About That Voter Fraud Thing…

On October 16th, Judicial Watch posted the following Press Release:

New Judicial Watch Study Finds 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100%

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The September 2020 study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census.

Judicial Watch’s latest study is necessarily limited to 37 states that post regular updates to their registration data. Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.

Judicial Watch relies on its voter registration studies to warn states that they are failing to comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. Judicial Watch can and has sued to enforce compliance with federal law.

Earlier this month, Judicial Watch sued Colorado over its failure to comply with the National Voter Registration Act. In Judicial Watch’s new study, 42 Colorado counties—or two thirds of the state’s counties—had registration rates exceeding 100%. Particular data from the state confirms this general picture. As the complaint explains, a month-by-month comparison of the ACS’s five-year survey period with Colorado’s own registration numbers for the exact same months shows that large proportions of Colorado’s counties have registration rates exceeding 100%. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch sued Pennsylvania and North Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that the two states have nearly 2 million inactive names on their voter registration rolls. Judicial Watch also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

“The new study shows 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot applications to voter registration lists. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.”

Judicial Watch’s study updates the results of a similar study from last year. In August 2019, Judicial Watch analyzed registration data that states reported to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in response to a survey conducted every two years on how states maintain their voter rolls. That registration data was compared to the then-most-recent ACS five-year survey from 2013 through 2017. The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.

Judicial Watch is a national leader for cleaner elections.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In September 2020, Judicial Watch sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

Judicial Watch Attorney Robert Popper is the director of Judicial Watch’s clean elections initiative.

The press release also includes a list of the counties with more voters registered than residents. Please follow the link above to see that information.

It is possible that a lot of the extra voters are simply people who moved or passed away and the Board of Elections was never notified. However, not maintaining accurate voter rolls provides a pathway for voter fraud. One of the tricks of people who want to fraudulently vote is to read recent obituaries and pretend to be a person that recently passed away—assuming that the relatives would not have had time to notify the Board of Elections. Cleaning up voter rolls should be a priority in every state. All Americans want their vote to count–not to be cancelled by a fraudulent vote.

Can The People With A Vested Interest In This Story Remaining Untold Keep It Quiet Until After The Election?

The Epoch Times is reporting the following today:

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is requesting a statement from FBI Director Christopher Wray about the veracity of details that were found on a laptop that purportedly belonged to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden after the New York Post published explosive new claims about the family’s business ties abroad.

Johnson, in a letter to Wray over the weekend, said a whistleblower contacted his committee on Sept. 24 about the laptop that was left at his business, saying he turned it over to the FBI. Johnson said that staff immediately asked if the agency can either confirm or deny details to validate the claim, but he said that the FBI wouldn’t confirm or deny the information that was found on the device.

“I have a responsibility to validate and verify the contents of any information produced to my committee,” Johnson said in his letter. “The committee must know if it receives information that could be fraudulent or not accurate.”

He mentioned that the information could be related to a foreign election interference campaign, saying that if that is the case, a defensive briefing is necessary. Johnson added that if the whistleblower provided false information, it could be a crime.

…“For these reasons, the committee must know whether the FBI has assessed the validity of materials the whistleblower has provided, and what, if any, actions the FBI has taken since obtaining this information,” Johnson said in the letter.

He also included a series of questions that the FBI should answer about the laptop, including whether the agency has material from the device, how they acquired it if they did indeed obtain the laptop, if the records on the hard drive have been altered or are genuine, whether the records were authored by Hunter Biden, or if the laptop was hacked in some way.

Unfortunately, Hunter Biden’s behavior is generally consistent with what was found on the laptop. He was discharged from the Navy for drug use, and he fathered a child with a stripper. However, we need to remember that the details of what is on the laptop matter. If Hunter was involved in selling access to his father, is his father also implicated? I don’t know. If the accusations about the money flowing to Hunter Biden from China and going to Joe Biden are true, it is an entirely different story. It will be interesting to see exactly what the FBI says about the information.

I Know This Is Simply An Incredible Coincidence…

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about Anna Makanju. Ms. Makanju is currently working for Facebook as the executive in charge of “election integrity on the platform.” Her last job before that position was special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden.

The article contains the following screenshot:

The article notes:

That’s right folks, the Facebook executive currently blocking all of the negative evidence of Hunter and Joe Biden’s corrupt activity in Ukraine is the same person who was coordinating the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.

This is called the ‘deep state,’ and it has a lot of tentacles.

Benign-Sounding Policies Often Have Negative Consequences

North Carolina is a battleground state in this election. After a responsible State Treasurer and a responsible State Legislature brought us into fiscal solvency, we are in danger of forgetting where we have been and what it took to get where we are. Because of an influx of people fleeing high tax states with bad weather (guilty as charged), it is possible that North Carolina will become a purple state instead of a red state. Many of those people coming into the state are attempting to implement the very expensive state policies that they fled. That would mean that the hard-fought income tax decreases passed by the legislators would be undone and spending would increase drastically as it had under previous Democrat legislatures. One of these items currently being mentioned in the gubernatorial campaign is Medicaid Expansion. Governor Cooper supports it and Dan Forest does not.

