NBC’s apparent attempt to give Kamala Harris a last-minute boost with a
cringey spot on “Saturday Night Live” — which some critics have called an “in-kind donation” — appears to have been strategically timed in order to “evade” Federal Communications Commission rules, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said ahead of the Nov. 2 broadcast.

Carr, in the Republican minority on the commission,
noted on X ahead of Harris’ appearance, “This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule. The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election.”

While the FCC’s
equal opportunities rule established by the Communications Act of 1934 does not require that networks like NBC “provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate,” networks generally must provide “comparable time and placement.”

Carr
indicated that in recent elections, NBC at least made an effort to follow the equal time rule.

The Hollywood Reporter
noted, for instance, that in 2015, then-candidate Trump appeared on “Saturday Night Live” during the Republican primary for a total of 12 minutes and five seconds. NBC subsequently offered the same amount of airtime to his opponents.

“NBC stations publicly filed Equal Opportunity notices to ensure that all other qualifying candidates could obtain Equal Time if they sought it,” wrote the commissioner. “Stations did the same thing when Clinton appeared on SNL.”

The equal time rule did not require NBC to seek out President Donald Trump and ask him if he similarly wanted to appear on “Saturday Night Live” but requires that the network entertain requests by the Republican president.

Carr suggested that the last-minute nature of Harris’ “Saturday Night Live” spot was ostensibly the liberal outlet’s way of flouting the FCC’s rule.

‘This requires FCC action.’

“Federal law requires that broadcasters provide comparable time and placement to all legally qualified candidates when the Equal Time rule is triggered,”
wrote Carr. “With only days before the election, NBC appears to have structured this appearance in a way that evades these requirements. What comparable time and placement can they offer all other qualifying candidates?”

Not only did “Saturday Night Live” leave the appearance to the last moment and its final show before the election; the head of the show appears to have misled the Trump campaign with the suggestion in a September interview that the show would ultimately have neither Harris nor the 45th president on the show prior to the election.

“Saturday Night Live” creator Lorne Michaels
told the Hollywood Reporter, “You can’t bring the actual people who are running on because of election laws and the equal time provisions.”

“You can’t have the main candidates without having all the candidate, and there are lots of minor candidates that are only on the ballot in, like, three states, and that becomes really complicated,” Michaels said, suggesting that his program might have politicians on the show after the election.

A senior adviser for the Trump campaign reportedly informed Fox News that “Saturday Night Live” did not extend an invitation to Trump.

Carr stressed that “this requires FCC action” but indicated that the initiative must be taken by the commission’s chair, Biden appointee Jessica Rosenworcel.

Rosenworcel has demonstrated an unwillingness to hold fellow travelers to the same standard as conservatives.

In September, Rosenworcel
joined her fellow Democratic commissioners in approving Democratic mega-donor George Soros’ controversial purchase of over 200 radio stations in over 40 markets with the help of unvetted foreign investors who were spared the cusomary national security review process.

After “60 Minutes'” apparently deceptive edit of its Harris interview, Rosenworcel
lashed out at Trump last month for requesting that CBS News be held to account.

‘She’s living out her warped fantasy cosplaying with her elitist friends on “Saturday Night Leftists.”‘

While Democratic commissioners on the FCC might let NBC skate for its apparent evasion of federal law, the risk taken by “Saturday Night Live” still does not appear to have been worth it.

Harris appeared in the show’s cold open, sitting opposite her fictional self, played by actress Maya Rudolph. Pretending to be mirror reflections of each other, the duo took turns talking up the vice president.

While some critics
suggested that the Harris skit was a “cringe fest,” in part owing to the accent the Democratic candidate decided to employ and her reliance on neoligisms rythming with “Kamala,” others noted that it once again evidenced Harris’ lack of originality.

Radio host Ari Hoffman was among the many critics who highlighted the resemblance between NBC’s Harris skit and Trump’s September 2015 skit on Jimmy Fallon’s “The Tonight Show,”
writing, “Kamala continues her pattern of ripping off Trump.”

In the
2015 spot, Jimmy Fallon, dressed up as Trump, sat opposite the future president with a fake mirror between them and conducted an interview.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung
wrote, “In addition to stealing policy ideas, @KamalaHarris has now resorted to stealing comedy skits.”

Cheung was likely referring to Harris’
adoption of Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips as well as her campaign’s apparent plagiarization of the defunct Biden campaign’s policy agenda. Harris’ alleged plagiarism in her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer,” indicates the vice president’s lack of originality is nothing new.

Trump senior adviser Jason Miller wrote, “Pathetic.”

