Monthly Archives: July 2020

Deflecting Voters From The Truth

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about some comments made by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) on Thursday. Senator Feinstein described China as “growing into a respectable nation.” That is the same China that engages in slave labor, forced sterilization, religious persecution, and re-education camps. Sounds real respectable.

The article reports:

“We hold China as a potential trading partner, as a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time, and as a country growing into a respectable nation amongst other nations. I deeply believe that,” Feinstein said during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.

She said that stripping foreign sovereign immunity from China would be a “huge mistake” and claimed that allowing individuals to hold China accountable for the spread of the virus could allow other countries to do the same to the United States. Her firm defense of China comes after a new flood of reports showing human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist Party has organized the mass detention and forced sterilization of Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority, and drone footage showed blindfolded and shackled Uyghurs being forced onto trains.

Feinstein made the remarks during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting debating a bill that would allow individuals to sue the Chinese government for its release and subsequent cover-up of the novel coronavirus.

The statement actual makes sense when you consider something else reported in the article:

Feinstein has also benefited from her husband’s relationship with China. She pushed for expanded trade relations with China as her husband’s company was partnering with business ventures in the country. She said that a “firewall” existed between her political career and her husband’s business interests.

Unfortunately Senator Feinstein is not the only Congressman with financial ties to China. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is married to Elaine Chao. Her family owns a large shipping company in communist China. Does anyone believe that you could operate a large shipping company in communist China without the approval of the communist government? The connections and corruption in Washington runs deep. It is going to take more than I think we understand to drain the swamp.

Some Of Our Elected Leaders Need Lessons In Logic

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media reported the following:

Days after antifa rioters terrorized Seattle, driving a van full of weapons and explosives with the mob in order to set fires and attempt to blow up police departments, Mayor Jenny Durkan focused her attention squarely on President Donald Trump, accusing him of running a “dress rehearsal for martial law.” She claimed that Trump’s efforts to bolster local law enforcement to combat a rising tide of crime and violence have “decreased public safety.” In a press conference addressing the antifa riots, Durkan claimed “the president wants” the violence.

So the President’s bringing in law enforcement to fight crime that the city was not able to stop is decreasing public safety? Wow. It seems to me that the Mayor, who refused to confront those rioting and breaking the law, wanted the violence.

The article further notes:

The riots on Saturday followed a protest in support of the antifa rioters in Portland, who have attempted to burn down the federal courthouse and Justice Center in nearly two straight months of violent riots. Seattle rioters used a van packed with fireworks, smoke bombs, stun guns, bear and pepper spray, gas masks, and more. At one point, rioters set off an explosive that blew an 8-inch hole through a wall of the Police Department’s East Precinct, the Seattle Times reported. Rioters injured 59 police officers.

Durkan focused her ire on Trump.

“I hate to say it, but it looks like this president is doing a dress rehearsal for martial law, sending in federal forces to take over police duties in city after city for political purposes,” the mayor told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday. “It is frightening and it’s making things worse. It has not improved public safety, it has decreased public safety.”

The article concludes:

During the previous weekend, antifa rioters tore a devastating path through Seattle, smashing windows at the municipal courthouse and at various businesses — including storefronts for Amazon Go, Starbucks, and Walgreens — they targeted both the West Precinct Police Station and the East Precinct Police Station (the site of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Occupied Protest last month). They fired mortar-style fireworks at both stations, causing a fire in the East Precinct station.

It seems Durkan agrees with the leftist worldview behind the rioters, but that doesn’t mean she has to focus her energy on demonizing the president. How does her fearmongering about Trump supposedly planning “martial law” concretely protect any of the citizens of Seattle?

She was elected by the people of Seattle. Theoretically she represents them. I wonder how they feel about their city being destroyed. Are their taxes going to increase dramatically to pay for the damage that has been done? I wonder if the Mayor or the residents have thought through the consequences of the lawlessness they are permitting.

The Key To Fixing Anything Is Individual Action

Posted on by

This is the type of letter we should all be writing:

July 30, 2020

Supervisor Joseph S. Saladino

54 Audrey Avenue

Oyster Bay, NY 11771

Subject:  Town of Oyster Bay Ice Skating Center at Bethpage

Dear Supervisor Saladino,

I am a longtime Town of Oyster Bay resident. I am the mother of two youth hockey players, a youth hockey coach and a hockey player. I would like to bring to your attention what I, as a taxpayer and longtime resident of the Town of Oyster Bay, consider a significant problem.

For approximately the past seven years, the Town of Oyster Bay has contracted the skating school at the Bethpage facility to The Rinx. I have personally observed they control approximately 60 plus hours of ice a week. I have heard from multiple sources that The Rinx pays approximately $10,000 a month for this ice. It is my understanding that the town receives zero percentage of The Rinx revenues; this is a flat fee. While these numbers may not be exact, I believe the difference to be immaterial with these numbers easily discoverable via the Freedom of Information Act.

Based on these numbers, The Rinx pays a little under $40 per hour of ice. It’s even less when you consider The Rinx has dedicated office space in the Town of Oyster Bay Skating Center at Bethpage, the building maintenance staff at its disposal, and free advertising as The Rinx programs often appear on town flyers and utilize wall space for promotional materials. I do not believe The Rinx as a corporate entity pays into the town’s tax base nor are the majority of its clients residents. This seven year relationship yields little or no benefit to your constituents even those that are members of the hockey community.

I, as a resident, can purchase ice for $300 an hour. There is very limited prime time ice available because it is monopolized by The Rinx. I am limited in what I can do with this ice because of restrictions placed as a result of this contract with The Rinx. The town would have to sell eight hours of prime time ice a week to break even with this contract. The ROI on this contract that was not only initially signed but also renewed after being evaluated by a consultant is ugly. It is either indicative of a complete lack of business intelligence or a signifier of graft that plagued the prior administration.

