Category Archives: Uncategorized

The ACLU Actually Supports Civil Rights

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, Just the News posted the following:

Last week, attorneys for the ACLU wrote a letter to Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York objecting to the court declining to unseal the search warrant application and related judicial documents filed in connection to the raid of the home of investigative journalist James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas.

In November, federal prosecutors obtained and executed warrants to raid the homes of three Project Veritas journalists, including O’Keefe, and seize their electronic devices. O’Keefe was handcuffed by FBI agents during the search of his home and required to stand in the public hallway of his apartment building dressed in his underwear, according to court documents.

In December, the magistrate judge assisting Torres in the case declined requests to unseal the search warrant materials, arguing the government’s stated interest in protecting both the integrity of an ongoing grand jury investigation into Project Veritas and the privacy of uncharged individuals named in the documents outweighed the public’s interest in accessing the information.

The magistrate judge’s opinion led the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) to file a motion calling on the court to unseal the materials.

The ACLU’s new letter expresses support for the RCFP’s objection, noting that a significant amount of information about the government’s investigation has been made public since the magistrate judge issued her order.

If you remember, the FBI search of the home of James O’Keefe happened about the time it became known that James O’Keefe had been offered a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary (see story here). The raid on James O’keefe at his home appeared to be another example of the federal government attacking someone they perceived as a possible enemy or person who might release negative information about people (or relatives of people) in the Biden administration.

The article at Just the News concludes:

Through the Microsoft search warrants, which were unsealed in March, the government seized nearly 200,000 Project Veritas emails and other files, many of which were unrelated to the Justice Department’s purported reason for initiating the warrants.

The Justice Department has contended there’s probable cause to believe Project Veritas was involved in stealing the diary and transporting it — a claim denied by the sources, who have consistently said it was abandoned at the Florida house, and O’Keefe’s legal team.

Calli (O’Keefe’s attorney, Paul Calli,) has accused the FBI and Justice Department of a witch hunt targeting a media organization openly critical of the Biden administration, arguing the government is violating the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Privacy Protection Act.

“The ACLU has taken a righteous and principled stance regarding the government’s desecration of the First Amendment,” Calli told Just the News. “Project Veritas is grateful for the support of the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

Calli added, “Sadly, partisan political activists like those at the New York Times, and others in the for-profit, credentialed, cloistered, legacy media, as well as blogs like the Columbia Journalism Review, have not woken to the threat to all journalists.”

Calli has previously told Just the News that the government doesn’t want to unseal the search warrant materials for Project Veritas because federal prosecutors and FBI agents lied and misled in them to obtain warrants from judges.

The Justice Department declined to comment for this story.

The politicization of the Justice Department in America will eventually become a problem for both political parties. It is good to see the ACLU getting involved in this case.

What Is The Real Result Of The Covid Vaccine?

Posted on by
Reply

On May 3 (updated May 22), The Epoch Times posted an article about the COVID-19 vaccine.

The article reports:

  • According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19. Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time
  • Across the world, death rates have also risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths
  • According to Walgreens data, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated persons tested positive for COVID. Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID
  • U.K. government data show the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first COVID shot 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates
  • Other data also show that COVID mortality rates are far higher in areas with high vaccination rates, and risk-benefit analyses reveal the jabs do more harm than good in most age groups

This is frightening. These statistics should be enough to stop the administering of the COVID-19 vaccine immediately.

The article notes:

Ever since the announcement that the COVID “vaccines” would be using novel mRNA gene transfer technology, I and many others have warned that this appears to be a very bad idea.

Numerous potential mechanisms for harm have been identified and detailed in previous articles, and we’re now seeing some of our worst fears come to bear. “Fully vaccinated” individuals are both more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to die, whether from COVID or some other cause.

As reported by investigative journalist Jeffrey Jaxen in the April 22, 2022, Highwire video above, data from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker[6] reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed. What’s more, people who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot below, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated tested positive for COVID (with Omicron being the predominant variant). (The data reviewed by Jaxen are from the week of April 10 through 16.)

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

The article concludes:

While we may indeed need better pharmacovigilance, there’s really no doubt at this point that the COVID jabs are ill-advised for most people. I believe that in the years to come, people will look back at this time and vow to never repeat it. In the meantime, all we can do is look at and assess the data we do have, and make decisions accordingly.

If you have not already gotten your COVID shot, please don’t.

Who Was There?

Posted on by
Reply

The World Economic Forum is the group many people believe is planning “The Great Reset,” which will lead us into one-world government. Unfortunately, many Americans  have been drawn into this circle of influence.

A website called usasupreme posted a list of the Americans who recently attended The World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Here is the list:

American Attendees of the World Economic Forum 2022:

Gina Raimondo Secretary of Commerce of USA
John F. Kerry Special Presidential Envoy for Climate of the United States of America
Bill Keating Congressman from Massachusetts (D)
Daniel Meuser Congressman from Pennsylvania (R)
Madeleine Dean Congresswoman from Pennsylvania (D)
Ted Lieu Congressman from California (D)
Ann Wagner Congresswoman from Missouri (R)
Christopher A. Coons Senator from Delaware (D)
Darrell Issa Congressman from California (R)
Dean Phillips Congressman from Minnesota (D)
Debra Fischer Senator from Nebraska (R)
Eric Holcomb Governor of Indiana (R)
Gregory W. Meeks Congressman from New York (D)
John W. Hickenlooper Senator from Colorado (D)
Larry Hogan Governor of Maryland (R)
Michael McCaul Congressman from Texas (R)
Pat Toomey Senator from Pennsylvania (R)
Patrick J. Leahy Senator from Vermont (D)
Robert Menendez Senator from New Jersey (D)
Roger F. Wicker Senator from Mississippi (R)
Seth Moulton Congressman from Massachusetts (D)
Sheldon Whitehouse Senator from Rhode Island (D)
Ted Deutch Congressman from Florida (D)
Francis Suarez Mayor of Miami (R)
Al Gore Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001) (D)

The article concludes:

“The Annual Meeting 2022 will embody the World Economic Forum’s philosophy of collaborative, multistakeholder impact, providing a unique collaborative environment in which to reconnect, share insights, gain fresh perspectives, and build problem-solving communities and initiatives,” explains the group, whose efforts to exploit COVID-19 for its “Great Reset” has come under intense scrutiny.

It would probably be a good idea to keep an eye on the political careers of these people in the future.

One Consequence Of An Open Border

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article about the increase in drug overdoses in America and the relationship between that increase and our open southern border.

The article reports:

The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the Commission on Combatting Synthetic Opioid Trafficking.

