Advertisement

Latest News

March 3, 2025
|

It was such a relief during the presidential campaign last July when Michelle Obama was NOT named as Biden’s replacement on the ticket. As longtime newsletter readers know, that had been my worst fear. I had predicted it for two years, all the while hoping and praying I was wrong. But as recently as the Trump-Biden debate, I was quite sure of this, knowing the Democrats had an iron-clad obligation to choose a black woman and that Kamala was the worst disaster of a presidential candidate in living history. How could the Democrats, pathologically obsessed with winning, pick someone they knew could not win?

It was also obvious that President Biden couldn’t handle even four more weeks on the campaign trail, let alone four more years as President. It was obvious then that Democrats had been covering for him, even though some of them (this means you, Jake Tapper) are only now admitting this in ridiculous books that I hope gather dust, mold and flies on the shelves at Barnes & Noble. I assumed the Democrats were trotting out Biden to debate with Trump in the absolute certainty that he’d crash and burn. Then, of course, they’d install Michelle Obama as the new candidate. The media would go wild, and Obama II would be coronated. She was the only black female who had a chance of winning, and (most importantly) this would also ensure another term for the Obama Machine.

As for Kamala, the Democrat Mob --- I mean, Machine -- would make her one of those offers you can’t refuse

Well, the first part, Biden’s crash-and-burn, happened spectacularly, but the second part, the Michelle coronation, didn’t gel. I was never in my life so happy to be wrong --- it doesn’t happen very often, ha --- but ever since, this chain of events just hasn’t made sense to me. Why would the Democrats have deliberately CHOSEN Kamala? There had to be a puzzle piece we didn’t have.

Then I happened upon a piece from a little over a month ago in AMERICAN THINKER by Jerome Corsi that, if he’s right, explains it. The way he tells it, Michelle, not Kamala, actually was supposed to be the nominee. Looks as though I was right about this. It was all planned.

Corsi’s piece, overall, is about voter fraud, and why this time Democrats apparently didn’t try to rig the top of the ticket but might very well have used ballot fraud to win in some of the down-ballot races. Excellent, highly recommended reading, but the part specifically about Michelle is about seven paragraphs in.

According to his sources, “At the ‘Deep Party’ Central Committee level of the Democrat Party --- at the level of Barack Obama, Klaus Schwab and George Soros, the order went out that Harris needed to lose.” (Recall that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was convinced that after Biden was “induced” (forced?) to withdraw from the race, Michelle Obama would be the nominee, as President Obama’s preference.)

Corsi explains that just under 30 minutes after post-debate Biden withdrew in a social media post on X, he posted again that after deciding “not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term,” he offered his “full support and endorsement for Kamala [Harris] to be the nominee of our party this year.”

Uh-oh. Recall that almost immediately after this, President Obama (no doubt hotter than a pistol) issued a flowery letter commending Biden for withdrawing but NOT endorsing Kamala. In fact, it didn’t mention Kamala at all. Hilariously, it said, “I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August.” (Note: can’t resist saying that it was the GOP Convention, not the Democrat, that came across as generous, prosperous and united.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-statement-biden-drops-out-2024-race/

According to Corsi, it wasn’t supposed to go this way at all. Biden, or someone controlling Biden, brought about this outcome. Biden throwing his support to Kamala was really like throwing a giant wrench into The Machine. All consideration of an alternative presidential candidate was over. As for their big plans for Michelle, this nominee was not to be.

And since Biden’s action of positioning Kamala before Michelle was an “unpardonable offense,” Corsi explains, they weren’t going to help her win. They would let HER crash-and-burn this time. Besides, RNC Chairman Lara Trump was keeping too close an eye on the presidential election for them to do the kind of rigging they’d need to do.