Cheung
told Fox News, “Kamala Harris has nothing substantive to offer the American people, so that’s why she’s living out her warped fantasy cosplaying with her elitist friends on ‘Saturday Night Leftists’ as her campaign spirals down the drain into obscurity. For the last four years, Kamala’s destructive policies have led to untold misery and hurt for all Americans. She broke it, and President Trump will fix it.”

Blaze News has reached out to Commissioner Carr and NBC for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kamala harris, Harris, Saturday night live, Nbc, Fcc, Brendan carr, Carr, Federal communications commission, Kamala, President trump, Donald trump, Election, Politics, Media 

At the core of the argument against Donald Trump lies a persistent claim that he threatens national and international norms. But breaking norms isn’t inherently bad; not all norms are good. So even if Trump challenges America’s political norms, that alone isn’t enough to disqualify his candidacy. The crucial questions are these: Which norms does he break? Are they truly norms, or are they just someone’s preferences? And if they are norms, are they good or bad?

These days, the American left complains the loudest about threats to “precious” norms. But this concern is largely performative — a superficial display of reverence. The left fundamentally hates norms. Leftists don’t reject only traditional American norms (although they do); they reject norms altogether. For them, defining anything as “normal” is a form of coercive bigotry that stifles individual autonomy, cultural diversity, and tolerance of “difference” writ large. Any serious analysis of threats to norms must acknowledge that the left has spent the past century working to demolish them.

For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.

This reveals an odd reality: Those most agitated about norm-breaking are the ones who break norms the most.

The left arrogantly assumes the right to decide which norms deserve respect. Leftists seem to believe that all the norms they disregard are bad, while the ones Trump allegedly violates are good. Curiously, their commitment to norms only appears when Trump challenges them. This selective concern for norms, paired with their hostility to traditional social standards, exposes their true motive. The left’s hand-wringing over norms is simply a rhetorical strategy to justify breaking long-standing protocols for treating current and former presidents, as well as presidential candidates.

‘Defending’ norms or destroying them?

The phenomenon of people who despise the very idea of norms lamenting that our norms are under attack has become so common in public discourse that it deserves its own term. I propose we call it “normongering.”

Pronounced aloud, normongering closely resembles “warmongering,” an adjacent concept. While a warmonger eagerly promotes war and conflict, a normonger despises norms yet stirs up political warfare and rhetorical conflict by falsely claiming that norms are under threat and in need of defense. The normonger frames his political aggression as a reluctant, defensive response to an unexpected assault, creating the misleading impression that he escalates hostilities only with regret.

The left has achieved major victories in weakening or destroying norms related to citizenship, pronoun usage, apparel, marriage, drugs, law enforcement, fitness, personal finances, elections, etiquette at meals, the workplace, sex, faith, diet, energy consumption, education, art, employment, parenting, and every other sphere of life. This unrelenting opposition to norms and normality remains a defining trait of left-wing politics. Perpetual conflict against norms and the “status quo” is its central activity.

Normongering serves as a powerful strategy for the left because it allows progressives to portray themselves as something they are not: normal people committed to defending the status quo.

Most Americans — and people in general — like norms. They seek to uphold existing norms and expect others to do the same, as norms provide a framework for public interaction, governance, and social situations. Unsurprisingly, the party that constantly calls for “fundamental transformations,” “comprehensive reforms,” and vague “change” also wages continuous war on norms. Meanwhile, leftists posture as the defenders of these norms, using this stance as a form of misdirection — an attempt to distract the public from the extensive list of norms they have already dismantled.

Trump is the exception

Do they really use appeals to the value of norms as a strategy for attacking them? Certainly. This is the defining trait of normongering, and it almost always appears as a hysterical reaction to Trump or his policies.

For instance, a long-standing norm has been to afford the president a degree of respect from both the press and citizens in positions of power. However, our media and celebrities have shattered that norm, routinely comparing Trump to Hitler. What has he done that compares to attempting world domination and the murder of 6 million Jews? In reality, nothing of the sort — except, they argue, that he threatens “our norms.”

Traditionally, impeaching a president was a last-resort measure for addressing executive misconduct. Elected officials were generally reluctant to pursue impeachment, understanding that it could lead to civil strife and divert resources from pressing governmental issues. Yet Democrats promised to impeach Trump even before his inauguration, absent any high crimes or misdemeanors. They made good on that promise, impeaching him twice. Why not? He was a threat to our norms!

