An international scandal appears to be brewing.
A progressive group with ties to both Britain's Labour party and the U.S. Democratic Party has been exposed for their nefarious plans to shut down the social media site X for permitting expression and speech they don't like and agree with.
There's nothing new, of course, about the Left's censorious passions, nor their fascist-friendly impulse to silence those with whom they disagree under the guise of "halting disinformation." Leftist governments the world over have that tactic at the top of their governing manuals.
What makes this incident stand out is that it coincides with the efforts of Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, to protect free speech by defeating the most left-wing presidential candidate the Democrat party has ever nominated. As the case against Kamala Harris seems to be making serious strides in public opinion polls, the shadowy connections between her campaign proxies and this anti-free speech effort are alarming.
But whether or not anything comes of the inevitable investigations and lawsuits, the rumblings offer yet another indication of a Harris campaign spiraling towards turmoil. Just days ago, the Justice Department, already weaponized to persecute political opponents under the Biden-Harris administration, threatened Musk with legal action in an effort to stifle his political efforts:
The Justice Department sent a letter to the super PAC founded by Elon Musk this week warning that awarding $1 million to registered voters who signed a petition might violate federal laws against paying voters, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.
It's pretty rich to come after a private citizen for such offenses when your own campaign has recently opened up its "$20,000 to black men" bribe to all citizens.
Those kind of moves send surreptitious and unintentional distress signals in the political world. They are indicative of a campaign desperate to keep things from slipping away as the all-important electoral momentum has undeniably and surprisingly (to some), swung strongly to Donald Trump's favor just 12 days out.
I say "to some" because there was a sizable contingent of politicos who knew that the vice president's chances for success were entirely contingent upon her handlers' abilities to keep her on script, away from open microphones, and in controlled media environments where they could rely on unprofessional favoritism (see the 60 Minutes editing scandal) to sustain her.
There was a reason that just before our state-influenced media attempted a painfully obvious reinvention of Ms. Harris, those same voices were whispering (not so quietly) about the wisdom in dumping her from Biden ticket. But despite their best efforts to overcome them, the reasons for that honest evaluation of her political talent have become painfully clear as of late.
Political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke said it, well, bluntly:
Harris isn't ‘vague' or ‘careful' or disinclined to ‘delineate her stance,'" he writes. "She's wildly, catastrophically, incontestably out of her depth. She's not ‘light'; she's dull. She's not a ‘dodger'; she's a fool. She's not ‘joyful'; she's imbecilic … She's a nullity, a vacuum, an actress, an empty canvas that is incapable of absorbing paint.
Don't dismiss that as the caustic, unfair assessment of someone on the Right fringe of American politics.
Cooke is on the Right, no doubt. But he's far from a Trump apologist or mindless MAGA minion.
In fact, the latest thing I observed of Cooke was his accurate dismantling of Trump's imprudent and reckless flirtations with "exempting" first responders and military personnel from paying taxes:
No, Cooke's evaluation of Harris's political talent may seem harsh, but it isn't partisan hackery; it's sober and clearheaded. She's that bad. It's why her poor surrogates are forced to resort to the most inane and silly justifications for supporting her.
Try to make that make sense in a way that doesn't indict Harris as a bad choice. Saying we should desire a "return to normal" is an explicit admission that things haven't been normal for the last four years.
But those last four years have been the Biden-Harris four years.
Four years that Harris has taken credit for, praised, and announced she personally thinks have gone really well. In other words, it's "normal" to her. Hamill's statement is at odds with his own candidate's messaging. What she calls excellent and praiseworthy, he argues is abnormal. It's a train wreck.
For as maligned and hated as Donald Trump may be, it seems pretty clear that he has been gifted the opportunity to run against three of the most unimpressive and horrendous presidential candidates in history.
He beat the first, lost to the second ... and the third?