On September 22, 2020, The John Locke Foundation posted an article explaining what Medicaid Expansion would mean to North Carolina.

The article reports:

Expanding Medicaid in North Carolina is a misguided and costly plan for our state, and would not be free to state taxpayers, as Gov. Roy Cooper claims. New economic analysis released by the John Locke Foundation reveals that expansion would leave the state with a funding gap estimated between $119.3 million and $171.3 million in the first year alone.

The expansion funding gap would continue every year and could increase based on enrollment in the program and cost of the enrollees in the future. Multiple North Carolina expansion scenarios are detailed by JLF Health Care Policy Analyst Jordan Roberts in the report, Big Government, Big Price Tag: Medicaid Expansion = Funding Gap For State Government.

…Nearly 2.4 million people are currently enrolled in North Carolina’s program. Gov. Cooper and state Democrats have fiercely advocated for overloading Medicaid with 500,000 to 600,000 additional people. Nearly eight of 10 of the proposed expansion population are able-bodied, working-age adults with no children, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Gov. Cooper claims that adding this massive new group would not require any state money and that the state’s portion of costs would be paid for via taxes on hospitals and providers.

“The governor’s statement is wrong,” said Roberts. “Our modeling is rigorous and uses varying enrollment numbers and expenditure data from respected sources. The most likely modeled scenarios result in the need for state appropriations. That means taxpayers.”

Beyond the fiscal implications for the state, Roberts worries about the fate of those currently enrolled. “If massive numbers of new people are added, it will be harder to access care. Many current Medicaid patients have multiple health issues; they’re our most vulnerable. The worst thing we could do is to push their needs aside.”

We need to provide a way for all Americans to get the healthcare they need. However, we need to do it carefully–providing what is needed to the people who need it. The welfare state has grown so large that there is no concept of individual responsibility included in allocating resources. There is also no incentive for the overgrown bureaucracy to decrease the number of people getting assistance. It is time to encourage all Americans to take responsibility for their own economic welfare. That may mean providing a path out of government dependence rather than bringing them deeper into it.

How To Skew News To Fit Your Agenda

This article is not about the recent Biden scandals, although that is another example of what I am about to illustrate. It is about stating a fact which happens to be true without providing the background information that provides perspective. Last week various media outlets posted articles stating that ‘hundreds of the Notre Dame faculty signed a letter opposing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.”  Sounds a little fishy when you consider that most reports have said that she was highly regarded by both students and faculty at Notre Dame. Well, there is more to the story.

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the letter.

The article reports:

Eighty-eight faculty members at the University of Notre Dame signed a letter criticizing their “colleague,” Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, though none of these faculty members are from Notre Dame’s Law School.

The letter calls on Barrett to halt her confirmation process until after the election, acknowledging that doing so might ultimately deprive Barrett of the Supreme Court vacancy.

None of the people who signed the letter are from the Law School. That might be the first clue that something is a little off.

The article continues:

Four of those on the list were gender studies professors, five were peace studies professors, nine specialized in English, and seven specialized in Notre Dame’s Hesburgh Libraries.

Leaders at the University of Notre Dame have previously praised Barrett and expressed support for her confirmation.

“She is a person of the utmost integrity who, as a jurist, acts first and foremost in accord with the law,” Notre Dame President John Jenkins said in a statement. “I join her colleagues in the Law School and across the campus in congratulating her on the nomination, and wish her and her family well through what has become, sadly, a personally bruising confirmation process.”

“Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an absolutely brilliant legal scholar and jurist,” Joseph A. Matson Dean of the Law School Marcus Cole said in a statement following Barrett’s nomination. “She is also one of the most popular teachers we have ever had here at Notre Dame Law School. Judge Barrett is incredibly generous with her time and wisdom while mentoring her students.”

The Notre Dame faculty letter came after over 50 law professors sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday praising Barrett’s qualifications as “stellar” and expressing support for her confirmation.

It is a safe guess that those professors opposing the nomination were not registered as Republicans. Although the Supreme Court was intended by our Founding Fathers to be the least political branch of government, recent history shows that is not the case. The questions about healthcare were interesting–Congress is tasked with setting healthcare policy. If they are doing it right, why are they concerned about Judge Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court?

What Is The Goal Of This Man?

The Washington Free Beacon reported the following yesterday:

Liberal billionaire George Soros has funneled nearly $70 million into the 2020 elections, tripling his previous record, new filings show.

The Democracy PAC, a super PAC created by Soros to fund left-wing groups working to defeat Republicans, has poured $68.5 million into electoral efforts this cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission. That sum is $46 million more than Soros’s previous high of $22 million, which came during the last presidential cycle.

The billionaire has amplified his election spending as deep-pocketed donors attempt to oust Trump from office and flip control of the Senate to Democrats. Soros’s cash is part of a spending blitz that has primarily benefited Joe Biden. So far this cycle, outside spending has exceeded $1 billion and is on track to shatter previous records.

