Is It Really About Fixing The Problem?

Townhall posted an article today about the efforts of Congress to pass a bill that would  address the issue of police reform. The article is behind the pay wall, so the link goes to a transcript of the original article.

The article reports:

Over the past two weeks, Republican Senator Tim Scott, a black man from South Carolina, extended the olive branch of bipartisanship to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on police reform.

On June 17, Scott introduced the JUSTICE Act as a way to tackle what he believes are needed reforms in cities across the country. He quickly gained 50 co-sponsors and opened the door to the “conversation” Democrats regularly claim America needs to have about race, communities and policing. But it turns out, the talking points about “having a conversation” weren’t stated in good faith. After Scott accepted 20 amendments on his legislation from Senate Democrats, they still voted it down, not even allowing debate on the bill.

But what’s even more egregious than playing politics with this issue is how Pelosi and Schumer framed their arguments without Scott in them.

Instead of discussing the content on the bill, the Democrats decided to attack Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The article notes:

The day before Democrats blocked opening debate on the bill, Pelosi accused Republicans working on Senator Scott’s police reform of murder. She did this while advocating for the partisan House version of police reform legislation.

“So far they [Republicans] were trying to get away with murder, actually, the murder of George Floyd,” she claimed during an interview with CBS Radio.

When confronted about her words during an interview with MSNBC, Pelosi shamelessly pivoted away from the mention of Senator Scott and back to Mitch McConnell.

“Will you apologize?” MSNBC anchor Peter Williams asked during an interview.

“Absolutely, positively not,” Pelosi said.

“Is Tim Scott working in good faith?” he followed up.

“I’m sorry?” Pelosi asked as if she had no idea who Senator Tim Scott was.

“I’m talking about Mitch McConnell,” she said.

The article concludes:

Washington D.C.’s most partisan Democrats are attempting to write Senator Tim Scott out of the conversation. They’re doing it on purpose for political reasons and to continue their false narrative that Republicans are “racists.” It is despicable.

We have reached the point where it’s more important for many in Congress to gain political advantage than to solve a serious problem. It’s time to change the composition of Congress. If your Congressman voted against debate on this issue, it’s time to elect a new Congressman.

Actions Are More Important Than Words

Townhall posted an article today about Civil Rights Attorney Leo Terrell, who recently made some surprising comments about his view of the Democrat party.

The article reports:

“This is why I stopped drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid. I can’t take this hypocrisy anymore. It’s ridiculous,” he explained during a Friday night segment on “Hannity.”

“Richard Russell from the South was against integration. He was opposed to anti-lynching bills. That’s what bothers me about this whole thing, that Democrats, just because of the D in their name, they could be a racist,” Terrell explained. “That statement by Joe Biden is so offensive and then you have Spike Lee out there and say, ‘It’s okay.’ That’s offensive. If any Republican said the same thing they would be in trouble, big trouble.”

“Joe Biden gave us the crime bill in 1994. President Trump gave us the First Step,” he said. “The bottom line is this: I don’t need the Democrats to insult me or try to placate me with African garb, Nancy Pelosi. Pass some laws. Pass some reforms. Show me something other than some kind of condescending act just because you’re a Democrat. That doesn’t follow anymore.”

The article concludes:

Terrell also made one very true point: if someone identifies as a Democrat but they believe in law and order, they won’t see it from that political party.

Something to think about before November.

The Presidential Campaign Of Joe Biden Continues To Sadden Those Of Us Who Are Watching Closely

I’m sure Joe Biden is a nice man. He definitely has a beautiful smile. But I truly believe that he is not the man he was even five years ago. He has always been known for gaffes, but he seems to have taken that to a new level since campaigning for President.

Townhall posted an article yesterday about the latest questionable statement by the former Vice-President.

The article reports:

Joe Biden on Thursday compared the death of George Floyd to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, saying Floyd’s death had a bigger global “impact” than King’s.

At an economic reopening roundtable in Philadelphia, the former vice president spoke of how the advent of smartphones had precipitated global participation in the movement against police brutality and racial injustice.

“Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did,” Biden said.

“It’s just like television changed the Civil Rights movement for the better when they saw Bull Connor and his dogs ripping the clothes off of elderly black women going to church and firehoses ripping the skin off of young kids,” he continued.

“What happened to George Floyd — now you got how many people around the country, millions of cell phones. It’s changed the way everybody’s looking at this,” he continued. “Look at the millions of people marching around the world.”

There is a lot to unpack in that statement. First of all, the civil rights movement has been part of America since the 1950’s. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a pioneer in that movement. There have been great strides made in that movement, many as a result of the peaceful manner in which Dr. King conducted himself. George Floyd was not working to further the rights of black America. He really had not accomplished a whole lot in his young life. His murder simply provided an excuse for the culture of outrage to mobilize. My second point is that Joe Biden has been in Washington since 1973. If things are so bad, what has he been doing for the past forty-seven years?