Cumulatively, since 1999, drug overdoses have killed approximately 1 million Americans. That number exceeds the number of U.S. service members who have died in battle in all wars fought by the United States. Even worse is that the United States has never experienced the level of drug overdose fatalities seen right now.

In just the 12 months between June 2020 and May 2021, more than 100,000 Americans died from drug overdose—more than twice the number of U.S. traffic fatalities or gun-violence deaths during that period. Some two-thirds of these deaths—about 170 fatalities each day, primarily among those ages 18 to 45—involved synthetic opioids.

The primary driver of the opioid epidemic today is illicit fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times more potent than heroin.

In 2018, according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the cost of overdose fatalities was $696 billion, despite being roughly two-thirds of annual overdose deaths today. It is therefore reasonable to estimate that drug overdoses are now costing the United States approximately $1 trillion annually.

Given these fatalities, the Commission finds the trafficking of synthetic drugs into the United States to be not just a public health emergency but a national emergency that threatens both the national security and economic well-being of the country.

The article continues:

In less than a decade, illegal U.S. drug markets that were once dominated by diverted prescription opioids and heroin became saturated with illegally manufactured synthetic opioids. Some of these synthetic variants are cheaper and easier to produce than heroin making them attractive alternatives to criminals who lace them into heroin and other illicit drugs or press them into often-deadly counterfeit pills.

Mexico is the principal source of this illicit fentanyl and its analogues today. In Mexico, cartels manufacture these poisons in clandestine laboratories with ingredients—precursor chemicals—sourced largely from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Because illicit fentanyl is so powerful and such a small amount goes such a long way, traffickers conceal hard-to-detect quantities in packages, in vehicles, and on persons and smuggle the drug across the U.S.–Mexico border.

It is difficult to interdict given that just a small physical amount of this potent drug is enough to satisfy U.S. demand, making it highly profitable for traffickers and dealers.

Indeed, the trafficking of synthetic opioids offers a more profitable alternative to heroin for Mexican drug traffickers. The Mexican government, in part out of self-preservation and in part because the trafficking problem transcends current law enforcement capacity, recently adopted a “hugs, not bullets” approach to managing the transnational criminal groups. However, such approaches have not been able to address trafficking issues, and further efforts will be needed.

The article concludes:

U.S. and Mexican efforts can disrupt the flow of synthetic opioids across U.S. borders, but real progress can come only by pairing illicit synthetic opioid supply disruption with decreasing the domestic U.S. demand for these drugs.

Congress established the Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking to examine the causes of the influx of synthetic opioids, to understand how to reduce the trafficking of these drugs, and to identify solutions to mitigate a worsening overdose death crisis.

The magnitude of this fast-moving problem and the unique challenges it presents will require a new and different national response across all levels of government and policy domains.

Read or download the entire commission report here.

In a sense, the drug problem has something in common with the current debate over abortion. Until we have a cultural change that makes marijuana (a gateway drug) use socially unacceptable, we will not be able to solve the drug crisis. Until we make abortion socially unacceptable, overturning Roe vs. Wade will only be a small step forward. Peer pressure is real, and it has a lot to do with the drug problem in America. As long as teenagers and young adults believe it is cool to smoke marijuana, a percentage of those teenagers and young adults will go on to more dangerous drugs. In the past thirty years, we have seen the cultural change in the area of cigarette smoking. Smoking in a restaurant thirty years ago was acceptable, now it simply does not happen. We need to make similar changes in the areas of drug use and abortion.

It’s Long Past Time To Reconsider Our Relationship With China

Posted on by
Reply

The Daily Wire recently posted an article about organ donations in China.

The article reports:

Dr. Enver Tohti, a former physician in China, remembers the day with horror. The whistleblower said his chief surgeon approached him and asked, “Do you want to do something wild?” The surgeon then took Dr. Tohti and other medical professionals to the site of a public execution, pointed to one of the criminals, and told him, “As quick as possible, remove the liver and two kidneys.” 

“Then, I saw he was alive,” Dr. Tohti, who is now an Uber driver in London, recently told Vice TV. 

Stories of China harvesting organs from live “donors” have proliferated for decades, but a new and credible scholarly article has exposed concrete evidence that China has engaged in the gruesome practice. Researchers Matthew P. Robertson of Australia and Jacob Lavee of Israel combed through 2,838 papers on Chinese organ transplantation published in medical journals, covering prisoner organ donations between 1980 and 2015. They published their findings on April 4 in an article titled “Execution by organ procurement: Breaching the dead donor rule in China,” in the American Journal of Transplantation, a peer-reviewed journal.

The article continues:

Robertson told me it is important that the media not misreport their data about live organ transplants. “It’s not that there were only 71 of this sort,” he said. “It’s 71 that we found.” 

He and his co-author are almost certainly undercounting the incidences when CCP officials killed prisoners by removing their beating hearts, because they counted only those officially documented in medical journals. “We don’t know how many transplants actually end up in a medical paper,” said Robertson. “It could be one in 100; it could be one in 1,000; it could be 1 in 10.” 

Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but estimates abound — and none of the numbers add up. In 2019, the China Tribunal found that Chinese physicians likely performed 60,000 to 90,000 organ transplants a year from 2000 to 2014, but the number of eligible organ donors registered in 2017 numbered only 5,146. Another estimate places the number of organs taken from Falun Gong practitioners at 41,500 over a five-year period. For his part, Robertson said once Chinese Communist Party officials perfected the process, they employed this form of organ removal “probably with all heart transplants” in the nation.

The article concludes:

These allegations also illustrate the legacy media’s perpetually favorable coverage of the People’s Republic of China. “China used to harvest organs from prisoners. Under pressure, that practice is finally ending,” The Washington Post told its readers in 2017. “China vows to battle corruption in organ harvesting,” reported the Associated Press a year earlier. But human rights attorney Hamid Sabi told the UN Human Rights Council in 2019 that forced organ harvesting in China “continues today.” 

Such silence makes it all the more important for Western media outlets to cover these atrocities. “China and their advocates will do everything they can to belittle or discredit” such findings, said Andrew Bremberg, a former ambassador and now CEO of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. “And all too often, people in the U.S. and the West will do their best to ignore” them. 

But in order for such human rights abuses to end, the West must act. Thanks to Robertson and Lavee’s research, some of the doctors who took part in China’s forced organ harvesting are now known, Bremberg said. “But we don’t know all of their relationships with U.S. or other Western-based hospitals or universities, or whether they collaborate or publish with other Western academics.”