Soros’s largest donations include $3 million to the Strategic Victory Fund, a super PAC tied to the Democracy Alliance donor club, of which Soros is a founding member; $1.5 million to both the Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC and progressive women’s group SuperMajority, which is primarily bankrolled by the financier; and $1 million to the Working Families Organization. Soros’s PAC disbursed $23 million to left-wing groups from the beginning of July to late September.

The cash is part of a $275 million spending plan set forth by the Democracy Alliance, according to confidential documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon last year. Members of the donor network are pushing large sums into increasing voter turnout, targeting women and rural voters, and flooding battleground state efforts, among other initiatives.

The Democracy PAC is primarily funded by tens of millions of dollars transferred over from the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit in Soros’s sprawling Open Society Foundations network. The fund reported $3 billion in assets on its most recent tax forms. This set up allows Soros to keep his name off the top of donor lists. The Democracy PAC is currently sitting on $6.4 million.

During a speech to the World Economic Forum earlier this year, Soros said the “fate of the world” is at stake in the 2020 elections. He also referred to Trump as a “con man” and “authoritarian.”

That’s an awful lot of money to throw into political campaigns. I would like to point out the George Soros was responsible for funding many of the candidates who won in the 2018 election in Virginia. I highly doubt that the residents of Virginia are happy with the legislation that followed that election. Money is important in elections, although if it were truly the deciding factor, we would have either President Jeb Bush or President Hillary Clinton. At any rate, voters need to know the type of person who is funding their candidates.

Avoiding Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Election

Early voting began in North Carolina yesterday. Recently the Democrat-controlled State Board of Elections attempted to change the rules regarding absentee ballots just before voting began. The Epoch Times reported yesterday that the effort has failed.

The article reports:

A federal judge on Oct. 14 ruled that absentee ballots in the crucial battleground state of North Carolina must include a witness signature.

District Judge William Osteen in Greensboro on Oct. 14 issued an injunction essentially prohibiting voters in the state from be able to “fix” an absentee ballot they had already sent in if it didn’t have a witness signature.

Osteen was reversing a Sept. 22 directive by North Carolina officials that had made it possible for state voters to return an affidavit verifying that the absentee ballot without a witness signature had been signed by them, and not somebody else.

The judge said the September directive conflicts with a ruling he issued in August upholding the overall witness requirement in state law, but requiring that voters be given due process to fix, or cure, minor ballot errors.

…Last week, Osteen raised concerns that eliminating the witness requirement for absentee ballots could open the door to ballot fraud. He suggested that someone could skip having a witness entirely, but then have their vote counted anyway by sending an affidavit to county officials.

“Judge Osteen was right to stop the … elimination of the absentee ballot witness requirement,” Sen. Phil Berger (R-N.C.) said in a statement in response to the ruling.

Republicans are fighting similar legal battles related to mail-in voting across the United States with the goal of preventing voter fraud. Democrats argue that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent and are fighting against various requirements they say make it hard to cast votes by mail. Democrats’ efforts involve at least 600 lawyers, and dwarf those of Republicans.

Absentee and mail-in ballots are the place where there seems to be the most voter fraud. There are also incidents of ballots not being delivered in a timely manner and also occasional instances where ballots are found in trash bins or discarded on the side of the road. This judge has made a decision that will help ensure the integrity of the election.

Please Consider This Before Voting

In the October issue of The AMAC (The Association of Mature American Citizens) Magazine included an article titled, “The Accomplishments of President Donald J. Trump.” The list is too long to include in this article, but I would encourage you to follow the link for the entire list. It is an impressive list.

Here are a few highlights:

Building Economic Prosperity

    • Created an historic economic expansion that benefitted all Americans and will do so again following the interruption caused by coronavirus
    • Passed historic tax cuts, providing much-needed relief for American families and putting American businesses on a level playing field.
    • Created Opportunity Zones to spur investment and job creation in forgotten communities.
    • Restored American manufacturing, putting in place policies to bring supply chains back from overseas.
    • Preserving and Protecting social security for seniors.

Historic Deregulation

    • Cut regulations at a historic pace to free up American businesses— meeting and far exceeding the promise to cut two regulations for every new one.
    • Ended the Obama Administration’s war on coal as promised, rolling back the so-called Clean Power Plan, WOTUS (waters of the United States), stream protection rule, and other overregulations.
    • Replaced the Obama Administration’s disastrous CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and rolled back burden- some Dodd-Frank provisions, as promised.
    • Regulatory relief will save Americans $377 billion per year, or $3100 per households.

Lifting Up American Workers and Families

    • Put in place policies to lift up working families, including releasing the first presidential budget in history to include a national paid family leave plan.
    • Invested in workforce development to ensure American workers are prepared to gain high-paying, family-supporting jobs.
    • Promoted school choice to ensure all families have access to quality education for their children.