The death of George Floyd was horrible. It should never have happened. However, I am not sure that in the heat of the moment we have begun to put his death in context. The bad behavior of one policeman should not be used to condemn all police, just was the bad behavior of the protesters who have decided to riot should not be used to condemn all protesters. How many people have been killed by the protesters? What does that accomplish?

The Double Standard Rears Its Head Again

Former employees are not known for their objective opinion of their prior boss, and sometimes being quiet is the best course of action. Unfortunately Generals Mattis and Kelly did not get that message. They are entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is not helpful at this time, nor does it represent a consistent standard on their part.

Townhall posted an article today about the recent comments by Generals Mattis and Kelly.

The article notes:

First of all, let me say that this nation is in debt to former Marine Generals Mattis and Kelly for their service to the United States. Kelly in particular deserves our respect and appreciation. His own son gave his life as a Marine in service to America.

But I have to disagree with their recent public comments in opposition to President Trump. Not that President Trump can’t be exasperating at times. He has a tendency to irritate his supporters as often as he infuriates his enemies. Not one of his most endearing qualities for sure, nor a wise political strategy.

But my question to Generals Mattis and Kelly is, were things better under Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Did you agree with Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States?

…Unless you weren’t paying attention, Barack Obama publicly complained about the U.S. Constitution preventing him from what he wanted to do. Barack Obama told us all, “I have a telephone and a pen,” and warned he was going to do whatever he wanted in spite of what the U.S. Constitution allowed.

So who has posed the greater threat, a duly elected president who has been fighting an ongoing coup d’etat since the day he took office, or a closet commie who is hiding behind the scenes and working hard to undermine his successor’s presidency and complete his “fundamental transformation” of our country?

Why aren’t you standing up in solidarity with President Trump who is trying to protect this nation right now against a radical leftist insurrection? Instead of criticizing the president, why aren’t you offering counsel on how to address the insurgency that is underway in our land?

If you haven’t seen what has been taking place, how a coordinated, multifaceted, and expansive conspiracy to undo a presidential election through unconstitutional means that has been underway since November of 2016, then I wonder how you could ever have risen to such a high rank in the United States Marine Corps.

The article concludes:

Perhaps it’s time for both Generals Mattis and Kelly to do a little soul searching. The preservation of our liberty and freedoms which President Trump doesn’t threaten at all, but which is indeed threatened by the radical leftists in the Democratic Party, has been on full display for over three years now.

It’s Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and especially Barack Obama who threaten the very future of our country. They are the ones you should be speaking out against. Not the president who is trying his hardest to uncover the corruption and abuse of decades of career politicians from both political parties.

Well said.

The Dead Case Continues

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about the continuing saga of Michael Flynn. This story should have been over years ago, but there are enough deep state operatives running around Washington to keep it alive. The real root of the case is that Michael Flynn is a very smart man who would have figured out the corruption in the Department of Justice in his first week on the job.

Townhall focused on the missing 302, the form that the agents interviewing General Flynn would have filled out at the time. The original 302 has somehow gone missing. The article includes a timeline of the case.

The article cites the latest developments in the case:

Sidney Powell is part of Flynn’s new and aggressive legal team, who said in October that new documents would show an FBI entrapment plot. Well, that day arrived for sure. Flynn has fought to withdraw his guilty plea since the beginning of this year. Right now, his legal team has filed a new writ of mandamus to get this case tossed, the judge removed, and the amicus brief motion dismissed as well. Yeah, I forgot to mention that Sullivan decided he was going to allow every anti-Trump legal team in the world to file amicus briefs. The good news is that the DC Court of Appeals had every right to dismiss the writ outright, no questions asked. Instead, they’ve ordered Sullivan to respond to Powell’s writ personally and defend his actions regarding this case. Legal observers noted this is a huge development and a sign that Flynn’s legal team already passed a huge hurdle. Not only that, but the DC Court gave this judge the most serious method regarding a response. It’s quite clear that the DC Court of Appeals is disturbed by Sullivan’s actions. We’ll circle back to that in a few days. It seems that at least part of the writ might be granted and bring Flynn closer to putting this nightmare behind him. 

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog reported the following:

Judge Emmet Sullivan has hired Beth Wilkinson to represent him as he defends his unusual actions in the Michael Flynn case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Sullivan already asked for assistance from outside counsel when he appointed John Gleeson to argue against the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn prosecution. That extraordinary move helped land Sullivan in the dock, so to speak, thus causing him to enlist Wilkinson as his lawyer.

A highly regarded litigator, Wilkinson represented top aides to Hillary Clinton in her email controversy. She also assisted Brett Kavanaugh when Christine Blasey Ford made her unsubstantiated allegations against him.

Sullivan’s retention of a hired gun litigator is the latest in a long line of bizarre developments in the Flynn case. The likelihood that, in the face of the D.C. Circuit’s order that he file a brief explaining himself, Sullivan would finally bring an end to the farce by granting the DOJ’s motion was never great. With Sullivan now lawyering up, it seems clear that the farce will drag on, with yet another bizarre twist, for a while longer.

It would be really interesting to know who is paying Judge Sullivan’s legal fees.