Supervisor Saladino, I believe you to be a man of integrity, working hard to uphold your promise to create transparency and root out corruption, and making sound fiscal decisions for the Town of Oyster Bay. On that basis alone, I have to believe you are not aware of how grossly lopsided this contract is. And if the town of Oyster Bay does not benefit, then most likely someone in your administration, (and likely held over from the prior administration), is benefiting personally at the detriment to your constituents.

I implore you to investigate this immediately so that the residents can benefit from having such a beautiful facility. As a taxpayer, I do not feel I should be forced to subsidize someone’s private business, and the people that established this precedent should be rooted out of your administration as well. Our economy is facing difficult times ahead and you cannot afford to carry anyone that puts their own self interests over that of the constituents they are supposed to serve.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Sincerely yours,

 

It will be interesting to see if this letter gets a response.

Undoing The Spin

Posted on by

The Gregg Jarrett website posted an article today about an attempt to set the record straight about recent events in Detroit. The mainstream media has pushed the narrative that law enforcement officers are the problem–not the solution.

The article notes the current narrative:

Unfortunately, with the contention between protesters and law enforcement in other cities such as Portland, New York City and Minneapolis, federal agencies face a public relations battle. Vandals, protesters and many Democratic leaders are painting a public image of police and federal agents as agitators.

The article reports the truth:

U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider wants the record set straight on federal agent presence in Detroit. Schneider declared anyone saying federal agents are being used to handle or interfere with protests is “irresponsible rhetoric” and they are in fact helping to combat the increase in violent crimes.

“The United States Department of Justice will not sit on the sidelines while murderers spread violence in our neighborhoods,” said Schneider. The Associated Press reported that Schneider discussed “the federal officers sent to Detroit have been assigned to capture fugitives, address illegal gun possession and break up drug trafficking, among other tasks.”

…Schneider also alluded to the nonsensical public opinion, saying,” Federal agents have been in Detroit for decades. Some of what we are doing is no different than from what I did as an assistant United States attorney years ago when my bosses were Eric Holder and President Barack Obama” said Schneider was appointed U.S. attorney by President Trump. Likely the mainstream media won’t repeat that information, furthering the false narrative that federal agents are being sent into cities to disrupt protests and heighten tensions.

These riots are not isolated incidents. Someone is financing and planning them. The ultimate solution is to find the person funding the unrest, put them in jail, and cut off the funding.

Information We Need NOW!

Posted on by

On Saturday The Federalist posted an article explaining why U.S. Attorney John Durham, the lead prosecutor looking into the origins of the Russia probe and the spying on the Trump campaign, should release the results of his investigation before November. I will admit that I am more interested in seeing those in the intelligence community who broke the law held accountable than I am in seeing a report.

The article reports:

As reported by the Washington Examiner, several sources have indicated that “Durham may end up waiting until after November to reveal what he has found or to hand down indictments” because Durham does not want his investigation or any decisions to be viewed as “political.” This would be a mistake. There is no question that he should release his findings and issue any necessary indictments before the November elections.

The voters need to know if the investigations that went on in 2015 and 2016 of the Trump campaign and people associated with it were warranted. If those investigations were not warranted, those responsible need to be held accountable before the election. Anyone who has been following the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) releases by Judicial Watch has a pretty good idea of what went on. Unfortunately, Americans who depend on the mainstream media for their information have no idea of the information in the documents so far declassified and made public. It is totally unfair to ask voters to make a decision in November without giving them the information they need to make an informed decision.

The article notes:

Historically, the Department of Justice has refrained from taking any action for partisan purposes. As reported in Just Security:

Department of Justice employees are entrusted with the authority to enforce the laws of the United States and with the responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. This is particularly important in an election year.

The Memorandum further states (emphasis added):

As Department employees … we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality and nonpartisanship.

Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

The article argues that that policy does not apply in this case:

While this policy makes sense overall, it does not make sense in this case for several compelling reasons. First, there is no evidence that Durham’s investigation is partisan in nature or that it is being conducted for partisan political purposes like the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone investigations. Durham’s investigation began long ago and well before Americans were seriously thinking about the 2020 elections.

Second, the purpose of Durham’s investigation appears to align with the department’s mission. Specifically, through his investigation, Durham is seeking to protect the integrity of the election process in the United States. More particularly, Durham is investigating whether one or more people were involved in a plot to sabotage a presidential candidate or to overthrow a duly elected president.

This is not a political issue that “benefits” one party or another. Rather, it is an investigation, the results of which will help Americans of all political leanings. Durham’s findings are vital for all Americans who care about democracy and the integrity of the election process. Americans deserve to know what happened leading up to the 2016 elections.

It’s time for Americans to learn the truth about what the Justice Department and the intelligence community did to undermine the campaign and presidency of President Trump.

This Really Shouldn’t Be A Surprise To Anyone

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about some recent changes in arrangements for the Democrat National Convention.

The article reports:

At least 100 police agencies are pulling out of agreements to send personnel to next month’s Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Milwaukee, partly over concerns that officers will be unable to use tear gas to control crowds under a recent directive.

The law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and across the country who are set to withdraw from the security agreements had previously said they will send officers to bolster security at the DNC, which will run from Aug. 17-20 at the Wisconsin Center in downtown Milwaukee.

The move follows an order from the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission last week, which directed Chief Alfonso Morales to revise the police department procedures—including prohibiting the use of tear gas and pepper spray. The order threatens Morales’s termination if he fails to comply “fully and promptly.”

The article notes:

Fond du Lac Police Chief William Lamb, who chairs the Wisconsin Police Executive Group, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he expects other Wisconsin police agencies to withdraw from the security agreements.

“We respect the Fire and Police Commission’s decision. But in this particular case, we strongly disagree with the actions they’ve taken,” Lamb said.

He said he was concerned that the safety of the public and police officers could be compromised.