A bipartisan collection of legislators — Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), and Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) — introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act last March. The bill would allow U.S. officials to identify and sanction those involved in organ harvesting, including revoking their passports. 

“It’s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts,” said Sen. Cotton.

This is not an acceptable practice and needs to be addressed. No country engaged in the practice of live organ harvesting should be allowed to trade on any world markets. The only way to end this ghoulish practice is to hit China in the pocketbook.

The Fix Is In

Posted on by
Reply

Many Americans are hopefully watching the trial of Michael Sussmann for indications that our justice system’s principle of all men are equal under the law still applies. Well, don’t get your hopes up too high. If you are following the case, you realize that the prosecution is very carefully laying out the case that the bad people in the Clinton campaign fooled the Justice Department into going along with the Russia hoax. There is no suggestion that the Justice Department was part of the plan. That is the first indication that this trial is a show put on to appease those in America who actually want to see people held responsible for ignoring the civil liberties of their political opponents and lying to the media and the American public. There are also some other indications that the truth is not actually welcome in this trial.

On Friday, Fox News posted the following quote from Jonathan Turley:

JONATHAN TURLEY: Durham faces a lot of challenges in this trial. The judge in the trial has hit the prosecution with limiting orders. This jury pool is a nightmare for the prosecutors. There are three Clinton donors on the jury. In the last 24 hours, the judge turned down a motion to dismiss a juror whose daughter is actually playing on the same team with the daughter of Sussmann. So I think for the prosecutors, it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton. A jury of your peers is not supposed to mean other Clinton people. And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.

If I am ever charged with a crime, can I get a jury of my friends? How likely is that?

An Honest Mistake?

Posted on by

On Thursday, Hot Air posted an article about the 2020 census and some of the mistakes made.

The article includes the following map:

I realize the map is a little difficult to read, but the purple states were under-counted and the green states were over-counted.

The article notes:

So, the bottom line is that it’s too late now for any of this to matter. Still, it’s hard not to notice the pattern. Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida and Texas are all red states. Here’s the breakdown of who these states send to the House of Representatives:

    • Arkansas – 4 Republicans
    • Florida – 16 Republicans, 11 Democrats
    • Mississippi – 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat
    • Tennessee – 7 Republicans, 2 Democrats
    • Texas – 23 Republicans, 13 Democrats (though one, Filemon Vela, resigned in March)

These are the numbers:

I am reaching the end of my ability to believe in amazing coincidences.

Have The People In Congress Read The Constitution?

Posted on by

On Thursday, Politico posted Huddle, which the site describes as “A play-by-play preview of the day’s congressional news.” Included in Huddle, about half-way down is the following:

FIRST IN HUDDLE: BOOKER INTRODUCES GUN LEGISLATION— Democrats have not leaned into gun control measures in the wake of the racist shooter’s deadly attack in Buffalo over the weekend, but Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is taking on the issue despite long legislative odds. Booker, along with Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is introducing legislation today that would require people trying to get a firearm to get a license from the Department of Justice before they can buy or receive a gun. The DOJ license would require both a written firearm safety test and hands-on training, a criminal background check and submission of fingerprints and proof of identity. The license would only be available to people over 21 years of age, essentially raising the age of gun ownership to 21. “This is the moment to enact ambitious legislation – as a nation, we must rise to it, or we are fated to witness the deadly scenes of this past weekend and years past over again,” Booker said in a statement. Read the bill text.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a leading advocate for gun safety legislation shares Booker’s sense of urgency and told The New York Times’ Annie Karni that even if legislation cannot clear Congress, Democrats need to talk more about guns, especially with voters. Congress Is Paralyzed on Guns. Here’s Why Chris Murphy Is Still Hopeful.

Below is an excerpt from the bill:

 

The license is good for five years.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This proposed law violates both of these amendments. Has Cory Booker read the U.S. Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold?

This Might Be Good News For Republicans

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Western Journal posted an article about voter turnout in the recent primary elections.

The article reports:

McDaniel (Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel) told Fox News on Wednesday that she believes it bodes well for the general election in November, but she cautioned GOP supporters not to become complacent.

She pointed first to Tuesday’s elections in Pennsylvania.

“The thing that we’re taking away from last night is, first of all, Republicans outpaced Democrat turnout by 100,000 votes. That’s the first time we’ve ever beaten the Democrats in 10 years in this type of primary situation,” McDaniel said.

Republican voters cast over 1.3 million ballots to Democrats’ slightly less than 1.2 million.

That would be very good news for the Republicans in the mid-term elections assuming that the mid-terms would be an honest election.

The article concludes:

“We know that inflation is hurting average Americans. We know that gas prices are hurting people. We know that there is a baby formula shortage that this administration is not addressing,” McDaniel added.

“It seems that every time a crisis comes up, they’re ill-prepared, and that’s why we’re seeing voters look at Republicans and say, ‘Maybe we need to switch leadership in Washington and put Republicans in charge of the Senate and the House in the midterm elections,’” she said.

The GOP leader is cautious about predicting a red wave in the fall, pointing out that Republicans only need a net gain of five seats in the House to take back that chamber and just one to retake the Senate.

“I don’t want anyone to get complacent,” McDaniel said. “We all need to work hard for every single victory.”

We need a conservative takeover of Congress (whichever party those conservatives belong to) to put an end to the destructive policies of the Biden administration. It’s time to become energy independent again. It’s time to control spending, and it’s time to remove (again) the regulations that make it nearly impossible for businesses to operate easily in America.

Refusing To Learn The Lessons Of History

Posted on by

Our Founding Fathers were not fans of nation-building. They felt that nations had to struggle to find freedom for themselves in order to be strengthened enough to hold on to that freedom. That idea is similar to the concept of not helping a baby chick peck its way out of the shell. The pecking is what builds the strength for the survival of the baby chick. Fighting for freedom is what causes a nation to cherish that freedom. Unfortunately our current politicians have forgotten that particular history. We are currently pouring money into Ukraine as if we actually have the money (rather than borrowing it from China). We are considerable weakening the American economy in an attempt to shore up another country. There is also some question as to why our Congress is so interested in funneling money into Ukraine. It would be very interesting to see which Congressmen have large investments in Ukraine and how much those investments are currently worth and would be worth if Ukraine falls to Russia.

On Thursday, Fox News reported that the Senate had passed a bill to send $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine.

The article reports:

Despite some GOP opposition, the bill passed by a final tally of 86-11, with the support of leadership from both parties and a significant majority of Republican senators. It will now go to President Biden’s desk. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., led the opposition to the bill, demanding an inspector general be appointed to oversee the spending. The U.S. total financial commitment to the Russian war on Ukraine will now total nearly $54 billion. 