Achieving Fair and Balanced Trade

    • Withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership to protect American jobs.
    • Negotiated monumental new or revised deals with Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, and other countries to put American workers first.
    • Confronted China’s decades of trade abuses, placing tariffs of hundreds of billions of dollars on Chinese goods.
    • Put in place tariffs on foreign steel that was undermining critical American industries.

Unleashing American Energy

    • Freed American energy producers to conduct their business, leading to record oil and natural gas production and expanded energy exports.
    • Followed through on his promise to approve new pipelines, including the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.
    • Withdrew from the job-killing Paris Agreement.
    • The typical American family now saves an average of $2500/year on their energy bills.

Protecting Our Nation

    • Rebuilt our military with historic investments in our defense and provided our troops the largest military pay raise in a decade.
    • Defeated ISIS’s territorial caliphate and brought terrorist leaders to justice, including ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
    • Restored American leadership in space and established the Space Force.
    • Took action to ensure America leads the way on the technologies of the future, like AI and 5G.

Restoring American Leadership on the World Stage

    • Ended the disastrous Iran deal and reimposed strong sanctions on the regime.
    • Stood up for our ally Israel and followed through on the pledge to move the American embassy to Jerusalem.
    • Released a vision for peace and prosperity in the Middle East.
    • Successfully urged our NATO allies to increase their defense spending to meet their obligations.
    • Reversed the Obama Administration’s disastrous Cuba appeasement policy.

Even this small portion of the article highlights some awesome achievements. Before you vote, consider the contrast of the impact of eight years of Obama-Biden versus almost four years of President Trump.

Why Are We Still Doing This And What Does It Accomplish?

On October 7th, Newsweek reported the following:

More than 6,000 scientists have signed an anti-lockdown petition saying that coronavirus policies are causing “irreparable damage.”

The petition, which is named the Great Barrington Declaration after the town in Massachusetts it was signed in, was written on October 4 and has signatures from at least 2,826 medical and public health scientists, 3,794 medical practitioners and over 60,000 members of the general public.

It was co-authored by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, a professor at Oxford University; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford University Medical School.

“As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” the petition says in its opening line. “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

…The petition also discusses its approach for vulnerable people, noting that implementing measures to protect this group “should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.”

The petition offers a number of examples of how to protect vulnerable people, such as recommending that nursing homes use staff with acquired immunity and delivering groceries and other essential goods to those who are retired.

“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” the petition says.

It goes on to say that simple hygiene measures, such as handwashing and staying home when sick, can help achieve the goal of herd immunity, while also noting that young adults should work from home and advocating a full reopening of the economy.

Meanwhile, Just the News posted an article today contrasting the current economic conditions between red and blue states.

The article reports:

As Democratic candidates across the nation harp on the economic devastation they attribute to the Trump administration’s mishandled COVID response, a closer look at state by state unemployment data reveals something far different: a tale of two economies on starkly divergent paths out of crushing shutdown economics. In “red” states, economic recovery is in full roar. “Blue” states, meanwhile, lag far behind, still staggering under unemployment levels associated with the deepest recessions. Suspended somewhere between these two poles are politically mixed “purple” states muddling through with fittingly middling unemployment numbers.

Just the News reviewed  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data by state for August (the latest data available).The national unemployment rate — which now stands at 7.9% — was 8.4% in August. However, the economic pain represented by that number was not spread evenly across red, blue and purple states — far from it. Fueled by broader, faster economic reopenings following the initial coronavirus crash, conservative-leaning red states are by and large far outpacing liberal-leaning blue states in terms of putting people back to work.

Just the News found that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are are led by Republican governors (Montana, led by Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock is the lone exception). In startling contrast, 9 of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are led by Democrats (the exception being Massachusetts, led by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, a critic of President Trump).

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. This article illustrates why local elections matter. The states whose voters put Republicans in their state government are doing much better than the states being run by Democrats.

Policies Matter

Sara Carter posted an article today about the impact of President Trump’s policies on illegal border crossings on our southern border.

The article reports:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Wednesday published their Fiscal Year 2020 statistics for Southwest border migration and enforcement, reporting a substantial decrease in encounters with border crossers.

The amount of CBP encounters with those illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border shrunk by 53% in FY 2020. According to the report, CBP encountered 458,088 people illegally crossing the border this past fiscal year, a stark contrast to the 977,509 reported in FY 2019.

…The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the data was clear as day. A steep drop in border apprehensions was reported in April, with only 16,182 apprehended border crossers in comparison to the 30,389 in March. The numbers, however, neared 30,000 by July.

Notably, President Donald Trump on March 21 ordered CBP to prohibit “the entry of certain persons who potentially pose a health risk, either by virtue of being subject to previously announced travel restrictions or because they unlawfully entered the country to bypass health screening measures.”

In terms of demographics, the reports states that “single adult males from Mexico accounted for 56 percent of migrants encountered this year, a significant change from a FY19, when 64 percent of the encounters were individuals from the Northern Triangle countries.”

Not to mention, “single adults accounted for 77 percent of the total encounters this year, compared to 38 percent last year,” according to the report.

As the number of people illegally crossing the border decreases, the amount of illegal drugs coming across the border will also decrease. This is good news for America.