The outrageous lawfare directed against Trump also reflects this norm-breaking approach. Armed agents descended on Trump’s personal residence over a dispute regarding the storage of presidential records. “No one is above the law!” declared Democrats. Yet these same individuals dismissed egregious records violations by Hillary Clinton (whom “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict) and Joe Biden (who, they argue, simply made honest mistakes due to age and forgetfulness).

This selective application of justice also extends to efforts aimed at keeping Trump’s name off the ballots in 2024. Meanwhile, a show trial in New York convicted Trump of 34 felonies, during which standard precedents and evidentiary procedures were ignored.

Americans have grown accustomed to the left’s pervasive disdain for norms, but we may now be approaching a Herculean level of normongering that could alter the nation’s future. Progressives have spent the past four years claiming, without evidence, that if Trump wins, he will become an “authoritarian dictator” who will “end our democracy” and that 2024 will be “our last election.” This rhetoric alone defies all norms of public discourse, but it could also signal a willingness to breach the most crucial norm in American politics: the peaceful and orderly transition of executive power.

‘Comprehensive reform’ means trashing norms

If Trump secures a clear and decisive win in November, will Democrats respect the choice of the American people? Recall that in 2020, during a scenario exercise called the Transition Integrity Project, prominent Democrats discussed plans to contest the presidency — even in the event of a “clear Trump win.” After the events of recent years, we can expect they will be even more committed to opposing the outcome of a fair and free election that doesn’t align with their preferred candidate.

If Trump wins, the normongers will refuse to seat the choice of the people. If they truly believe someone they call “literally Hitler” is taking office, they won’t simply congratulate him, hold an inauguration, and wait for another election in four years. Instead, they may employ every available procedural and judicial tactic to defy the result, justifying their actions by claiming Trump’s presidency poses such a severe threat to “our democracy” that they cannot honor the outcome. Should they succeed, they would have undermined our nation’s most fundamental norm — a peaceful transition of power — by invoking an imagined veto over the will of the people.

If they get away with it, the normongers may turn out to be correct: 2024 could very well be America’s last free election. Harris and her comrades have a long list of norms they are eager to violate when they take power: expanding the Supreme Court, ending the Electoral College, granting (more) benefits to people who enter the nation illegally, defying parents’ primary right to make decisions about their children’s health and education, paying reparations, and so much more.

Of course, all of these “comprehensive reforms” (read: “violated norms”) will be framed as attempts to protect the hallowed norms of “our democracy.”

For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.

​Donald trump, Norms, Normongering, Kamala harris, 2024 presidential election, Court packing, Electoral college, Lawfare, Impeachment, Opinion & analysis 

New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn warned that nonresponse bias may lead to an underrepresentation of support for former President Donald Trump in current polls.

In a Sunday morning article, Cohn explained that in 2020, Trump’s supporters were considerably less likely to respond to polls than President Joe Biden’s supporters.

While accurately measuring nonresponse bias presents challenges, Cohn noted that he estimates it by considering the survey response rates of Democrats versus Republicans.

“Across these final polls, white Democrats were 16 percent likelier to respond than white Republicans. That’s a larger disparity than our earlier polls this year, and it’s not much better than our final polls in 2020 — even with the pandemic over,” Cohn wrote.

‘The polls are just as corrupt as some of the writers.’

He concluded that the nonresponse bias may indicate that Trump’s supporters are underrepresented in the polls.

“It raises the possibility that the polls could underestimate Mr. Trump yet again,” Cohn remarked.

In a Friday article titled, “So, Can We Trust the Polls?” Cohn acknowledged that the polls in 2016 and 2020 significantly underestimated Trump.

He argued there are a couple of reasons to “be cautiously optimistic” that pollsters will “avoid badly underestimating” the former president once again, with the end of COVID-19 being one of those factors.

Cohn also stated that some pollsters have implemented “major methodological changes” following the inaccurate predictions of previous presidential elections, calling 2016 and 2020 “traumatic” for pollsters.

“Many pollsters have made these changes in hopes of better representing Mr. Trump’s supporters, on the (quite possibly correct) assumption that traditional polling simply can’t reach his MAGA base,” Cohn explained. “But if that assumption turns out to be wrong, it’s possible that pollsters could overcompensate.”

He concluded that pollsters may “underestimate” Vice President Kamala Harris because they are “so concerned — understandably — about underestimating Mr. Trump.”

The latest New York Times/Siena Poll has Harris narrowly leading in several battleground states, including Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Trump is leading in Arizona, the poll shows. Trump and Harris are reportedly neck and neck in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

During a Sunday rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania, Trump told his supporters that the polls are “fake.”

