Where Is The Media?

Joe Biden is running for President. On September 26th, Just the News posted an article that should make anyone think twice about voting for him.

The article reminds us:

…Biden always knew how to make people laugh. He had the common touch. But these weren’t common people — it was an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan, and Biden was trying to impress them with a story about himself as a man who got things done. It is easier to get things done using the resources of the U.S. government.

Biden was talking about a trip he made to Kiev to speak with Ukrainian officials. “I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee,” Biden said. He said that he had a commitment from the Ukrainian president and prime minister to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company that paid his son more than $80,000 a month. Unlike his father, who made many business trips to Kiev, Hunter never visited.

The Ukrainian heads of state and government tried to deflect Biden’s demands. “We’re not going to give you the billion dollars,” Biden told the Ukrainians. “They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.'” Biden dared them to call Obama. “I said, call him.” The Manhattan audience laughed again. “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

Where is the media? He admitted guilt in his own words and was obviously not troubled by what he had done. Please follow the link to read the entire article. There are a number of people who should be in jail.

Gradually The Truth Emerges

The treatment of retired General Flynn by the FBI has alarmed many Americans. It has become increasingly apparent to people who don’t rely on the mainstream media for their news that the treatment of the General was an attempt to cripple the Trump administration. Information on what was actually going on has remained secret because career people in the FBI have a vested interest in hiding the truth. On September 25th, The Epoch Times posted two articles highlighting information that is coming from people involved in the investigation (here and here).

The first article reports:

FBI agent William Barnett told government investigators last week that he heard other FBI agents at the special counsel’s office (SCO) “comically talk about wiping cellular telephones,” according to a summary of the interview released as part of the court proceedings in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

“Barnett had a cellular telephone issued by the SCO which he did not ‘wipe.’ Barnett did hear other agents ‘comically’ talk about wiping cellular telephones, but was not aware of anyone ‘wiping’ their issued cellular telephones,” the summary (pdf) states.

The article also notes:

Two well-known members of the Mueller team, FBI attorney Lisa Page and Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, mentioned sending and clearing iMessages from their SCO iPhones on more than one occasion.

“Clear imsg …” Strzok wrote to Page on June 5, 2017, and again on June 8.

The records officer, who isn’t identified in the documents, noted that Strzok’s phone contained “no substantive texts, notes or reminders.” Page’s phone went missing under questionable circumstances after she left the Mueller team. When it was recovered more than a year later, the device was already wiped.

The second article reports:

An FBI agent assigned to the investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn wanted to be taken off the case, he recently told FBI investigators, saying the prosecution of Flynn was being used as a means to “get Trump.”

FBI agent William Barnett was assigned to the Flynn case shortly after it was opened in August 2016, as part of the FBI’s probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which was dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane.” But the case was “opaque,” lacking much detail of specific evidence of any crimes, Barnett told FBI and DOJ investigators on Sept. 17 (pdf).

The case theory was “supposition on supposition,” he said.

The second article concludes:

The lawyers were convinced Trump aide K.T. McFarland was the “key to everything” who had conveyed Trump’s orders for Flynn to talk to Kislyak. The “ground just kept being retreaded,” but it was just “astro projection,” he said. No evidence was found.

On multiple occasions, when Mueller lawyers interviewed people from Trump’s circle, it was Barnett who stepped in with clarifying and follow-up questions, such as, “Do you know that for a fact or are you just speculating?”

One time, the lawyers tried to kick Barnett off a McFarland interview. He had to threaten he’d report them to the inspector general before they allowed him in. When he started to ask clarifying questions, he said, they paused the interview and warned him, “If you keep asking these questions, we will be here all day.”

He called the lawyers in question the “obstruction team.”

In one interview, Flynn said something that suggested Trump knew about the calls to Kislyak. Barnett had the impression Flynn was just trying to say what the lawyers wanted to hear. He had to step in with a follow-up question and Flynn clarified that Trump wasn’t aware of the calls.

Flynn said in court papers his lawyers told him after the first special counsel interview that the investigators weren’t happy with his answers. For the subsequent session, his lawyers coached him to use words he wouldn’t have used himself, he said. He eventually fired the lawyers and accused them of ineffective counsel due to a conflict of interest.

The dismissal of his case is scheduled for a hearing on Sept. 29 before District Judge Emmet Sullivan after Flynn’s bid to have a higher court force the judge to accept the dismissal without further proceedings failed in August.

The FBI is out of control and will remain so until some of the people involved in this scandal are held accountable. So far only Kevin Clinesmith has been charged with anything. This is a disgrace.

Shenanigans In North Carolina

North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger posted an article on Friday detailing the recent illegal actions of the North Carolina Board of Elections.

The article reports:

Meeting minutes from the Sept. 15 closed session of the State Board of Elections reveal a bombshell. The collusive settlement “negotiated” between the Democratic attorneys with the Board of Elections, the N.C. Department of Justice and national Democrats went way beyond the bounds of what the state Board of Elections had originally authorized.

At the very beginning of the meeting, Democratic attorneys falsely told Republican Board members that “privilege” forbade them from speaking to anybody about the collusive settlement. This apparent effort to muzzle the Republican members further supports the fact that Democrats went to great lengths to conceal their secret negotiations with Marc Elias.

Minutes clearly show that Board of Elections members authorized settlement terms that included keeping the witness requirement on absentee ballots and prohibiting unmanned ballot drop boxes.

But that’s not what the conclusive statement reported:

But the collusive settlement announced this week does the exact OPPOSITE of what the Board authorized. If accepted by a judge, the settlement would violate state law by allowing absentee ballots with no witness information. All the “voter” would have to do is sign a form, which also does not require a witness. That effectively eliminates the witness requirement.

The article lists the things that collusive statement would approve:

1. Permit anonymous outdoor absentee ballot drop boxes. The law forbids anybody other than a voter or a voter’s near relative from delivering an absentee ballot and requires the Board of Elections to record who returns every ballot. But the collusive consent order filed today allows outdoor “absentee ballot drop-off stations” and says, “a county board may not disapprove a ballot solely because it is placed in a drop box.” The Democratic-controlled Board was kind enough to require signs on the drop boxes that tell ballot harvesters they’re not really supposed to use them.

