Sad, As Well As Misleading

Joe Biden is running for President. He probably shouldn’t be–he has definitely lost a few steps in recent years. Yesterday in a speech, he asked people to vote for him because he was running for the Senate. Last night in the Democrat debate, he illustrated that at times he has a very tenuous relationship with the truth.

The U. K. Mail reported today that during the debate, Joe Biden stated that 150 million Americans have died from gun violence since 2007. The estimated population of the United States is approximately 330 million. According to Pew Research, there are approximately 40,000 gun deaths in America annually and roughly six in ten of those are suicides. That is a far cry from the numbers former Vice-President Biden was citing.

The article reports:

Biden’s blunder came as he sought to take aim at party front-runner Bernie Sanders during Tuesday’s Democratic debate over his past support of a law that protected gun manufacturers from being held responsible for gun-related deaths.

According to that logic, car manufacturers would be held liable for deaths caused by drunk drivers. In both cases, something was misused by the person using it–the user–not the manufacturer should be held responsible. If you carry the idea of having the manufacturer held responsible for product misuse, how would that impact manufacturing in America? This is another Democratic idea that would unintentionally cripple the American economy.

The article continues:

According to the Center for American Progress, the number of firearm deaths – both violent and accidental deaths – in the US between 2007 to 2017 was 373,663, a mere fraction of the 150 million Biden stated. 

Voters took to Twitter to mock the outlandish claims, sparking fresh concerns over his mental capacity. 

One person tweeted: ‘How many people does he think there are in America?’

Another posted, ‘Biden for Senate 2020’ – a reference to the candidate’s other blunder just hours earlier where he had told crowds he was running for the Senate.  

Biden addressed a crowd in South Carolina on Monday and appeared to forget which campaign he was running in.

He said: ‘My name’s Joe Biden and I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see help out, if not, vote for the other Biden.’

A clip of his latest gaffe was posted on Twitter by activist Shaun King, who wrote: ‘This is so sad.’

He added: ‘I honestly wish he would’ve retired & not subjected himself to the rigors of this campaign.’

It truly is time for Joe Biden to leave the stage.

Judicial Watch Uncovers Information That Leads To More Questions

Judicial Watch posted the following Press Release yesterday:

Logs Also Show DNC Contractor Who Allegedly Worked with Ukraine to Investigate Trump/Manafort Visited Obama White House 27 times

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today analysis of Obama-era White House visitor logs that detail meetings of controversial CIA employee Eric Ciaramella, who had been assigned to the White House. Ciaramella reportedly was detailed to the Obama White House in 2015 and returned to the CIA during the Trump administration in 2017. The logs also reveal Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.

The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:

    • Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015

The Hill reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, “took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).”

    • Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
    • Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
    • Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
    • Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.

On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.

    • Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department’s policy planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
    • James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama’s Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.

On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.

    • Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.

(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s “urgent” gathering of classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)

    • Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.

On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.

The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:

    • Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9, 2015.
    • Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That meeting was on June 2, 2015.
    • Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.

Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work for the City of Chicago Treasurer’s office.

Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.

On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.

“Judicial Watch’s analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs.”

Spreadsheets of visitor records are grouped alphabetically by last name and available below:

A – Coi
Coig – Gra
Graz – Lau
Laug – Pad
Padd – Sor
Sorr – Zyz

It is looking like the impeachment of President Trump was not a spur-of-the-moment activity. Those involved in the planning needs to face the consequences of their actions.

Revealing Their True Motive

For years we have been hearing the Center for American Progress say that voter ID laws are equal to voter suppression. The charge is somewhat ridiculous when you consider that the vast majority of Americans have picture ID of some sort because it is needed for so many simple things–cashing a check, entering a federal building, boarding an airplane, buying alcohol or cigarettes, opening a bank account, etc. Nevertheless, the Center for American Progress and other leftist groups claim that voter ID is voter suppression–they never mention that states that require voter ID also provide free ID cards for anyone who needs them.

Well, the motives of the Center for American Progress are showing. The Washington Times posted an article today about the Center for American Progress’s efforts to make our elections more secure.

The article reports:

After years of accusing states of “voter suppression,” the Center for American Progress wants to make it tougher for overseas military to vote in the name of election security.

The left-wing public-policy group issued Monday a report, “Election Security in All 50 States,” that called for stricter standards to prevent cyber-meddling in elections by foreign governments, including banning military stationed abroad from submitting ballots via email or fax.

One state that allows such vote-casting is Colorado. The center called on the state to “prohibit voters stationed or living overseas from returning voted ballots electronically.”

 “Regardless of the state’s secure ballot return system for electronically voted ballots, we recommend that all voted ballots be returned by mail or delivered in person,” said the 245-page report.

Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams defended the practice, saying the state has incorporated safeguards to protect the integrity of ballots cast by military personnel living overseas.

“They don’t believe someone who works on a submarine should be allowed to vote. We do,” said the Republican Williams in a statement.

The article notes:

“Perhaps they think that Navy SEALS can swim ballots ashore, hand them off to Army paratroopers who can parachute into Colorado to drop off the ballots?” asked the conservative website Colorado Peak Politics.

“You can bet that if the military historically voted Democrat instead of Republican, the Center for American Progress would not have a problem with it,” added Peak in a Monday post.

The article reminds us of some of the past activities of the Center for American Progress:

The report comes as something of a departure for the center, given its record of fighting for greater ballot access, including same-day registration and making it easier for felons to vote, and against tighter rules aimed at combating voter fraud.

Founded by former Clinton and Obama White House adviser John Podesta, who currently sits on its board, the center has opposed state efforts to require government-issued photo identification, scale back early-voting periods, and remove inactive voters from rolls.

The hypocrisy shown by the Center for American Progress is amazing.

Did You Ever Wonder Why The Democrats Love The Dreamers?

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article explaining why the Democrats are so concerned with the fate of the ‘dreamers.’

The article includes a copy of the Center for American Progress Action Fund letter. Please follow the link above to read the entire letter.

The article focuses on one particular part of the letter:

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

There are a few things to consider when looking at DACA. The first thing to consider is that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was unconstitutional. A quick google search will lead you to statements President Obama made before doing DACA that said that doing DACA was unconstitutional. President Trump rescinded DACA and gave Congress until March 2018 to come up with an alternative approach. He brought us back in line with the Constitution–Congress is supposed to make laws–not the President. Next, because of chain migration, legalizing the ‘dreamers’ will create a flood of immigrants, many of whom will not be able to support themselves and will be a burden on an already overburdened treasury. And finally, most of the ‘dreamers’ are now in their thirties. This is the only country they know. However, they need to get in line to be individually considered. Those with gang associations or criminal records need to go back to where they came from. If they have broken laws as adults, they need to leave.

It’s time to reform immigration. Changes to DACA may be part of that, but unless the borders are secure, the American people are not secure.

The Money Behind ‘Net Neutrality’

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about the funding behind the support for net neutrality. Net neutrality is the politically correct expression used to describe the federal government’s takeover of the internet.

The article reports:

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

This is a government takeover of the internet. It is also unconstitutional–Congress has not passed this law–it was passed by the Federal Communications Commission.

Yesterday The Examiner posted a story about the lack of cooperation between the FCC and Congress regarding this law.

The Examiner reported:

On the eve of the highly controversial attempt by Barack Obama and the Democrats to seize the Internet, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler flat-out refused to appear before Congress for questioning. Wheeler has also refused to provide information to Congress about the government takeover, demanding that Congress approve the proposal for the federal government to seize the Internet — deceptively called “Internet neutrality” — without knowing a thing about what they are approving.

…Supporters of so called net neutrality have a hidden agenda they wish to implement. Under the new rules the FCC would have the power to intrude upon and regulate free speech and freedom of the press. Collectivists have long decried the power of the people when the Internet is used to jettison their dependence on government-approved “news,” such as that which is provided by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Government elitists fear the truth in the hands of the people, and the Internet has allowed the people to do their own independent research and news gathering. Hillary Clinton, for example, has complained about having “too many news sources.” She further stated that the “net neutrality” regulations would give collectivists a “foot in the door” in the gradual move to totally control the Internet. Hillary once stated in 1998 that Internet news “needs a rethink.”

Regardless of the motives and long-term goals of the FCC, it has become obvious in recent years that more federal regulation is never a good thing. The only good news in this is that net neutrality will be tied up in the courts for years.

It’s All Done With Smoke And Mirrors

I will have further comments on the President’s State of the Union Speech tomorrow, but I do have one observation on some of what has been released to the public ahead of time.

This afternoon The Washington Examiner posted a story about President Obama’s proposed tax cut for middle class families. The President has proposed a $500 tax credit for two-earner families.

The article reports:

The provision is included in his effort “to help middle class families get ahead.” Like who? Administration officials said families earning up to $210,000 would get a piece of the tax credit. That is four-times the earning of the “typical” middle class income of $51,939 calculated by the Obama-supporting Center for American Progress.

It’s to pay for the added commuter and child care costs of two-earner families, but it wouldn’t cover much.

Take child day care. The just-out Child Care Aware of America’s 2014 report said the child care price for an infant can reach $14,508 a year or $279 a week.

The article also points out that the cost of dinner on New Year’s Day for the president and the first lady was $295 per person, not including wine. President Obama’s middle class tax break would not have even paid for his New Year’s Day dinner.