The Latest Scandal

“Sharpiegate” has arrived. Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the latest dumb attack on First Lady Melania Trump.

The article includes screenshots of some tweets criticizing the dress that the First Lady was wearing during the celebration at Mount Rushmore.

The article includes the actual story behind the dress:

The dress was a creation of young fashion students in college. The dress is called Dancing Girls Dress.

It seems however that Alexander McQueen have gone above and beyond with introducing new initiatives to keep the fashion community connected during lockdown. Their recently introduced #McQueenCreators project has been as massive success on social media, bringing the fashion family together under one hypothetical McQueen shaped roof.

A sense on community is something that has always been close to the heart of the house. For their SS20 collection the McQueen team worked alongside Central Saint Martin’s MA students and The Stitch School to create the Dancing Girls Print, a print now synonymous with the collection as a whole and emblematic of McQueen’s commitment to collaboration.

Continuous, spontaneous sketches of dancing girls were created in a life-drawing class held at the educational space at the Alexander McQueen London flagship store last year.

This dress has a greater meaning. Every single member of the team contributed to the embroidery by hand on this dress becoming a true symbol of what the brand stands for. Alexander McQueen aims to nurture and contribute to the success of young designers and creatives, and this sense of community that went towards one single dress proves this.

The article concludes:

I’ll end with this tidbit – another Trump supporter reminds us of a former First Lady’s fashion choices.

Melania Trump is the best-dressed First Lady this country has ever had, whether you like her or not. She represents the United States well. She has surpassed the gold standard of fashionable First Ladies, Jackie Kennedy, much to the left’s dismay. Best of all, we aren’t talking about First Gentleman fashion and Bill Clinton.

If nothing else, this episode shows the political left’s desperation to find something to criticize. As the country rebounds from the economic impact of the coronavirus and begins to move forward again, it’s simply becoming more difficult to grouse.

The Cancel Culture Is Getting Absurd

I knew things were getting out of hand when a mob tore down the statue of Frederick Douglass in Rochester, New York, on Sunday. Now they are coming for Hawaiian shirts. On July 1, Newsbusters posted the story.

The article reports:

The New York Times has identified a new villain in their insane cancel culture wars. Hawaiian shirts. I kid you not.

On Monday, freelancer Nathan Taylor Pemberton targeted Hawaiian shirts because some undesirable people wear them. His warning about the dire associations connected with that ubiquitous article of clothing came in “What Do You Do When Extremism Comes for the Hawaiian Shirt?”

It’s one of the most discussed street styles of the spring: tactical body armor, customized assault rifles, maybe a sidearm and helmet, paired with the languid floral patterns of a Hawaiian shirt.

While it’s not uncommon to see heavily armed white men toting military-grade gear on American streets, the addition of the Hawaiian shirt is a new twist. It turned up in February at gun rights rallies in Virginia and Kentucky, then in late April at coronavirus lockdown protests in Michigan and Texas.

Think of the shirts as a campy kind of uniform, but for members of extremist groups who adhere to the idea of the “boogaloo” — or, a second civil war in the United States. If that sounds silly to you, consider that these groups settled on the Hawaiian shirt thanks to a string of message board in-jokes.

The article explains:

Ah! So now we get to the source of leftist antipathy towards Hawaiian shirts. They somehow interpret it as a symbol of American colonialism in Hawaii although ironically it is a big source of textile employment for many Hawaiians as well as worn by many of them although they refer to them as “Aloha shirts.”

The article concludes:

Sigh! To paraphrase Sigmund Freud: Sometimes a Hawaiian shirt is just a Hawaiian shirt. In fact that is what is should be, always.

I wonder when wearing sneakers is going to become a problem.

Upholding The Constitution

The New York Post is reporting today that the Supreme Court has ruled that Presidential electors must cast their votes for the person who won the majority of the votes in their state.

The article reports:

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

The states’ Electors almost always do so anyway.

The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for those who want to change the Electoral College, and who believed a win would lead to presidential elections based on the popular or total number of votes.

But it was a win for state election officials who feared that giving more power to electors to make their own choice would cause chaos — and even lead to attempted bribery.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

The justices had scheduled arguments for the spring so they could resolve the issue before the election, rather than amid a potential political crisis after the country votes.

This was a unanimous decision. When was the last time all the justices on the Supreme Court agreed on anything?

This decision makes sense if you understand the purpose of the Electoral College. The Electoral College was put in place by our Founding Fathers so that a group of densely populated states would not be able to elect a President without the support of less populated states. Without the Electoral College, New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut would elect our President. Smaller states would never see a candidate, nor would their votes count. That is what the Electoral College was put in place to prevent.

President Trump And The Black Vote

After hearing the protesters at the Independence Day boat parade yell, “What do we want? Trump dead,” I wondered how much of the black population of America is aware of the things President Trump has done to help the black community move forward.

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article detailing some of the things President Trump has done to help the black community.

The article notes:

Back home in the US, African Americans were experiencing the best economy we have ever seen: Unemployment for our racial group was the lowest in recorded history, black wages were rapidly increasing for the first time in decades, and people who’d been out of work long-term were being hired and suddenly able to take their families on vacations for the first time in years.

