Candy Crowley Transitions, Now Goes by “David Muir”

And cheats for ABC instead of CNN

The adults in the room recall the 2012 “debate” on CNN in which Ms. Candy Crowley put her weight on the scales by “fact checking” Mitt Romney in the midst of the “debate” with Barack Obama. She subsequently was excoriated for her complete lack of objectivity.

She seems to have changed her pronouns and network, but still is putting her weight on the scales and discarding objectivity.

The “debate” last night, as others have noted, was a farcical three-on-one between a flustered Trump, and a lying Harris, a dishonest Muir and a dishonest Davis of ABC “News.”

Trump, unfortunately, still refuses to get over the idea that the political establishment in America – which absolutely includes the fake news media – will treat fairly one in disagreement with their dishonest and anti-American agenda.

Yes, they are eating geese and cats

Let’s get the sheer idiocy out of the way first. The idea that Haitians are not eating geese, ducks and pets in Springfield, OH, is just so much fake news media blather in search of totalitarianism. The reports, videos, pictures, City Council meetings in which the locals tell the Council WTF is going on – that are all over the internet – are overwhelming.

Why do the “news” media insist this is not happening? Because the useless eaters are black, and the media is racist, using any accusation of misbehavior by blacks as evidence of “racism,” when, in fact, blacks are just as capable as anyone else of misbehavior because equity.

Only liars and those living in a phone booth with no outside line could, with a straight face, say that “no credible reports” of this Third World behavior exist.

Just because the mainstream media doesn’t want to credit something that harms their anti-liberty agenda does not mean it isn’t happening. The same Rolling Stone that paid $1.65 million over their lies about rape in Virginia, now insists that no cats are being eaten. And we’re expected to believe them over 911 calls from residents stating exactly that. LOL.

Should we trust the media? No.

The United States ranks last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries, a report released Wednesday found. That’s worse than Poland, worse than the Philippines, worse than Peru.

If it were the case that the media were always, or even often, honest, we’d not have an alternative media as everyone would trust the journalistic establishment… It seems unnecessary to note that the left is incapable of logic.

Does the media have an agenda? Is the sky blue?

The appallingly dishonest “moderators” (‘Regulators?”) who ran the “debate” raised the ridiculous claim that “Republicans” are against Trump, and then chose the guy the same media has called “Hitler” and “Darth Cheney” for two decades, as their star witness. The media knows that the GOP base loathes Cheney as a neocon warmonger emblematic of the uniparty, and anti-Republican. (The word, “republican,” after all, has a meaning…) One must live in the above phone booth to think reference to Cheney carries any weight with half the nation’s voters.

Next thing Crowley Muir will be telling us is that there were WMD in Iraq.

Which leads adults to the question: Was the media lying then – when they called Cheney “Hitler” – or are they lying now – when they use him as a Source of Truth?

Guns

Harris last night told the world she’s a gun owner and would never take our guns. In 2019, she said,

We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program," Harris said. "It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way. But there are 5 million (assault weapons) at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets, but doing it the right way.

Was she lying then, or is she lying now? Does anyone want to know? “ABC News” sure doesn’t want to – or want you to.

Contra the media, “assault weapons,” which are capable of fully-automatic fire, have been illegal since the 1934 National Firearms Act outlawed machine guns. An AR-15 is not an “assault weapon” by any truthful definition of the word, the gun, or the law. Nor can the government “buy back” something it did not sell; this is standard totalitarian dishonesty and misuse of the language to further misapplication of the law.

And if anyone thinks that the federal government, once they began confiscating legal firearms, would stop before they’ve confiscated all firearms, well, you can rely on Candy Crowley, in whatever pronoun, to tell you the truth.

Does the federal government have any legal authority to “buy back” our firearms? To regulate them in any way? No. “Shall not be infringed” is as straight as it can be said.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Questions regarding “militia” have been with us since the left decided they must do something we might want to shoot them for (what other reason possibly could drive their need to confiscate our guns? It certainly isn’t crime, as gun crime is highest in the - Democrat - jurisdictions with the strictest gun control). SCOTUS answered that in Heller:

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

And the idiocy about “muskets” always has been laughable. The Founders ensured “arms” were available to citizens, and “arms” were the arms used by the military. Democrats are lucky Americans are not demanding today all the arms available to the military…

Abortion

And of course, the elephant in the room is abortion. Harris went on and on (and on) about her demand for a national law to codify Roe.

Two problems exist here, three if you count Trump’s utter lack of preparedness to deal with this issue.

First, America has a federal, not “national,” government of limited, enumerated powers, and a Bill of Rights in which it is stated, in the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Is “abortion” among the enumerated powers?

No.

The federal government has no authority to criminalize or to legalize abortion nationally, period. Not via legislation, not via Executive Order, not via a holding by the federal courts.

Abortion is, as Constitutionally held in Dobbs, an issue for the States under the Bill of Rights. This is exactly the position Trump has taken.

Trump took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution….” Harris (and ABC) is hammering him for doing so.

A reasonable response from Trump would have been that the Constitution leaves abortion states via the enumerated powers and Tenth Amendment, asking what other parts of the Constitution does she plan to ignore?

And, no, the Supremacy Clause, is not relevant other than when a legitimate federal law – legitimate in that it deals with something under the jurisdiction of the federal government - is in conflict with State or Municipal legislation.

federal law does not preempt state law in areas traditionally regulated by states

What are the “areas traditionally regulated by states?” See the Tenth Amendment; these areas are everything other than what the superior states granted to the inferior federal government or prohibited to themselves, when the states created the federal government with specific – and only specific – authority.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed the federal government to legislate on anything it wanted in complete rejection of the limits placed on the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, we would not have a government of “limited powers,” but a dictatorship with no bounds, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendment would be entirely superfluous, irrelevant and never included in the ratification of the Constitution.

One would have to have been mal-educated by Randi Weingarten’s anti-American militia of “educators” (remember when we called them “teachers,” and they could?) and unable/unwilling to read and research by oneself not to grasp this – and this includes, obviously, the entire American political and media establishments.

The second problem with Harris’ nonsense on Roe is that Roe applied to a set timetable that did not include abortion after “quickening,” which SCOTUS held to be the first trimester. Once the fetus had “quickened,” SCOTUS left the legality of abortion to the states. To use Roe as a defense of abortion until birth can only be ignorance or lies.

Primary Holding

A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.

From the Roe holding:

XI To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life

[165]

may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Harris is wrong on the Constitution, wrong on the law and wrong on Roe.

(Harris was lying also about “My body my choice,” as she and “Joe Biden” mandated the jab, removing any my body my choice argument from the discussion. Again, Trump failed in not raising this issue.)

The third issue, of course, is that Trump ought to have been ready to define both the Roe timeline and the Dobbs 10th Amendment holding.

Trump arrived ready to discuss policy. He was obviously frustrated by the lack of policy questions asked by the “moderators.” He allowed this frustration to dominate his performance as Harris and the idiots from ABC lied, misrepresented, interrupted and generally ensured that policies voters care about would not be addressed and discussed.

If Trump does not rein-in his emotions and deal with the world of dishonest media as it exists, America will be slip-sliding away to “fundamental transformation.”

Whether we like it or not.