Monthly Archives: September 2020

Like Two-Year Olds Throwing Temper Tantrums

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What Did They Expect?

Posted on by

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

The article reports:

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

The numbers were released last week.

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

At least Mr. Wheeler is considering correcting his mistake.

Economic Policies Have Consequences

Posted on by

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

The article reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Democrats Need Fear Of The Coronavirus

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing is coincidental.

Everything is political.

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

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

Posted on by

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

The article notes:

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

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

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

In its concluding paragraphs, the article notes:

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

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

What Was Said Before It Become Political

Posted on by

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

The article reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Financial Reason For Tech Companies To Support Joe Biden

Posted on by

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

The article reports:

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

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

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

The article includes the following:

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Sweden Get It Right?

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the way that Sweden dealt with the coronavirus. From the start, they followed a different path than much of the world.

The article reports:

In the global battle against the pandemic, few countries drew as much scrutiny and frequent criticism as Sweden during the early days. While the United States and most of Europe shut down their economies and put everyone on lockdown, the Swedes largely went about their business with no mandates for the wearing of masks or prohibitions on public gatherings. Sweden initially experienced a surge of novel coronavirus cases as compared to its neighbors. And then it felt like we stopped hearing about them quite so much. So what’s been going on?

As this report from the Associated Press indicates, what’s been going on has largely been… not much, at least in terms of the virus. Sweden only made slight modifications to its policies after the initial surge, but largely stuck with the herd immunity strategy. And now, just as much of Europe is experiencing a second surge in cases, Sweden has some of the lowest numbers in all of Europe. So did their herd immunity strategy actually work?

The Associated Press reports:

Now, as infection numbers surge again in much of Europe, the country of 10 million people has some of the lowest numbers of new coronavirus cases — and only 14 virus patients in intensive care.

Whether Sweden’s strategy is succeeding, however, is still very uncertain.

Its health authorities, and in particular chief epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell, keep repeating a familiar warning: It’s too early to tell, and all countries are in a different phase of the pandemic.

The article at Hot Air continues:

Among Sweden’s population of ten million, they currently have a total of 14 people in ICU beds fighting COVID. In the past two weeks, they have reported 30.3 new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people. By comparison, Spain is at 292.2 and France reports 172.1. That’s a rather startling difference.

The article concludes with some interesting speculation:

This should leave us to wonder if that wasn’t the ideal solution from the beginning. If we had locked down the nursing homes and provided relief to everyone over the age of 55 so they could stay home, along with anyone with a doctor’s note saying they had underlying respiratory or immune system issues, could we have just left the rest of the economy running? The idea of requiring a doctor’s note wouldn’t be any big deal. Most employers do that already for many Human Resources functions, including the use of sick time for more than a day or two. Further, the death toll in New York City wouldn’t have been anywhere near what we saw were it not for Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disastrous order forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients and forbidding the screening of new residents.

What would our current death toll be today if we had followed that path? The vast, vast majority of healthy people under the age of 55 who contract the virus still come out the other side alive and without any serious, permanent health issues. There are some who are hit very hard to be sure, but the same can be said for other diseases that we live with (or, in some cases, don’t) every year. We’ll have to wait until the second wave has finished washing over Europe to be sure, but it’s starting to look as if the Swedes were onto something all along.

We can’t turn back the clock, but we can keep this in mind in dealing with future diseases.

The Search For An Honest Election

Posted on by

It seems as if much of the worrying about an honest election is on one side of the aisle. However, one Democrat is taking the concern seriously and doing something about it. Just the News posted an article (updated today) about Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (a Democrat from Hawaii) and Representative. Rodney Davis, ( a Republican from Illinois) sponsoring a bill that seeks to outlaw the practice of ballot harvesting, a growing practices especially among Democrats in which third parties distribute and collect ballots in an effort to grow the vote.

The bill is HR8285. The Congressional website describes the bill as follows (I am not giving the specific address because the links expire–just put in the bill number to find more information):

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit payments under such Act to States which permit ballot harvesting, and for other purposes.

The text and summary of the bill are not yet available. The website reports that HR 8285 was introduced on September 17, 2020 and referred to the House Committee on House Administration on that date.