…I personally do not agree with everything President Trump says or does, and I often find myself on national TV as a conservative pundit saying exactly that. But I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that Trump has been one of the most impactful presidents for African Americans from a policy perspective — and that’s what matters.

His recent police-reform executive order, the First Step Act, released thousands of people from jail (90 percent of whom were black). He has promoted “opportunity zones” that incentivized private investment into marginalized communities, and also increased federal funding to historically black colleges and universities by 17 percent — a total exceeding $100 million, more than any president in history. Meanwhile, the Obama administration infamously removed a two-year Bush-administration program that annually funded $85 million directly to these prized institutions.

As I mention in my book, “Taken For Granted,” during the 2016 election Trump did something few Republicans had the courage to do — he targeted the black vote and spoke directly to African-American issues.

He was not afraid of saying the “wrong thing” (and, yes, he sometimes did) while achieving the ultimate goal of creating real dialogue and opportunity in communities largely ignored by both parties. In return, he received only 8 percent of the black vote generally, and 12 percent of black men. (By comparison, Romney earned 6 percent of the black vote.) But after three years in office, having delivered on so many issues for black voters, Trump’s support among black men had risen to 24 percent, according to one February poll.

President Trump is gaining support among black voters who are actually paying attention to what the President is doing. That may be the reason the Democrats are working so hard to stir up racial tension. The deep state has a vested interest in preventing the re-election of President Trump. (see previous article). The Washington establishment is willing to use any weapon at their disposal, regardless of the cost to Americans. Power is the goal, and any method to gain it will be used.

Please read the entire article at The New York Post to see the details of what President Trump has done to help all Americans be successful.

Losing Energy Independence

There are two groups of people who are attempting to end America’s energy independence–OPEC (The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and the Democrat Party. OPEC is fighting American energy independence because it represents competition and loss of OPEC’s worldwide influence. I am not really sure what the Democrat Party stands to gain by fighting American energy independence except that the position opposes President Trump’s position, which seems to be their platform–if President Trump is for it, we’re against it.

Yesterday Fox News posted an article about the resistance to America’s energy independence.

The article reported:

The battle to win U.S. energy independence has been long, hard and well worth it but the industry is facing new foreign threats from OPEC as well as right here at home from Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Biden wants to ban U.S. fracking, which was the key to our winning the war of energy independence. The former vice president at one point has said “no new fracking” — which, because of the nature of the shale decline rate, would end the U.S. shale revolution. This would not only cost the U.S. thousands of high-paying jobs, it would allow other countries to fill the void and produce more oil and gas.

…Biden has also said he has a goal to completely eliminate fossil fuels. While all men are created equal, energy sources are not. The move to fossil fuel alternatives in the near future is not reasonable and handicapping the U.S. energy industry will only put U.S. energy security at risk.

In fact, because of demand drops due to the COVID-19 shutdowns, many alternative fuels have also seen setbacks in investment and are not viable. The truth is the road to get the world off of fossil fuels will be much longer than the original goal of energy independence and in some form, we will be using fossil fuels for energy for generations to come.

Having a presidential contender looking to curb the U.S. energy industry comes at a time when threats from foreign actors are rising amid allegations they have conspired to try to bankrupt the U.S. energy industry so that we return to depending on them for our economic and national security.

While Saudi Arabia and Russia denied it, many believe that the goal of an oil production war in the midst of COVID-19’s oil demand collapse was to once and for all neutralize and bury the hard-won U.S. energy independence.

Does anyone remember the gasoline crisis of the 1970’s? Because we were almost totally dependent on foreign oil, we had gas lines and high gasoline prices. Does anyone really want to do that again? Energy independence is an economic issue, a national security issue, and a geopolitical issue. It determines our economy, our national security, and can influence our foreign policy. The less dependent we are on foreign oil, the more free we are to stand up to tyrants in countries with large supplies of oil. Energy independence should not even be debatable–it it necessary for the survival of our republic.

Bad Reporting Is One Of The Things That

Today The Gateway Pundit posted an article that illustrates how misquoting a person can create a totally false impression of the person and of what was said. The thing to keep in mind here is that the mainstream media attacks those who it considers to be a future threat to their narrative and their hold on power.

The article reports:

The far left media is making up completely fraudulent quotes now to smear the Republicans.

The Hill reported on Saturday that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem called the removal of Confederate statues was an effort to “discredit” our Founding Fathers.

This would be quite a quote if it was true.
But it’s not true.
It was completely made up to make the popular Republican governor and the Republican party look racist and stupid.

The tweet is still up over 24 hours later.

The article posts the actual quote:

Here are Governor Noem’s actual words:

“Across America these last several weeks, we have been witnessing a very troubling situation unfold. In real time, we are watching an organized, coordinated campaign to remove and eliminate all references to our nation’s founding and many other points in our history. The approach focuses exclusively on our forefathers’ flaws, but it fails to capitalize on the opportunity to learn from their virtues. Make no mistake, this is being done deliberately to discredit America’s founding principles by discrediting the individuals who formed them so that America can be remade into a different political image.”