So Why Is This Required?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The article reports:

On Tuesday Tucker Carlson opened his show by questioning the CDC rules and data on mask wearing and the COVID-19.

Earlier this week the CDC confirmed that mask wearing was ineffective and over 50% of US coronavirus cases were patients who were habitual mask wearers.

The article quotes a Breitbart article:

Mass communications are now controlled by a tiny number of people, all of whom have identical agendas. There is no modern Anti-Mask League, there couldn’t be a modern Anti-Mask League. Facebook and Google would shut it down the first day. The governors of Michigan and New Jersey would indict its leaders.

Dissent used to be a defining feature of American life, but no more. Now, we have mandatory consensus. Masks are good. Anyone who questions the utter goodness of masks is bad…

…So what is the science on masks? Well, as it happened, we have the latest for you tonight. And the science comes interestingly from the CDC whose Director has told you that masks were magic, more effective than vaccines.

But the numbers from the CDC suggests otherwise. A new study conducted by 11 medical institutions analyzed a group of people who tested positive for COVID during the month of July. Here’s the interesting part.

Among those who were infected, more than 70% reported they had quote, “always worn a mask” for the preceding 14 days. Another 14.4% said they had quote, “often worn a mask.” In other words, almost everyone, 85% who got the coronavirus in July was wearing a mask and they were infected anyway.

So clearly this doesn’t work the way they tell us it works. Clearly, someone has been lying to us, many people actually. How did this happen? Well, the short answer is we’re not sure how so many people got the coronavirus were wearing masks, but there are clues, clues that our leaders appear to be ignoring.

We are always hearing “Trust the science” from those who want mandatory masks. Well, this is the science. Why are we still wearing masks.

Just for the record, when Tucker Carlson posted the CDC statement that masks were ineffective, Facebook censored his post. At some point you have to wonder why the establishment is so determined to keep us masked.

 

This May Be The Beginning Of Accountability

Just the News is reporting today that Bruce Ohr is retiring

The article reports:

Bruce Ohr, the senior Justice Department official whose conduct in the Russia case spurred significant controversy, has retired after being informed that a decision on disciplinary action was imminent, the department announced Wednesday.

Ohr’s decision will spare him any potential punishment for his role in providing information to the FBI about Christopher Steele’s dossier at the same time his wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for the same firm as Steele — Fusion GPS, run by Glenn Simpson.

Congressional Republicans complained that the connection created a conflict of interest. Ohr said his bosses approved of the arrangement.

The article continues:

The announcement came the same day that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, released slightly less redacted versions of previously released interview reports showing the role Ohr played in connecting Steele, a former British MI6 agent he had befriended, with the FBI.

…”For far too long information regarding the Democrats’ attempt to sabotage the Trump administration has remained hidden from the public,” the senator said. “Today, in an effort to be fully transparent, I am releasing these DOJ and FBI documents I recently received because the American people deserve to know the truth and have a right to see this information.”

To read the documents in question, follow the link to the article above. The link to the documents is at the bottom of the article.

Censorship At Work

Censorship in social media is alive and well. The New York Post is reporting today that White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany has been locked out of her Twitter account for sharing an article in The New York Post that reflected badly on Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The article reports:

“Your account has been locked,” a message from the social media network informed McEnany, whose account has more than 1 million followers.

“We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules,” the network said, highlighting her prior tweet with a link to The Post’s article.

Without providing any evidence, Twitter said McEnany — who shared a screenshot with The Post — violated “our rules against distribution of hacked material.”

McEnany told The Post she will not comply with Twitter’s request that she delete her tweet to restore access to her account.

“This is a story reported by the New York Post and Fox News with the Biden campaign notably not disputing the authenticity of the emails,” McEnany said. “I will not comply with censoring reporting that may not fit the ideology of Silicon Valley. This is abominable and not the American way.”

Twitter on Wednesday blocked users from sharing The Post’s link to the story, which describes an alleged 2015 email from Burisma energy executive Vadym Pozharskyi thanking Hunter Biden for “giving an opportunity to meet your father.”

Joe Biden has claimed numerous times that he never even discussed Hunter’s business dealings with Hunter. The emails say otherwise.

I guess the question is, “Were Facebook and Twitter so reluctant to share information from President Trump’s stolen tax returns?”

Keeping It In The Family

Just the News posted an article today about the person Joe Biden has chosen to advise his campaign on its coronavirus response. Considering the behavior of the Biden family in the past, this choice should not be a surprise.

The article reports:

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son-in-law is advising the Biden campaign on its coronavirus response while his venture capital firm is looking to invest in health-care startups working on the pandemic. 

The Biden relative, Dr. Howard Krein, is part of the investment firm StartUp Health, which in March, when the virus began its rapid spread in the U.S., began an initiative soliciting pitches from entrepreneurs with products that addressed the outbreak, according to Politico

The next month, Krein reportedly participated in daily calls to brief Biden on health policy during the pandemic, while StartUp Health announced its intention to invest $1 million across 10 startups with coronavirus applications within 30 days.