“The polls are just as corrupt as some of the writers back there,” he said, pointing to the press. “They can make those polls sing.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Donald trump, Election, Election 2024, Harris, Kamala harris, News, Presidential election, Presidential election 2024, Trump, Politics 

The New York Times and the leftist outfit Media Matters dropped complementary
hit pieces Thursday, accusing BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace, Mark Levin, and Jason Whitlock — along with various other prominent voices in conservative media, including Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Lara Trump — of “election misinformation.”

The apparent aim of this coordinated attack, which the Washington Post
did its part to reinforce, is to pressure the Google-owned platform YouTube to demonetize or possibly even deplatform Democrats’ ideological opponents before Election Day.

“Being lumped in with those fine fellows, and being labeled an enemy number one from the official Pravda of the regime, is truly the greatest honor of my career,” Deace told Blaze News.

‘It defines “false claims” and “election misinformation” so broadly.’

Times reporter Nico Grant
gave the plot away in advance when asking Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project on Monday about their respective memberships in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding “misinformation.”

Grant, whom Carlson told to “f*** off,” indicated that Media Matters, a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock that is presently being sued by Elon Musk for alleged defamation, identified “286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence.”

Blaze News previously reached out to the Times and Media Matters for a working definition of “misinformation” but did not receive a response from either outfit. As a result, it remains unclear whether the Times’ false or misleading reports about
Russian collusion, former Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, and jihadists’ missile misfire at a Gazan hospital would qualify.

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker
wrote Friday on the “Racket News” Substack, “The problem with the Times piece is it defines ‘false claims’ and ‘election misinformation’ so broadly that legitimate questions or analyses and even jokes get wrapped in with far-out conspiracy tales.”

Media Matters did, however, shine some light on what sort of claims it apparently feels should not be uttered on YouTube, namely: suggestions “that the election process is ‘rigged’ against Trump, that the legal cases against him constitute ‘election interference,’ that Democrats want and are enabling noncitizens to vote in order to win the election, and that Kamala Harris was ‘illegally installed’ as the Democratic nominee in a ‘coup’ against Joe Biden.”

If Media Matters gets its way, then YouTube might penalize critics for highlighting the unmistakable
efforts by Democrats to throw Trump in prison before the election and to remove him from the ballot; Democratic lawmakers’ publicly stated plans to invalidate a lawful Trump victory; the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s lawsuits aimed at restoring the voter registration of thousands of suspected foreign nationals; or for questioning the nature of Biden’s ouster as Democratic candidate and Harris’ voteless candidacy.

Media Matters specifically complained that BlazeTV host Mark Levin said in May that Democrats “will do anything for votes — imprison Trump, steal elections,” and that Democrats would “change the electoral process” to get more votes.

The Democratic attack dog attacked Levin further for apparently suggesting in July that Democrats “stole the election from their own primary voters and they’re going to install somebody who hasn’t gotten a single delegate on her own.”

Media Matters also set its sights on Deace, complaining:

Right-wing radio host Steve Deace said Democrats would be “dropping ballots” and “bussing people in … to keep the spigot going until they get what they want” on Election Day. Deace continued, “All they’re trying to do is make her credible enough so they can fortify this thing at the end here.”

Media Matters was apparently distressed to learn that Deace could exercise his First Amendment rights and suggest on YouTube that Democrats might want to get the polls “within their narrative margin to justify cheating.”

The hit piece also noted that BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock accused California of “manipulat[ing] voting.”

A YouTube spokeswoman told the Times that the company reviewed eight videos identified by the liberal paper and found that none of them violated its community guidelines. However, that’s not what the Times originally reported.

‘But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.’

“A YouTube spokeswoman said none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines,” wrote Grant.

The Times has since issued a correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of videos that YouTube reviewed when asked for comment on whether they contained misinformation. YouTube
said it reviewed eight videos, which were identified by The New York Times and referenced in the article, not all of them, and found that those eight did not violate its community guidelines; it did not comment on whether they contained misinformation.

The YouTube spokeswoman whose response was initially misrepresented by the Times apparently also told Grant, “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season.”

Evidently not all are keen on open debate and free speech.

Kayla Gogarty, an LGBT activist who interned at the Human Rights Campaign before becoming “research director” at Media Matters, said, “YouTube is allowing these right-wing accounts and channels to undermine the 2024 results.”

Media Matters was not entirely impotent regarding its censorious crusade. The Times indicated that YouTube censored three videos and placed “information labels” that link to supposedly factual information on 21 other videos.