As you can see, there is no reference to the Confederacy or the statues. This is a blatant attempt to stop the forward political progress of a woman who has served her state well, both in Congress and as Governor. This is the sort of reporting that divides rather than informs.

All Cities And States Need To Do This

On Wednesday The Washington Free Beacon reported that the city of Detroit has removed thousands of deceased and duplicate registrants from its voter rolls after being hit with a lawsuit.

The article reports:

City officials cleaned up the voter rolls after the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a government watchdog, filed suit against them in December. Nearly 2,500 deceased individuals and 4,800 duplicate registrations were removed from the voter rolls. The officials have also moved to review another 16,465 registrants who lacked actual dates of registration.

“This is another win for election integrity,” said J. Christian Adams, the watchdog’s president and general counsel. “This case wasn’t complicated. The City of Detroit could have started to fix these problems before litigation, but didn’t. Other jurisdictions should take note—if you don’t act on solid data that your voter rolls are corrupted with dead and duplicate registrations, you will be sued.”

Debates over voter fraud have appeared as Democrats across the country push for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic. President Donald Trump claimed that mail-in voting will lead to the “most corrupt Election in USA history.” Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are pressuring Senate Republicans to pass legislation to support such measures. Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), chair of the Senate Rules Committee, blocked a bill brought forth by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) on the issue, saying he worried it would lead to a “federal takeover of elections.”

The watchdog filed suit against two Detroit officials—City Clerk Janice Winfrey and Director of Elections George Azzouz—after studying Detroit’s voter list maintenance efforts dating back to 2017. Outside liberal groups, such as the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice and League of Women Voters of Michigan, swooped into the city to intervene on behalf of the election officials but ultimately did not play much of a role. Adams’s group dropped the lawsuit after the officials cleaned up the registrations.

Every illegal vote in an election cancels out the vote of a legal voter. If you want your vote to count, encourage your city, town, and state to clean up their voter rolls. Dead people do not have voting rights.

The Independence Day Boat Parade

Today I attended an Independence Day Boat Parade. It was beautiful and ended with a man dressed in Colonial American attire reciting the Declaration of Independence. There were many patriots there cheering the boats and their many flags. There were also protestors there from Black Lives Matter. The protestors were very well behaved–noisy, but well behaved. There was no violence and no litter left behind. But I have some questions.

The chants were the usual–no justice, no peace; black power salutes and chants; and ‘what do we want? dead Trump.” I thought the last chant was a bit much since President Trump has done more for the black community than all of the Presidents before him–he has instituted prison reform, he has increased funding to black colleges, and he has increased black employment to new highs. So I guess I am not sure exactly what they want. It did cross my mind that they might not be sure of exactly what they want. At one point they were yelling something like give us what we want or we will burn everything down. That sounds more like spoiled children than a political movement.

America was in unity believing that the death of George Floyd was a horrible thing. The policeman who was responsible for that death was charged with murder. It was made clear that the policeman’s behavior was totally unacceptable. Was the looting and destruction that followed acceptable? Did the destruction of stores in black neighborhoods accomplish anything? Protest is legal in America and should remain so, but protest should have a point and a goal. We can work together to make things better. We will never be a perfect country, but we can make things better.

There are areas of unity we can build on. It is up to all of us whether we want to unify and accomplish things or simply destroy the country we have.

Then And Now

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about ever-changing press coverage.

The article reports:

CNN described Mount Rushmore as a “monument of two slave owners” on “land wrestled [sic] away from Native Americans” ahead of President Donald Trump’s visit there on Friday.

But in 2008, CNN marveled at the landmark when then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) visited Rushmore on the campaign trail.

In 2008, CNN anchor Ron Marciano said: “Barack Obama is campaigning in South Dakota. That state’s primary is Tuesday. Obama arrived there late last night and got a good look around Mt. Rushmore — it’s quite a sight if you haven’t seen it.”

Fellow anchor Betty Nguyen added: “Barack Obama is in South Dakota today. He arrived there last night. Take a look at this. He got a good glimpse of the majestic Mount Rushmore. Well, South Dakota and Montana have closed out the primary season on Tuesday.”

But on Friday, CNN described Rushmore in less glowing terms.

Senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns said:

[A]t a time of racial unease, when protesters are tearing down statues of slaveholders and calling for the names of Confederate generals to be removed from army bases, the Rushmore event is a reminder that Trump is fighting to preserve these relics of heritage and history that some see as symbols of oppression. And to indigenous people, Mt. Rushmore, with four white presidents, two of whom were slave owners, is one of those symbols.

The article includes a screenshot of a recent Tweet that puts it all in perspective:

This sort of changing narrative might explain why many Americans have tuned out the mainstream media. They have become simply a publicity arm of the Democrat Party.

A Different Perspective On The Riots

Many of us have looked at the Marxist roots of Black Lives Matter (as well as the fact that they freely funnel money into Democrat coffers) and considered the current riots as a push toward social disruption that will usher in socialism as a means of equity. What is not mentioned by those who espouse socialism is that it totally eliminates the middle class and leaves two classes–the elites in charge and the equally poverty stricken. Unfortunately our schools are not teaching the lessons of history regarding socialism. However, there is another take on the current unrest that is very interesting.