When Law And Order Are Out Of Order

Yesterday Todd Starnes posted an article at Townhall about an incident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The article reports:

Mrs. Smith’s 7-year-old son had just completed a zoom class from the den of their home when she received an urgent email from her son’s first grade teacher.

It just so happened that the little boy had recently been gifted a toy gun and the child had placed his “new favorite thing” on the table next to the computer.

“Another parent had been very uncomfortable by the fact that the gun had been in view of the zoom call,” Mrs. Smith said on my radio show. “It’s such an innocent thing that someone used to make a judgment and an accusation.”

A few hours after they received the email, there was a knock at the front door. It was the police.

“The police officer came to our door right after breakfast and asked us to step outside of our home as a result of the zoom call,” she told me.

Mrs. Smith’s husband tried to explain to the officer that there were no guns in the house – other than the toy gun that their son had received. 

“He essentially lectured us on child safety and the fact that our children are too young to interact with any guns and weapons,” she said.

The officer said it did not matter that it was a toy gun and he continued to lecture the couple. 

“I said, this is a toy. No one is unsafe in our home. Everyone is safe and well and healthy,” she said. “They took it very seriously as if there was some sort of chance we had weapons in the home.”

The article concludes:

Mrs. Smith said her children were terrified by the police visit.

“They were scared their parents were going to go to jail that day for something that was completely untrue,” she said.

The family was not cited and there were no follow up visits from authorities, but they were definitely shaken by the ordeal.

“What really troubled me was the fact that someone made a claim, an accusation with zero facts,” she said. “It was completely bogus and it left our kids really scared.”

Life is returning to normal for the Smith family, but they have made one important decision regarding education.

“We opted out of zoom calls,” she said.

The German government perfected the process of snitching on neighbors during the 1920s and 1930s – leading up to World World II. It’s horrifying to imagine that such tendencies might exist in modern day America.

There are a lot of disturbing things here. Why didn’t the ‘concerned’ parent just call the parents without getting the police involved? Why were the police concerned about a toy gun–haven’t they got better things to worry about? Has it occurred to anyone that when children grew up playing cops and robbers with guns that there were fewer mass shootings?

 

Sunlight Is The Best Disinfactant

Townhall is reporting today that Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified documents showing the Obama administration officials allegedly involved in the “unmasking” of Michael Flynn in transcripts of calls he had with Russia’s former ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

The article reports:

Information on the Flynn-Kislyak phone call was leaked to The Washington Post in 2017, leading many to wonder whether an Obama administration official had illegally disclosed classified information.

In 2017, Rep. Devin Nunes, who was then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he had evidence “current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information.”

He continued, “The committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration.”

The article notes:

Both former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were pressed by GOP senators in 2017 about their role in alleged unmasking abuses, and denied any wrongdoing. There were reports that United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of U.S. persons, but she has said this is “absolutely false.”

Former FBI Director James Comey told the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 that the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Department all had the ability to unmask individuals.

U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly investigating the leaks of potentially classified information related to Flynn to the media in early 2017. (Washington Examiner)

There were many things that went on during the Obama administration regarding classified information that need to be examined. Things that should have remained classified were leaked for political purposes, and things that were classified solely for the purpose of hiding illegal surveillance activities by the administration were kept secret. It’s time to examine that and correct the misdeeds.

Congress Shall Make No Law…

Townhall posted an article today calling attention to one aspect of the response to the coronavirus that needs to be looked at closely.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The headline of the Townhall article states, “If ‘Congress Shall Make No Law…’ Why Can Governors?” That is a very good question. I realize that the coronavirus is real and that it is a threat to certain groups of our population. But it is not a threat to everyone. There are people who could easily continue to go about their business without negatively impacting anyone, yet that has not been allowed to happen. If my Facebook feed is accurate, many small businesses have been shut down while the big box stores have been allowed to remain open. Assuming small business owners can practice social distancing in their stores, that makes no sense (unless there is an ulterior motive).

The article at Townhall notes:

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s unambiguous. Not “pretty unambiguous,” just unambiguous. Full stop. Yet governors across the country are ignoring or suspending almost every one of those rights enumerated at the top of the Bill of Rights, with little to no pushback from the press, which just happens to be the only part of the first two amendments not under assault.

It’s actually not under assault — it’s gone — suspended indefinitely in the name of “the common good.” Governors have declared coronavirus emergencies and wiped clean the rights our nation was founded for the purpose of putting those rights beyond the reach of government.

These suspensions were not done by vote; they were done with the stroke of a pen. Constitutionally, they can’t be done by either. There is no provision of the Constitution allowing for the waiving of rights under any condition, but most legislatures are content to sit back and watch this all proceed without their fingerprints anywhere near it.

Governors made a point of canceling Easter services, even at drive-in churches set up in parking lots. “You’re not allowed to leave your home,” they declared. The irony of placing innocent Americans under house arrest while releasing prisoners in the name of “compassion” was lost on journalists too busy expressing indignation that people might want to worship even in the face of a pandemic.