So, was Biden aware enough to pull the rug out from under the Obamas this deliberately, out of his tremendous distaste for them? Or was it just a blunder by an elderly man with a poor memory? We might not ever know, but either way, this might be the ONE THING we can be eternally grateful to Joe Biden for doing. And I can be grateful to Jerome Corsi for making sense out of this for me.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/01/why_didn_t_the_democrats_steal_the_2024_presidential_election.html


3 Special Elections Are Coming

We weren’t expecting Huck PAC to have to come to the rescue of 3 more races immediately following the 2024 elections, but the Democrats see this as their chance to un-do what the American People overwhelmingly voted for in November. Unlike a normal race, these elections are going to be short, savage and expensive -- and we’re ready to do everything we can to help! Please support Huck PAC with a donation in the amount you can afford. Every dollar helps→

Click here: Donate - Huck PAC

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 1-10 of 11

  • Amy Kinney Hicks

    03/04/2025 04:03 PM

    Excellent article, but please do remember that Lara Trump is Co-Chair of the RNC, not Chair. Those of us who worked beside and for Michael Whatley would appreciate him getting the credit he deserves as well for all his work and efforts, both before and during the election. Thank you!

  • Diane Thompson Sedwick

    03/04/2025 02:59 PM

    The endorsement of Kamala over Michelle was Jill's decision-- Biden would have been totally incapable of making such a decision!

  • Marko Frijolio

    03/03/2025 11:33 PM

    That was a crappy article.
    Headline that requires a 1 sentence answer followed by a page and a half of blather

    reads like a kamala word salad

  • Someone Else

    03/03/2025 11:03 PM

    My theory:
    The left didn't necessarily not want Joe. But they really didn't want Kamala, and Joe was tied to her. So when they pushed him out (in order to get rid of Kamala), Joe declared his support for her (probably he wasn't the one who posted on X--maybe it was Jill?), perhaps as a bitter-pill.
    Mrs. Jill Biden wore GOP Red clothing after voting on election day! Beautiful! Thanks, Jill.

  • Andrew Litkowiak

    03/03/2025 10:32 PM

    Not sure why you needed Corsi to come to this conclusion. It was blatantly obvious that Biden was forced out, and it was blatantly obvious that Jill persuaded him to endorse Harris. Not that it took much convincing.

    Biden's dementia is serious but not yet complete. He was disjointed, but very very angry. Yes, he stuck a knife in the back of his own party. In this case vengeance served up steaming hot.

  • Kevin Tarvin

    03/03/2025 09:21 PM

    It makes no sense. I get what you are saying but Michelle is too addicted to her wealth and income to care about running for president. (S)he doesn't care about the country enough to be dedicated to any cause. It's all about money to the Obama's.

  • Roger Mall

    03/03/2025 07:39 PM

    One more thing -- Moochelle Obama seriously didn't want to run. The scrutiny would have been unbearable for her compared to the sycophantic treatment she gets as is. Still another, she is every bit the vacuous person Kamala is and was beatable.

  • Roger Mall

    03/03/2025 07:29 PM

    I believe the Democrats have no scruples against stealing an election. Their leadership is essentially Marxist /one-world-government/ Gaia worshipers (but more importantly sinecure and power worshipers). The end justifies the means for them. That said I can believe they had to be more subtle across the board because of the additional voter watch effort by the GOP.

    The Dems have for decades now employed vote by mail as their chief weapon with Republican legislatures early on helping hand them the gun. The GOP saw that was a mistake and transitioned to decrying it but more recently getting in on the fraud enabling and generally anti-good-government concept.

    We do not want Republicans or independents cheating on a onesy-twosy basis matching Democrats at their game. At home voting means no photo ID at time of vote, and no overwatch as to coercion-intimidation-falsification or substituted judgment (voting for someone else) and no contemporaneous observed signature. It is absolutely the most insecure way of voting and then at the other end it has to rely on signature verification and lengthier counting periods complicating validation and overwatch. Signature verification is a joke anyway.