On July 1st, Sohrab Ahmari posted an article at The Spectator about the current riots.

The article notes:

America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of globalization were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and conservative-nationalist options.

This deposition explains the storm of unrest battering American cities from coast to coast and making waves in Europe as well. The storm’s ferocity — the looting, the mobs, the mass lawlessness, the zealous iconoclasm, the deranged slogans like #DefundPolice — terrifies ordinary Americans. Many conservatives, especially, believe they are facing a revolution targeting the very foundations of American order.

But when national institutions bow (or kneel) to the street fighters’ demands, it should tell us that something else is going on. We aren’t dealing with a Maoist or Marxist revolt, even if some protagonists spout hard-leftish rhetoric. Rather, what’s playing out is a counter-revolution of the neoliberal class — academe, media, large corporations, ‘experts’, Big Tech — against the nationalist revolution launched in 2016. The supposed insurgents and the elites are marching in the streets together, taking the knee together.

I believe the following is the most important paragraph in the article:

They do not seek a radically new arrangement, but a return to the pre-Trump, pre-Brexit status quo ante which was working out very well for them. It was, of course, working out less well for the working class of all races, who bore the brunt of their preferred policy mix: open borders, free trade without limits, an aggressive cultural liberalism that corroded tradition and community, technocratic ‘global governance’ that neutered democracy and politics as such.

The rioters do not understand that they are being used by the very people who choose to keep them in poverty by shipping jobs overseas and undercutting wages by opening  borders.

The article continues:

Does anyone seriously believe the American establishment — Walmart, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, the trustees of Ivy League universities, the major sports leagues, even Brooks Brothers, for God’s sake — would sign on to a movement that genuinely threatened its material interests? And yet these and many other firms and institutions are falling over themselves to express solidarity with the ‘uprising’, some going so far as to donate millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter, an outfit that lists among its objectives the abolition of the nuclear family.

Over the past four years, every trick in the book has been used to end the ‘nightmare’ of national conservatism and populism. The methods deployed by the elite reflect its tendencies and preferences as a class. Just think of recent skirmishes. A decisive majority of British voters resolved to leave the EU and then had to spend three years fighting a political establishment that marshaled all its vast resources to thwart Brexit. It failed. In America the liberal establishment tried harder, failed harder, but learned more. From the minute Trump won the presidential election, Democrats, elements of the security apparatus, and their media allies set out to undo the result. The marquee events were the ‘collusion’ probe and an impeachment push that was perhaps the single biggest insult ever to the intelligence of the American people. There were also countless smaller attempts to unseat Trump and destroy his entourage.

The article concludes:

Which social class most excels at politically correct manners? That would be the professional-managerial class, the laptop class. Its children learn the patois for discussing ‘issues of race, gender and sexuality’ from an early age. They’re expected to have mastered it by the time they take their entry-level jobs. It’s a skill that private schools are doubtless teaching already.

Working-class people, meanwhile, are most likely to struggle with this language. Even when they mean well they don’t always get it right, not least because the rules constantly shift with the vagaries of critical race theory and LGBTQ acronyms. By fortifying the requirements to speak and think correctly — and raising the stakes for failures — the neoliberal class has now built a repressive new mechanism for staying at the top and keeping the oiks down. Especially those who voted the wrong way in 2016.

So whatever you do, don’t call it a leftist revolution. With the flags, the protests, the kneeling and the new language, it’s a counter-revolution. The outcome remains uncertain, but the class war is well and truly under way.

This is a very interesting perspective.

Insert Poison Pill To Block Common Sense Legislation

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) blocked a resolution that condemns “mob violence.” That sounds like a common sense resolution that should easily pass the Senate, but it was blocked.

The article notes:

Lee (Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) ) took to the Senate floor in Washington Thursday to announce his belief that it was important for the Senate to go on record “condemning the rising tide of mob violence we see across the country and the increasingly prevalent mob mentality that’s fueling it.”

Lee cited several recent instances, including the shooting by a protester in Utah, the assault of a Wisconsin state senator by a group that tore down two statues, and the berating of law enforcement officers for standing at their posts.

While some Americans have organized peaceful protests, other events have devolved into rioting, looting, and violence, Lee noted.

The article continues:

Menendez said he objected, arguing that the resolution made no mention “of America’s original sin, which is slavery.”

Many New Jersey residents don’t believe the United States is morally committed to justice, he argued, which would clash with the third paragraph of the resolution. That paragraph states: “The United States is a diverse nation committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law.”

“I would consider not objecting to the senator’s request if he also recognized and added to his resolution the fact that we have a president of the United States who ultimately provokes—provokes insightful language and violence,” Menendez added, noting that President Donald Trump recently shared a video that included a man saying “white power.”

Lee was willing to accept the proposed revisions except for the part about Trump, saying lawmakers shouldn’t point to one specific individual.