“We believe in removing those tools, the use of chemical irritants or pepper spray, from the available resources that the law enforcement officers would have at their disposal if protests become non-peaceful would severely compromise the safety of the public and also the safety of the law enforcement officers who would be assigned to protect the DNC,” he added.

As I have stated before–protesting is legal–rioting is not. Watching the videos of the ‘protests’ that are happening in some of our major cities leaves little doubt that these ‘protests’ are riots. It is amazing to me that the police have used the self-restraint they have. The police have been attacked by bottles, bricks, firecrackers, and worse. What in the world is to be gained by taking away the non-violent weapons they have to defend themselves? Is this move going to result in the police finding it necessary to use deadly force? That would only make things worse. It’s time to remove those in power in the cities that are supporting rioters and attempting to limit the ability of the police to protect themselves and innocent citizens.

I Am Sure This Won’t Be An Isolated Incident

Posted on by

On July 23rd, Human Events posted an article written by Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs.

Here are some highlights from the article:

During the last night in my condo in DC, I had to walk my dog an extra lap around the block because a crazy person was outside screaming obscenities. I wasn’t afraid. I just didn’t feel like getting into it with him or having to listen to his story—his “Let me just tell you something,” attempt to get money from me. It was 1 A.M., and I was tired from a night out—but more so, just tired in general. Tired of it all.

I’m a city kid, through and through. And not a recent one. Not some Nebraska transplant who moved to the city and immediately thinks of himself as a local. A woman tried that on me once. With her affected upspeak cadence, where declarations sound like interrogatories, she told me she was from “Brook-LAN?” “No, you’re not,” I retorted (obnoxiously, being the 6th generation New Yorker that I am). “You LIVE in Brooklyn. People who are really from there don’t pronounce it like that.”

My uncle Bob, the family historian (and former Congressman representing our neighborhood from Queens) traces our family in Manhattan since the 1840’s. Between my Irish dad, from the Irish part of Manhattan, and my Italian Mom, from the Italian part of Brooklyn, we have family or friends in practically every part of the city. New York is not just where we live; it’s like a family member, as loved as offspring, as revered as a grandparent, as formative as a mom and dad.

I left that family member in 2003, when I moved to Washington, DC for work. It’s not New York, but it’s still the city, and, for the past 17 years, it’s been an exciting time to call it home. I’ve witnessed the birth of entire neighborhoods: Shaw, 14th Street, The Atlas District, Navy Yard, Ivy City, The Wharf. Parts of DC you couldn’t even drive through at one point now had Michelin Star dining and outdoor beer gardens. From abandoned streets with burnt-out buildings—many still bearing the scorched marks from the fires of the ‘68 riots—multi-million-dollar row houses were restored, new condos arose, and wine bars and gyms multiplied like Abraham’s offspring.

We put up with a lot in order to live in the city: lousy transportation, noise, traffic, pollution, and our fair share of homeless people. It’s all just a part of living in urban America. But I’ll gladly tolerate sirens and car horns in exchange for a new restaurant on the corner. For major league sports, performing arts, museums, and bars, I will put up with the occasional crazy guy on the street, metro derailment, or gridlocked traffic because an intersection is blocked by some group “raising awareness” about something or other. That’s just the price of the urban lifestyle, and as a life-long city dweller, I knew what I was paying for—and with what.

I did my part, too. My role in the fabric of urban society, overlooked but essential, was to spend my money. Eat, drink, shop, spend, tip, pay. And man, did I pay: taxes, rents, then a mortgage and HOA fees. I paid taxes on things the government deemed “bad” for me, like alcohol and cigarettes; taxes on services which organized labor deemed “bad” for them, like rideshare. I paid gas tax, cable tax, cell phone tax, and, of course, income tax. Lots of income tax.

All I asked in return was relative safety and to be left alone to enjoy the city. City-living in America, for decades, meant tolerating mild inconveniences so that you could be left alone, alongside millions of others. That was the tacit pact.

And DC broke it.

Please follow the link to read the rest of the article. He talks about how bad management has changed Washington, D.C. Establishments that used to be nice places to gather with friends are now boarded up and covered with graffiti. When the law is not enforced, cities deteriorate. When a city is not properly governed, crime increases, and families move out. I suspect we will see more of this in some of our major cities in the near future.

Holding Rioters Accountable

Posted on by

On Sunday, Law Enforcement Today posted an article about the recent riots in Portland.

The article reports:

On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that 18 people were arrested and are facing federal charges for their roles in several weeknight protests at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in Portland.

According to police, protesters in downtown Portland set several fires and breached the fence surrounding the Hatfield Federal Courthouse Thursday night, July 22nd and into early Friday morning, July 23rd. 

For several hours, more than 1,000 people gathered outside of the Justice Center and the federal courthouse blocking traffic and participating in a demonstration. Around 11 p.m., members of the group set fires inside the fence, shook the fence, threw things over the fence, and tried to dissemble the fence. Several members of the group actually breached the fence.

Police also said that protesters threw harmful items including incendiaries at the federal officers who came outside to protect the federal building and attempt to disperse the violent crowd. By 1 a.m., more protesters had returned back to the fence and continued to set fires, breached the fence, and threw commercial-grade fireworks towards the federal courthouse.

The article lists the charges:

According to a news release from the DOJ, the charges include assaulting federal police officers, arson, and damaging government property. Since May 26th, Portland has seen nightly protests that have been followed by violent and criminal activity. The Hatfield Federal Courthouse has been a nightly target of vandalism and from that has sustained extensive damage.

The article notes that all the defendants charged are believed to be local residents.

Attacking a federal building is a crime. Those charged deserve fair trials, but if they are found guilty, they need to spend some time in jail. Hopefully their arrest will remind those participating in the riots that they also might be arrested.

When The Media Breaks The Law

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the latest chapter in the saga of Nick Sandmann and the settlements reached with CNN and The Washington Post.