The article at Just the News reports:

Their bill would cut federal funding from states that don’t ban ballot havesting. “No one should get between a voter and the ballot box,” Gabbard said.

…In an accompanying video message, Gabbard said ballot harvesting “allows for abuse from third parties collecting and mishandling ballots” and “poses a serious threat to the integrity of our elections.”

The Democrats control the House of Representatives. It will be interesting to see if this bill ever makes it out of committee. Meanwhile, I am grateful for a Democrat that is at least willing to make an effort to deal with the problem.

 

A Short History Lesson

Posted on by

In February of 2016, Amy Howe posted an article at scotusblog.com about the history of filling Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years. I thought sharing that history might shed some light on the current situation. First of all, I don’t think anyone is going to pay attention to the history. The political atmosphere is very intense right now. The Democrats are making an unprecedented power grab with last minute changes to election laws, threats to end the filibuster and stack the Supreme Court if they take the Senate, and threats to burn down the country if President Trump nominates a Supreme Court judge to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don’t see this as rational behavior, and I am not sure how voters will react to it.

Amy Howe shares some of the history of presidential election year appointments:

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. In 2016, Joe Biden said there was no Biden Rule. Evidently now there is a Biden Rule. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. It would be nice if someone in Washington would occasionally read the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Basis Of The Argument

Posted on by

The Democrats have become somewhat unglued at the prospect of President Trump nominating someone to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the November election. They have said that if they win the Senate, they will add justices to the Supreme Court to blunt the influence of President Trump’s appointees and that they will end the filibuster (which allows the minority in the Senate to have some degree of power). It is becoming obvious that they have no intention of ‘playing well with others.’ Considering how they have handled some nominations in the past (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, to name a few), we can expect a true ‘scorched earth’ policy when someone is nominated. They are very upset at the prospect of the President naming a Justice during an election year. But they were also upset when the Senate refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell cited the ‘Biden Rule’ as the reason the nomination was not considered. So what is the Biden rule?

In a speech given on June 25, 1992, Joe Biden, who was then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan’s and Bush’s last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

In 2016, the Democrats said there was no ‘Biden rule.’ Now there is a ‘Biden rule.’ So which is it? Either you believe that the Merrick Garland nomination was handled properly and the rule should be followed or you don’t. This is a glaring example of why Americans do not trust politicians to do the right thing.

There was a valid argument in 2016. The President was a lame duck, and the Senate was controlled by the opposing party. If the President were a Republican and the Senate controlled by the Democrats, would the Democrats have acted any differently than the Republicans? I believe that is the real question here.

 

Reckless Claims

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about a ridiculous and slanderous claim made by Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Joe Biden stated, “If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people—I’m not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data.” This is the same Joe Biden that opposed the travel ban from China which we know did actually save lives.

The article reports:

One study suggested that a large number of people may not have died if certain measures had been implemented weeks earlier, but the study in no way stated that earlier action would have saved “all the people.” It’s worth noting that Biden held eight rallies in March while Trump only held one.

At the same time, it’s important to remember that the coronavirus spread in large part thanks to the Chinese Communist Party lying to the world about the outbreak, trying to cover it up, delaying the release of critical information, and silencing whistleblowers.

Even The Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler voiced his opinion on Joe Biden’s claim. (I am not supplying a link because I don’t have a subscription and can’t get to the article.) He pointed out:

Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, learned on Dec. 31 of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology reported in Wuhan, China,” according to Katherine McKeogh, press secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services.

On Jan. 3, Redfield emailed George Gao, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and spoke with him the same day, she said, citing his calendar entry.

The next day, Redfield emailed Gao, writing: “I would like to offer CDC technical experts in laboratory and epidemiology of respiratory infectious diseases to assist you and China CDC in identification of this unknown and possibly novel pathogen.” Two days later, he sent another email, attaching a formal letter offering CDC support, McKeogh said.