2. Eliminate witness requirements for absentee ballots. State law requires one witness to sign an absentee ballot and legibly include his or her name and address. But the collusive consent order submitted today effectively eliminates that requirement. If an absentee ballot is submitted without the required witness information, the Democratic-controlled Board of Elections will just mail a form to the address to which the ballot was sent, and the form can be returned with no witness information. The form can be returned nine days after the election.

3. Extend the time period in which an absentee ballot can be received by the Board to nine days after the election. State law requires absentee ballots to be received no later than three days after Election Day. This is to allow for a timely vote count and eliminate the possibility of “finding” enough “new” absentee ballots to sway the outcome of the election. But the collusive consent order unilaterally rewrites state law to provide nine full days of uncertainty and opportunity for gamesmanship after Election Day.

This is an invitation to election fraud and needs to be stopped in its tracks.

Forgetting You Education Or Lying About It?

The New York Post posted an article today about a recent claim made by Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The article reports:

Delaware State University has denied that Joe Biden has ever been a student there — after the presidential candidate’s claim that he “got started” at the historically black college.

The 77-year-old Democrat made his claim while praising historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) during a town hall event last October before the South Carolina Democratic primary, video shows.

“I got started out of a HBCU, Delaware State,” he told pupils at Wilson High School in Florence, which was founded in 1866 by the Freedmen’s Bureau for Black children seeking an education.

“Now, I don’t want to hear anything negative about Delaware State. They’re my folks,” he told the pupils to chuckles.

…He went on to study at Syracuse University College of Law — where he failed a class after being accused of plagiarism.

His career since then has been dogged by accusations of misleading voters, including others over his education.

I think it’s time to take a serious look at Joe Biden as a candidate. His memory seems to be faltering at times, and he seems to be losing his train of thought very easily. I seriously wonder who will actually run the country if he is elected.

It Begins On October 12th

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today reporting the planned schedule for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.

The article reports:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on Sunday laid out the timeline of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation process.

“More than half of the Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within 16 days or less, so we’ll start on Oct. 12,” the South Carolina Republican said on Fox News.

“We’ll have a day of introduction. We’ll have two days of questioning, Tuesday and Wednesday, and on [Oct. 15] we’ll begin the markup.”

“We’ll hold it over for a week, and we’ll report her nomination out of the committee on Oct. 22,” Graham continued. “Then it will be up to Sen. [Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of committee.”

There are a few things that should be noted about the upcoming confirmation hearings. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017, and confirmed on October 31, 2017, by a 55 to 43 vote. Three Democrats voted with the Republicans–Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly. That was less than three years ago. She has been vetted. Senator Donnelly is no longer in the Senate, but Senator Manchin and Senator Kaine are still Senators. Senator Manchin has stated that he will vote against the nomination. Senator Kaine is also expected to vote against the nomination although I could not find a specific statement from him to that effect. It seems to me that the Senators would welcome the opportunity to fill the Supreme Court seat with someone who has recently been vetted and has done an outstanding job on the Seventh Circuit Court. However, I would be totally wrong to assume that. Stay tuned for the circus and pray for this lady and her family.

Received In My Email From A Friend (I Know It’s Long, But You Need To Read It)

I know this is long, but it is important.

This was received in my email today:

The Ugly Underbelly of Senate Bill S.2657

This is a simplified tale of how good intentions were cleverly hijacked by self-serving special-interest parties — with little publicity, and to the detriment of the public, the environment, our economy, and our national security.

When Senator Murkowski initially proposed an energy bill (S.2657), it was strictly about geothermal. The title was: Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership Act of 2019.

Some of the main reasons that this good legislation had this narrow focus were because deep-drilling geothermal (what the bill refers to as enhanced or advanced):

1) is a reliable, non-intermittent electrical energy source,

2) is projected to be genuinely cost competitive with conventional electrical energy sources (e.g. see this MIT study),

3) is our energy future (e.g. the initial bill stated that: “The Department of Energy has determined that geothermal could represent a large part of the U.S. energy mix by 2050, rivaling the growth of solar, wind, and hydraulic fracturing”), and

4) there is no currently financially successful deep-drilling geothermal business, so R&D is necessary to get this beneficial energy source going.

These are solid reasons, but legislation doesn’t get passed because it makes sense(!). Instead there needs to be political reasons to pass a bill — e.g. large stakeholders who will benefit from such legislation, and who make it a priority to their representatives.

As there is no strong geothermal lobby in DC, the bill languished, and was presumed to be deceased. However, devious renewable energy proponents apparently said: “why don’t we piggyback wind and solar onto this bill, so that we can get even more than the $100+ Billion of federal handouts (e.g. PTC) that we’ve already pocketed.” (FYI, this is probably the first measure promoted by this new lobbying behemoth.)

As a result, in March of 2020 — while most of us were dealing with COVID-19, etc. — they stuck wind and solar into S.2657. They not only awarded themselves the pro-posed geothermal benefits, but (since few were watching) they added many more. (See some details in the Congressional Record: search over wind as well as solar.)

Of course the wind and solar lobbyists’ argument is just what you heard in kindergarten: if geothermal gets handouts, why not them? Well let’s look at the original reasons for geothermal, and see if wind and solar are actually equivalent:

1) wind and solar are unreliable, intermittent electrical energy sources,

2) after decades of preferential treatment, wind and solar are not genuinely cost competitive with conventional electrical energy sources (e.g. see this study),

3) our energy future is SMRs and geothermal, not wind and solar, and

4) wind and solar are very successful businesses (e.g. here) — and supposedly mature — so no taxpayer funded R&D is appropriate.

In other words, wind and solar are the diametric opposites of geothermal, so there are zero legitimate reasons for them to be included in S.2657.

Regretfully, it’s worse than this. Wind and solar lobbyists have become so confident that they can easily manipulate state and federal legislators, that they decided to include major provisions beyond what were in the original geothermal bill!