The article concludes:

“Those senators who voted to gift $40 billion to Ukraine argue that it is in our national security interest,” Paul said on the Senate floor after the vote. “I wonder if Americans across our country would agree if they had been shown the costs, if they had been asked to pay for it.”

Paul added: “By my calculation, each income taxpayer in our country would need to pay $500 to support this $40 billion, which by some accounts is a down payment and will need to be replenished in about four months.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are railing against Republicans for the fact they delayed the Ukraine funding bill by a full week. “Senator Paul’s obstruction of Ukraine funding is totally unacceptable, and only serves to strengthen Putin’s hand in the long run,” Schumer said this week.

It’s time to elect people to Congress who will treat the American taxpayer’s money with respect. The current spending level is totally unacceptable.

Popularity On Twitter

Posted on by

Popularity on social media is a bit questionable at best. It’s like sitting at an imaginary ‘cool kids’ table in high school–and I do mean imaginary. However, there are those who use the number of followers on Twitter as a gauge of something. What, I don’t know, but something. At any rate, the question is, “How many people on Twitter are actually real people?”

Breitbart posted an article on Wednesday reporting that nearly half of President Joe Biden’s 22.3 million Twitter followers are fake accounts. One wonders who set up these fake accounts and why they were set up.

The article reports:

Software company SparkToro found that 49.3 percent of accounts following the official @POTUS Twitter account are “fake followers” or inauthentic accounts known as bots, according to a report by Newsweek.

The same analysis reportedly also found that more than 14 million accounts that follow Biden’s personal @JoeBiden Twitter account are either fake or insufficiently active. Therefore, a crackdown on fake Twitter accounts could see users like Biden lose a huge number of followers.

SparkToro reportedly defines fake followers as “accounts that are unreachable and will not see the account’s tweets (either because they’re spam, bots, propaganda, etc. or because they’re no longer active on Twitter).”

The news of Biden’s fake Twitter followers comes after Tesla founder Elon Musk, who is currently trying to buy Twitter, expressed concerns about the number of bots on the social media platform.

Musk has since announced that his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter cannot move forward until the number of bot accounts on the platform is independently confirmed.

The SpaceX CEO tweeted that his offer was based on “Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate,” and he believes bots could account for 20 percent of the platform “or *much* higher.”

All of this has come to light because of Elon Musk’s plan to purchase Twitter. The article at Breitbart notes that uncovering these numbers may actually be part of Elon Musk’s negotiation process to acquire Twitter. Knowing that Elon Musk is a successful businessman who knows how to negotiate, that is entirely possible.

The Wrong Answer

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that the Biden administration is preparing to ease sanctions on Venezuelan oil imports into America.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is expected to soon announce it would ease sanctions on Venezuelan oil amid the ongoing energy crisis, several media outlets reported.

The federal government will ease “some” of the energy sanctions on Venezuela, two senior administration officials told CNN. In addition, U.S. oil corporation Chevron will be allowed to enter into negotiations with Venezuelan state-owned firm PDVSA over potential continued operations in the South American oil-rich nation.

The article concludes:

“Our experience buying Russian energy should have taught President Biden that buying energy from tyrants is a dangerous proposition,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso said in a statement.

“Yet President Biden continues to reward our enemies by waiving sanctions while his administration does its best to kill American energy production. Funding despots isn’t in the national interest. Supporting American energy is,” he continued.

Venezuela consistently ranks as one of the least “free” countries in the world, according to Freedom House.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has increasingly moved to restrict further domestic oil and gas production. The Department of the Interior canceled the three remaining federal offshore oil and gas lease sales last week and dramatically scaled back the federal onshore program in April.

The average price of gasoline reached an all-time record $4.52 a gallon on Tuesday, according to AAA data.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Biden administration is under tremendous pressure from the environmental extremists to end America’s use of fossil fuel. What the environmentalists don’t realize is that America is one of the most environmentally safe countries in the world in its extraction of fossil fuel. Getting fuel from Venezuela is not only foolish because it strengthens a tyrant, but because it is not as environmentally friendly as drilling practices in America. This move by the Biden administration is another step in the wrong direction.

Sometimes ‘The Spin’ Is Very Entertaining

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line Blog about a breaking news story being reported by The Washington Post.

Steven Hayward reports:

Today is offering a surfeit of feel-good news, but this one came in too late for the pervious post. The Washington Post is just up with the breaking story that the Biden Administration has decided to “pause” (but almost certainly shut down) the mis-named “Disinformation Governance Board”:

Just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being “paused,” according to multiple employees at DHS, capping a back-and-forth week of decisions that changed during the course of reporting of this story. On Monday, DHS decided to shut down the board, according to multiple people with knowledge of the situation. By Tuesday morning, Jankowicz had drafted a resignation letter in response to the board’s dissolution.

But Tuesday night, Jankowicz was pulled into an urgent call with DHS officials who gave her the choice to stay on, even as the department’s work was put on hold because of the backlash it faced, according to multiple people with knowledge of the call. Working groups within DHS focused on mis-, dis- and mal-information have been suspended. The board could still be shut down pending a review from the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Jankowicz is evaluating her position within the department.

This is The Washington Post headline at the time of this article:

I hadn’t realized that free speech was such a partisan issue. I do notice that the headline is a little vague about where the disinformation is coming from–do they mean the White House is going to stop releasing disinformation?

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

And “experts”—the mainstream media’s favorite sources for their ventriloquist journalism—show up for duty:

Experts say that right-wing disinformation and smear campaigns regularly follow the same playbook and that it’s crucial that the public and leaders of institutions, especially in the government, the media and educational bodies, understand more fully how these cycles operate.

There is absolutely nothing I can add to that statement.

Something To Keep In Mind

Posted on by

It is becoming obvious that someone will be thrown to the lions in the John Durham investigation. It will probably be someone (or someones) associated with the Clinton campaign. It may even include a Clinton (but I doubt it). The mob (many Americans) are demanding accountability, and some accountability will be provided. However, the root of the problem will never be dealt with.

The following is an excerpt from an article posted in The Conservative Treehouse on May 17:

As noted by Charlie Savage, prosecutor Deborah Shaw, a member of the Durham team, delivered the opening remarks to frame the government position in the case.

The telling remarks came early: “Shaw addresses “the elephant in the room” – tells jury their feelings about Russia, Trump, Clinton can’t play a role in the case. This is about “our FBI” which should not be used as a tool by anyone, Republicans or Democrats.”  In essence, prosecutor Shaw is telling the jury the FBI were duped into the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation by outsiders connected to the Clinton campaign.