On Jan. 6, the Trump administration “offered to send a CDC team to China that could assist with these public health efforts,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar told reporters on Jan. 28. “I reiterated that offer when I spoke to China’s minister of health on Monday, and it was reiterated again via the World Health Organization today. We are urging China: More cooperation and transparency are the most important steps you can take toward a more effective response.” …

On Jan. 31, Trump announced travel restrictions on non-U. S. citizens traveling from China, effective Feb. 2, with 11 exceptions. U.S. citizens could still travel from China but were subject to screening and a possible 14-day quarantine. Some flights were immediately suspended, but others continued for weeks at the discretion of the airlines.

As I am sure you remember, Congress was too busy impeaching President Trump to be bothered with the coronavirus. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi and Mayor de Blasio were telling people to go out and enjoy the nightlife in their respective cities. Joe Biden needs to stop blaming President Trump for China’s treachery.

Destroying A City By Withholding Information

Posted on by

Nashville, Tennessee, is an amazing city. Musicians and music are everywhere. The nightlife is amazing. There is a large concentration of talent in one place, which makes for an amazing tourist attraction. However, Nashville is suffering because bars and restaurants have been shut down. Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article that brings into question the motives behind that shutdown.

The article reports:

Leaked emails show Nashville’s Metro Health Department and the mayor’s office attempted to withhold information from the public that strongly suggested COVID-19 wasn’t spreading through the city’s bars and restaurants.

“They are fabricating information,” said city councilmember Steve Glover. “They’ve blown their entire credibility.”

“I don’t trust a thing they say going forward … nothing,” he added.

The emails between the mayor’s office and the health department discuss the low number of COVID-19 cases coming out of the city’s bars and restaurants and how to keep that information from going public.

The article continues:

Contract tracing in late June showed that construction sites and nursing homes were seeing the worst virus spread in the city, with more than 1,000 cases linked to each industry. Bars and restaurants, however, accounted for just 22 cases.

A month later, reporter Nate Rau asked the health department about rumors that only 80 virus cases originated from Nashville’s bars and restaurants.

“The figure you gave of ‘more than 80’ does lead to a natural question: If there have been over 20,000 positive cases of COVID-19 in Davidson and only 80 or so are traced to restaurants and bars, doesn’t that mean restaurants and bars aren’t a very big problem?” Rau asked.

The article concludes:

Glover had a staff attorney reach out to the mayor’s office and the health department to verify the authenticity of the emails.

“I was able to get verification from the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Health that these emails are real,” the attorney said.

Glover said he has been contacted by many restaurant owners, bartenders, and staff asking why the city was trying to keep a lid on the numbers.

“We raised taxes 34% and put hundreds literally thousands of people out of work that are now worried about losing their homes, their apartments … and we did it on bogus data. That should be illegal,” Glover said.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

This is a true ‘what were they thinking?’ moment. The coronavirus is real, and people need to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. However, we now know that the people most in danger from the virus are the elderly and those with certain preexisting medical conditions. It is highly unlikely that a healthy person sitting in a restaurant is at risk. Why in the world did the Mayor choose to destroy the economy of the city while raising taxes by 34%? That is the question that needs to be asked and answered not only for Nashville, but also for a number of states.

 

The Numbers Tell The Story

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Just the News posted an article about some recently-released Census Data.

The article reports:

As he heads into the final stretch of the election, President Trump is getting a boost from new census data showing historic, broad-based economic gains for U.S. households in 2019.

The U.S. Census Bureau on Monday released data showing median household income surging to a record high of more than $68,700 last year. The increase of 6.8% in household income was the largest one-year increase on record.

The poverty rate, meanwhile, fell to 10.5% last year, a record low, with 4.2 million Americans lifted out of poverty last year, the largest decrease in poverty since 1966.

The article notes:

Median household incomes for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans all hit record highs last year, along with a record-high median income for women. The income gains for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans were all one-year record increases. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, “the poverty rate fell to an all-time record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019,” and the child poverty rate hit a 50-year low.

At the White House, Trump noted that the new census data showed income inequality has fallen over the last two years. He noted that COVID-19 presented challenges during 2020 to American households but predicted a robust economic recovery, which to date has exceeded many economists’ forecasts.

I guess those ‘tax cuts for the rich’ didn’t only help the rich!