Deace told Blaze News, “The timing of this hit piece is obviously to induce Google, which also owns YouTube and thus the two largest search engines on this planet, to censor those of us who are among the most effective in deconstructing the Left’s attempts to deconstruct America right before the election. But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.”

Taibbi and Thacker summarized the attack campaign thusly:

A DNC-aligned group produces a “report” documenting a sciencey-sounding quantity of “misinformation” incidents, then passes the scary number to a politically willing mainstream news outlet, which trumpets the new “facts” while publicly and privately pressuring platforms to remove offending material. Welcome to the new “accountability journalism.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Media matters, New york times, Fake news, Liberal, Propaganda, Washington post, Nico grant, Steve deace, Mark levin, Ben shapiro, Tucker carlson, Attack, Censor, Censorship, Thought control, Youtube, Politics, Tech 

Just two days from Election Day, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are going into the homestretch with contrasting campaigns.

Trump traveled from the Rust Belt to campaign in North Carolina and Virginia on Saturday, largely focusing on top issues like the economy and immigration.

‘Over the past 4 years, Kamala has orchestrated the most egregious betrayal that any leader in American history has ever inflicted on our people.’

“If Kamala wins, you are 3 days away from the start of a 1929-style economic depression,” Trump said in a post on X. “If I win, you are 3 days away from the best jobs, the biggest paychecks, and the brightest economic future the world has ever seen. … I will massively cut taxes for workers and small businesses — and we will have NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY benefits!”

“As we rescue our economy, I will also restore our borders,” Trump said in another X post. “Over the past 4 years, Kamala has orchestrated the most egregious betrayal that any leader in American history has ever inflicted on our people. She has violated her oath, eradicated our sovereign border, and unleashed an army of gangs and criminal migrants from prisons and jails, insane asylums and mental institutions around the world, from Venezuela to the Congo — stealing countless American lives.”

Harris also spent time in the Sun Belt, campaigning in Georgia and North Carolina. Harris has refocused on policy issues like immigration, noting that she has served as attorney general of a border state.

“I was attorney general of a border state,” Harris said in a post on X. “Strengthening our border is not new to me.”

Under Harris’ purview as “Border czar,” there have been over 8.7 million migrant encounters across the southern border alone, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Harris also reminded voters of her goal to “restore reproductive freedom” and implement a $6,000 child tax credit, as well as her “economic plan” that “taps into the aspirations of the American people.”

Harris also made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” alongside Maya Rudolph. Many pointed out that the skit looked like a recreation of Trump’s 2015 appearance with Jimmy Fallon, both of which showed the presidential hopefuls speaking to their reflection, played by one of their co-hosts.

“It is nice to see you, Kamala,” Harris said to Rudolph. “And I’m just here to remind you, you got this, because you can do something your opponent cannot do. You can open doors.”

While her appearance sparked a huge amount of online discourse, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr criticized Harris’ appearance as a violation of the FCC’s “Equal Time rule.”

“The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly the type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election,” Carr said in a post on X. “Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.”

The campaign season took another unexpected turn last night when Ann Selzer released a poll alongside the Des Moines Register showing Harris three points ahead of Trump in Iowa. This is a huge turnaround for Harris compared to the four-point deficit she was facing in the state, according to a previous poll from Selzer.

Iowa is not considered a swing state but has had a split voting record. Trump won the state in both 2020 and in 2016, but former President Barack Obama won the state in 2012 and 2008.

At the same time, many criticized this poll as a fluke, calling it a last-ditch attempt to “demoralize Trump voters.” Notably, major projections have all included Iowa as a red-leaning state.

“No President has done more for FARMERS, and the Great State of Iowa, than Donald J. Trump,” the former president said in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “In fact, it’s not even close! All polls, except for one heavily skewed toward the Democrats by a Trump hater who called it totally wrong the last time, have me up, BY A LOT.”

Trump is set to campaign in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia today. Harris will make multiple campaign stops in Michigan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kamala harris, Donald trump, Snl, Iowa, Michigan, North carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, Campaign, 2024 election, Presidential election, Border czar, Immigration, Economy, Brendan carr, Politics 

In 2016, the night before the presidential election, I posted a few paragraphs on how I was feeling. I was in an environment where I was surrounded by left-leaning coworkers, and I felt immense pressure not to voice what I really thought.

So instead, I posted that I was exhausted by the divisive rhetoric on both sides and that, while I believed Hillary Clinton would win, it didn’t matter as much as we made it seem because we would move on.

While most of us can agree that abortion is wrong, it’s easy to be swayed into believing that ‘loving our neighbor’ means allowing those living in worse countries into ours for a ‘better life.’