That’s a critical baseline from the government we must understand and accept.  That baseline now indicates that none of the DOJ and FBI operatives involved in the fraudulent scheme will be held accountable by the Durham team.  “Our FBI should not be used as a tool by anyone,” yet they were, so sayeth the United States Government.

There you have it folks.  For those who tried to avoid the uncomfortable reality of the situation. The Durham prosecution has set down the cornerstone establishing the DOJ/FBI was used and tricked.

The prosecution cannot later turn toward DOJ and FBI officials who were victimized by the Clinton outside group, reverse the predicate motive of the prior trial, and then hold the DOJ and FBI legally accountable.

That’s that.

The Durham accountability focus is now narrowed to the Clinton team, starting with Michael Sussmann.

This outcome was always visible when we accept the totality of the Robert Mueller probe as an overlay into this entire scenario.  Put into a question I have asked for two years:

How could John Durham hold DOJ and FBI officials accountable for participating in the Trump-Russia fraud, when those same DOJ and FBI officials were part of the Robert Mueller cover-up operation? 

Answer, they can’t.   If Durham were to connect the conspiracy of the outside government and inside government collusion, he would be penetrating an impregnable firewall that would take down multiple DC government institutions simultaneously.

Durham is being permitted to give the illusion of accountability, but he was not authorized or permitted to expose the Dept of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or any other institution.

The vehicles of our justice institutions are rusted and broken.

Bill Barr was the Bondo application.  John Durham is the spray paint.

The article includes the following Tweet:

That’s where we are, folks. Until we pay closer attention to primary elections and un-elect the Washington swamp creatures, things will not change.

 

Prepare For Gas Lines

Posted on by

In the 1970’s we had gas lines. Part of the problem was our reliance on oil from the Middle East and part of the problem was the government’s efforts to keep the cost of gasoline down. Those efforts together created the perfect storm. To put things in perspective, in 1969 a gallon of gas cost $.35 or $2.75 in today’s dollars (according to dollartimes.com). In 1978, a gallon of gas cost $.65 a gallon or $2.99 inflation adjusted (according to CNBC). By 1981, the cost was $1.35 a gallon or $4.46 inflation adjusted (CNBC). With the exception of 2011-2014, gasoline has generally stayed between $2 and $3 a gallon. Right now the price is over $4 a gallon, and obviously that impacts everything Americans buy. The Biden administration desperately wants to lower the price of gasoline before the mid-terms. However, there is some disagreement as to how to do that. The easiest way would be to open up drilling in America and bring back our energy independence, but considering who the Biden administration is beholden to, that is highly unlikely. So we are left with more risky solutions.

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about one suggested solution.

The article reports:

Several economists slammed a Democratic proposal making its way through Congress that would enable energy price controls amid record high fuel costs.

Such a policy, which prohibits private companies from increasing prices regardless of market conditions, would have catastrophic consequences including energy supply shortages and increased inflation, the economists argued in a series of interviews with The Daily Caller News Foundation. Democrats have alleged in recent weeks that inflation is being driven by corporate price gouging and that Big Oil is using the Ukraine crisis as cover to raise prices and boost profits.

Oil is a commodity. It is subject to supply and demand. When America drastically decreased the amount of oil it was producing (under the Biden administration) and the amount of fossil fuel it was exporting, the supply shrank and the cost went up. The war in Ukraine did not help, but the problem was there before the war.

The article continues:

“I just can’t believe they’re dumb enough to do this,” Benjamin Zycher, an economist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told TheDCNF in an interview.

“If prices are controlled at below-market clearing levels, then you get shortages because the quantity demanded is greater than the quantity supplied at the legal maximum price,” he continued. “And that’s why you get gasoline lines and allocation controls.”

The House Rules Committee announced that it would review the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act — a bill that enables the president to issue an emergency declaration banning energy prices issued in an “excessive or exploitative manner,” according to its sponsors — on Monday before reporting it to the floor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who told reporters last week that oil and gas companies were exploiting consumers, promised that there would be a floor vote on the legislation this week.

The article concludes:

Economists, meanwhile, have also rebuked the argument that oil companies are price gouging amid the Ukraine crisis.

“[Retail gas stations] don’t necessarily drop their price as rapidly as what wholesale prices and oil prices are doing,” Garrett Golding, a business economist tasked with analyzing energy markets at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, told TheDCNF in an interview. “Some people want to call that price gouging because it’s not in lockstep with where wholesale prices are. But the fact of the matter is, what they’re doing is making back the money that they were losing on the way up and that’s how they stay in business.”

Golding and fellow Dallas Fed economist Lutz Kilian published a May 10 paper laying out why gasoline prices haven’t risen and fallen in lockstep with oil prices over the last few months. They said pump prices are also affected by operating expenses such as rent, delivery charges and credit card fees, and that prices are set by retail gas stations, not oil drillers.

Democratic Reps. Kim Schrier and Katie Porter, the sponsors of the Sponsors of the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, and Pelosi didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from TheDCNF.

Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced similar legislation Thursday that would implement a federal ban on “unconscionably excessive price increases.” House Democrats, led by Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, unveiled a companion to Warren’s legislation.

Democrats are not likely to let facts get in the way of increasing federal control over our lives.

Allowing Ordinary Citizens To Run For Office

Posted on by

On Monday, The Patriot Journal posted an article about a recent Supreme Court decision that will make it easier for the average American to run for political office.

The article reports:

All of America is waiting for the Supreme Court to release a number of ground-breaking rulings. Last week, the court revealed it was set to release “one or more” rulings today.

It seems they are holding off that one ruling and addressing other important cases. One of them came from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who was challenging a campaign finance law.

Cruz claimed the law was wrongfully punishing him. And the court, in a 6-3 ruling, backed the senator.

The ruling involved how much money a candidate could raise to pay off their personal debts after an election. In other words, if a candidate funded his own campaign, he could only pay himself back $250,000. Like it or not, in today’s elections, that is chump change. The Supreme Court agreed with Senator Cruz that the cap on how much a candidate could pay himself back was a limitation on free speech. The ruling was 6-3. The Supreme Court’s three liberal judges voted against removing the limit. A vote against removing the limit is a vote to keep the incumbents in power in Washington by making it more difficult for political outsiders to run for office.

The article concludes:

Although this might not seem relevant to us peons who don’t have nearly $250,000 to our names, this benefits anyone who wants to run for public office.