“StartUp Health is putting the full support of its platform and network behind building a post-Covid world that uses technology and entrepreneurial ingenuity to improve health outcomes,” the firm said in an April 15 announcement. “Our goal in the next 30 days is to add 10 more companies to the [initiative]by investing $1M in seed capital and support through our global platform and community.

Krein advising the campaign and trying to invest in a coronavirus response could pose conflict-of-interest concerns if Biden is elected.

During this pandemic, the government has spent a lot of money on medical research and related items. To have a person with a financial interest in these companies as an advisor in this area would seem to be an obvious conflict of interest. However, if you look at the finances and employment of the Biden family members during Joe Biden’s time in office, this fits a pattern.

The Misuse Of The Hearings

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about a statement by Senator Dick Durbin on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

The article reports:

“Take a look at the composition, the Republican composition, on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Durbin said on Sunday:

Let’s start with Texas. Senator Cornyn is in a very tight race for re-election. He’s also in a state where there are 1.7 million people who will lose their health insurance when Amy Coney Barrett votes to eliminate that program, another 12 million who have pre-existing conditions.

Now you just go down the table there. I should have started with the Chairman, Lindsey Graham, in the state of South Carolina. He has 242,000 who will lose their insurance if Amy Coney Barrett eliminates the Affordable Care Act and 2 million who have pre-existing conditions.

Iowa, Joni Ernst, 187,000 will lose their insurance. North Carolina (Sen. Tillis), 500,000 will lose their insurance.

So you want to know the point we’re going to make? We’re making a point that this not only has an impact on the lives of so many innocent Americans, it could impact the members of this committee.

…And what we’re trying to drive home to the American people is this makes a difference in your life as to whether or not you have health insurance, whether or not, with a preexisting condition you can afford health insurance.

And we believe that, once the Republican voters across this country wake up to the reality of the strategy, many of them are going to say to their senators, listen, this is not what we bargained for. We may be conservative, but we’re not crazy. Our family needs health insurance protection,” Durbin said.

I mean, it’s understandable people are skeptical of the Republican message and are fearful of what’s going to happen if this Supreme Court nominee goes through and threatens their very health insurance.

There are a few problems with these statements. First of all, if the Supreme Court is making laws, then the legislative branch has neglected its responsibilities. Secondly, a confirmation hearing is not the appropriate place to grandstand and play politics. Senators have a job to do. They need to do it without a lot of political posturing. Thirdly, the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court justice should not be about specific issues–it needs to be about the qualifications of the nominee.

Just for the record, there is a replacement for ObamaCare. It includes taking care of people with pre-existing conditions.

Just a note about the Affordable Care Act that the Democrats seem so intent on defending. In 2017 Forbes reported:

The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards.

Why in the world would we want to continue that?

 

How Long Can The Media Ignore The Obvious?

Fox News posted an article yesterday about one of the most ironic statements made during this presidential campaign.

The article notes:

“They think- 54 percent of the American people believe they’re better off economically today than they were under our administration? Well, their memory is not very good, quite frankly,” Biden told Inskeep (Cincinnati’s WKRC Local 12 reporter Kyle Inskeep). “And in addition to that, we have a president who doesn’t share the values of most Americans. He’s not very honest with people. He’s flouting the conventions relative to public safety in terms of even now- not wearing a mask, a guy who has been a super spreader. But look, whatever they believe they should go out and vote. People should vote. Period.”

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog noted today:

Yesterday Biden declared yet again that he is a proud Democrat running for the Senate. Joseph Wulfsohn adds that Biden “also appeared to have forgotten Mitt Romney’s name while speaking with reporters about whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s faith should be questioned during her SCOTUS confirmation.” Biden observed: “You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, OK? And I took him on,” Biden said. “No one’s faith should be questioned.”

Remember the Mormon? Much as we would like to forget him, we remember Mitt Romney. Indeed, we do. He joined Senate Democrats to vote for the removal of President Trump from office over a congratulatory phone call to the new president of Ukraine.

Joe Biden seems to be having a problem with mental acuity. This is becoming very obvious and should be addressed by the Democrat party. Keeping him on the campaign trail with the mental difficulties he is obviously having is elder abuse. His family needs to step in and put a stop to it.

The State Of The American Economy

Townhall posted an article today about some of the economic indicators that show that the American economy is rapidly recovering from the self-inflicted recession.

The article reports:

Breaking news: The US economy is roaring! Over the last few months, we have witnessed the sharpest economic snapback in US history. While many are still out of work, the future looks increasingly promising for those seeking employment. One would think that we were still mired in the deepest throes of April’s COVID-19 crisis if you take heed of the media’s narrative in recent weeks. It is clear the Democrats and Joe Biden are making the pandemic their closing argument for the 2020 election. But why? The economy is a losing argument for the Left.