The article notes:

The first rule of Settlement Club is that you don’t talk about Settlement Club. And the second rule of Settlement Club — ah, heck, the first fifty rules of Settlement Club is that you don’t talk about settlements in lawsuits with mutual gag rules in place. Apparently that didn’t sink in at CNN or the Washington Post after both media outlets decided to quietly end the litigation brought by Nicholas Sandmann. Their employees went on social media attempting to spin the settlement and suggest that Sandmann only got a minimal payment to shut him up.

Big mistake, Sandmann attorney Lin Wood made clear almost immediately. “I know how to deal with liars,” Wood tweeted, and warned that new lawsuits would be filed unless “heads rolled” at both outlets:

…This started with speculation that Sandmann had indeed gotten paid nothing more than “nuisance value.” Law & Crime wrote a pretty comprehensive overview of the social-media discussion of that premise after some attorneys unconnected to the case tried to read the tea leaves from various announcements in both cases. It’s worth reading, at least for the legal theories behind the speculation. That included a rather anodyne statement from Wood expressing his opinion that the speculation was “uninformed, errant nonsense,” but added that “questions about confidentiality and the timing of the settlement will have to be directed to others.” Wood didn’t threaten anyone over the speculation — because they were not party to the confidentiality agreement, and neither was Law & Crime.

That isn’t the case with Stelter, Rangappa, and Zak. They work for the respondents in these lawsuits and act as their agents. As soon as they published and expanded on the speculation, they characterized the settlement in terms their employer specifically agreed not to do. Not only does that open up new avenues for Sandmann against the Post and CNN, it might allow Wood to add the three as respondents in a new libel/defamation action.

This may seem like a minor thing, but it is important that both parties act in accordance with the agreement they signed. I can understand why CNN and The Washington Post would want people to think that the settlement was small–they want to discourage future lawsuits. I can understand why Lin Wood would want to give the impression of a large settlement–it might discourage future character assassination of innocent people by the media.

Stay tuned. There may be more coming.

Something To Watch

Posted on by

The Times of Israel posted the following headline yesterday:

Hezbollah denies border attack, says response to fighter’s death yet to come

Yesterday The Jerusalem Post reported:

Tensions remain high in the North after the IDF thwarted a Hezbollah terrorist attack Monday afternoon near Mount Dov along the border with Lebanon. The defense establishment is concerned Hezbollah might still carry out an attack against the military.

A Hezbollah cell, which numbered between three and five operatives, crossed the border, also known as the Blue Line, several meters into sovereign Israeli territory and was identified by the IDF, which opened fire on them with machine guns and tank shells.

The cell fled back into Lebanon without firing at the soldiers, IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Hidai Zilberman said, denying reports that anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) were fired during the incident.
“We have some tense days ahead,” he said.

While the condition of the Hezbollah cell members was unclear, the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen news outlet reported that no Hezbollah fighters were killed during the failed attack. The soldiers were unharmed, the IDF said.

Hezbollah later released a statement saying there had been no clash along the border, and soldiers had fired on empty fields, making up the entire incident due to their “extreme fear” over a Hezbollah retaliation.

News from the Middle East generally resembles propaganda more than news, but the important thing to remember here is that both of these articles indicate that tensions are rising on the Israeli and Lebanon border. Please follow the links to read both stories for more information.

Taking The Tools To Success Away From People Who Need Them

Posted on by

Like it or not, people judge you by the way you speak. There is also a link between vocabulary and success. (See article here). So why has Rutgers University declared that proper English grammar is racist?

On July 24th, The Washington Free Beacon reported the following:

The English department at a public university declared that proper English grammar is racist.

Rutgers University’s English department will change its standards of English instruction in an effort to “stand with and respond” to the Black Lives Matter movement. In an email written by department chairwoman Rebecca Walkowitz, the Graduate Writing Program will emphasize “social justice” and “critical grammar.”

Walkowitz said the department would respond to recent events with “workshops on social justice and writing,” “increasing focus on graduate student life,” and “incorporating ‘critical grammar’ into our pedagogy.” The “critical grammar” approach challenges the standard academic form of the English language in favor of a more inclusive writing experience. The curriculum puts an emphasis on the variability of the English language instead of accuracy.

“This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic’ English backgrounds at a disadvantage,” Walkowitz said. “Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them [with] regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

Additionally, the department said it will provide more reading to upper-level writing classes on the subjects of racism, sexism, homophobia, and related forms of “systemic discrimination.”

Our universities are supposed to be training the future leaders of industry and of our country. These leaders will need to be able to communicate effectively to do their jobs. Like it or not, correct English is the best way to communicate in the American corporate and political system. You can call that racist if you choose, but it is how things work.

Our education infrastructure has forgotten its responsibility to educate a person to become a contributing member of society. The decision by Rutgers not to teach basic grammar skills will limit the success of their graduates. The tuition at Rutgers is approximately $15,000 per year for out-of-state students. That’s an awful lot of money to pay for an education that fails to teach you the basics you need to succeed.

Squelched By Social Media

Posted on by

This video was posted at YouTube. It has been taken down on some social media as it has gone viral with information that does not agree with the current political narrative. I am posting it here so that if it gets taken down, it will still be accessible. The video is of doctors stating that hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for the coronavirus. The doctors also note that sending children back to school has become a political matter rather than a scientific consideration. Again, the video is here for your consideration. The full video is available at Breitbart.com. As far as I know, it is not available anywhere else. I could not figure out how to share it from Breitbart.

 

Numbers Don’t Lie (But Politicians Do)

Posted on by

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog yesterday about one aspect of the latest draft of the Democrat Party platform. The article notes that the platform is largely an attack on white people. The platform mentions whites or whiteness 15 times, never in a positive light.

The article includes a quote from the platform:

Median incomes are lower and poverty rates are higher for Black Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, compared to median white households.