This ruling means someone can donate their own money to their campaign, without fear that they’ll go bankrupt. Because, after an election, they can use campaign funds to pay themselves back.

This ruling can help folks who want to run for public office but had previously avoided out of concerns for their livelihood.

Does The Vaccine Actually Work?

Posted on by

On Monday, The Epoch Times posted an article about a recent study of the effectiveness of the Pfizer–BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine against the Omicron coronavirus variant.

The article reports:

The protection afforded against the Omicron coronavirus variant fades quickly after a second and third dose of Pfizer–BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to a peer-reviewed study published in the JAMA Network.

A Danish study published in the JAMA Network on May 13 found that there was a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibodies only a few weeks after the administration of the second and third doses of the vaccine.

The study evaluated 128 adults who were vaccinated, and of that number, 73 people received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 55 people received three doses between January 2021 and October 2021 or were previously infected before February 2021, and then vaccinated.

“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses,” an abstract of the study reads. “The observed decrease in population neutralizing antibody titers corresponds to the decrease in vaccine efficacy against polymerase chain reaction–confirmed Omicron infection in Denmark and symptomatic Omicron infection in the United Kingdom.”

The antibody levels, which are associated with protection against future infections, dropped within a few weeks of getting the vaccine doses. They were also much lower than the antibodies specific to the Delta and original COVID-19 strains, according to the study.

The article concludes:

Those antibodies (Omicron-specific antibodies) increased with a third dose, increasing 21-fold three weeks after the dose before dropping to eightfold at week four. But with the third dose, antibody levels dropped as early as three weeks, falling 5.4-fold between the third and eighth week, the researchers said.

They concluded that it may be needed to provide additional booster doses to combat the Omicron variant, which emerged last fall, primarily among older individuals.

However, a study from Israeli researchers published in early April in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a fourth dose, or a second booster, of the Pfizer vaccine, doesn’t offer strong protection.

“Overall, these analyses provided evidence for the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose against severe illness caused by the omicron variant, as compared with a third dose administered more than 4 months earlier,” the study’s authors wrote at the time, after analyzing data from the Israeli Ministry of Health. “For confirmed infection, a fourth dose appeared to provide only short-term protection and a modest absolute benefit.”

I really think that the only real protection against Covid is actually getting Covid. I realize that the disease can be dangerous for some people, but what good does continually giving shots to people only to receive a short-term benefit do? We have reached the point where most Covid cases are similar to the common cold. Finding a vaccine that will work against all of the variations of Covid is about as likely as finding a vaccine for the common cold. I think it’s time to accept the fact that Covid is now with us forever and simply learn to deal with it without creating a population of pin cushions.

 

A Different Take On Electric Cars

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Western Journal posted an article about some recent changes in electric cars to increase their range.

The article reports:

(Here at The Western Journal, we’re making sure consumers know that electric cars don’t just run on rainbows and dreams; there are serious environmental tradeoffs politicians and environmentalists haven’t fully publicized, or even considered, as they push these vehicles relentlessly on American car-buyers. We’ll keep bringing America the truth the establishment media won’t. You can help us by subscribing.)

According to a piece published Monday by the EV-centric outlet Green Car Reports, a British-based independent emissions testing firm found that particulate matter emissions from tires are 1,850 times greater under normal driving conditions than from a tailpipe of a gas-powered car.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, particulate emissions are “microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems.” It notes the particles “are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”

The EPA defines particle pollution as “inhalable particles,” which are under 10 microns in diameter, and “fine inhalable particles,” 2.5 microns and smaller.

The firm that conducted the study, Emissions Analytics, had previously found in 2020 that particulate emissions from tires could be 1,000 times greater than those from tailpipes. That test was designed to capture worst-case emissions under legal driving, according to the report. But when researchers replicated the test “across a wider range of driving conditions,” they found the number was even higher.

As the cars are becoming more efficient and larger batteries added however, the tire emissions increase.

The article notes:

Furthermore, they found that adding half a metric ton (1,100 pounds) “of battery weight can result in tire emissions that are almost 400 more times greater than real-world tailpipe emissions, everything else being equal.”

The article concludes:

And then there’s the environmental damage caused by mining the minerals needed to build EV components. Or the fact that China controls most of the supply-chain access to said minerals. Or that EVs are considerably more expensive than gas-powered vehicles.

Pick your poison. Heaven knows there are plenty of them. We’ve found a new one in electric vehicles. It’s time the progressive left at least admits the truth: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

We are in search of the perpetual motion machine. At some point we may actually come close, but the laws of physics are definitely working against us.

A Different Definition Of Uniting America

Posted on by

Breitbart reported today on President Biden’s remarks about the tragic shooting in Buffalo on Saturday. His remarks were not unifying–they were divisive. They were a further indication of the Democrat’s efforts to paint all Republicans or Trump supporters as white supremacists before the mid-term election. That kind of name calling does not bring healing or comfort–it simply creates division.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden connected the racist mass shooting in Buffalo on Saturday to the protests of Trump supporters on January 6.

The president cited January 6th riots after calling all Americans to “reject white supremacy” because they were making the country look bad.

In an article posted today at Issues & Insights, the author notes:

Of course, the media aren’t always so exploitative in the wake of mass shootings. Often, they are very careful to wait for the facts and never speculate about motives.

Case in point: Just one month before the Buffalo shooting, a gunman threw smoke grenades in a New York City subway car filled with commuters and then opened fire, unloading 33 rounds before fleeing the scene.

Ten suffered gunshot wounds – the same number authorities say the Buffalo shooter killed – and 19 more had to be treated for smoke inhalation. Mercifully, none died. But all of them could have.

That alleged shooter – 62-year-old Frank James – was a radical just as incendiary as Gendron. The difference was that James was a black nationalist.

“The social media rants of the 62-year-old suspect reveal a man consumed with hatred of white people and convinced of a looming race war,” wrote Miranda Divine in the New York Post. “‘O black Jesus, please kill all the whiteys,’ was one meme he posted.”

He also lamented that new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson married a white man.

“She married the devil,” said the man who was on the FBI’s terrorist radar.

And as it turns out, James was also a fan of CNN, and “in many of his videos appeared in front of a large TV tuned to the left-wing cable channel,” Divine wrote.

Yet the press took pains to describe this would-be mass murderer as the very lone wolf they now say doesn’t exist. They ignored his rantings and never made the connection between these views and those of many prominent Democrats. They didn’t blame CNN for its inflammatory coverage of racial issues.

Where were the comments on black racism after the subway shooting?

The article at Breitbart concludes:

Biden indicated that white supremacists were acting out of a type of misguided patriotism.

“Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour,” he said. “Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America. But who don’t understand America.”

The president also proposed doing more to prevent evil content from spreading on the Internet.

“We can address the relentless exploitation of the Internet to recruit and mobilize terrorism,” he said. “We just need to have the courage to do that. To stand up.”

May I translate those remarks for you. Patriotism is only what the political left says it is. Any other patriotism is dangerous. We need more censorship of conservative speech. Any speech that disagrees with the Democrat agenda is hate speech and needs to be censored.

I agree that the American experiment in democracy is in danger. First of all, we are not a democracy–we are a representative republic. If we don’t vote the censorship crowd out in the midterms, our First and Second Amendment freedoms will be gone.

The Trial Begins

Posted on by

Just the News posted an article today about the trial of 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. It is a long, detailed article, so please follow the link and read the entire article. I will try to hit some of the high points.

The article reports:

An FBI agent testifying Tuesday in the trial for 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann discredited evidence Sussmann gave the agency that attempted to connect the Trump Organization with Russia’s Alfa Bank, a purportedly hotline to the Kremlin.

FBI special agent Scott Hellman said the conclusion of the authors of the white paper analysis of the internet data between the email server of the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa Bank was “not objective” and “far-reaching,” and their conclusion of a secret communications channel “didn’t ring true at all.”

Special counsel John Durham last year charged Sussmann with lying to the FBI when he allegedly told then-FBI general counsel James Baker that he was not working on behalf of any client while providing him with since-debunked collusion allegations.

Sussmann is pleading not guilty to the charge. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.  

Hellman, in the second day of the trial, was the prosecution’s second witness and had examined the data on the thumb drives that Sussmann had given to Baker in their meeting – weeks before the presidential election.

Hellman also said that he was frustrated that he didn’t know the source of the data. 

Hellman said he disagreed with the white paper from the thumb drive that explained the Domain Name System data as being a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank. He also said that he felt that whoever wrote the white paper jumped to conclusions not supported by the technical data and that the methodology of their analysis was questionable. 

The agent noted the lack of logic in the charges:

The FBI agent also said the overall conclusion of the connection between Trump and Russia from the data didn’t make any sense because a presidential candidate would not likely put their own name in a domain name that was easily connected to their organization and Russia if it’s supposedly for secret communication.

“Didn’t ring true at all,” Hellman said. He said the analysis of the data was done “inside of a day,” then given for further analysis to theFBI Chicago division, which later agreed with his assessment. 

Hellman added that he found it conveniently coincidental that someone was looking for suspicious activity between the Trump and Russian servers and found it just three weeks after it began. 

It has become very obvious that this was an effort to neuter the candidacy and presidency of President Trump by the Clinton cartel and their friends in the government bureaucracy. Unfortunately, there are still some in the media who are still parroting the original charges as if they were legitimate. Hopefully there will be enough reporting on this trial to show Americans how they were misled by the media and how badly President Trump was treated. I can’t imagine how much President Trump would have accomplished had not the Clinton cartel, their bureaucratic allies, and their media allies attempted to cripple his presidency from the beginning.

How Spin Works

Posted on by

The shortage of baby formula is no joke for young parents. The fact that pallets of formula are showing up at the southern border for illegal immigrants is an indication of how much those in Washington care about the welfare of average Americans. However, one interesting aspect of this crisis is the media’s attempt to keep the blame away from the Biden administration. On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog detailing the media spin.

The article reports:

You can tell the Biden administration has badly bungled the infant formula situation when the best their shills at the Associated Press can do is play the “Republicans pounce” card: “GOP’s new midterm attack: Blaming Biden for formula shortage.”

Republicans aiming to retake control of Congress have already sharpened a message centering around blaming Democrats for high inflation, expensive gas, migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and violent crime in some cities.

But GOP leaders landed on an issue this week that it hopes could prove even more potent: tying President Joe Biden to a shortage in baby formula.
***
Asked if his administration had responded as quickly as it should have, Biden said, ”If we’d been better mind readers, I guess we could’ve. But we moved as quickly as the problem became apparent.”

But the defense by the White House illustrates how finger-pointing at the Biden administration has already spread far and wide among Republicans in Washington, on television and on social media. It’s a new issue for the GOP to hammer at and a way to address families at a time when Democrats believe outrage over the U.S. Supreme Court possibly ending the right to an abortion could galvanize women and other key voters, and thwart or at least lessen a Republican wave in November.

The AP takes up the cudgels for Joe Biden, describing the now-famous photo and video of stacks of formula containers at an illegal immigrant facility at the border:

The AP has not independently verified the photo’s authenticity or when exactly it was captured. Some conservative pundits and news outlets have since spun even greater tall tales from the photo…

“Spun even greater tall tales.” Remember that this is not an opinion piece, it purports to be news reporting.

…with some claiming that they show Biden is shipping “thousands” of pallets of baby formula to the border while parents in the U.S. struggle to find formula.

So how many pallets are there? The AP has no idea.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Friday that Border Patrol is “following the law” that requires the government to provide adequate food, specifically formula for children under the age of one, who are detained at the border.

GOP political consultants nonetheless call it a ready-made issue that resonates with voters.

Somehow I don’t think the spin is going to work on young American mothers trying to find formula for their babies.

The Role Of The Internal Revenue Service In Elections

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about the role the Internal Revenue Service has played in American elections.

The article notes:

Should the projections of a Republican tsunami at the midterms prove true, there are so many things that a Republican Congress must prioritize. Not the least of which is revising the civil-service laws to permit removing incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats, cutting drastically the federal bureaucracy, and reforming, among other agencies, the CDC, NIH, FBI, and the IRS.

I’m focusing now on the IRS, which first hit my radar screen when with no consequences whatsoever.  Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice declined to press criminal charges against Lois Lerner, whose outfit delayed and denied the Tea Party reform groups the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled, hamstringing them against the very well-financed (probably including illegal funds from abroad) Obama crowd. 

This time, pay attention to Black Lives Matter, an utterly corrupt outfit whose riots and lootings destroyed so many cities and wreaked havoc on the black communities and their businesses.

The damage continues to this day as the riots fueled the defund police movement, a ridiculous effort that leaves the poor and the black communities particularly vulnerable to violent crime, and as another consequence caused an exodus of needed businesses from those places.

On her own, the mayor of D.C. ordered one street painted in huge letters “Black Lives Matter.” School kids were urged to walk out to support the group, while big corporations sent them money. All told, the group reportedly raised $90 million in 2020.