So Senator Menendez was not willing to condemn violence unless the resolution specifically attacked President Trump. Wow. It’s interesting that the Senator blames President Trump for provoking the violence when the violence is generally committed by people who oppose him. That’s like accusing France of starting World War II because they responded when Germany attacked them. Every rioter is responsible for his/her own actions. They can blame no one but themselves. When they are arrested, they will be held responsible. How dumb does Senator Menendez think the American people are?

When The Fact Checkers Are Not Paying Attention

Generally speaking, The New York Times has been immune from the fact checkers. Somehow they are willing to overlook the misinformation and ‘leaked from anonymous sources’ misinformation that The New York Times routinely prints. The latest example of this is a claim by the times that “there had been a “longstanding American policy treating the settlements as illegal” prior to Secretary of State Pompeo’s 2019 reversal of that purported policy. (“Mixed Signals on Israeli Annexation Reflect Split Among Officials,” June 22, 2020, David Halbfinger and Michael Crowley.) That is simply not true.

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis) notes the following:

• Note that although President Carter took the position that settlements are illegal, this was quickly reversed by the Reagan administration, which held that settlements are “not illegal.” Subsequent administrations either reiterated Reagan’s view or refrained from taking a position on legality.

• Note that the New York Times itself repeatedly reported on Reagan’s view that settlements aren’t illegal, and in the past several years has twice published corrections after wrongly suggesting the U.S. had consistently viewed settlements as illegal.

• Just as those corrections were appropriate, so too is it necessary to correct last week’s piece by Halbfinger and Crowley.

• Note that memos by past legal advisors in the State Department archive are advisory, and do not set policy or bind subsequent U.S. presidents. While Carter administration legal advisor Herbert Hansell believed settlements were illegal, the Reagan administration rejected that view.

CAMERA further notes:

To be fair, the Times isn’t the first to make this mistake. In October 2016, the Washington Post corrected its claim that the U.S. regarded settlements as illegal. A month later, the Associated Press corrected the same claim. The following month, The Times (UK) corrected, as did ABC News and the Times of Israel. In 2018, the Times of Israel corrected again. The Financial Times corrected this same error in November 2019. And two days later the Economist ran a correction of its own.

Even the New York Times itself has, in the past, corrected this false claim. After a March 2017 editorial asserted that the U.S. “has consistently held that settlement building in the occupied territories is illegal,” a correction clarified, “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated the United States’ position on settlement building in the occupied territories. It has been highly critical of the activity, but has not consistent [sic] held it to be illegal.”

From the news side, an August 8, 2013 correction in the NY Times likewise acknowledged that “the United States has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether [settlements] are legal or illegal.”

Unless those corrections were themselves in error, last week’s claim about a “longstanding” policy that settlements are illegal (and a similar claim last November by the same reporter, David Halbfinger) can’t be true.

This sort of reporting by The New York Times might help explain why much of the Jewish vote (generally readers of The New York Times) is misinformed on America’s policy toward Israel and the value of Israel in the world community.

This Could Get Very Interesting

The New York Post is reporting today that longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested Thursday on a six-count indictment charging her with grooming young girls for sex.

The article reports:

The British socialite, 58, was arrested by the FBI in New Hampshire around 8:30 a.m., sources told The Post.

The just-unsealed indictment charges stem from Maxwell’s role “in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein” as early as 1994, court papers say.

“The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by Maxwell and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18,” the indictment says.

She is specifically accused of grooming three underage victims for sex with Epstein in places including his Upper East Side townhouse, Florida, New Mexico and London.

Maxwell is charged with six counts — conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and two counts of perjury.

There are a few things to note here. Maxwell was arrested by the FBI–not any local jurisdiction. The charges will be announced by the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan today. Her testimony, if she chooses to reveal what she knows, could be very damaging to many people in powerful positions. Hopefully she will be better protected than Jeffrey Epstein was.

Good News On The Jobs Market

Just the News posted an article today reporting that the U.S. added 4.8 million jobs during the month of June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday. The unemployment rate fell to 11.1%. Economists had estimated that 3 million jobs would be added.

The article reports:

The increase in jobs comes as businesses begin rehiring following the height of the coronavirus pandemic in April and May.

The unemployment rate also dropped more than expected. The Dow Jones predicted that it would fall to 12.4% in June. It was 13.3% in May.

We are definitely moving in the right direction.

The article concludes:

Also released this morning were the weekly jobless claims, which showed that 1.43 million Americans filed for first time unemployment benefits last week. This number was slightly higher than the expected 1.38 million.

The new numbers will help inform Congress later this month as they debate the possibility of expanding benefits for unemployed Americans.

The expanded benefits system has been providing the unemployed with an additional $600 a week, and covering workers who are not typically included in the state benefit systems.

Sections of the country have begun pausing their economic reopening efforts as the coronavirus spikes sharply in the south west.

It is likely that Congress will ultimately agree to extend those benefits, but decrease the $600 addition.

The $600 addition has been cited by many business owners as the reason some of their employees are not in a hurry to return to work. Whatever Congress subsidizes we will see more of. When unemployment is no longer subsidized, we will see less of it.

Good News

It always amazes me that good economic news is always ‘unexpected’ when a Republican is in the White House. Well, last month’s economic news also fits that pattern. Breitbart reported yesterday that factory activity in the U.S. surged higher than expected in June. That always makes me wonder who expected what.