One of the ways that people who support socialism move a country in the direction of socialism is to eliminate the middle class. In a socialist county, the ruling class is extremely wealthy and everyone else lives in poverty. Many of our political leaders have been moving America in that direction for years. One of the reasons for the irrational hatred directed at President Trump is that he is reversing that trend–thus he is a threat to their power and ultimate plan. Many of our political and media elites really do not have the best interests of the average America at heart. They are interested in their own success and really don’t care about doing things that will benefit the rest of us.

Good News

Posted on by

Just the News posted an article with the following headline today, “U.S. weekly jobless claims remain below 1 million, 860,000 new claims made last week. The figure was slightly lower than economists predicted.” Why are the predictions always negative during a Republican administration?

The article reports:

The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits totaled 860,000 last week, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

The number was slightly lower number than the predicted 875,000. Several weeks ago, the weekly jobless figure fell below 1 million for the first time since late March and has remained below that threshold.

This week’s figure is down slightly from the previous week’s 893,000 number.

Despite the high number of coronavirus-related layoffs, U.S. employers in August replaces nearly 11 million of the initial 22 million jobs lost during the onset of the pandemic. Hiring rates over the summer have continued to climb and, in conjunction with several other indicators of an active economy, point toward a steady shift away from the pandemic-induced economic shutdown.

President Trump is a businessman. He understands how business works. He will rebuild the American economy. Joe Biden will not. It is that simple. Look at the anemic economic growth between 2008 and 2016, and then compare that to the economic growth before the pandemic and as we are coming out of the pandemic.

Just to provide some perspective, in January 2009, the Workforce Participation Rate was 65.7. In October 2016, it was 62.8. In January 2019, it was still at 62.8. In February 2020, the Workforce Participation rate was 63.4. After dropping to 60.2 in April, it was at 61.7 in August. The Workforce Participation Rate represents the number of Americans employed or looking for work. If you want to keep this number high, vote for President Trump. If you want unemployment to rise and the number of Americans working to shrink, vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden’s tax plan will very quickly stifle the economic growth that we have seen under President Trump.

Where We Are And How We Got Here

Posted on by

Have you ever wondered how Bernie Sanders lost the Democrat presidential nomination twice? Have you ever wondered what the Democrats were thinking when they chose Joe Biden as their presidential nominee? Have you ever wondered exactly how Joe Biden suddenly clinched the nomination? The Conservative Treehouse has the best explanation I have seen. This is an involved article, so I strongly suggest you follow the link above and read the entire story. It is amazing, but not surprising.

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

When Kamala Harris informally launched her bid for the Democrat nomination she did so in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos; this was not accidental. Harris was the DNC club candidate intended to walk in the shadow of the Obama team. As a consequence when the formal campaign was launched it was coordinated with the Chicago Jussie Smollett fiasco.  That incident was manufactured; this is how they roll. These people are all connected. Racial issues are a purposeful political strategy.

Unfortunately for the Club, the Smollet effort back-fired and Harris was never able to exploit the larger racial dynamic deployed by those who organize the astroturf effort. The primary race then wobbled along as the internal DNC players tried to figure out the best way to stay in power yet keep the far-left base motivated.

While the Democrat party, writ large, are known for exploiting fragmented special interests, the Obama coalition is the internal group with expertise at exploiting race for political benefit.  This dynamic has existed since the initial contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008.  This internal dynamic continues today.

The Black Grievance Industry (BGI) is an assembly of two larger groups.  Group-one is the Black Lives Matter group, modern and extremist.  Group-two is the AME church network, more traditional and with a larger network.  The BLM group originated during the terms of the Obama administration.  The AME network has existed for many decades before.

The article reminds us of where we were before the South Carolina primary election:

Fast forward to the hot mess that was the 2020 Democrat primary race.  With Kamala Harris collapsing due to her own immaturity; and with Bernie Sanders in position to take the momentum; the DNC club was in a very bad position.  Urgent action needed to be taken to retain club power and control.

Immediately before the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama (BLM network) and the traditional racial apparatus (AME network) realized they were about to lose control to Bernie Sanders.  Their response was to quickly coordinate a club move to swing the election away from the Sanders camp.