For example, in addition to $600 Million in new US taxpayer handouts for wind, and $1.3 Billion for solar, this S.2657 amendment requires that:

“Renewable Energy Goal — The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture, through management of public land and administration of Federal laws, shall seek to issue permits that, in total, authorize production of no less than 25 Gigawatts of electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects no later than December 31, 2025.

”There was no mandate in the initial geothermal bill, much less this HUGE amount. (BTW, these shysters cleverly added geothermal into this requirement, knowing full well that no consequential amount of geothermal will likely be available by 2025, so this is strictly a national wind and solar mandate — the first ever!)

These are some considerations that wind and solar lobbyists don’t want citizens and legislators to factor in:

1 – When ALL their expenses are properly calculated and fully attributed (e.g. transmission, auxiliary support, etc., etc.), wind and solar are four to five times the cost of conventional electrical energy sources;

2 – Industrial wind energy can cause substantial environmental and eco-system liabilities;

3 – Solar panels can have toxic chemicals and carcinogenic materials (like PFAS) that can get into local aquifers, which can have very problematic health effects,

4 – Wind energy can produce more CO2 than gas by itself, so if CO2 savings are paramount, combined-cycle gas is a better choice (and is less expensive);

5 – It is well-documented that industrial wind turbines have caused a wide variety of problems to our military and national security;

6 – There are dozens of studies by independent experts that have concluded that wind turbines can cause severe health consequences to nearby citizens;

7 – Although wind is sold as a local financial boon to host communities, the reality is that a wind project can have a net negative economic impact on the community;

8 – the decommissioning and disposal of wind and solar panel waste will become an enormous environmental problem in the near future.

Once these realities are fully comprehended, the obvious question is: why should the US taxpayer pay more to enrich these inferior, expensive, unreliable sources of electrical energy?

As of this writing, Senator Murkowski (R) and Senator Manchin (D) are negotiating through 220+amendments. That number alone should make it very clear that there is a frenetic frenzied feeding of special-interests at the public trough as the word gets out.

Yes, there is some good buried in this morass, but why does every such major measure turn out to be a faustian bargain? The idea that for the public to get some benefits, that we must also except multiple serious liabilities, is simply insane.

S.2657 (and the 900± page H.R. 4447 House counterpart passed on 9-24-20!) will likely be the most problematic, far-reaching national energy legislation in decades — so we need to be aware of and publicly analyze every handout and concession made in what will likely turn out to be a 500+ page omnibus energy bill.

Along that line, please read this expert commentary on S.2657 — from a different perspective than I’ve written about here.

Since the Senate is immersed in the Supreme Court issue, there will be a strong inclination to want to clear the deck of pending legislation (like S.2657). Further, since Senator Murkowski is a swing vote on the Supreme Court matter, it is conceivable that Leader McConnell (ordinarily sensible about energy matters), will agree to look the other way while S.2657 passes, in exchange for Murkowski’s Supreme Court vote.

What to do? PLEASE contact your federal Senator TODAY. Send them this, and politely tell them to keep the geothermal parts of S.2657, but to extract any and all references to wind or solar, as well as all anti-fossil fuel and anti-Science measures.

john droz, jr. physicist North Carolina 9-27-20

Pay attention. As we are distracted by the nomination circus that will surround Amy Coney Barrett, there will be shenanigans. Our energy future is at stake.

A Wonderful Choice

One America News is reporting today that President Trump has nominated 48-year-old Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. If she is confirmed, she will be the youngest justice on the court.

The article reports:

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” he (President Trump) said. “She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”

Judge Barrett thanked the President and his administration for their kindness and the honor of being nominated.

“If the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability,” she stated. “I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.”

If she is appointed to the Supreme Court, she noted she will “be mindful of who came before me.”

“I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court,” added Barrett.

I hope that she will be more mindful of Justice Antonin Scalia than of Justice Ginsburg.

The article notes some highlights of Judge Barrett’s career:

Judge Barrett’s legal career began when she graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

She went on to clerk for late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, where she earned a reputation among her associates for “destroying flimsy legal arguments.”

Barrett then went on to practice and teach law in Indiana for the next 15 years.

The nominee has been a federal judge at an appellate court in Chicago for the past three years, where her reputation as a conservative has grown. The Catholic judge has become a well-known, staunch opponent of abortion.

She has hinted she would want to leave the basic right of abortion in place, but also allow states to make some abortions difficult to acquire.

“I don’t think the core case that women have a right to an abortion will change, but I think the question of whether people can get very late term abortions, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, will change,” she said.

Also prominent in Barrett’s list of policies was her stance on healthcare. In 2017, she denounced Justice John Robert’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Experts have predicted she will pose a threat to Obamacare moving forward.

Regarding guns, Judge Barrett previously struck down a federal law that barred felons from owning guns. She is expected to be a firm advocate for the Second Amendment.

Hopefully we can have a civilized confirmation process. The Democrats didn’t do themselves any favors in the way they treated the confirmation hearings of Justice Kavanaugh, and they lost Congressional seats because of it. Hopefully they will be more courteous and more inclined to follow a more reasonable confirmation process this time.

Something To Consider Before You Vote

Yesterday Fox News posted an article that included some recent statements by Vice-Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

The article reports:

Peaceful protests against racial injustice are critical for the nation’s progress and help to keep law enforcement in check, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said Friday.

That is a perfectly valid statement. The original civil rights marches in the 1960’s were non-violent on the part of the protesters. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about some of the police. Now things seem to be reversed. Protesters think they can smash windows, steal things, and set things on fire. That is not a protest–that is a crime.

The article continues:

“Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country — as an essential component or mark of a real democracy,” the vice presidential nominee said during the NAACP’s national convention.

She added that protests were “necessary” as “the people’s voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly — and obviously peacefully.”

Harris also praised the “brilliance” and “impact” of “Black Lives Matter,” which has received media praise but also come under fire for promoting left-wing stances like opposing the nuclear family. “I actually believe that ‘Black Lives Matter’ has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system,” she said.