The article reports:

The Institute for Supply Management’s index of manufacturing activity jumped 9.5 percentage points to 52.6 in June. The gauge of new orders rose 24.6 points to 56.4, the largest ever monthly increase. The production component of the index also rose by more than 24 points to 57.3.

…Economists had expected a reading of 49, with the highest estimate in those surveyed by Econoday 51.5. June’s score was the best since April of 2019.

“The manufacturing sector is reversing the heavy contraction of April, with the PMI increasing month-over-month at a rate not seen since August 1980, with several other indexes also posting gains not seen in modern times,” ISM’s Timothy Fiore said in a statement.

The article further reports:

“US manufacturers have reported a marked turnaround in business conditions through the second quarter, with collapsing production and demand in April at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown turning rapidly to stabilisation by June. The PMI posted a record 10-point rise in June amid unprecedented gains in the survey’s output, employment and order book gauges,” Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit, said.

Williamson said:

“The record rise in the New Orders Index, coupled with low inventory holdings, bodes well for a further improvement in production momentum in July. A record upturn in business sentiment about the year ahead likewise hints that business spending and employment will start to revive. However, while the PMI currently points to a strong v-shaped recovery, concerns have risen that momentum could be lost if rising numbers of virus infections lead to renewed restrictions and cause demand to weaken again.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that the workforce participation rate for June was 61.5, up from 60.8 in May. In February the workforce participation rate was 63.4, so we have a ways to go to get back to where we were before the coronavirus shutdown.

The Voice Of Common Sense (Which Probably Will Not Be Heard)

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about the investigation into the shooting of Rayshard Brooks.

The article reports:

“Atlanta PD detective (Al Hogan) assigned to the [Rayshard Brooks] investigation says he would have charged Brooks — not Rolfe — with 10 counts, including multiple felonies,” posted Philip Holloway, a legal analyst for WSB Radio (post below). Captioning a screenshot of Hogan’s letter, Holloway noted: “Usually law enforcement are witnesses for the state but this is from a defense filing.” 

This is a list of seven things that Detective Hogan would have charged Brooks with:

  1. DUI/DUI Less Safe, a violation of OCGA 40-6-391 
  2. Felony Obstruction, Two counts, a violation of OCGA 16-10-24
  3. Aggravated Assault against a Police Officer, Two Counts, a violation of OCGA 16-5-21
  4. Battery against a Police Officer, Two counts, a violation of OCGA 16-5-23.1
  5. Theft by Taking, a violation of OCGA 16-8-2
  6. Removal of Weapon from a Public Official, a violation of 16-10-33
  7. Robbery, a violation of OCGA 16-8-40.1

The article continues:

As reported by AJC, attorneys for the former officer, Noah Pines and Bill Thomas, have filed a motion seeking reasonable bond for their client. Pines and Thomas maintain in the motion that if Rolfe had reason to believe Brooks committed a crime involving the “infliction” or “threatened infliction” of “serious physical harm,” he was justified in using deadly force.

“In his struggle to evade arrest and revocation 0f his probation, Mr. Brooks concussed Officer Brosnan, stole his Taser, shot him with the Taser, fled with the Taser and then pointed and fired the Taser at Officer Rolfe,” the motion states.

When you attack a police officer, bad things happen to you. I don’t care what color you are. The fact that the police officer has been charged rather than the criminal in this case illustrates how off base mob rule can be. This is one of many examples of why America is a representative republic and not a democracy. A democracy results in mob rule. Mob rule would convict the police officer, despite the evidence. Hopefully, cooler heads will eventually prevail.

The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The court ruled that that families have a right to seek the best educational opportunities for their children, by preventing states from blocking the participation of religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The decision was the usual 5-4 split–only this time the five were in favor of not discriminating against religious schools.

The article reports:

Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza removed the largest state constitutional obstacle by holding that so-called Blaine Amendments cannot be used to deny choice to parents.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states no longer may prevent parents from choosing religious schools if they are participating in a school choice program.

“A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court in Espinoza.

This decision struck a blow to the notoriously anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment in Montana’s Constitution that sanctioned explicit discrimination against religious schools in funding. Montana’s discrimination hurt families who have a wide variety of values and preferences when it comes to their children’s education.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, Blaine Amendments have an “ignoble” history. The amendments are named after Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 sought a federal constitutional prohibition of aid to “sectarian” schools.

The article concludes:

In Mitchell v. Helms, Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments: “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza took us one step closer to achieving that goal.

Now is the time for states to cast aside these 19th-century rules rooted in prejudice that unfairly punish religious families, students, and schools. The Constitution requires states to provide a level playing field for religious and secular education.

The legal impediment to school choice programs is now gone, and it’s up to state legislatures to move forward advancing education choice.

The court made it clear that policymakers across the country now have the power to enact robust school choice programs. They should do just that.

If the education establishment wants American children in public schools, they have a responsibility to make public schools better. Until then, parents who want their children educated will seek out voucher programs that will allow them to send their children to schools that teach the basics–not get bogged down by the social justice trend of the day.