Well, the article includes a chart from the 2018 Census:

As you can see, the charge included in the draft of the Democrat Party platform is not true.

The article concludes:

The Democrats are right to focus on median income as a basic indicator of well-being, but they have to lie about the statistics. They can’t face the reality that America is a land of opportunity, and there is nothing standing in the way of people of any ethnicity succeeding in the most fundamental way: making money.

If the United States were really a white supremacist society, as the Democrats claim, the facts would be very different. Whites incomes would dwarf non-white incomes. That obviously is not the case, which demonstrates that America is not a racist or white supremacist society. The Democrats are wrong. It is hard to see why voters would entrust with power a party that falsely slanders its own country.

The platform is being put together with a purpose. After seeing the racism and the lies in the platform, I wonder what that purpose is.

Seeing For Yourself Instead Of Believing The Media

Posted on by

On Friday, PJ Media posted a Portland, Oregon, resident’s account of the protests going on downtown. Gabe Johnson, a 48-year-old black man who served in the Marines, lives a block away from the Justice Center. He thought the nightly protests had been completely peaceful.

The article reports:

Gabe Johnson, a 48-year-old black man who served in the Marines, now says that Portland police should use any means necessary, including force, to sweep the riots off the streets and end the nightly violence.

In an interview with PJ Media, Johnson said he considers himself a patriotic American, and that the United States flag should be a symbol of unity for all Americans. He laments how some have turned it into a symbol of racism and division, especially in Portland.

Last Saturday night and into Sunday morning, Johnson says he was in bed trying to sleep, but the noise kept him awake. He counted 82 explosions disturbing his sleep. Then, with his air conditioning running and bringing in air from outside through the vents, he was suddenly immersed in tear gas from the street below. That’s when he decided to take action.

“You know, so I literally stood up and just yelled,” Johnson said in the interview. “‘Oh my God,’ I actually yelled. ‘Oh my effing God.’ It was just like somebody has to do something. I don’t know what that something is. I didn’t at that time, but I knew something had to be done and I figured I would just sleep on it.”

The article details his response:

When he went down to the protest with his flags, Johnson expected to talk to people. He didn’t expect to be assaulted. Several people stole his flags and stomped them on the ground. One older black man, around 65 years old, grabbed one of the flags and handed it back to Johnson. A protester promptly punched the man in the face and ran off.

Reminder: This all took place in broad daylight, not at a late-night riot.

Johnson says protesters called him a coon, Uncle Tom, and the n-word—”with the -ER, not -a.” He has done several interviews this week because he wants the world to know that when leaders say that the federal law enforcement officers have caused the riots, and that the protests are largely peaceful, that’s a lie.

Protests are legal. Riots and assaulting people are not. The article includes a link to an interview with Mr. Johnson detailing the events. The actions of the anarchists that call themselves Black Lives Matter are not acceptable. Where were these people when black lives ended at the hands of other black people in Chicago and other major American cities? The only way to end these riots is to begin putting those responsible for them in jail. I would also suggest finding the source of their funding and eliminating it quickly. Rioters don’t deserve high-priced lawyers paid for by people behind the scenes inciting the riots.

This Could Get Very Interesting

Posted on by

Yesterday Julie Kelly at  American Greatness reported that Lin Wood, the attorney who represented Nick Sandmann and the other Covington High School students in their defamation lawsuits against various media outlets, has been hired by Carter Page.

The article reports:

On Sunday, Wood confirmed he will represent another innocent person maligned and defamed by the American news media: Carter Page, the Trump campaign associate who James Comey’s FBI accused of acting as an agent of Russia. 

Page was the target of four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants. The most powerful, invasive government tools—usually reserved for suspected foreign terrorists—were unleashed against Page as a way to infiltrate and spy on Team Trump.

But the FISAs were only part of Page’s personal hell. Tipped off by Democratic operatives as a way to seed the concocted Trump-Russia collusion hoax before the presidential election, journalists started harassing Page in the summer of 2016. 

His first call, Page told me in 2018, was from a Wall Street Journal reporter hounding Page about an alleged meeting with a “senior Kremlin official” and the existence of compromising material that Russia allegedly had on Trump and Hillary Clinton. (Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson was a Journal reporter for years.)

In an interview with Page in 2018, he told me that his real nightmare began in September 2016 after Michael Isikoff, a veteran political journalist and writer for Yahoo News, reported that Page was under federal investigation for his ties to the Kremlin. 

“U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials—including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president,” Isikoff disclosed on September 23, 2016. “The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election.”

The article includes a tweet from Lin Wood which lists the targets of the lawsuits he is planning. Please follow the link to the article to see a list of targets the author of the article thinks should be added to the current list.

A Test Of Mail-In Voting

Posted on by

PJ Media posted an article yesterday about a test CBS News did to determine how successful voting by mail would be this November. Please follow the link to read the entire article. I am simply going to post the test results here.

The article reports:

The parameters of the test were simple and straightforward. CBS mailed 100 ballots to locations across Philadelphia in an experiment to see how long it took the ballots to arrive. A post office box was set up to receive the returned ballots.

A few days later, another 100 ballots were mailed to another 100 locations in the city. The results should frighten Democrats who claim they are all about “every vote being counted.”

A week after initial ballots were sent, most ballots appeared to be missing from the P.O. box.

“I don’t see anything back there for you,” a postal worker told Dokoupil when he received the mail. “That’s all I have back there right now.”

After asking for a manager and explaining the situation to them, the votes were found.

“They had them somewhere else,” the postal worker said.

…Out of the initial batch mailed a week earlier, 97 out of 100 votes had arrived. Three simulated persons, or 3% of voters, were effectively disenfranchised by mail by giving their ballots a week to arrive. In a close election, 3% could be pivotal.

Four days after mailing the second batch of mock ballots, 21% of the votes hadn’t arrived.

According to Postal Service recommendations, “voters should mail their return ballots at least one week prior to the due date.”

