In the days since the second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life there were numerous calls for everyone to “cool the rhetoric.” It is interesting to note that while some of these calls to cool things came from a few Democrats virtually all the heated rhetoric has come from Democrats and their pals in the national media whose venomous language has been teamed with baseless legal actions against the former president in what is an evil quest to destroy Trump, his family and his business empire.

Since the early days of the current campaign, Democrats led by President Joe Biden have characterized Trump, with absolutely no basis in fact, as the equivalent of Hitler and a threat to American democracy and who if elected will put an end to our democracy. I suspect Democrats thought that they could get away with these lies because at the current time many Americans have little understanding of Hitler and the Nazis and of the absolute evil that characterized that regime.

Many Democrats, with no sense of shame, were up bright and early on the day following the thwarted assassination blaming Trump’s heated rhetoric for causing the attempts on his life. Many added that he had to give up outdoor rallies and stop playing golf.

Then later that same day they trotted out “Mrs. Sour grapes” — the one and only Hilary Clinton on the Rachel Maddow Show — where she intoned that former President Donald Trump continues to be a “danger to our country and the world.” Democrats just don’t get it. They told Trump to curtail his rhetoric and then continued with their own heated rhetoric. What nerve they have. How self-righteous they are. How tone deaf can they get?

In that same appearance Mrs. Clinton, switching to her role of protecting the “sanctity” of the First Amendment, said the federal government should criminally prosecute Americans who share “propaganda.”  Hilary being Hilary made no effort to define what that meant. I guess she wants to keep the “deplorables” guessing.

The former senator’s views on free speech echo those of Gov. Tim Walz who said on MSNBC in December 2022 that “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” That statement would be surprising news to the Supreme Court, which unanimously held as recently as 2017 that “speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground” is still protected by the First Amendment. Governor, I would be happy to send you one of the several copies of a pocket edition of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that I own.

Recently the Kamala Harris campaign, but not Harris herself, said she no longer supports a ban on fracking, no longer supports abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, no longer supports mandatory gun buybacks, and no longer supports banning private health insurance.

Last week in an appearance with Oprah Winfrey she flip flopped again claiming to be a gun owner. I wonder if these flip flops announced by the campaign but usually not by the candidate herself are a ploy to give her plausible deniability to “de flip flop” on those issues in the event she is elected?

And there is potential for more flip flops. Harris has an established track record of backing radical legislation that defunds immigration law enforcement in favor of funding for nonprofit groups that encourage and facilitate illegal immigration. In 2018, she encouraged her fellow senators to reject a Trump administration request for additional funding for new Border Patrol agents and ICE detention beds. Harris has also supported free healthcare for illegal immigrants and supports the decriminalization of illegal border crossings. She also supports sanctuary city laws to protect illegal immigrants, banning cash bail, banning plastic straws, and banning offshore drilling.

Her record is the most radical of any individual who has ever run for president and noting her flip flops on many issues you have to wonder how she would govern if elected. I think that we should remember the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders who when he was asked on NBC’s Meet the Press if he felt that Harris was abandoning her political principles replied: “No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” The history of American politics should warn us that candidates often tell us what we want to hear to win elections but usually revert to long held positions when governing.

Harris was handed the nomination by default after years of Democratic denials of President Biden’s deteriorating condition until its seriousness became apparent in the June debate. Was her nomination part of a long term plan by party elites to nominate a tractable individual who would follow orders during the campaign and if elected function as a figurehead and allow others to actually run the White house?