Black Lives Matter has recently scrubbed their website. However, on September 8, I wrote an article that included some quotes from a “What We Believe” page that was then on their website. I apologize for not taking a screenshot (it didn’t occur to me that they would take down the page)–I just copied the quotes. That page no longer exists on their website. When you read the following quotes from the page, you might make an educated guess as to why:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

It has been widely reported that the people behind Black Lives Matter have Marxist roots. That is true. It is disturbing to see a candidate for one of the highest offices in the land support an organization that has Marxist ties. This candidate belongs to a political party that falsely accused President Trump of ties to Russia and tried to remove him because of those charges. Now they want us to vote for someone who openly supports a Marxist organization. That kind of double standard makes my head hurt.

A Newly Declassified Summary Report Has Been Released By The Senate Judiciary Committee

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has declassified and released its summary report in a Press Release. Please follow the link and read the entire summary.

Here are a few of the highlights:

  • The Crossfire Hurricane team knew in December 2016 that Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was an individual who the FBI had indicated in 2009 “could be a threat to national security.”
  • In May 2009, Steele’s source reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor connected to President Obama, offering that if the two individuals “‘did get a job in the government and had access to classified information’ and wanted ‘to make a little extra money,’ [Steele’s source] knew some people to whom they could speak.”
  • FBI databases revealed Steele’s source “had contact in 2006 with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers, [including contacting a known Russian intelligence officer] ‘so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic pouch.’”
  • One individual interviewed by the FBI noted that “the Primary Sub-source persistently asked about the interviewee’s knowledge of a particular military vessel.”
  • Significantly, the “record documenting the closing of the investigation [of the Primary Sub-source] stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States.”

The Press Release continues:

Graham on Totality of FBI Crossfire Hurricane Failures:

“In light of this newly declassified information, I will be sending the FISA Court the information provided to inform them how wide and deep the effort to conceal exculpatory information regarding the Carter Page warrant application was in 2016 and 2017.

“A small group of individuals in the Department of Justice and FBI should be held accountable for this fraud against the court.  I do not believe they represent the overwhelming majority of patriotic men and women who work at the Department of Justice and FBI.

“The now famous email Susan Rice sent to herself on Inauguration Day where she states that President Obama said that everything has to be done ‘by the book’ has become highly suspect.  If this investigation is ‘by the book,’ then the book we’re using is the Kremlin playbook.

“It is up to the committee and Congress to reform the system so it never happens again.  It’s stunning to be told that the single individual who provided information to Christopher Steele for the Russian dossier used by the FBI on four occasions to obtain a warrant on Carter Page, an American citizen, was a suspected Russian agent years before the preparation of the dossier.

“The committee will press on and get to the bottom of what happened, and we will try to work together to make sure this never happens again.”   

The misuse of the government for political purposes has been investigated and prosecuted in the past. It needs to be dealt with harshly this time. It is unbelievable that those responsible have evaded punishment for this long.

About That Mail-in Voting Idea

The Daily Wire posted an article yesterday listing some of the problems already encountered with mail-in and absentee ballots during this election.

The article reports:

The U.S. Postal Service has reportedly launched an investigation after mail—including absentee ballots—were discovered this week along a road in the swing state of Wisconsin.

“According to the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Office, three trays of mail were discovered shortly before 8 a.m. Monday in a ditch along State 96 at Outagamie county CB in Greenville,” the Post Crescent reported. “The mail was on its way to the post office and the sheriff’s office turned it over to the postal inspector. The mail was mixed and did contain ‘several’ absentee ballots.”

In another instance:

The news comes after federal law enforcement officials discovered that some military ballots had been discarded in the swing state of Pennsylvania and that out of all the discarded ballots that had been opened, they all had voted for President Donald Trump.

“The FBI has recovered a number of documents relating to military ballots that had been improperly opened by your elections staff, and had the ballots removed and discarded, or removed and placed separately from the envelope containing confidential voter information and attestation,” U.S. Attorney David J. Freed said in a letter to Shelby Watchilla, Director of Elections of Luzerne County Bureau of Elections.

“Specifically, a total of nine (9) military ballots were discovered to have been discarded,” the letter continued. “Seven (7) of those ballots when discovered by investigators were outside of any envelope. Those ballots were all cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. One (1) of those seven (7) ballots was able to be identified to an envelope that was recovered, and thereby potentially tied to a specific voter. Two (2) military ballots that had been discarded were previously recovered by elections staff, reinserted into what appeared to be their appropriate envelopes, and then resealed. Therefore, the votes cast on those two (2) ballots are unknown. Thus, is appears that three (3) of the nine (9) recovered ballots can be potentially attributed to specific voters. Six (6) of the ballots were simply removed and discarded, and cannot be attributed to a specific voter at this time.”

Yet another instance:

Also on Thursday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced more than 100 felony charges in an illegal ballot harvesting scheme in a Democrat Primary.

“It is an unfortunate reality that elections can be stolen outright by mail ballot fraud. Election fraud, particularly an organized mail ballot fraud scheme orchestrated by political operatives, is an affront to democracy and results in voter disenfranchisement and corruption at the highest level,” Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “Mail ballots are vulnerable to diversion, coercion, and influence by organized vote harvesting schemes. This case demonstrates my commitment to ensuring Texas has the most secure elections in the country, and I thank the Gregg County Sheriff and District Attorney for their continued partnership. Those who try to manipulate the outcome of elections in Texas must be held accountable.”

We need in-person voting with voter id. Note that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are both considered swing states.

Is The Constitution The Basis For Our Government?

According the the website oaths.us members of Congress take the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The U.S. Constitution states:

Article VI 

    • Clause 3
    • The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

       

CNS News is reporting the following today:

Asked whether the U.S. Constitution bans the Senate from scrutinizing the religious beliefs of Supreme Court nominees, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she wouldn’t “get into anybody’s interpretation” of the Constitution.

On Thursday – two days before President Donald Trump is expected to announce a Catholic judge as his nominee to replace deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Pelosi, who supports abortion yet purports to be Catholic, was asked by a reporter whether the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for office extends to Supreme Court nominees:

First of all, the confirmation process takes place in the Senate–not the House of Representatives. She has no say. However, her statement says, in essence, that despite what the U.S. Constitution clearly says, she claims that the ban on considering a candidate’s religion is an ‘interpretation.’ Has she read the document that she has sworn to uphold?

Does The Truth Matter?