However, nearly half of all states still allow voters to request ballots less than a week before the election.

Democrats who are pushing this notion that a mail-in election won’t be any different from an in-person election should listen to the voters who are far more grounded in reality.

“I’m scared that it might get lost in the mail,” potential voter Kim Tucker said. “I just want to make sure that my vote is submitted, like, I see that it’s submitted, that it actually counts.”

The November election is shaping up to be the mother of all clusterfarks. At every level — federal, state, and local — election officials are sounding the alarm. The system was not built to handle 120 million mailed ballots. Processing and protecting those ballots is beyond the abilities of almost every state.

The article concludes:

The concern is not only over the integrity of the ballot. The avalanche of legal challenges to the results will almost certainly run for years and may even delay state and local legislatures from sitting.

Democrats will bring all of this on themselves. It’s a shame that the rest of us are going to suffer for their stupidity.

Stay tuned.

The Five Questions That Will Determine The Presidential Election In November

Posted on by

The New York Sun posted an article yesterday by Conrad Black. The article lists the five things that will determine who wins the presidential election in November.

These are the five things listed in the article:

    • Can the President override the Democratic press’s thunderous campaign to terrorize the country over the coronavirus?

    • Can the president successfully connect Vice President Biden’s campaign to the hooligans, anti-white racists, and urban guerrillas who effectively are being encouraged by the corrupt Democratic mayors of many of the nation’s largest cities?

    • Will the economic recovery and the decline in the unemployment generated by the COVID-19 shutdown continue at its recent pace and strengthen the economy as a pro-Trump electoral argument?

    • Will the Republicans make adequately clear to the country the authoritarian and Marxist implications of the Biden-Sanders unity document?

    • Will special counsel John Durham indict senior members of the Obama Administration over their handling of the spurious allegation of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government in the 2016 election and Justice Department violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and how will Mr. Biden himself come through it?

The coronavirus has given us some insight into what unbridled government authority can do. Some of the regulations put in place by governors and mayors were based on common sense–things your mother told you when you were young like wash you hands, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, and don’t hang around with sick people. Other regulations were simply power grabs to prevent Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights–churches in Nevada restricted to a lower percentage of occupancy than casinos, protests to open businesses criticized and shut down while other protests (that included looting and riots) were allowed to continue. We have had a taste of out-of-control government in recent months. A vote for Joe Biden and whoever he chooses as his running mate will give us more of the same. Joe Biden has already stated that he wants to reassemble the Obama team–the group that gave us anemic economic growth, Benghazi where our ambassador was murdered followed by lying about it on television, ISIS, politicization of the Justice Department, and too many other scandals to mention.

The voters will choose. We need to pray for wisdom in voting and an honest election.

When Politics Overrides Science

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about some recent statements by Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale and director of that school’s Molecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory.

The article reports:

Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale as well as the director of that school’s Molecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, argues in a Newsweek op-ed this week that “the data fully support” the wide use of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment of COVID-19. 

“When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective,” Risch argues in the column. 

…Risch, at Newsweek, argues that multiple studies over the past several months have demonstrated that the drug is a safe and efficacious treatment method for COVID-19.

Among the successful treatment experiments, he writes, are “an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk.”

The media’s portrayal of this drug (which was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955 has been commonly used to treat arthritis, lupus, and certain types of malaria) has been almost entirely negative. It should be noted that the drug costs about 60¢ a pill. Some of the other drugs pharmacy companies are recommending to treat the coronavirus cost as much as $6,000 a pill. You don’t suppose there might be a financial as well as a political aspect to the objections to hydroxychloroquine.

The article concludes:

Risch says the drug is most effective “when given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control.”

Though according to Risch the benefits of the drug are clear, he nevertheless concedes that the subject “has become highly politicized.”

“For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum,” he said. “Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed.”

He also argues that “the drug has not been used properly in many studies,” and that delays in administering the drug have reduced its effectiveness. 

“In the future,” Risch says in the column, “I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence.”

“But for now,” he adds, “reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points.”

Some objectivity on the part of the media would be nice.

Nevada Says No To Church And Yes To Casinos And The Supreme Court Agrees

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about a Supreme Court decision that was released last night. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley had petitioned the Court to have the same standards of occupancy that casinos have under Nevada pandemic rules. Governor Steve Sisolak has put in place pandemic rules that limit houses of worship to 50 people regardless of size, compared to casinos and restaurants that have higher limits set at fifty percent of capacity.

The article reports:

No supporting opinion was released by the Court, just the decision: “The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied.”

Three of the four dissenting justices wrote opinions, with the one by Justice Neil Gorsuch being short and sharp:

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

“This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

All three dissents, by Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, can be read at the Supreme Court website.

The article quotes Senator Tom Cotton’s reaction to the ruling:

“Freedom of religion is our first freedom. Yet SCOTUS has ruled that casinos can host hundreds of gamblers, while churches cannot welcome their full congregations. Justice Roberts once again got it wrong, shamefully closing church doors to their flocks.”

I don’t know where we go to get our First Amendment rights back. I hope enough people are paying attention so that we will get them back.

Losing The Right Of Free Speech And Public Assembly

Posted on by

We have all watched the ‘protests’ and ‘occupiers’ in New York. We have watched as Black Lives Matter (BLM) took over Manhattan and looted and destroyed. Very little restrictions were placed on those who chose to loot and destroy. But somehow the rioters and looters were the only ones allowed to gather. We saw a playground in a Jewish neighborhood with gates welded shut so that children couldn’t play there (article here). We saw the Jewish community attacked because they attended a funeral for one of their leaders. Meanwhile “Black Lives Matter” was painted in front of Trump Tower while a large crowd of people watched. The idea that only certain groups have rights has come to New York.

Yesterday Law Enforcement Today posted an article about a planned Back the Blue Rally in New York.