The article concludes:

Now they’re taking to the halls of capitals, to the streets. Police are being ordered to put down offenders demanding their liberty back. Many police departments are refusing, but an alarming number of them are complying. It was impossible just two months ago for the answer to the jailhouse question of, “What are you in for?” to be answered with, “I went to the beach,” yet this is the reality under many Democrat Governors.

We will wrestle our freedoms back and soon. When we do, it’s important to remember not only who took them and why, but who tried not to give them back. From Maine to Michigan, from Illinois to California, they were progressive Democrats. They didn’t see coronavirus as a tragedy. They saw it as an opportunity. As Hillary Clinton said last week, “this would be a terrible crisis to waste.”

This is the Democrats’ nature: they know better than you do what you need, they are better than you are, smarter than you. Coronavirus just allowed a peek into their minds. Individuals are irrelevant to the left, as are your rights. The Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, by any means available, not the restraint on their power it was written to be. Remember that come November…or you soon won’t be allowed to say it.

Our freedom is in danger. We need to wake up quickly.

How Spin Works

The recent sexual assault charges against presidential candidate Joe Biden have created a problem for the candidate. If he were a Republican, there would be pressure for him to withdraw from the race, but he’s a Democrat, so the reaction from the mainstream media is very different.

Yesterday Townhall.com posted an article detailing how the Biden campaign is handling the allegations. It should be noted that investigative reporters (not in the mainstream media) have found corroborating evidence that indicates the charge of sexual assault may be valid. This makes it a little more challenging for the media to deal with the charges.

The article reports:

Buzzfeed originally published talking points for Democratic candidates that were drawn up by the Biden campaign. The memo instructs Democrats to categorically deny Reade’s claims and stand in solidarity with the former vice president if asked about the allegations:

“Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points read, according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

That sounds good. Unfortunately it isn’t true.

The article at Townhall explains the problem with this defense:

Biden’s campaign also cites The New York Times’ story that exonerated the former vice president, claiming that NYT “investigated” Reade’s claims. The puff piece published in defense of Biden was not only unfair to Reade, but also did not actually investigate her claims. NYT cleared Biden of guilt purely on the word of his campaign and a few of his staffers from his tenure in the Senate. NYT’s exoneration occurred before new evidence and corroboration from Reade’s family and friends became public knowledge, but NYT has published no follow-ups thus far. The Times’ take on the allegations against Biden represents a 180-degree spin from their coverage of the claims against Brett Kavanaugh; this same newspaper ran with the claims of Dr. Ford, Julie Swetnick and Michael Avenatti on face value, while piling onto the character assassination against the future Supreme Court Justice and putting due process on the back burner. 

First of all, anyone who has watched Joe Biden’s behavior over the years could easily question his treatment of women. There are numerous videos of his inappropriately touching women and children around him.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today with the following information about The New York Times ‘investigation’:

The New York Times has issued a statement slamming the talking points being sent around by Joe Biden’s campaign claiming that the newspaper cleared him of the sexual assault allegations by his former staffer.

…The New York Times article did not clear Biden or deem the allegation uncredible.

The article they have been referencing, “Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden,” actually states that “a friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden.”

The mainstream media will do all it can to make this scandal go away without it being investigated. The people who pay attention to the media that actually reports things will have the information they need to make an informed decision on the matter. The coverage of these charges is only one example of things that cause division in America.

How The Media Game Is Played

Townhall posted an article today which illustrates how some media outlets skew their reporting in order to advance a political agenda.

The article notes a change in a CNN headline about the Democrats’ blocking of a bill to add more funding for paycheck protection for small businesses.

The article includes the following tweet:

The article notes:

Democrats in the Senate blocked Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to legislate more funding to the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, which gives small businesses the opportunity to take out forgivable loans during COVID-19. 

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) ultimately torpedoed Leader McConnell’s effort by objecting to a vote by unanimous consent, calling the effort to deliver more relief to America’s small businesses a “political stunt.” A bipartisan program, PPP alleviates the economic hardship facing small businesses while the economy is virtually shut down. 

The article concludes:

This misrepresentation is not only inaccurate, but also dangerous for Americans seeking information. The American people deserve to know which lawmakers put aside ideology in order to alleviate economic distress, and which party chose partisanship over relief for small businesses during a global health pandemic. Despite CNN’s virtue signaling in defense of Democrats, the delay of additional funding for the Paycheck Protection Program is at the hands of Senate Democrats, and Americans will suffer because of their delay.

I have very mixed emotions about the amount of money we are spending. The only silver lining here is that at least the money is aimed at businesses who need it–not destined to be lost in corporate kickbacks to Congress or subsides to companies that are not able to stand on their own such as Solyndra.

 

Hopefully This Is The Beginning Of The End

On Sunday, Townhall posted an article stating that the number of deaths due to the coronavirus in New York decreased for the first time on Saturday.

The article reports:

The total number of deaths in New York attributed to the coronavirus increased to 4,159 as of Saturday, accounting for nearly half of all coronavirus deaths reported in the United States. But the good news, the governor said, was the daily number of Wuhan coronavirus deaths has fallen for the first time in the state. On Saturday, 594 coronavirus deaths were reported in New York compared to 630 deaths the previous day.