The death of Breonna Taylor is tragic. The fact that there is rioting by people who either don’t know the truth or don’t care about the truth is even more tragic.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at The National Review today that illustrates some of the facts of the Breonna Taylor case.

The article notes:

The criminal law is not designed to address every human tragedy. That is the lesson of the tragic death of Breonna Taylor. It was also the theme repeatedly struck by Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron on Wednesday, in announcing the indictment of one of the three officers involved in the raid that lead to her death.

The article provides some background of the incident:

Much of what we’ve been told about the case turns out not to be true — another “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” urban legend of police brutality. Most prominently, Attorney General Cameron explained that the police did not execute a “no knock” warrant before entering Ms. Taylor’s apartment. They knocked and announced themselves as police before forcing entry shortly after midnight.

How they came to be at Ms. Taylor’s home, with a search warrant based on probable cause that evidence of narcotics crimes would be found, is the part of the story the social-justice warriors would have us omit. It needs telling.

When she was killed, Breonna Taylor was 26, a hospital emergency-room technician who hoped to become a nurse. But over the years, she had gotten involved with Glover, a 30-year-old twice-convicted drug dealer. Though she was never a targeted suspect, the New York Times reports that Ms. Taylor was entangled in the frequent police investigations of Glover. Taylor remained romantically involved with him though he had spent years in prison.

The article concludes:

Meantime, Hankison [Brett Hankison, then a detective (since fired)], who was in the parking lot outside the apartment, began firing when the commotion he could not have seen began. He sprayed the patio and a window with ten bullets — irresponsibly, to be sure, but fortunately without harming anyone. Hankison, who had a spotty disciplinary record in almost 20 years as a cop, was terminated when police officials judged that his conduct during the raid shocked the conscience.

And now he has been charged, which seems appropriate. What the mob wants, though, is murder charges against the two cops who shot Ms. Taylor. There is no conceivable legal justification for that. The police were properly executing a lawful warrant. There appears to have been more than adequate probable cause for the search in light of Glover’s ties to the apartment. Even if there were any doubt about that, the warrant had been duly authorized and therefore police were entitled to rely on it. And they were fired upon before reasonably responding with lethal force.

What happened to Breonna Taylor was a calamity. That is why the city of Louisville just paid $12 million dollars to settle the wrongful death lawsuit her family filed, rather than trying to fight it. Obviously, the money cannot bring her back to life, and will never be adequate compensation for her loved ones’ loss. But that could also have been said for the politicized filing of unprovable homicide charges. The legal system can only do the best it can; it cannot fully compensate for tragic loss, and its criminal processes are not equipped to address catastrophes that are not crimes.

The state of Kentucky was right not to opt for mob justice. Unfortunately, the mob has a different conception of “justice,” and it is ripping the country apart.

The shooting of this young woman is a tragedy. So are the lies and violence currently surrounding her death.

The Elections In North Carolina Just Ventured Into The Twilight Zone

North Carolina is seen as a swing state in the coming election. The eastern part of the state will vote Republican and the major cities will vote Democrat. There are questions about the integrity of the election process in some of the major cities. The citizens of the state voted for a state constitutional amendment in the last election to help prevent voter fraud. The voter id law was struck down by the state court. That decision has been overturned by another state court and is on its way to the state Supreme Court. That is only some of the shenanigans that have recently occurred. The North Carolina Board of Elections is changing the rules on absentee ballots weeks before the election. The Board has become a political entity under Governor Cooper, and this move is a further indication that the Democrats are not planning to play on a level playing field.

The following appeared on my Facebook page this morning:

Fox News posted an article today explaining exactly what is going on.

The article reports:

Both Republicans on the five-person North Carolina State Board of Elections submitted their resignations on Wednesday night, saying they were misled about the ramifications of the board’s recent legal settlement making rules governing absentee ballots less restrictive.

“Regarding the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans against the State Board of Elections, attorneys from [Attorney General] Josh Stein’s office did not advise us of the fact that a lot of the concessions made in the settlement have already been denied in a prior case by a federal judge and another case by a state court three-judge panel,” Ken Raymond, who had served on the board since 2018, wrote in his resignation letter.

The shenanigans have been going on for a while.

Lt. Governor Dan Forest has written the following letter to Attorney General Barr:

This is only the beginning of what is going to be a very nasty election. What is happening in North Carolina is only one example of the reason we are going to see nine justices on the Supreme Court before the election.

Stay tuned.

 

Some Common Sense From The Senate

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about a Senate bill sponsored by Senator Kelly Loeffler. The Bill is titled The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2020. The text of the bill can be found here.

The essence of the bill is as follows:

1 SEC.2.AMENDMENT

2    Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972

3  (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended by adding at the end the

4  following:

5     ‘‘(d)(1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for

6  a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or

7  facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a per-

8  son whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program

9  or activity that is designated for women or girls.

10    ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, sex shall be rec-

11  ognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology

12  and genetics at birth.’’.

The article at The Daily Signal concludes:

“Title IX established a fair and equal chance for women and girls to compete, and sports should be no exception,” said Loeffler. “As someone who learned invaluable life lessons and built confidence playing sports throughout my life, I’m proud to lead this legislation to ensure girls of all ages can enjoy those same opportunities. This commonsense bill protects women and girls by safeguarding fairness and leveling the athletic field that Title IX guarantees.”

Regardless of what one thinks about the transgender movement or “gender identity” protections in other areas of life, fair athletic competition demands such a policy.

A similar bill was passed at the state level in Idaho this year (and was immediately challenged in court). But Title IX protected women and girls nationwide—and Loeffler’s amendment would do the same.

For that, Sen. Kelly Loeffler deserves a gold medal.

How many fathers of teenage girls are comfortable with teenage boys being allowed in the girls’ locker room? This bill seems to provide a much-needed dose of common sense.

 

This Seems Very Questionable To Me

The Hill reported yesterday that billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote.

The article notes:

The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated Bloomberg’s fundraising push has already paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons, Axios reported

“The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and no American should be denied that right,” a Bloomberg spokesperson told the news outlet. “Working together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, we are determined to end disenfranchisement and the discrimination that has always driven it.”