I got a barrage of comments from both sides saying, “Wow, this is exactly how I feel!” I felt validated. I felt like I had pleased everyone. The problem was that I didn’t actually say anything.

In an effort to be winsome and relatable to everyone, I ignored the glaring siren in front of me: It DID matter who won this election, and Christians had no business voting for Hillary Clinton despite Donald Trump’s many flaws.

It was true then, and it’s even more true now. In 2016, we didn’t have a clue how Donald Trump would actually lead or what policies he’d truly care about. Now we do. We also have three years — and an entire abysmal career before that — of record on our other candidate, current Vice President Kamala Harris.

False empathy

Yet I don’t blame the Christian for being confused. We’re bombarded with media lies claiming that Kamala Harris is the empathetic choice. She’s the choice that will be “compassionate” to the illegal immigrant (but not to the victim of rampant immigrant crime) and to the woman with an unwanted pregnancy (but not, needless to say, to the baby being murdered).

A few weeks ago, Pastor Ray Ortlund, president of Renewal Ministries and founding pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, posted on Instagram Threads: “Never Trump. This time Harris. Always Jesus.”

Last week, Glennon Doyle, lesbian self-love guru, who still has a large Christian, female following, posted a series of slides on Instagram claiming that if Donald Trump is elected, “we lose birth control, IVF, abortion, insurance coverage, and LGBTQ+ rights.” Note that quite literally none of that is even remotely true.

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen other pastors contribute to the irresponsible lie that “both sides are just as bad” or, even worse, that “both sides are valid options.” From a Christian standpoint, not only is that untrue, it’s unbiblical and dangerous.

If you find yourself convinced by the progressive left that it would be “unloving” to vote for Donald Trump, or that it doesn’t matter as long as you “vote your conscience,” I urge you to look a little deeper at what your vote actually means.

A higher authority

As Christians, we obey a higher authority than our feelings. If we examine each candidate’s proposals in the light of biblical truth, deciding how to cast your vote isn’t so confusing after all.

Clips from Pastor Jonny Ardavanis of Stonebridge Bible Church and Pastor Josh Howerton of Lakepointe Church were making the rounds on X last week after both pastors preached excellent sermons on how Christians should view this year’s election. You can view a clip from Pastor Jonny’s sermon here and Pastor Josh’s sermon here.

The clips went viral because the church as a whole is starved for good Christian teaching that speaks to how the Christian should apply the Bible to the ballot box. These are two of the pastors who actually cared to answer.

As much as Christians like to pretend like politics and culture are outside the church, they’re not, and it’s vital that the Christian understands where Kamala Harris stands and what she represents in this election.

Abortion

Proverbs 6:16-17: “The Lord hates … hands that shed innocent blood.”

Kamala Harris is the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

It’s true that we do not have a consistently pro-life candidate in this election, with Donald Trump refusing to support a federal abortion ban and openly and consistently supporting abortion exceptions and term limits, but the Democrats are undeniably, radically worse.

While Republicans now think abortion should be rare, as Democrats used to, Democrats celebrate it and flaunt it.

It’s not just about exceptions or limits. Harris will not name a single abortion restriction that she supports. Eight states and Washington, D.C., impose no term restrictions on abortion, and more will follow under Harris.

In 2019, she voted to block the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical care for babies born alive in botched abortions.

Her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, signed the Protect Reproductive Options Act in January 2023, which repealed the state’s Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, codifying a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” and essentially prohibiting any restrictions on abortion, including gestational age limits.

The bill also removed the requirement for abortion providers to report cases in which infants survive abortion attempts, a measure that had been in place since 2015.

While Trump is not standing strong against abortion as he should, he would inevitably surround himself with many who do. He will be supported by people who have the potential to change his mind. Harris will not.

Immigration

Acts 17:26: And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

Perhaps no issue today divides Christians more than illegal immigration.

While most of us can agree that abortion is wrong, it’s easy to be swayed into believing that “loving our neighbor” means allowing those living in worse countries into ours for a “better life.”

But is it really loving to open our borders and put our own citizens at risk?

How were we loving our neighbor Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student, when our border failed to protect her from the unvetted illegal immigrant who brutally murdered her?

Were we loving Mollie Tibbetts, Kate Steinle, and Lizbeth Medina when they, too, died at the hands of illegal immigrants? Are we loving our neighbors in Colorado as we allow apartment complexes to be taken over by Venezuelan gangs?