The article concludes:

While the IRS makes it harder for you to get your refunds, Black Lives Matter is not the only sketchy Democrat-controlled election-rigging outfit whose tax-exempt status the IRS has not looked into. David Horowitz and John Perazzo detail how Mark Zuckerberg funneled $419.5 million to tax-exempt outfits (Center for Election Innovation and Research and the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life through yet a third tax-exempt outfit, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.)

The purpose of these grants was obvious — it was to tip the scales for the Democrats in the 2020 election despite the fact that such tax-exempt foundations are “barred from contributing their resources to election campaigns.”

The grants to these two outfits and the ways they used them to tip the election for Biden are well laid out in this article. 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

The existence of such a regulation is meaningless, however, if it is not enforced. Consequently, this ban on campaign activities by “charitable” organizations didn’t daunt Facebook billionaire and Democrat Party patron Mark Zuckerberg and his wife when they plotted a massive campaign to swing the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrat, Joe Biden.

The Facebook couple donated to two left-wing tax-exempt foundations “with the intention of tipping the result to Biden by launching “get-out-the-vote” campaigns focused on Democrat precincts in battleground states.” And they achieved that purpose.

The authors contend that none of these travesties could have taken place “without the seditious collusion of I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rettig and his 63,000 agents“ who neglect their duty to protect our tax laws and elections.

I find their argument compelling. On the one hand, they tied the hands of the Tea Party, on the other, they put on blinders to the patent corruption of the BLM and Zuckerberg-funded outfits.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. If we don’t vote the current crooks (in both parties) out of office in November, I fear we will lose our country.

Voting In Person Works

Posted on by

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article with the headline, “Popularity of mail-in voting plummets in 2022.” One can only hope that it stays unpopular in 2024. I recently watched the movie “2000 Mules” by Dinesh D’Souza. I don’t claim to understand all of the technology involved, but the movie makes a good case for the fact that there was massive ballot drop box fraud in the 2020 election.

The article at Hot Air notes:

Even with all of the chaos that was seen in 2020 because of massive amounts of mail-in voting during the pandemic, congressional Democrats have continued to push “voting reform” bills that make it permanent on a federal level. We were repeatedly assured that too many people were having a hard time voting, and ubiquitous voting by mail would boost participation because people simply like it better. They may want to take a fresh look at that theory following the first rounds of primary voting heading into this year’s midterms. While total turnout has been fairly typical or even slightly elevated thus far in the early voting states, the Associated Press finds that the lion’s share of votes cast thus far have been in person. By contrast, the number of people opting to mail in their ballots has sunk like a stone. This is starting to look like yet another case of the Democrats failing to read the room.

…The five states where primary voters put this theory to the test were Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, and West Virginia. Numbers are not yet available for Nebraska, but the other four showed a decisive trend. In Georgia’s primary in 2020 there were almost one million people who voted by mail. This year, 85,000 requested mail-in ballots. That’s not even one-tenth of the previous primary numbers. And it’s still not known how many of the ballots that were mailed out were actually returned, but obviously, not all of them were.

The ratios in Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia were similar. While we saw a flood of mail-in ballots during the lockdowns, that number has returned to a trickle. Granted, the states who have voted already were mostly red-to-purple states. Perhaps the percentage will be higher in some of the upcoming blue states. But I’ll be deeply shocked if any of them see even half the number of mail-in ballots that they did two years ago. Of course, that tide could still turn in the other direction. Some analysts that the AP spoke to suggest that it’s just too soon to say.

The article concludes:

In-person voting is the norm. It’s always been the norm and it needs to continue being the norm. It’s far easier to conduct a recount (if required) when all of the physical ballots are submitted straight from the voter’s hand in a centralized location for each precinct. The more boxes, bags, and hands of “agents” a ballot has to pass through, the less confidence the voters will have in the outcome.

On November 20, 2020, The Daily Signal reported:

They (the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission) called on states to increase voter ID requirements; to be leery of mail-in voting; to halt ballot harvesting; to maintain voter lists, in part to ensure dead people are promptly removed from them; to allow election observers to monitor ballot counting; and to make sure voting machines are working properly. 

They also wanted the media to refrain from calling elections too early and from touting exit polls. 

All of this may sound eerily similar to the issues in the prolonged presidential election battle of 2020. But these were among the 87 recommendations from the 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission. 

The bipartisan commission’s co-chairmen were former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican who served in the George H.W. Bush administration. 

If only we had listened.

Unraveling The Lies Of The Past Five Years

Posted on by

On Saturday, Hot Air posted an article reminding us that the trial of Michael Sussmann begins Monday. I suspect the exhibits are going to be far more interesting than the trial itself.

The article reports:

When we last checked in with the John Durham case against Michael Sussmann, Durham’s team had asked the judge to decide whether a small group of Fusion GPS emails were covered by attorney-client privilege. According to lawyers for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Fusion GPS was hired solely to provide legal advice about defamation and libel laws which meant everything they did was legal consulting work. Judge Christopher Cooper didn’t seem to buy that claim and yesterday announced that Fusion GPS would have to turn over 22 emails to the prosecutors.

The Washington Post reported on May 12th:

The charge against Sussmann is the first Durham case to go to trial. A Washington-based researcher faces trial later this year for allegedly lying to the FBI about how he collected allegations against Trump. In 2020, a former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to illegally changing a government record.

Robert Mintz, another former federal prosecutor, said the trial next week “will be the first real test” of Durham’s work. By going to trial, he said, Sussmann has “thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the significance of the prosecution and the wisdom of bringing the case.”

…“The strategy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew DeFilippis said in court Monday, “was to create news stories … to get the government to investigate it … and to get the press to report the government was investigating.”

…Prosecutors signaled this week that they plan to call a host of current and former law enforcement officials to describe how the FBI pursued the Alfa Bank accusations, and to paint Sussmann as part of a “joint venture” that included Joffe, Clinton’s campaign, research firm Fusion GPS and cybersecurity experts.

The article at Hot Air quotes a Wall Street Journal article by Kimberly Strassel:

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel argued yesterday that Durham’s team has already gone a long way to revealing the machinations behind the scenes of the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS and the rest: (Please follow the above link to the Hot Air article to read the quote)

…Strassel concludes that Sussmann’s trial “on its face is about one lawyer, but in reality is the continuing tale of one of the dirtiest tricks in modern U.S. history.” I guess we’ll see how the trial goes next week. It looks to me like Durham’s team has the goods on Sussmann. Whether that will allow him to make a larger case about the Clinton campaigns dirty tricks remains to be seen.

This might be a really good time to sit back and get some popcorn ready.