Florida passed a law in 2018 reinstating voting rights for felons that dictated they could register only if they pay all fines, fees and restitution — sometimes totaling more than $1,000 — owed to the government. 

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Florida, last week ruled to uphold the law. 

Last week, several television networks also pledged to donate money to the cause. 

Bloomberg, who ran in the Democratic primary for president, has endorsed the party’s nominee, Joe Biden, and has donated at least $100 million to the former vice president’s campaign to defeat President Trump

This may not be illegal, but it definitely is sleazy. I wonder how the average resident of Florida feels about this.

 

 

When Fake News Is Forced To Apologize

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported that Newsweek was forced to issue a retraction of statements it made about possible Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The attack on Judge Barrett was probably only a portent of things to come. It was a lie, but that won’t matter to many people who want to oppose her nomination because of her stand on abortion.

The article reports:

Newsweek magazine has issued a major correction to an article smearing potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, accusing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge of belonging to a Catholic sect that “inspired” the novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Initially, Newsweek claimed that “People of Praise,” a charismatic Catholic group to which Barrett reportedly belongs, “served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale,” adding that female members are forced to report to spiritual superiors known as “handmaids” and that the group stresses that “men have authority over their wives.”

The article continues:

The problem? People of Praise’s “handmaids” are little more than spiritual advisors, according to sources familiar with the 1,700-member group that spoke to The Daily Wire. And as National Review Online’s David Harsanyi points out, Barrett’s partner’s “authority” must be severely limited, given that her “knuckle-dragging misogynistic religious fanatic husband has only let the poor woman out of the house twice. Once, to serve a 15-year stint as a law professor at a highly prestigious university,” and the other to serve on the 7th Circuit.

Deeper than that, though, it turns out Newsweek’s story is actually completely wrong based on information from Atwood herself, which Newsweek points out in its “correction.”

The article notes that the author has also stated that the group was not the inspiration for the book:

“Correction: This article’s headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. The book’s author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work,” the note read. “A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.”

“The clipping includes a spokesperson for the People of Hope sect based in Newark, New Jersey saying, ‘We’re all Roman Catholics. We differ in the sense that we are a Charismatic group, which would mean that we have prayer meetings, during which there is raising of hands, singing and speaking in tongues,’” the outlet notes. “People of Praise has never had a presence in the state of New Jersey.”

How many people have read the article but are unaware of the correction?

The Root Of The Problem

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the connection between Alicia Garza, one of three founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, and the left-wing San Francisco group known to carry water for China: the Chinese Progressive Association. Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, was interviews for the article.

Mike Gonzalez reports:

It’s best to think of her (Alicia Garza) as somebody who sits a top an expansive global revolutionary network. She founded the main Black Lives Matter organization. In fact, she came up with the slogan.

The other two women who co-founded Black Lives Matter are Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. All three of them are committed Marxists, anti-capitalist. Alicia Garza has said many times that she wants to smash capitalism, that one cannot reach liberation in capitalism.

And one of the adventures that she has is the Black Futures Lab. The Black Futures Lab is a fiscally sponsored project of the Chinese Progressive Association of San Francisco.

That is an outfit that was created in 1972 at the height of the Cultural Revolution by a … paramilitary group called I Wor Kuen. I Wor Kuen was a Maoist outfit, created the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco. And from the start, the Chinese Progressive Association promoted the thoughts of Mao and the ideas of China’s revolution and the Cultural Revolution.

…if you click on the button of the Black Futures Lab, it tells you that the Black Futures Lab is a fiscally sponsored project of the CPA San Francisco.

A lot of the Black Lives Matter organizations do this. They’re fiscally sponsored projects of other groups that affords the Black Lives Matter organization a great deal of flexibility in not having to disclose how they spend their money. That’s at least what the critics say.

But the connections between Garza and the people who run the CPA San Francisco are stronger than that. Garza, for example, spoke at a LeftRoots meeting in 2015. I think she’s a member also of LeftRoots, I’ll have to double check that. And Pam Tau Lee, one of the founders of CPA San Francisco is also a member of LeftRoots.

…the Black Futures Lab does say it on its website, that it partners up with Black Lives Matter. Everything under Alicia Garza is the same, as I said, they’re ventures of the same empire. And the Black Futures Lab, I believe, is kind of a lobbying arm of the whole entire thing.

Black Lives Matter, I’m talking about the organizations—obviously, nobody disagrees with the sentiment—I’m talking about the Black Lives Matter Global Network partners with the Movement for Black Lives, partners with the Black Futures Lab, they all crisscross and coordinate their moves. And the Black Futures Lab says that on its website, that it helps the Black Lives Matter organization.

Please follow the link to read the rest of the article. Black lives do matter, but the organization by that name is not a positive influence on our political debate.

Like Two-Year Olds Throwing Temper Tantrums

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the Democrat’s reaction to the President’s plan to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the coming six weeks.

The article includes a screenshot of a tweet by Gavin Newsom’s Chief of Staff Ann O’Leary:

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that laying your body on the floor of the Senate might be considered radical.

The article details some of the threats the Democrats have made:

Democrats are determined to prevent the Republican President and Republican Senate to nominate and confirm the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The 87-year-old Ginsburg passed away at home on Friday.

Democrats are threatening impeachment of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr.

And Democrats are even threatening to block access to the Republican senators from entering the US Senate Chamber in the US Capitol Building.

So what is this actually about? It’s about two things. The first is the fact that in recent years the Supreme Court has become an oligarchy making laws and impacting American lives in ways our Founding Fathers never intended. The Supreme Court in recent years has made things legal on a federal level that Americans never had a chance to vote for or hold their elected officials accountable for. The reason Congress is tasked with the responsibility for making laws is that the voters can hold them accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court Justices serve for life and are not accountable to the voters. The second is the fear of the political left that a conservative court will overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a few misconceptions in this. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion in America. Ending Roe v. Wade will simply allow every state to set its own rules regarding abortion. There have been a number of judicial scholars who have stated that the Roe v. Wade decision was flawed. The political left is well aware of this and wants to protect the decision.