The article reports:

I’m disgusted. I’m embarrassed. My heart is broken for the America that we’ve lost.

This morning, I woke up at 3am. I proudly announced on Fox and Friends First that Law Enforcement Today was proudly joining a number of other groups in taking part in the largest Back the Blue event in America.

Acclaimed keynote speaker Paul Butler and I were going to be the joint Masters of Ceremonies. We had rock and roll legend Ted Nugent flying in for the National Anthem – accompanied by Congressman Clay Higgins, the keynote speaker.

The first wave in the attack came from Facebook. After 6300 people RSVP’d to the event, the page was taken down by the social media giant.

It didn’t come as a surprise. I’m the same guy that just got a lifetime ban from LinkedIn last month for sharing an article about a guy who tried to kill two cops. We are sort of use to it.

But what happened today? Today it became evident just how legitimate the war on law enforcement is.

Congressman Clay Higgins and Ted Nugent are not allowed to attend the event… and that apparently comes directly from Governor Cuomo’s office.

Within hours of announcing that they’d be at the rally, Democrats throughout New York demanded the event be shut down.  It was the typical liberal playbook – everyone that doesn’t tow the line is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, etc.

That didn’t work. Because the last we checked, it’s America. We have yet to see anyone shut down Al Sharpton from speaking at an event, or the self-proclaimed Marxists affiliated with Black Lives Matter.

So they tried a new approach. The state police detail ensuring the security of Congressman Higgins and Ted Nugent were told they weren’t allowed to offer protection.

Their careers were threatened. Then their families were threatened.

So we came up with a new plan. We had dozens of Blue Knights who were going to provide safe passage.

And that’s when the governor apparently pulled the ultimate “trump” card. He instructed the health department to ensure that upon landing in the state, Congressman Higgins and Ted Nugent would either be turned around and sent back… or forced into a mandatory 14 day quarantine.

The article continues:

Nassau County Executive Laura Curran, a politician facing ethical issues, took to social media on Thursday to call Nugent a racist.  She quickly came under attack on social media.

On Friday night, in a desperate attempt to save face, she blamed the pandemic.

“After being reminded of New York State’s quarantine orders and Nassau County’s protest protocols, Ted Nugent will no longer be attending tomorrow’s march in Eisenhower Park.  Congressman Clay Higgins is also being advised of New York State’s quarantine Executive Order.”

She went on to suggest it was about safety – despite precautions taken by event organizers to ensure proper social distancing.

The article details how Law Enforcement Today is fighting back:

We’ve hired dozens of new writers at Law Enforcement Today. Most of them are active, retired or wounded police officers or family members. Their sole job is to bring you the stories of what’s really happening in America.

And we’re putting a team of cinematographers on the road to capture the stories of police officers and patriotic Americans. The stories that the mainstream media often refuses to show you.

The best way to fight back is to vote the people out of office who are making bad decisions. Meanwhile, follow the link above to read the entire article.

Some Common Sense From The Minneapolis City Council

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about a recent decision by the Minneapolis City Council.

The article reports:

Give credit where due for thinking outside of the box, I guess, although this idea belongs in a box … buried under the St. Anthony Falls. In the Minneapolis city council’s haste to prove it doesn’t need a professional and trained police force to keep the peace, they nearly decided to pay ad hoc bands of armed citizens to patrol the streets. Only late inquiries about this proposal from city residents and local media managed to change their minds:

The Minneapolis City Council briefly considered diverting money from police to citizen patrols, with the council’s public safety chairwoman suggesting an armed group as one that could potentially benefit.

During a budget meeting last week, Council Member Alondra Cano proposed cutting $500,000 from the Minneapolis Police Department for the citizen groups.

She described it as an effort to “respond to the hundreds of people who have formed their own community safety patrol systems to keep their blocks and their neighborhoods safe in this time of deep transition.”

She and nine of her colleagues voted in favor of adding the provision to the 2020 budget. On Wednesday, after residents and reporters contacted city officials seeking details about the proposal, the council walked it back.

Common sense made a brief appearance in the Minneapolis City Council.

The article concludes:

The Star Tribune notes that the city council seems to be out of rational ideas about how to make their no-policy fantasy into reality, which is how vigilantism nearly got a $500,000 grant and endorsement:

The change reveals how the City Council is struggling to come up with alternatives to the Minneapolis Police Department, even as a majority has vowed to end it. Council members and city staffers have, at times, found themselves unclear about what various proposals mean, even after they have voted on them.

In other words, the city council is completely incompetent, and now obviously so. This would qualify as satire if not for the lives that have already been lost and the lives that will be lost in the near future due to their failures to perform their basic duties as public officials. The city council is responsible for the police department and its performance, but they do not want Minneapolis residents to realize that. Instead, they want to pretend that a modern city of 425,000-plus residents don’t need law enforcement, mainly because they want to abdicate their own responsibilities for managing it.

Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city, so the state doesn’t have too many options in dealing with this disaster. The city’s voters will have to act to put an end to the circus they elected. In the meantime, the cities around them will have to deal with the fallout — and business owners will start looking elsewhere for better environments in which to operate.

This is the reason voting matters. The only way to improve the government of Minneapolis is to vote for people who actually understand how to make things better. The current city council obviously does not.

Another Reason To Support Voter Identification Laws

Posted on by

Patch in Philadelphia reported yesterday that former Democrat Congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers is accused of bribing a Philadelphia election judge over several years to stuff ballot boxes.

The article reports:

United States Attorney William M. McSwain said U.S. Congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers, 77, of Philadelphia, has been charged by indictment with multiple counts, including conspiring to violate voting rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific Democratic candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Pennsylvania primary elections, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in federal elections, and obstruction of justice.

Myers, a Democrat, was elected to Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District in 1976 then was expelled from congress in 1980 as a result of the Abscam sting. He was sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000 on bribery and conspiracy charges. Before that, he represented the 184th District in the Pennsylvania State Legislature from 1971 to 1976.