The Plan To End The Suburbs

Yesterday Stanley Kurtz at The National Review  posted an article about the Democrat’s plan to abolish the suburbs.

The National Review reports:

The suburbs are the swing constituency in our national elections. If suburban voters knew what the Democrats had in store for them, they’d run screaming in the other direction. Unfortunately, Republicans have been too clueless or timid to make an issue of the Democrats’ anti-suburban plans. It’s time to tell voters the truth.

I’ve been studying Joe Biden’s housing plans, and what I’ve seen is both surprising and frightening. I expected that a President Biden would enforce the Obama administration’s radical AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) regulation to the hilt. That is exactly what Biden promises to do. By itself, that would be more than enough to end America’s suburbs as we’ve known them, as I’ve explained repeatedly here at NRO.

What surprises me is that Biden has actually promised to go much further than AFFH. Biden has embraced Cory Booker’s strategy for ending single-family zoning in the suburbs and creating what you might call “little downtowns” in the suburbs. Combine the Obama-Biden administration’s radical AFFH regulation with Booker’s new strategy, and I don’t see how the suburbs can retain their ability to govern themselves. It will mean the end of local control, the end of a style of living that many people prefer to the city, and therefore the end of meaningful choice in how Americans can live. Shouldn’t voters know that this is what’s at stake in the election?

It is no exaggeration to say that progressive urbanists have long dreamed of abolishing the suburbs. (In fact, I’ve explained it all in a book.) Initially, these anti-suburban radicals wanted large cities to simply annex their surrounding suburbs, like cities did in the 19th century. That way a big city could fatten up its tax base. Once progressives discovered it had since become illegal for a city to annex its surrounding suburbs without voter consent, they cooked up a strategy that would amount to the same thing.

This de facto annexation strategy had three parts: (1) use a kind of quota system to force “economic integration” on the suburbs, pushing urban residents outside of the city; (2) close down suburban growth by regulating development, restricting automobile use, and limiting highway growth and repair, thus forcing would-be suburbanites back to the city; (3) use state and federal laws to force suburbs to redistribute tax revenue to poorer cities in their greater metropolitan region. If you force urbanites into suburbs, force suburbanites back into cities, and redistribute suburban tax revenue, then presto! You have effectively abolished the suburbs.

I wonder if Democrats who live in the suburbs were aware of this plan, would they vote for Joe Biden?

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. So far President Trump is the only person willing to fight this move.

In The Past Americans Celebrated America

As we approach Independence Day, there are those who refuse to celebrate our nation and its history. Their actions are divisive and harmful to the nation. Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a tweet (since deleted) that illustrates the misguided thinking of some Americans.

The article reports:

The Democrat Party on Monday evening tweeted, then deleted, an attack on Mount Rushmore, negatively portraying an upcoming event President Trump is planning ahead of Independence Day at the historic monument to four great American presidents.

“Trump has disrespected Native communities time and again,” the Democrats wrote on Twitter, with a link to an article in the British newspaper the Guardian, in the now-deleted tweet. “He’s attempted to limit their voting rights and blocked critical pandemic relief. Now he’s holding a rally glorifying white supremacy at Mount Rushmore–a region once sacred to tribal communities.”

There are some factual problems with this tweet. President Trump has neither limited the voting rights of Native communities nor blocked their pandemic relief. The rally does not glorify white supremacy–it glorifies the freedom we all share. It is a shame that one of our political parties has chosen to tear down the freedom and prosperity this country has provided rather than work to make things even better.

The shining light in this is Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. She tweeted:

Noem addressed it further in an interview on Fox and Friends last week, saying that this is now about a “radical rewriting of our history.”

“What my message is, is that this is no longer about equality, this is a radical rewriting of our history, and in South Dakota we won’t stand for it,” Noem said. “This is a national monument. The more we focus on the flaws of these men that are on our mountain, the less likely we are to recognize the virtues and the lessons we can learn from their lives. So that really is the message that I have for South Dakotans that love this mountain and Mount Rushmore for this country, that recognize what it represents to us, and we will do all that we can to make sure that that message is loud and clear, that we will make sure that Mount Rushmore stays as majestic as it is today.”

This lady needs to run for President in 2024!

This May Be A Necessary Move

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article titled, “Police Consider Charging Crowd Confronted By Armed St. Louis Couple With Trespassing, Intimidation.”

The article reports:

A group of protesters in Missouri who famously found themselves facing an armed husband and wife may soon be facing multiple charges.

As a group of demonstrators marched toward the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home on Sunday night to demand that she resign, they marched through an area that was closed off to the public, where a husband-wife team stood outside with a rifle and a gun to protect their property.

The demonstrators had to break through a closed gate to access the gated community. At that point, they could be charged with trespassing. Some of the demonstrators were armed and issued threats to the homeowners. The incident was caught on video via a cell phone, so there is recorded evidence of the event.

The article notes:

As noted by St. Louis Today, Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia did not break any laws because the street where they live, Portland Place, is a private street. He added that the couple is protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

FindLaw explains, “This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to protect yourself or others against an attack. Missouri’s law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.”

