A brand new poll from the New York Times shows former President Donald Trump is maintaining a razor-thin lead over Kamala Harris in a head-to-head matchup across the country.

The latest from the Old Gray Lady says the honeymoon is over—on the eve of the biggest day so far in the campaign—tomorrow’s debate, held in Philadelphia.

Right now, the race could not be closer or the stakes any higher, but I firmly believe Donald Trump will prevail tomorrow and the polling will begin to look a lot more like they did after Joe Biden’s collapse on live TV.

This is for all the marbles and the big question right now is what will be the big Philadelphia story? Tomorrow night, at the National Constitution Center in Philly, VP Kamala Harris will “debate” President Trump.

And as I have been advising for a while now, she would be wise to read the Constitution beforehand, focusing on the First Amendment and the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News, would be wise to ask Harris what she knows about the Constitution, and whether she knows where her boss, Sleepy Joe Biden, is. 

Since the debate is on the eve of the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, Harris should have to answer for Biden’s horrible record on Afghanistan. Since it is also the second anniversary of Biden’s “Battle for the Soul of Our Nation” speech outside Independence Hall, Harris should have to answer for her boss’s lies and insults about President Trump. 

If nothing else, the 90-minute debate—with two commercial breaks—will confirm that Kamala Harris does not speak coherently about most things.

She speaks of privileges, not rights, as she has nothing to say about the sanctity of life or the sacredness of liberty.

She speaks of joy, but she opposes our right to pursue justice. She speaks but says nothing of substance, which is the essence of her career as a political prosecutor and a partisan hack.

Start with Harris’s threat to revoke Elon Musk’s “privileges,” because of his commitment to free speech. Harris does not like what X is, which is to say she wants the site to be like the Twitter of old: a forum for Democrats and no place for Republicans. She wants X to be as restrictive as Facebook, censoring news, policing accounts, de-monetizing specific posts, and de-platforming or banning users not for being wrong or dangerous.

None of these things are legal or just but she doesn’t care—and neither do a host of Democrats.

Here again is proof of Harris’s contempt for the Constitution, because she would destroy democracy and this Republic to save Democrats. She would take X—she would seize it—in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 
 
She may not know or care to know that the government cannot seize private property without just compensation, or that eminent domain is not a license to promote tyranny and steal from our fellow citizens—we are protected from those very things by that sacred Constitution, the one she seems to be so unfamiliar with.

If Harris knows so little about the First Amendment and even less about the Fifth Amendment.

She has nothing to say about the fact that she should not be debating President Trump in the first place. Surely the moderators will say something about this, or President Trump will because Harris is an accidental nominee and Biden an absentee landlord.

Because the last debate was a disaster for Biden, he is no longer his party’s nominee. And yet Biden is still in the White House. He withdrew his candidacy without resigning his office, and, instead, anointing Kamala Harris as his successor despite her failure to win a single caucus or primary, ever!

Are we to pretend this is right or democratic? Are we to believe any of this is constitutional, when the Twenty-fifth Amendment is clear about the procedures for replacing the president or vice president in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation? And who can argue—with Joe Biden missing in action—that he has not reached incapacitation?

If Biden is not incapacitated, why did he drop out of the race? If he is incapacitated, why is he still in the White House? More specifically, if Biden is living in the White House until January 20, 2025, who is running the place for him? Do we have a president?

The situation regarding foreign policy is worse. From Afghanistan to Ukraine to Israel, Biden’s record has been horrible. From our loss of men and materiel to our losses in general, we left Afghanistan the way we entered it: with the Taliban in charge.

And now, Kamala Harris wants to continue where Biden left off: by going to war with Russia it seems. She wants to send more arms to Ukraine, for a war Ukraine cannot win and the United States must never fight. In the Mideast, she talks about sending arms to Israel but does nothing to disarm Iran.

Bear in mind, too, that Harris would just as soon disarm us. She agrees with everything Biden said two years ago. She believes “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

No doubt the irony is lost on Harris, whose proposals are not only extreme but unconstitutional. No doubt Harris thinks she is right to treat her opponents as her enemies, to deny them their rights and afford them no privileges. No doubt Harris has no doubts when it comes to the war she wants to wage, at home and abroad.

On these matters, in terms of the extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic, we do not doubt Harris’s intentions because she is an extremist.

In this respect, the debate is over.

We agree that Harris is unwise and unjust. We agree that her candidacy is undemocratic.

We also agree that the debate ended many weeks ago when Biden lost and then disappeared.

We know the White House is without a president and the country without a commander in chief, that our domestic policy is unsustainable and our foreign policy unconscionable.

We do not deny or dispute the facts. 

While we cannot change the facts, we can transcend them.

We can re-elect President Trump.

We can choose the future we want, based on the policies we want, on behalf of the leader we want.

What we want is anything but extreme.

We want greatness!

We want to Make America Great Again!

What in the world is extreme about that?