives with concrete evidence that the Democratic Party is in disarray and unfit to lead.
  3. Refocusing the Political Landscape: By invoking the 25th Amendment now, conservatives can refocus the national conversation on leadership and competence. While Harris is an unpopular figure, she is at least a known quantity. Conservatives could use this opportunity to emphasize the importance of strong leadership, drawing a sharp contrast between Harris and potential Republican candidates for 2024, such as Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.
  4. Avoiding a Power Vacuum: The current situation, where unelected officials or even the First Lady are allegedly making key decisions, creates a dangerous power vacuum. This lack of leadership can have real consequences on both the national and global stage. Instability in the executive branch emboldens America’s adversaries, weakens its alliances, and sows uncertainty in the economy. A clear transfer of power to Harris, while not ideal from a conservative perspective, would at least restore some semblance of order and accountability to the White House.

A Moment of Clarity

Ultimately, the question of who is running the country is one that must be answered for the sake of the American people. If President Biden is no longer capable of performing his duties, the 25th Amendment provides a clear, constitutionally sound path forward. While Kamala Harris may not be the president conservatives want, allowing her to step into the role now would force the issue into the open. It would either confirm that Harris is a capable leader or expose the administration’s failures even further. Either way, the country would benefit from greater transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.

The conservative case for early action is simple: America cannot afford another two years of uncertainty and weak leadership. Whether it is addressing the border crisis, responding to inflation, or dealing with growing threats from China and Russia, the challenges facing the nation require a president who is fully in charge. If President Biden cannot fulfill that role, then Kamala Harris must be given the chance to prove whether she can. And if she cannot, it will only strengthen the conservative argument for real change in 2024.

It’s time to put the rumors to rest. Let Harris take the reins now and prove, one way or another, whether she is truly capable of running the country.