Planned Parenthood (through its political action spin-offs) has invested a lot of money into Congressional campaigns to protect the abortion industry (which is a million dollar industry). This investment has allowed abortions and the practice of selling aborted baby parts to continue without interference from Congress. I have often wondered how history will view this practice.

 

What Did They Expect?

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about the increase of shootings in Portland, Oregon, after the Mayor Ted Wheeler disbanded the city’s police gun crimes unit. What did they expect?

The article reports:

The city recorded 223 shootings in July and August, up from 77 over the same period in 2019. And a little more than halfway through September the city already had 64 shootings, or double the shootings from the same month last year.

The numbers were released last week.

On Monday the federal Justice Department declared Portland and two other cities, Seattle and New York, to be “Anarchy Jurisdictions.” In Portland the federal officials cited the increase in gun crimes as one reason.

The city has faced near-nightly mayhem since late May, when protests broke out over the death of George Floyd, a black man, in Minneapolis. More than 25 riots have been declared in the days since.

The article concludes:

Mr. Wheeler, who is also police commissioner, announced in early June he was disbanding the Portland Police Bureau’s Gun Violence Reduction Team as part of an effort to “reimagine” city policing. Protesters had said the unit unfairly targeted Black men.

In August, after seeing the spike in shootings in July, Mr. Wheeler said he was pondering restoring some type of gun crimes unit.

At least Mr. Wheeler is considering correcting his mistake.

Economic Policies Have Consequences

Yesterday CNBC posted an article detailing some of what former Vice-President Joe Biden’s financial policies would be if he were elected President.

The article reports:

  • Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s plan to increase the capital gains tax could lead to a large-scale sell-off of stocks, according to economic analyses.
  • Biden has proposed increasing the top tax rate for capital gains for the highest earners to 39.6% from 23.8%, the largest real increase in capital gains rates in history.
  • Yet economists say the stock market as a whole wouldn’t necessarily fall just because of the tax increase.

…A research paper by Tim Dowd, a senior economist at the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation, and Robert McClelland, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, found that the two previous hikes in capital gains taxes lead to a wave of selling.

In 1986, as part of the Reagan tax plan, the top rate for capital gains jumped from 20% in 1986 to 28% in 1987. In the months before the increase, capital gains realizations — or sales of stocks and other assets — surged by 60%. In 2012, as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the top rate went from 15% to 23.8%. Again, in the months leading before the change, capital gains realizations and sales jumped, by 40%.

Dowd and McClelland say that just ahead of a tax increase, investors sell stocks or other assets that have gained value before the higher tax rate becomes effective.

A sell-off adversely effects working Americans with 401k accounts. The rich can easily move assets around to avoid the tax. Workers with 401k accounts pay penalties if they sell stocks in those accounts before retirement age. Those accounts also lose value in a stock market sell-off.

If the Democrats want to be considered the party of the working man, they need to re-evaluate this idea.

Why The Democrats Need Fear Of The Coronavirus

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article that included a video by Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote. I am posting the video here because I fear that YouTube will take it down.

The article explains how the Covid-19 is an essential part of the plan by Democrats to steal the upcoming election:

In order to support the most important political objectives of the DNC writ large in the 2020 election, COVID-19 hype is essential:

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot easily achieve ‘mail-in’ voting; which they desperately need in key battleground states in order to control the outcome.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot shut down rallies and political campaigning efforts of President Trump; which they desperately need to do in key battleground states.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot block the campaign contrast between an energetic President Trump and a physically tenuous, mentally compromised, challenger.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats do not have a mechanism to keep voters isolated from each-other; limiting communication and national debate adverse to their interests. COVID-19 panic pushes the national conversation into the digital space where Big Tech controls every element of the conversation.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot keep their Blue state economies easily shut-down and continue to block U.S. economic growth. All thriving economies are against the political interests of Democrats.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot easily keep club candidate Joe Biden heavily controlled and sealed inside the bubble; where the electorate is not exposed to visible signs of his dementia.

♦Without COVID-19 panic it becomes more difficult for Big Tech to censor voices that would outline the fraud and scheme. With COVID-19 panic they have a better method and an excuse.

♦Without COVID-19 panic Democrats cannot advance, influence, or organize their preferred presidential debate format, a ‘virtual presidential debate’ series.

♦Without COVID-19 panic the economy would rebound quickly and people would go back to work. This is against the interests of Democrats.

All of these, and more, strategic outcomes are based on the manufactured weaponization of the COVID-19 virus to achieve a larger political objective. There is ZERO benefit to anyone other than Democrats for the overwhelming hype surrounding COVID-19.

It is not coincidental that all corporate media are all-in to facilitate the demanded fear that Democrats need in order to achieve their objectives. Thus there is an alignment of all big government institutions and multinationals to support the same.

Nothing is coincidental.

Everything is political.

Please note–the virus is not a hoax–the hype is. If the fear of the virus ends too quickly, Joe Biden will have to leave the basement on a regular basis. Those people who attend his events will see the large teleprompter set up to avoid having him answering questions on his own. Voters are not stupid. The state of Joe Biden’s mental acuity will be very obvious, and the game will be over. At that point I don’t know what the Democrats will do, but they will probably be forced to take some action that reveals what their plan has been all along.

The Chaos Is Due To A Misalignment Between Our Current Government And The Constitution

Yesterday, a blog called FreeThePeople posted an article about the drama that has followed the death of Ruth Baden Ginsburg.

The article notes:

It’s fine to mourn and lionize someone you regard as a hero. That’s an appropriate response to tragedy, and this is not the place for me to debate the relative merits of the deceased. But the existential terror that has gripped the left with the passing of Justice Ginsburg reveals the inherent fragility of our system of government. As the book Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb discusses, robust systems are ones which can suffer considerable damage without falling apart.

The article continues:

This is the way the American system was supposed to work. The founders established three coequal branches of government, complete with a system of checks and balances including the state legislatures and the people themselves. The president is not an autocrat who can do whatever he wants on a whim, nor is any other individual member of the body politic. Unfortunately, over the years that vision of decentralization has collapsed into something that more closely resembles the European monarchies the founders sought to escape. Congress, the branch of government responsible for writing laws, has abdicated much of its responsibility and delegated its powers to the president, to executive branch regulatory agencies, and to the courts.