The number of new hospitalizations decreased dramatically, from 1,095 on Friday to 574 on Saturday, and daily ICU admissions fell from 395 on Friday to 250 on Saturday. The number of daily intubations was also down from 351 to 316 during the same two-day period. Cuomo said the decline could be the “beginning of a shift in the data” or could be just an “interesting blip.”

Unfortunately, the news is not good everywhere:

Dr. Deborah Birx said during the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force briefing that New York, Louisiana and Detroit are currently on the upside of their mortality curves, with officials expecting these hotspots to reach their peaks in the next six to seven days.

…President Trump warned on Saturday that the coming week would be on “one of the toughest weeks” in America’s fight against the coronavirus.

“There’s going to be a lot of death, unfortunately. There will be a lot of deaths,” the president said, before adding the situation could be improved if Americans do their part to stop the spread of the disease.

Let’s hope that with some of the successes we have seen with various treatments that the end of the coronavirus is in sight.

A Very Interesting Possibility

Townhall is reporting today that a group of scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine believe that they may have found a vaccine for the coronavirus.

The article quotes The New York Post:

The researchers announced their findings Thursday and believe the vaccine could be rolled out quickly enough to “significantly impact the spread of disease,” according to their study published in EBioMedicine.

The vaccine would be delivered on a small, fingertip-sized patch. When tested on mice, the vaccine produced enough antibodies believed to successfully counteract the virus.

[…]

“These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus,” read a statement from co-senior author Andrea Gambotto, M.D., associate professor of surgery at the Pitt School of Medicine.

“We knew exactly where to fight this new virus.”

[…]

Researchers said they sided with using a patch, rather than a traditional needle, to deliver the spike protein to the skin, which elicits the strongest immune reaction.

The patch contains 400 tiny “microneedles” made of sugar and protein pieces. It would be applied like a Band-Aid with the needles dissolving into the skin.

The vaccine would be “highly scalable” for widespread use, the researchers said in a news release.

Stay tuned. This may be the best news we have had since January.

 

Like A Serpent’s Tooth

William Shakespeare said, “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.” Well, we have something close to that in the remarks by a New York lawmaker.

Todd Starnes posted an article at Townhall about some recent comments by New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman.

The article reports:

“It’s a shame that the federal government has left New York with no other choice but to accept charity from bigots,” State Sen. Brad Hoylman said. “You know those medical tents being constructed in Central Park? They’re being set up by notorious anti-gay bigot Franklin Graham. Mr. Graham must promise to treat EVERY patient with dignity and respect.”

Graham responded to the senator’s repulsive comments during an interview on The Todd Starnes Radio Show. He urged Americans to set aside politics.

“This virus is a tsunami that is hitting our shores. It’s killing Republicans. It’s killing Democrats. It’s killing independents,” Graham said. “And we just need to say forget the politics right now. Let’s work together to save lives.”

It’s unthinkable that anyone, much less a state lawmaker, would bully a bunch of Christians who simply want to provide medical treatment to critically ill New Yorkers.

Just for the record, I have no doubt that Reverend Graham will treat every patient with dignity and respect. It is a shame that Senator Hoylman is not treating Reverend Graham with dignity and respect. The Senator needs to apologize and gratefully accept the help.

When In Doubt, Blame President Trump

Sometimes I am just amazed at the chutzpah of some people. Townhall posted an article today about a recent statement by Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans. New Orleans is about to become the next American hot spot for the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans refuses to take responsibility for her decision not to call off Mardi Gras over concerns of the Wuhan coronavirus. That decision has caused New Orleans to become the epicenter of coronavirus cases in the state of Louisiana, according to medical experts. So who exactly does the Democratic mayor blame for not canceling Mardi Gras in her own city? Donald Trump. 

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cantrell said she didn’t take the threat of the virus too seriously because President Trump didn’t take it seriously. She then gave herself credit for canceling other events in her city subsequent to Mardi Gras, like the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

I would like to remind the Mayor that President Trump put travel restrictions on China at the end of January (and was soundly criticized for it). Isn’t that an indication of taking the coronavirus seriously? Did the Mayor not see what was happening on the various cruise ships that were impacted by the disease?

New Orleans is an interesting city. The population of the city includes a lot of artists and musicians who are struggling to make a living at their craft. There is a large percentage of the population that lives in poverty. The schools attempted to improve after hurricane Katrina, but fell back into old patterns. The city attracts a great number of tourists at Mardi Gras, and the celebration provides a lot of income for the city. New Orleans is a city that loves to party, but has not been effective in dealing with serious situations. The fact that they are rapidly becoming a hot spot for the coronavirus is a reflection of this.

 

Skewing The News Can Have Consequences

Bias in news reporting comes in a variety of ways. One way is to leave out critical parts of a story in order to give a totally misleading impression. Unfortunately the news media did that recently in a situation where someone died.