Myers is alleged to have bribed Domenick J. Demuro, who served Judge of Elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division in South Philadelphia, over several years to illegally add votes for certain candidates of their mutual political party in primary elections.

If convicted, Myers faces up to 90 years in prison and $2 million in fines.

Demuro, who was charged separately and pleaded guilty in May 2020, was responsible for overseeing the entire election process and all voter activities of his division in accord with federal and state election laws.

Voter identification laws would not solve this problem, but a computerized system involving scanning identification and making sure that the number of votes reported matches the number of people scanned in would solve this problem. Election fraud undermines our republic and needs to be dealt with harshly.

Hoisted On Your Own Petard

Posted on by

I love it when karma shows up. The New York Sun posted an editorial yesterday about a religious freedom case argued before the Second United States Circuit Court or Appeals. I have absolutely no background in law, so I am going to rely heavily on what was stated in the editorial.

The editorial states:

When a case called New Hope Family Services showed up on the docket of the Second United States Circuit Court or Appeals, we perked up. It’s not just that we keep a weather eye for religious freedom cases (this one involves New York state’s attempt to force a Christian ministry to choose between its doctrine and its ability to place children in foster homes). We also perked up because of the three judges on the appeals panel.

They included two Democrats and a Republican — Edward Korman, a senior district judge sitting on the circuit bench; the legendary José Cabranes, probably the most senior active judge in the Circuit; and Reena Raggi, about whom we last wrote when we suggested she’d be an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court. It would be, we suspected, like watching a judicial version of “Field of Dreams.”

The New Hope Family Services was warned that if it did not state a willingness to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried couples, it would have to go out of business. The New Hope Family Services is a Christian group that believes in the teachings of the Bible, so obviously to agree to this would have been against their Biblical beliefs.

The editorial continues:

It was, at least to us, a shocking threat. It put New Hope, which is not government funded and has been in business for decades, in an impossible position. The pettifogging was too sophisticated for us and we started nodding off — until we heard the lawyer for New York state say, “It’s not a question of a Jewish family coming to the agency and being turned away because they’re Jewish.”

“But,” Judge Cabranes pointed out, “there’s no question that you’re preventing consideration of whether the adoptive parents are a same-sex couple as a result of the religious views of the agency.” Replied New York’s lawyer: “Yes.” Which prompted Judge Cabranes to ask: “You don’t think that there’s a suggestion here that the regulation is targeting religious groups?” New York state’s lawyer proceeded to reply: “No.”

“Because,” the state’s lawyer, Laura Etlinger, continued, the Second Circuit itself had said “the fact that there may be a disparate impact on religious organizations because of factual matters, they are the ones more likely to be affected, is not evidence of discrimination.” This is when Judge Raggi pointed out that the entities in that earlier case were not mainly religious.

In contrast, she noted, New Hope was contending that discovery in its case would disclose that the “vast majority, if not all” of the foster care and adoption agencies that “have had to go out of existence” are religious organizations.

“Do you dispute that?” Judge Raggi demanded.

“Well, in — it’s not in the record,” Ms. Etlinger replied, seeming to sense, suddenly, that she had been drawn into a trap.

The reason it wasn’t in the record, after all, was that the district court had dismissed New Hope’s complaint out of hand. Ms. Etlinger suggested that “to the extent there is an impact, because religious organizations are the ones that have a view about placement with same-sex couples does not mean that the agency was targeting those —” Her words hung in the air.

“Well,” Judge Raggi said, “isn’t that what discovery might reveal?”

The principle in question here is disparate impact as proof of bias. It is a legal principle often used by the political left to twist the law to get what they want. Please follow the link to read the entire editorial. It is wonderful to see the tactics of the political left used against them.

The editorial concludes:

Disparate impact is by no means the only angle the Second Circuit considered in New Hope. Nor is it our intention here to suggest that same-sex or unmarried couples are unsuitable for adoption. It is our intention to savor the irony that such a liberal concept as disparate impact might yet illuminate the First Amendment violations of a state trying to force a religious ministry to choose between, on the one hand, its beliefs and, on the other, its religious mission in respect of foster parenting and adoption.

 

If You Watch The Mainstream Media, You Are Uninformed

Posted on by

Newsbusters posted an article today about some recent economic news reported by the major networks.

The article reports:

Another astounding market rally, another big chunk of good market news ABC’s, CBS’s and NBC’s evening news shows censor because it isn’t anti-Trump.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 27,000 Wednesday, “extending a market rally and returning the index to a level it first hit a year ago and last touched in early June,” according to The Hill. The new figure (27,006) put “the Dow within striking distance of erasing its losses for the year.” ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt all censored the news last night.

By contrast, consider when the Dow dropped 1,000 points beneath 25,000 before rallying a bit later Feb. 28 to cap off Wall Street’s “worst week since the [2008] financial crisis.” On that day, the Big Three gave the negative market news a whopping 313 seconds of coverage collectively — or more than five minutes.

That’s 313 seconds for negative news versus 0 seconds for positive news. Seems like a pretty massive bias. 

Fox News’s Bret Baier did report the stock market news Wednesday during his 6:00 pm broadcast of Special Report. Maybe the Big Three should take notes from Baier.

The article also notes:

Both CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in particular did find the time to boost presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s flat-out lie that President Donald Trump was a racist president.

But the Dow’s performance isn’t all the good market news yesterday had to offer last night. “Sales of previously owned homes rose 20.7% in June over the prior month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.72 million,” according to The Wall Street Journal July 22. This, according to The Journal, was “the biggest monthly increase on record going back to 1968.” [Emphasis added.]

It’s difficult to have a fair election when the news sources that many Americans depend on refuse to report the news in an unbiased manner. Hopefully, most Americans have learned to look beyond the propaganda and search for the facts.