    The GOP apparat says they won with vote by mail and banking efforts in that regard. My view is that typical of credit grabbers they just love the paid hustle, whatever it is. Resources spent repetitively hectoring people to vote early by mail cuts into motivational and expansive messaging and availability of funds for early messaging to inoculate the population and grow the GOP base.

    People know how to vote, if they are interested they will vote. Voters in the 1960s and 70s voted at as high or higher a rate with a relativly minuscule amount of vote by mail, less voting opportunities in person, less transportation availability and voting largely constricted to one day.?Make people interested. Put patriotism in them, educate them, expose the Democrats as a party, begin in early spring even February promoting party alongside primary election messaging by candidates (which will help those candidates be more consistent in their messaging) .

    I also believe it was/is a phony claim to say that “banking the vote” saves money. Id like to see an audit validating that claim. My view is it wastes money assuming people do not know how to vote. Every repetitive sentence used to hector or explain how to vote early by mail is wasted breath that cuts into motivational messaging.

    As previously mentioned it cuts into growth messaging and funds to do so. As long as one person in a household holds to voting securely, which means voting in person and holding to the good-government concept of voting no more than a few days before Election Day — that household continues to receive all the stupid hectoring because “bank the vote” — never mind that it is the HOUSEHOLD being hectored.

    The intimidating tone goes that if you “bank the vote” “we” won’t “have to” continue to contact you with breathless information on how to vote early by mail. Oh they tried to fine tune it with vote records but the “we see you have not voted” big-brotherism is endemic and the general ads and admonishments continue unabated, — wasted messaging on all but a very few. It is narrow messaging that hits the voted and the high propensity just the same, forgoing actual growth and suppression messaging for messaging about the mechanism and timing of voting. They used guilt as well, insufferably trying to instill guilt for not voting early – now suddenly de rigueur. Door knocking to encourage voting is fine, but giving people the bum’s rush, inculcating vote-by-mail is against good-government interests.

    It should be understood that Trump 47 is only a plurality president (albeit he did better than Trump 45) not breaking 50% with Harris being only 1.5% behind him. Why so many who can read the results keep saying Trump “won the popular vote” I do not know. He was the most popular of the various candidates but other candidates in combination were more popular.

    I do not believe for a minute the powers that be did not want Kamala to win. They may have been uninspired and almost as depressed as they were with dementia - Joe and probably wanted someone else but they raised 2 billion for her for crying out loud. Oh they wanted her to win, they just had the bad luck of being saddled with somebody less appealing than Hillary and no internal road to dump her and not make it worse. *

    Trump in the biggest potential political blunder of the election, helped bring in Kamala and reenergize the Dems and thereby arguably limit coattails in the election as might have happened with Biden on the ticket.

    Agreeing to debate Joe against protocols and thus helping expose Joe and knock him out of the race was stupid, certainly not 4D chess. With Biden the Dems were totally demoralized. Trump should have let sleeping dogs lie and not agreed to Biden’s own stupid bravado. All he had to claim was “protocol” but I guess we could not expect that from the guy who refused to debate his Republican challengers reserving his own debate bravado for a dementia ridden Democrat. It was impulsive for Trump to agree. He should have mustered the discipline to let Dems be saddled with Joe.

    Thank G*d for the electoral college because the essentially Marxist candidates had enough to win if they had coalesced.

  • John Curry

    03/03/2025 07:20 PM

    I disagree with you Mike. I believe that Biden found out that he was dropping out when he saw the tweet that was sent in his name. Had he intended on dropping out and endorsing Harris he would have endorsed her in "his" original post saying that he was dropping out. He and Jill saw that they screwed him and realized the only way to get revenge was to push Harris on them. That is when Joe and Jill decided to endorse Harris, knowing that it would stick it to the people who just stabbed him in the back.

  • Ralph Kelly Coker

    03/03/2025 07:02 PM

    With all the middle school shenanigans Biden's WH pulled just to show how bitter and hateful they are, I bet it was intentional to block Big Mike.