It has now become habitual for the president to govern via executive order, as exemplified by Barack Obama’s notorious “pen and a phone” comment, but beginning with progressive presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For all the howls of fascism about Trump’s wielding of executive authority, the concentration of presidential power has always come from those on the political left, whose ideological faith in central planning lends itself to autocracy.

The article explains how the reaction to the death of Justice Ginsburg reveals how far we have wandered from the original intentions of our Founding Fathers:

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which is supposed to merely interpret the laws written by Congress and executed by the president, striking down those which violate the Constitution, has risen to the dangerous position of dictating the law of the land to the American people. Let’s not forget that it was the Court, not Congress, that created out of whole cloth the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police from civil liability. It is this doctrine that has resulted in countless abuses of power by police, which in turn have driven widespread protests, riots, and general civil unrest throughout much of 2020.

Now, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, Democrats are terrified that a Trump appointee would criminalize abortion, strip away LGBT rights, and basically undo all of the court’s major decisions from the last half century. Whether these concerns are justified is another question entirely, but the fact that people expect such far-reaching consequences from the death of a single individual proves how profoundly broken our system has become.

In its concluding paragraphs, the article notes:

The irony is that the very people now frightened of a third Trump appointee are the same ones who are always begging for a larger, more powerful central government. When Harry Reid eliminated the traditional filibuster for judicial nominees, making it easier for the party in power to ram through their choices unopposed, he was warned that Democrats would not hold a Senate majority forever. When Barack Obama sought to circumvent Congress and govern by executive order, those of us who objected knew that someday someone like Trump would enjoy the benefits of that same power. Shortsightedness, arrogance, or a deliberate unwillingness to consider the future has led us to where we are today. Like Dr. Frankenstein before them, leftists created a monster without considering that it could, and inevitably would, turn on them.

Appointing a justice who believes in the Constitution might put America back on the path to being the nation our Founding Fathers envisioned.

What Was Said Before It Become Political

On September 10th, The Blaze posted an article about masks. For whatever reason, mask wearing has become political, so the article went back to see what the scientific opinion was before politics entered the picture.

The article reports:

On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”

In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.

Scientific studies do not seem to back up the requirement to wear a mask:

Our own U.S. government has failed to produce new evidence that counters years’ worth of evidence that masks don’t work in stopping respiratory viruses and is still producing evidence to the contrary. In June, HHS’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a systemic review of all relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of mask-wearing in stopping respiratory infections and published the findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The conclusion was as clear as it is jarring to the current cult-like devotion to mask-wearing. “Review of RCTs indicates that N95 respirators and surgical masks are probably associated with similar risk for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infections in high- and low-risk settings.” The study noted that only one trial did show “a small decrease in risk” for infection when doctors wore N95s in high-risk settings, but even that evidence was scant.

The study looked at eight trials with 6,510 participants that “evaluated use of surgical masks within households with an influenza or influenza-like illness index case (child or adult). Compared with no masks, surgical masks were not associated with decreased risk for clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, or laboratory-confirmed viral illness in household contacts when masks were worn by household contacts, index cases, or both.” Remember, Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, is now saying people should wear masks even at home?

It’s time we all asked ourselves, “Why are we wearing masks?”

A Financial Reason For Tech Companies To Support Joe Biden

Breitbart posted an article today about tech companies that are supporting Joe Biden for President. Their reasons won’t give the average American any reason to support them.

The article reports:

Tech industry elites have endorsed Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, citing their opposition to President Trump’s efforts to prioritize Americans for high-paying tech jobs in the United States.

Twenty-four winners of the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Peace Prize for computer science, have endorsed Biden on the premise that the former vice president will allow the tech industry to import more foreign workers, specifically those on H-1B visas, to fill coveted U.S. jobs.

These companies simply do not want to pay American workers the salaries that Americans earn. When I went looking to see how much the executives listed in the article were being paid, I couldn’t find exact numbers for the companies mentioned. I did discover that six of the top ten tech company executives make over $100,000,000 a year. Much of that money is paid in stock and options awards, but that is still an awful lot of money. It seems to me that the companies would be willing to pay a fair salary to American workers rather than to import foreign workers to do jobs that Americans can do.

The article includes the following:

“Information technology is thoroughly globalized. Academic computer science departments attract talented students, many of whom immigrate and become American inventors and captains of industry,” the executives and industry insiders wrote in their endorsement of Biden:

We celebrate open source projects, the lifeblood of our field, as exemplars of international collaboration. Computer Science is at its best when its learnings and discoveries are shared freely in the spirit of progress. These core values helped make America a leader in information technology, so vital in this Information Age. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris listen to experts before setting public policy, essential when science and technology may help with many problems facing our nation today. As American computer scientists and as US citizens, we enthusiastically endorse Joe Biden for President and Kamala Harris for Vice President. [Emphasis added]

The article concludes:

Since mass unemployment hit the U.S., spurred by the Chinese coronavirus crisis, Trump signed an executive order halting a number of visa programs including the H-1B visa. Likewise, the Trump administration is eyeing H-1B visa reforms that would more effectively weed out the business model of outsourcing that has allowed American workers to be replaced by foreign H-1B visa workers.

In August, billion dollar tech corporations such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter signed onto a U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against Trump’s executive order — arguing that they have a right to import foreign workers to fill U.S. jobs.

Unlike Trump, Biden has promised to increase the number of foreign H-1B visa workers that tech corporations will be able to import every year. The practice is a boon to tech executives.

There are about 650,000 H-1B visa workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off in the process and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. More than 85,000 Americans annually potentially lose their jobs to foreign labor through the H-1B visa program.

Analysis conducted in 2018 discovered that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley, California, are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. Up to 99 percent of H-1B visa workers imported by the top eight outsourcing firms are from India.

It is becoming obvious that President Trump will protect American workers. Joe Biden has promised to increase the number of H-1B visas every year if he is elected. A Biden-Harris administration will not protect American workers–just as the Obama administration did not. The Democrat party is no longer the party of working people.