Townhall posted an article that illustrates how harmful and misleading media bias can be.

The article reports:

Media outlets and journalists on social media heavily pushed a story about a woman and her husband drinking fish tank cleaner because it contained chloroquine phosphate after President Trump had mentioned the medicinal version of chloroquine could be used to help treat COVID-19.

After drinking the cleaner, the couple began to feel sick and were rushed to the hospital, where her husband later died and she was put in intensive care. She told NBC News they drank it out of fear of contracting the coronavirus and had heard Trump talking about chloroquine to treat patients.

However, some of the reports and social media left out the fact the couple did not ingest the medicinal form of chloroquine that Trump had said could be used to help cure those infected with the Wuhan coronavirus.

Axios’ story about the incident completely left out the part about them ingesting fish tank cleaner. Their tweet for the original story has been deleted and an editor’s note was added to the story hours after it was first published.

…Journalists on Twitter often left out the part explaining the couple did not use the tablet form of chloroquine, racking up thousands of retweets and likes off of the false premise.

NBC News Correspondent Heidi Przybyla’s tweet about the story went viral, but she did not add the key detail until two hours later and at the very bottom of her thread, which has received far less attention.

The most blatant example of journalistic malpractice was found in a tweet by Axios and the response by Jennifer Rubin:

Understand as you read this that the political left would love to see President Trump’s daily coronavirus updates go away. Why? Because when the President talks to the people directly, Americans see a man handling the situation as well as could be expected. The media spin rooms try to spin what was said, but if people see it for themselves, the spin has less impact.

Please follow the link to the article at Townhall. It shows a number of tweets attempting to blame President Trump for the death of the man who drank fish tank cleaner. While the man’s death is a tragedy, no one told him to drink fish tank cleaner. It was a really dumb thing to do. However, the reporting of this tragedy is only one example of how irresponsible our mainstream media has become.

Refusing To Continue A Practice That Was Abused

Townhall posted an article this morning stating that the House Freedom Caucus will refuse to reauthorize the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court unless serious reforms are made. The FISA court was the vehicle used by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign and the early days of the Trump administration. The authorization to spy was gained by misleading the court, specifically by omitting the fact that Carter Page was a CIA asset–not a Russian asset and omitting the fact that Joseph Mifsud was an American asset–not a Russian spy.

The article reports:

Members of the House Freedom Caucus released a statement Wednesday morning vowing to vote against any reauthorization of the FISA court unless serious and substantial changes are made to the spying program. 

“Members of the Freedom Caucus have long called for reforms to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Recent revelations that FISA was severely and repeatedly used to spy on a presidential campaign are beyond the pale—if the government can misuse this system to spy on a presidential campaign, they can surely do it to any other American citizen,” members of the caucus said. “As Congress considers reauthorizing FISA, anything short of significant and substantive reforms would betray the trust of the American people. The House Freedom Caucus will oppose any bill that does not meet a Constitutional standard for the protections of American citizens’ rights. We will also oppose any ‘clean’, short-term reauthorization of the current, harmful version of FISA.”

Members of the Freedom Caucus include House Oversight Committee Ranking member Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Chip Roy and other long time critics of FISA. 

The FISA court was misused by the Obama administration, and unless it is seriously reformed, could easily be used for political purposes again. There needs to be a limitation so that the court could only use surveillance on foreign citizens–not Americans. Unfortunately, FISA misuse was one of many traps set in place by the Obama administration to hinder the progress of the Trump administration.

The article continues:

“Enhanced penalties for abusing the system and additional layers of certification from the Department of Justice and the FBI are insufficient to gain our support, particularly when, to date, no one has been charged with a crime for previous abuses,” the statement continues. “A proposal for additional scrutiny when elected officials and candidates are the target of investigations similarly misses the point: politicians don’t need more protection from government spying than their fellow citizens. More fundamental changes to standards of evidence and process that mirror as closely as possible our Article III courts are needed to gain our support.”

Yesterday the House reached a compromise on how to move a bill, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, forward for reauthorization of the program. It does not reform the system that was used as a political weapon against President Trump in 2016 and well into his presidency.

Until people are held accountable for past abuses of FISA, it should not be reauthorized.

A Balanced Approach To The Coronavirus

On Friday, Townhall posted an article by Guy Benson about the coronavirus.

The article includes a number of tweets by Scott Gottlieb, MD, that provide some perspective on the coronavirus.

This is the content of the tweets:

1. Your risk of contracting in the U.S. is still low. While it may be spreading, there are likely still a small number of cases. This could change, but it is likely the case right now.

2. We have capacity to contain small outbreaks, and, where we can’t, mitigate impact of spread. We have best public health system in the world, best infection control procedures, a vast healthcare system with substantial capacity, well equipped hospitals, and skilled providers.

3. The development of vaccines and therapeutics is actively underway and, in time, we could have a treatment or preventative medicine that could substantially lessen the impact of this virus.

4. This could be a long fight that will require shared sacrifice. There may not be a start and finish to the spread of this virus. It may become something that we need to manage for a period of time until we can develop a therapeutic backstop.