Harris and Walz have repeatedly blamed Trump for rejecting a border bill that they claim would have properly vetted illegal aliens. In reality, the “border security bill” would have allowed 5,000 illegal border crossings per day before closing the border, kept catch-and-release in place, sent hundreds of millions of dollars to NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration, and required that any illegal immigrant who claims asylum be released into the country and granted work authorization almost immediately.

The fact is that Harris has no plan to secure our border. We know because she’s been asked repeatedly and has never been able to answer.

Gender and sexuality

Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If you follow Libs of TikTok on X, you already know what the Democrats advocate in this department: books that read like porn being available to young children in schools, gender indoctrination baked into curriculum, and the normalization of drag shows, preferred pronouns, and “gender-affirming care” — dangerous hormone “treatments” and experimental genital mutilation surgeries.

I could write a lengthy book on the amount of corruption within the “transgender care” industry, but suffice to say that proponents in this industry are creating lifelong slaves to the medical industrial complex by selling experimental surgeries and hormone “treatments” that they know have an absurdly high complication rate.

It’s a neglect of responsibility for us to reject God’s design for sexuality and gender to begin with, and it’s a dereliction of duty to ignore the physical and mental harm being inflicted upon not only adults but children as well.

On “Transgender Day of Visibility” in 2022, Harris and Admiral Rachel Levine welcomed six “transgender” and “nonbinary” youth and their families to the White House. Levine said it was “deeply impactful to speak to some amazing trans kids at the White House. Gender-affirming care is the medical standard and allows these kids to be themselves and live a normal life.”

The same year, the White House posted a message from president Joe Biden and Harris that read, “Efforts to criminalize supportive medical care for transgender kids, to ban transgender children from playing sports, and to outlaw discussing LGBTQI+ people in schools undermine their humanity and corrode our Nation’s values.”

In a 2019 interview with the National Center for Transgender Equality, Harris crowed that as attorney general of California, she ensured that the state changed its policy “so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access to the medical care that they desired and need.”

When running for president in 2019, she pledged on an ACLU questionnaire that if she became president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”

Due to Harris’ policy, a man who is sitting on death row for gruesomely killing three people, known as the “Yacht Killer,” has received taxpayer-funded “sex-change” surgeries and is expected to transfer to a female prison soon.

Compare this to Trump’s pledge to keep men out of women’s sports and to stop child genital mutilation surgeries. Which candidate aligns more with our God-given duty to protect the vulnerable (Proverbs 31:8-9)?

Religious liberty

David Daleiden, project lead at the Center for Medical Progress, was investigated for criminal activity in 2015 by then-California Attorney General Harris after he released undercover footage showing Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of baby body parts from late-term abortions.

In 2016, Harris sent 11 armed agents along with K-9 dog units to Daleiden’s one-bedroom apartment, a raid in which the California DOJ seized dozens of hours of his unreleased undercover tapes.

Harris, upon request from her donors at Planned Parenthood, opened a criminal investigation into Daleiden and the CMP. Eight years later, he still faces charges under California’s never-before-used eavesdropping/recording law.

A few months ago, half a dozen pro-life activists were found guilty of violating a federal law that forbids protesters to block the entrances to abortion clinics. Jonathan Darnel, who remained outside the clinic, received a nearly three-year sentence. Others in the case received two-year sentences, and another — the only one who pleaded guilty — received a 10-month sentence.

Harris has voiced support for efforts to strengthen protections for “reproductive health care providers,” particularly in the context of increasing “threats” to clinics and their staff. In other words, this will only happen more under her watch.

In California, under Assembly Bill 957, a child’s gender identity must be considered in custody decisions during divorce or custody disputes. This includes custody disputes involving whether the state should have custody of the child.

In Oregon, the state can refuse Christian couples the opportunity to foster and adopt if they don’t comply with their potential future child’s “gender identity” and pledge to seek “gender-affirming care” accordingly.

This is religious “liberty” under Democrat rule.

Boiling it down

Trump or Harris? It’s really not that complicated, after all. And the same logic applies to local elections. When considering your vote, take a cue from Howerton’s sermon, in which he suggests asking the following questions.

Which candidate:

Promotes policies most likely to slow societal decay?
Will best protect our national security?
Is more likely to protect religious liberty?
Will oppose the erasure of gender?
Is more likely to stop the corrosion of the definitions of the family?
Will best limit the taking of unborn lives?

It may feel uncomfortable to admit when it’s tempting to reject party lines, but I’m more than confident that the answer to whom the Christian should vote for will simply never be “blue.”

It’s not because the Republican Party is right all the time or because Republicans don’t have their own glaring issues that need to be addressed.