The article cites some of the economic indicators that signal a strong recovery:

The commodity market is a clear window into the cost of goods and the level of demand that exists. As the Coronavirus shut down economies all over the world, global goods demand collapsed. Most notably was the oil market, as energy fuels the economy as a whole. Supply was steady, but a massive collapse in activity that forms demand left producers with a supply glut. The supply/demand gap was so large that oil futures (commodities trade primarily in the futures market) actually went negative, a historic event.

Just 7 months later the market has not only stabilized, but also has rebounded significantly. Oil, itself, is up over 100% from levels seen this Spring. This is a sound indicator of the resumption of robust economic activity. We are now escaping from economic contraction and are closing in on expansion. As consumers travel more and demand comes back for finished goods, the oil market will continue to flourish. This is one of many reasons why the Third Quarter GDP measure, to be released at the end of October only days before the election, will show the most significant rise in US history. The commodities market isn’t limited to oil. There are other very useful economic gauges within the basic goods market.

One of the most important, in terms of assessing global activity, is copper. Copper is a basic material used throughout manufacturing. The copper market collapsed this Spring along with all other raw goods during the crisis. At its low, copper was trading down roughly 35%. As activity has roared back to life, copper has been on an absolute tear. As of this writing, copper is up over 50% above its COVID lows, and is, in fact, higher than the market was trading pre-COVID. That’s a very promising signal emanating from the commodity market.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There is a large body of indicators showing that the economy is on the path to full recovery. The majority of states still closed down are blue states, and the leaders of those states will have to answer to the voters. Meanwhile, the economic policies of the Trump administration are working their magic.

Chris Wallace Must Be Getting Heat For His Debate Performance

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about an interview on ” Fox News Sunday.” Chris Wallace, who hosts the show, was conducting an interview of Democratic Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

The article reports:

Wallace specifically asked Coons to weigh in on the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court, and the Delaware Senator pivoted to argue that the Trump administration’s focus on filling judicial vacancies amounted to court packing.

For once, Chris Wallace got it right. The article notes:

“Let me just say — I’m just going to say, that’s a different issue than packing the court,” Wallace concluded. “If that’s the question, whether or not the court should — the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett, that’s different than changing the number of justices on the court. Senator Coons, I got to leave it there, thank you.”

For the record, packing the court means adding more justices to the Supreme Court in order to impact the balance of liberal and conservative judges. Filling judicial vacancies is one of the responsibilities of the President. Because of the increasing rancor in the Senate, a large number of the nominees of President Obama were not confirmed, and there were a lot of judicial vacancies when President Trump took office. He promptly began to fill these vacancies. Getting judicial nominees passed is much easier when the President and the Senate are held by the same party. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the case (they disliked the idea of political parties), but that is where we are today.

I give credit to Chris Wallace for at least correcting Senator Coons on his talking point.

An Interesting Perspective On American Education

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about education in America. As we are currently seeing our younger generations declare that they prefer socialism over a free market economy, this is a good time to look at education.

The article reports:

We cannot say we were not warned. Decades ago, in an article perhaps long forgotten, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand gave an ominous warning on the state of American education at all levels, especially the ideologies and philosophies that were beginning to become pervasive within its university system.  Whatever one may think of Rand’s novels or personal character, an objective analysis of her work on education specifically displays her thoughts as unquestionably prescient.

If one believes the infestation within universities and public classrooms of Critical Theory and other like minded disciplines is a recent phenomenon, brought to their attention by pushback and defunding from President Trump, one is mistaken.  In her article “Cashing In: The Students Rebellion,” Rand points out that universities in the 1960s began to become training centers for “activists,” much like Marxist in the 1930s, who learned they could utilize legitimate current issues in order to manipulate the masses into cooperation, oblivious to the incoherent, illogical ideologies that compromised professors had effectively forced students to accept (Rand, 9).  These activists would later plant themselves in education, media, and politics, or even serve as muscle on the streets to work toward indoctrinated ideological objectives.

Rand continues to explain why 1960s students chose U.C. Berkeley president Clark Kerr as their target, given his liberal record.  Ironically, Rand notes, “it is clear that the revels chose Kerr as their first target, not in spite of his record, but because of it” (25).  In other words, a person poorly intellectually trained who is only versed in how to “play ball” or “go along to get along” knows how to do only what he himself did in university: avoid conflict and compromise.  With whom?  With anyone who seems to pose a threat or spouts the “correct” platitudes.  Berkeley’s “student rebellion” of 1964 engaged in violation of property and physical assaults, even of police, justifying itself by hiding behind a false mantle of civil rights, smearing opposition as racist, all the while receiving outside money and resources to help achieve its goal: the seizure of power.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The civil disobedience and riots we are currently seeing are not the result of recent events, they are the result of a planned attack on our nation that has been seventy years in the making. Pay attention. Your future, your children’s future, and your grandchildren’s future depends on your actions at this time.

Does Anyone Remember Robert Bork?

On September 29, 2020, The Federalist posted an article remembering some of the activities surrounding the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.

The article reports:

Mary Ellen Bork, the widow to the late federal Judge Robert Bork, wrote a response to an article in the Wall Street Journal reminding readers of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s role in her husband’s failed confirmation to the Supreme Court.