5. The best thing Americans can do is be vigilant, take responsible precautions, and follow the advice of our great public health professionals at CDC and local health authorities.

The doctor concludes:

We have faced many infectious threats in our history. This one is sinister, but we have never been better equipped to mitigate its impact. We will preserve life, and prevail.

We don’t know what the future holds in terms of this illness. We do know that steps are being taken to prevent an epidemic. We know that we have extremely good health care in America. It is time to take seriously the advice to wash our hands and cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze. In the end, God is in control, and He will see us through this.

A Message I Wish Everyone Would Heed

Townhall posted a very timely article today. The conservative movement received a stomach punch yesterday when Rush Limbaugh announced he had advanced lung cancer. Rush stopped smoking cigarettes years ago, but still enjoyed his cigars. Unfortunately, smoking anything is not good for you.

The article notes:

Quitting smoking is no guarantee of anything. The effects of cigarettes linger long after the smell is washed away. But the damage those cancer sticks have done can’t start to be reversed unless and until you’re rid of them forever.

While Rush quit cigarettes long ago, he was famous for being a cigar aficionado. But tobacco is tobacco; inhaling smoke in any form, even the small amounts cigar smokers who “don’t inhale” are inhaling is still inhaling smoke. It’s better just to walk away from all of it.

I know a little of what Rush is going through. Last year, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. We got lucky, if you can call it that. My father had pneumonia and ended up in the hospital because of it. While treating him for that, they noticed something on a chest x-ray they otherwise wouldn’t have done. They biopsied it and it was cancer. Thankfully, it was very early.

The article concludes:

Rush doesn’t have any children, but what he lacks in offspring he makes up for with other family and millions of fans. His brother David is a good and strong man of faith who I’ve been lucky enough to get to know and can safely say he’s worth at least three kids in situations like this. And Rush is willing to do whatever is necessary, which will help.

Add to that the millions of fans pulling for him, and no prognosis is absolute.

If you were like I was and started smoking as a kid because there’s nothing dumber than a teenager, quit. You feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof when you’re young. You realize you aren’t when you grow up. Quitting is no guarantee of avoiding a horrible diagnosis or good health, but continuing is simply stupid. If you love someone, or even ever hope to, quit. Your body can’t start getting better until you stop making it worse.

I grew up in a house that was always filled with smoke. I grew to hate the smell and never started smoking. I am grateful for that, but I lost both of my parents way too soon due to health problems either directly or indirectly related to their smoking. We know enough to know that smoking is not good for you. We also know that it is highly addictive. We need to work harder to bring up children who see the danger and the negative health impacts and never pick up a cigarette. We also need to encourage tobacco farmers to find other crops and to stop any government subsidies that go to tobacco farmers.

The Other Side Of The Story

Impeachment continues. We all know that President Trump’s constitutional rights were violated during the initial hearings in the House of Representatives–he was not allowed to face his accusers, his lawyers were not allowed to call witnesses, and much of the cross examination of the Democrats’ witnesses was disallowed or limited. All of those things are in violation of the constitutional rights supposedly allowed ALL American citizens. Now the President’s defense team is making their case to the Senate.

Townhall posted an article today that lists six facts that were either misrepresented or omitted in the House Managers’ presentation to the Senate.

The article reports:

According to Purpura (White House Deputy Counsel Mike Purpura), there are six key facts that “have not and will not change.”

1. The transcript proves President Trump didn’t condition military aid or a meeting on anything.

“The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call,” Purpura said.

2. Ukrainian officials said they never felt pressured into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter, for corruption. They also said quid pro quo never took place.

3. President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials were unaware of the paused military aide.

“The security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25th call,” Purpura said.

4. None of the Democrats’ witnesses say President Trump tied an investigation into the Bidens to the military aid or a meeting.

5. “The security assistance flowed on September 11th and a presidential meeting took place on September 25, without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigation,” Purpura said.

6. President Trump has been a strong supporter of Ukraine.

“The Democrats’ blind eye to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats’ own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor,” Purpura explained. “Those are the facts.”

What a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money this trial has been when everyone could have simply read the transcript of the telephone call in question. We need to vote anyone out of office who has promoted the idea that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense. I truly believe that the rush to impeach has more to do with the crimes of some Congressmen that may be revealed in the Durham report than anything President Trump has or has not done.

Frightening Insight Into Some Of The Campaign Workers In The Bernie Sanders Campaign

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about the videos released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas showing some disturbing comments made by a Bernie Sanders campaign field organizer.

This is the video (warning–horrible language–the man needs his mouth washed out with soap):

The article at Townhall concludes:

Ok, so it’s not as earth-shattering as PV’s excellent series on CNN, but it shows who we’re dealing with in the trenches of the 2020 election. There will probably be more videos like this, but at the same time, you can see why the Democratic establishment doesn’t want these folks gaining more prominence within the ranks of the party. Again, we shouldn’t be shocked that a) there are nutty people out there; and b) the Sanders operations hire such people. In terms of sexual harassment, Sanders’ 2016 campaign was totally infested with such a problem. It was a den of sexism and harassment that was not really addressed, and Sanders’ excuse was that he was too busy losing to Hillary Clinton to tackle it. I doubt Jurek will be purged, but it’s always good to keep tabs on people like this. they do the same against us and our totally radical ideas about…the Constitution, lower taxes, freedom, more jobs, and a strong economy. But we’re the extreme ones, right? 