“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” said Walker, adding, “There’s no right to protest on those streets. The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. … It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing.”

The article concludes:

An attorney for the McCloskeys, Albert S. Watkins, said of his clients, who are both attorneys, “Their entire practice tenure as counsel (has) been addressing the needs of the downtrodden, for whom the fight for civil rights is necessary. My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites … (but) two individuals exhibited such force and violence destroying a century-plus old wrought iron gate, ripping and twisting the wrought iron that was connected to a rock foundation, and then proceeded to charge at and toward and speak threateningly to Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey.”

Laws vary from state to state, so homeowners need to be careful about the actions they take. In many states, using a gun to protect your property is not protected–you are only allowed to use a gun if you are at risk. However, I would think that if a mob with a history of burning things down approached you, you might feel that you were at risk.

This case may be one way to push back against those who are abusing the right to protest. The right to protest is protected by the Constitution. The right to loot and riot is not protected.

This Decision Does Not Protect Women

Yesterday The National Review posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Louisiana’s law regarding doctors at abortion clinics. The law in question required doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges. Because women can die from legal abortions, hospital admitting privileges are important. The Supreme Court struck down this requirement, putting the lives of women at risk. Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding vote on the issue, disappointing many Americans who expected him to be a conservative voice on the Court.

The article reports:

The conservative legal establishment has long been particularly enamored of this ideal: the umpire calmly calling balls and strikes. It is a very important virtue. But it is not the first virtue. An umpire who can be cowed by the crowd will not call the same strike zone for both teams. Without courage, good ideas about the law are just empty words on a page. Without courage, even the clearest-written rights are empty promises, the plainest limitations on power are easily overwhelmed, and the entire project of rule by written law becomes just another hollow formality.

Two of today’s Supreme Court decisions, on abortion and separation of powers, are further evidence of this. Chief Justice John Roberts has yet again shown the absence of courage that has so often undermined his Court. Roberts’s repeated demonstrations of lack of courage are rapidly becoming a threat to the Court itself, and to the conservative legal project.

First up, we have June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, which by a 5–4 vote struck down a Louisiana abortion-clinic regulation challenged by the clinics. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch would have upheld the Louisiana law, but Chief Justice Roberts sided with the Court’s four liberals, claiming that his hands were tied by precedent.

In the 2016 case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled 5–3 against a Texas abortion law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. States routinely impose such requirements on the practice of medicine, especially invasive or surgical procedures. As Justice Gorsuch observed, the Louisiana law “tracks longstanding state laws governing physicians who perform relatively low-risk procedures like colonoscopies, Lasik eye surgeries, and steroid injections at ambulatory surgical centers.” The Court in both Whole Woman’s Health and June Medical ruled that “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right” to an abortion. Yet what the Court defines as an “unnecessary” requirement would be uncontroversially legal for any other medical procedure under the sun, and the “constitutional right” itself is, of course, nowhere even vaguely mentioned in the actual Constitution.

Chief Justice Roberts has been a disappointment almost from the beginning. His ruling on Obamacare was questionable at best. Please follow the link to the article to read further details regarding the contradictions between the decision on the Louisiana law and the previous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts

Protests Are Legal; Riots And Shooting Are Not

One America News reported yesterday that the suspect who allegedly opened fire at a Kentucky protest has been arrested. On Sunday, Louisville police confirmed the suspect is in custody and has been hospitalized.

ABC News reported the following yesterday:

The suspect behind Saturday’s fatal shooting in Louisville, Kentucky, has been arrested.

Steven Nelson Lopez was taken into custody by police after being caught on surveillance video opening fire in Jefferson Square Park during a protest against Breonna Taylor’s death.

Lopez will be charged with murder, according to authorities.

On Saturday night, Lopez shot into the crowd of protesters and fatally injured a photographer, Tyler Gerth, 27, who died at the scene despite paramedics’ help.

Another protester was also injured, and Lopez was taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

One America News reports:

According to authorities, the suspect had already been arrested multiple times in recent weeks for his behavior.

“We are conferring with the attorney’s office on appropriate charges to be filed. This man had been participating in the protests since they began. He had been arrested a couple of times over the past several weeks. He had been repeatedly asked by other members in the park to leave due to his disruptive behavior.” – Chief Robert Schroeder, Louisville Police Department

Protesting is legal. Looting and rioting are not.

Some Words Of Wisdom From A Man Who Is Missed

This was posted on Facebook today. I think it is important.

Before his death Charles Krauthammer wrote the following article and it’s well worth reading today!!
The Enemy Amongst Us!!
By Charles Krauthammer,
March 6,2018
An article from the New York Post:
I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).
OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?
If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!
Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.
OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.
OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change… Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.
OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.” OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.
Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.” Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.
The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his ‘wife’ will oversee the operation from their home /office in Washington DC.
Think about how this works. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests.
If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.
If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.
So, do your part.. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a “PERFECT TARGET” for our enemy!
Editor’s comments: Krauthammer is about the best and brightest journalist and political analyst we have, in my opinion. His words of warning in the below message should be taken seriously and spread throughout the country so as many of our citizens as possible are made aware of what is happening right under our noses!