“Most people don’t remember the hearings on Robert Bork for nomination to the Supreme Court, but I do,” she wrote. “The week of hearings in 1987 showed me Joe Biden’s partisanship and pragmatism.”

…The original article in the Wall Street Journal states, “This began the modern era of hyper-politicized judicial nominations, though for the Supreme Court it has largely been a one-way partisan street.”

According to the widow, the “Democrats flagrantly lied about Bob’s record of opinions,” just days after Biden dropped out of the presidential race due to plagiarism.

“In the course of one week Sen. Biden orchestrated a vicious lying assault and was caught passing off someone else’s words as his own,” she said. “Thirty-three years later he is still a man without a compass, guided now by prevailing progressive winds.”

Be prepared for a rerun of the Democrat’s activities surrounding that nomination.

Breitbart is reporting the following today:

Senator Chris Coons (D-DL) said on this week’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday” that Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s positions were “disqualifying” for the post she was seeking.

Coons said, “Well, I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long-settled precedent are not just extreme, they are disqualifying.”

He continued, “She has taught at a well-regarded law school. She clerked for Justice Scalia, but she has views that make her not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. President Trump has said he would only nominate someone who would overturn the Affordable Care Act, taking away health care protection for more than 100 million Americans in the middle of a pandemic. Both President Trump and members of the majority on this committee have said they would only vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.”

I would like to refer back to an article at rightwinggranny posted on September 27.

I stated the following:

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.

This is going to be very ugly, and there will be a lot of lies told by those who oppose this nomination. The lady is extremely qualified and should be confirmed. However, the Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening. That is a shame, but that is where we are.

Since When?

The following exchange took place on October 9th. It is posted at The Epoch Times.

Reporter: “I’ve got to ask you about packing the courts, and I know that you said yesterday you aren’t going to answer the question until after the election. But this is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.”

Biden: “Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don’t want me continuing to talk about what they’re doing to the court right now.”

Reporter: “Well, don’t the voters deserve to know?”

Biden: “No, they don’t.”

Wow.

The article concludes:

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote in a Twitter post on Sept. 19, “If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”

Court packing would mean expanding the number of justices in the Supreme Court, which is currently nine. The term came into use after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed to increase the justices from nine to 15.

Both Biden and his vice-president pick, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), refused to clarify their stance, though they were pressed repeatedly to answer the question.

Biden also refused to release a list of his potential SCOTUS nominees before the election as Trump did in 2016 and before this election.

Biden said on Oct. 8 that he’ll reveal his position on “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court after the election is over.

“You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” Biden told reporters during a campaign event in Phoenix.

Voters need to understand that the Bidien-Harris ticket if elected will not be playing by the same rules Washington has played by for the past two hundred plus years. They are talking about packing the Supreme Court, ending gun rights for Americans, ending the Senate filibuster, and adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states (to give them a permanent majority in the Senate). Just for the record, adding Washington, D.C. as a state requires a constitutional amendment. America as we know it would not survive their election.

Why Not To Elect Joe Biden

Dan Bongino shared an article on his website yesterday that lists 15 reasons not to vote for Joe Biden. Here is the list:

1) Joe Biden is 77 years old, seems to have difficulty working a full day, and has rather famously and significantly deteriorated mentally.

2) Joe Biden has been in politics since 1972. Do you think someone who has been in office that long without accomplishing much is going to sweep in and change everything for the better?

3) Biden has promised to halt all construction on a border wall, cancel the bilateral agreement with Mexico that stops many illegals from making it here, end deportations for anyone other than felons, and push through a massive amnesty for illegal aliens.

4) Joe Biden plans to ban the sale of new AR-15s and then demand that owners of AR-15s sell them to the government or sign up on a gun registry.

5) Biden has publicly said he no longer supports the Hyde Rule, which prevents federal money from being used for abortion.

6) Biden has noted that he is open to locking the country down again over Coronavirus.

7) Biden has said numerous times that he intends to ban fracking.

8) Biden is extremely liberal.

9) Joe Biden, who has a reputation for putting his hands all over women, was credibly accused of sexual assault by his former aide, Tara Reade.

10) Biden publicly admitted that he had advised Obama not to go through with the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

11) Electing Joe Biden after months of rioting by liberals in liberal cities will send a message that Americans are okay with that kind of behavior.

12) Both Biden and his VP, Kamala Harris, refuse to say whether they will attempt to add more justices to the Supreme Court.

13) Joe Biden has signaled that he’s open to getting rid of the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which is extremely dangerous and has the potential to destabilize our Republic.

14) Kamala Harris was arguably the single most liberal member of the Senate and Joe Biden, who seems too feeble to finish his term, made her his vice-presidential running mate.

15) Barack Obama and Joe Biden presided over the slowest post-war economic recovery in American history. Is that the guy you want shepherding the economy after the economic damage caused by Corona and the lockdowns?

Obviously there are more reasons not to elect Joe Biden, but that is one person’s list.