It’s that the Democratic Party is a cancer to society that promotes baby murder, child genital mutilation, the destruction of the family and parents’ rights, and the unfettered influx of (sometimes violent) illegal aliens, who are draining taxpayer resources while citizens suffer. Been to North Carolina lately?

There is only one alternative. Christians, we must choose it.

The reality is that it is your duty to vote, because in a constitutional republic, you lead by electing representatives. As a Christian, you’re the leader appointing people to represent you as close to the biblical view on these issues as you can get.

To neglect to do so is a dereliction of duty. And the answer on whom to vote for isn’t complicated. As Howerton says, “Personalities are temporary; policies last a long time.”

Yes, Donald Trump is uncouth at times and posts silly little name-calling rants on X, but he also appointed Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Imagine the numerous lives that were spared and will be spared because of that decision. That is what you’re voting for.

Around 30 million Bible-believing Christians didn’t vote in the last presidential election. That election is argued to have been decided by 42,000 votes.

That is why your vote matters.

​Abide, Faith, Donald trump, Kamala harris, Christian voting, Abortion, Immigration, Trans, Religious liberty, 2024 election, Endorsement 

Will Joe Biden succeed in undermining the pillars of American capitalism? The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 13 that the November election could decide whether Biden’s push to break up American companies simply for being “big” will succeed in the long run.

The Journal is correct. This election isn’t just a referendum on what the Biden-Harris administration has done to entrepreneurs over the past four years; it’s also a vote on the future of America’s economy. Another four years of the status quo could turn Biden’s unconventional policies into economic and legal precedents, causing lasting damage.

Once-successful companies are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

This issue centers on how, after taking office, Biden and Harris ensured the confirmation of Lina Khan, a progressive favorite, to lead the Federal Trade Commission. Khan quickly reversed 40 years of consensus on antitrust policy by overturning the consumer welfare standard, which had limited government intervention in the economy to cases where consumers faced harm. The Department of Justice, which shares antitrust enforcement with the FTC, soon followed her lead.

Under the Biden-Harris administration’s aggressive approach to antitrust, businesses can now be regulated, broken up, or even dissolved for reasons determined by the White House, regardless of whether they lower consumer prices or increase competition. Over the past four years, this approach has led to challenges against companies for simply being “too big.”

The good news is that the Biden-Harris administration has lost nearly every corporate challenge it initiated, as courts recognize its anti-capitalism agenda lacks legal grounding and is politically motivated. However, these challenges have still cost thousands of jobs and discouraged businesses from pursuing innovation.

When the Biden-Harris administration blocked mergers like Spirit Airlines-JetBlue and Roomba-Amazon, the results were disastrous. Roomba lost jobs and declared bankruptcy, while Spirit now teeters on insolvency due to the administration’s actions.

Despite these failures, Biden and Harris continue their push, as shown by a late September lawsuit against Visa.

In its latest campaign against capitalism, the Biden-Harris administration’s antitrust cops claim Visa’s debit market is an unchecked monopoly raising consumer prices. But this is far from true. Consumers have a wide range of choices, not only with other debit cards but also through peer-to-peer payment networks like Apple Pay, Cash App, and Venmo.

Payment volumes and the number of competitors in this space continue to rise steadily. In a capitalist economy, being a popular choice among consumers isn’t a crime, but the administration is acting as if it is.

By overturning the consumer welfare standard, the Biden-Harris administration has created the worst business climate since the Carter era. Once-successful companies — even large chains like 7-Eleven and Walgreens — are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

With the November election now in clear view, voters face a crucial decision.

The Wall Street Journal noted that “it is a near certainty that [Khan’s] authority will end if Donald Trump wins the presidency, as many in the GOP favor more latitude for mergers and view Khan as too tough on business.”

Voters must make the right choice, as the continuation of this anti-business agenda could lead to incalculable long-term consequences for the free market.

As voters stand at this crossroads, the choice is clear. Will they back a government that prioritizes regulation over innovation, or will they support policies that encourage free markets and allow businesses to thrive?

The costs of staying the current course are evident — job losses, higher prices, and economic stagnation. A change in direction, however, could promise economic freedom, growth, and prosperity.

We’ll have the answer soon, but one thing is clear: The current path of overregulation and government interference is unsustainable. It’s time to empower businesses, foster competition, and create an environment where innovation can flourish for all Americans.

Let’s hope voters agree.

​Economy, Regulation, Deregulation, Capitalism, Biden-harris administration, Joe biden, Kamala harris, Lina khan, Ftc, Antitrust, Spirit airlines, Opinion & analysis