We need to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, “A Republic, if You Can Keep It“. There are a number of Democrats running for President who are talking about ‘transforming’ America in ways that are totally opposed to the Republic established by the Constitutional Convention. Voters need to pay close attention to what is said openly and what is exposed about these campaigns.

How Does Economic Growth Influence Your Vote?

During the Democrat debate last night, former Vice-President Joe Biden made a very interesting statement.

Townhall reported the following:

Former Vice President Joe Biden stated he is more than willing to “sacrifice” the ongoing economic growth, resulting in the displacement of thousands of blue collar workers, in order to shift towards a more green economy. 

“The answer is yes, because the opportunity, the opportunity for those workers to transition to high paying jobs, as Tom said, is real,” Biden said during the sixth Democratic presidential debate on Thursday.

“We’re the only country that’s taken great, great crises and turned them into enormous opportunities. I’ve met with the union leaders. For example, we should in fact be making sure right now that every new building built is energy contained, that it doesn’t leak energy, that in fact we should be providing tax credits for people to be able to make their homes turn to solar power,” he continued.

Instead of fossil fuel jobs, Biden said there is an opportunity to install 550,000 charging stations across the United States so that the country can own the electric vehicle market. 

“There are so many things we can do. We have to make sure we explain it to those people who are displaced, that their skills are going to be needed for the new opportunities,” Biden added.

I wonder if the former Vice-President understands what it will be like for those workers as he ‘transitions’ the economy. I wonder if he is planning to make their house payments and their car payments. I wonder if he remembers the hardships the Obama administration caused to the coal industry workers in West Virginia. We really cannot afford to elect a President who plans on taking jobs away for the good of the people.

Does Anyone Believe This?

Townhall posted an article today about recent statements by actress Jameela Jamil and feminist icon Gloria Steinem.

The article reports:

Last month, the magazine published an interview between actress Jameela Jamil and feminist icon Gloria Steinem. Their conversation went largely unnoticed by media outlets, but it shouldn’t have – mainly because of the absurd claims the two made. Among them, they insisted that abortion is necessary for democracy. And, they warned, some people control reproduction as a tool for sexism or racism, like white evangelical Trump supporters.

The article continues:

“It took me a while to understand that the first step in every authoritarian regime is controlling reproduction, and that means controlling us,” Steinem said. “Unless we—men and women—have power over our own bodies and voices, there is no such thing as democracy.”

The irony – that abortion violates the bodies and voices of millions of baby boys and girls – was lost on her. The irony that abortion itself can be used to control reproduction was also left untouched.

Steinem went so far as to make a Hitler comparison. 

“[E]very authoritarian regime that I have ever read about, including Hitler’s rise to power, every regime starts with controlling reproduction and that means controlling women’s bodies,” she stressed.

Obviously I am missing something, but it seems to be that if women controlled their bodies there would be much fewer abortions. We have birth control. Unwanted pregnancies can easily be avoided or dealt with through adoption. A mother does not need to freedom to kill her child to be free.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Left This Out

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about some of the testimony being selectively released by the House Intelligence Committee.

The article includes two tweets by Representative Mark Meadows: Is America ready to impeach a President based on a presumption because the Democrats did not like the results of the 2016 election?

 

The Glass Isn’t Even Half Full–It’s Broken

We all have that one friend that we care about but is just hard to be around. If someone handed them a handful of hundred dollar bills, they would complain that they weren’t new bills. If they won the lottery, they would complain about the taxes they would have to pay. You get the picture. This morning President Trump announced that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed by American Special Forces soldiers. Unfortunately we have become so divided as a nation that the Democrats and their media allies could not share in rejoicing at the death of a very evil man.

Townhall posted an article today that illustrates that point.

Before President Donald Trump’s press conference on Sunday confirming the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” to discuss what he was hoping to hear the president say.

One of the biggest things Clapper was interested in was seeing “the contributions the intelligence community made” that led to al-Baghdadi’s death. 

He admitted “taking down” al-Baghdadi has “huge symbolic meaning,” especially because he has been a target for quite some time. 

But Clapper warned the move could “galvanize” the Islamic State.

“What is going to be interesting is to the extent to which this negatively affects ISIS or does it galvanize ISIS, the remnants of ISIS, which still survives as an ideology and has franchises in other places besides Syria,” he explained. 

Good grief. There was a time when we assassinated the leaders of Al Qaeda as soon as they became leaders. After a while, no one wanted to lead the organization. We may have to do the same thing again, but in the meantime, a horrible man is no longer a threat to anyone. Thank God we were not this divided during World War II–we would all be speaking German now if we had been.