An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The power brokers within the DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn (AME network) as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.

Former President Obama contacted all candidates and informed them when and how they would quit the race and fall-in-line behind Joe Biden.  James Clyburn was then triggered to initiate his endorsement and begin the rapid-fire process.

Within 48 hours all members of the club and candidates had their instructions and proceeded to follow-through on the plan.  They had no choice.  If they did not comply they would suffer the consequences of a fully aligned club hierarchy who would target them personally and financially.

The article explains the outcome:

The plan worked flawlessly.

As part of the coordinated deal Representative James Clyburn was put in charge of the Biden campaign; Clyburn stunningly admitted this immediately after the strategy went public.  As we noted at the time, Obama and Clyburn would then select/appoint the vice-presidential nominee.  That’s how Kamala Harris was re-entered into the equation.

Joe Biden has dementia. Everyone knows this to be true.  The Biden candidacy is a front; a ruse, a manipulative scheme that needs a face… That’s Joe Biden.

A Biden presidency would be a complete farce.  The Obama coalition is in control of everything behind the scenes.  All policy would be Obama policy; and, specifically because of their importance in triggering the origin of the entire enterprise, the primary policy stakeholders will be the congressional black caucus (CBC) led by James Clyburn.  This influence plan is behind the merging of Black Lives Matter and the AME network.

And this is how Bernie Sanders lost the nomination to the people in the smoke-filled rooms twice. If I were a Sanders supporter, I would be furious.

About That Mail-In Vote

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), nearly 350,000 dead registrants remain on voter rolls across 41 states.

The article reports:

The number is a major improvement over the last time an assessment of similar scope was performed in 2012, when a Pew Research report turned up 2 million deceased voters on the rolls.

In the 2016 and 2018 elections, states credited 14,608 registrants for voting after death, the PILF report found. The foundation didn’t count cases where votes could have been cast by living registrants during the early or absentee voting periods.

North Carolina led the United States in both 2016 and 2018 in the number of votes credited to deceased registrants. The second-worst states in both elections registered three times fewer votes cast by dead registrants.

The article concludes:

The Trump administration embarked on a similar audit in 2018 with the formation of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The commission was forced to disband after facing coordinated resistance from state officials who stonewalled requests for voter roll data. Adams, who was part of the commission, in 2019 picked up where the commission left off.

Three states sued to prevent their data from being released: Illinois, Maine, and Maryland.

The most populous states tend to have the most deceased registrants on voter rolls, the report found. New York, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and California accounted for 51 percent of all of the deceased registrants nationwide.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the potential for fraud in a mass mail-in vote election. He has instructed voters in North Carolina to vote by mail and then attend a polling place on Election Day to check if their mail-in ballot had been counted and, if it was not, to cast a vote in person. The PILF report found that 22 percent of the double vote credits in Arizona’s 2016 election were due to mail-in and subsequent in-person vote combinations.

The thing to remember when discussing voter fraud is that many of the people currently in office have been helped by voter fraud and do not want to give up power. The status quo that has allowed illegal voting works for many of those in office. They are reluctant to change it.

Leaving California

Posted on by

Yesterday Deadline posted an article about The Daily Wire, the conservative media company started by Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boreing and Caleb Robinson. The Daily Wire, founded in 2015, has always been based in California.

The article reports:

The Daily Wire, the conservative media company started by Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boreing and Caleb Robinson, plans to move its headquarters from Los Angeles to Nashville.

Boreing said that the move was being made due to a declining quality of life in the city, including high housing costs and homelessness.

The publisher’s 75 employees based in Los Angeles are being given until Oct. 1 to decide whether to make the move, Boreing said. He said that it looked like about 80% would make the move.

The article continues:

“The dream of California and the weather were enough to draw us all here and keep us here, even when it was hard,” he said. “But it’s hubris to think you can keep making it worse and worse for people and that somehow the idea of temperate winters will be enough to make them stay forever.”

He said that he plans to move in November, and much of the staff will follow after that.

“L.A. benefits from the fact that, while it leans left, it draws individualists out to find their fame and seek their fortunes. They’re an ornery bunch. But they aren’t so ornery that this out of control government can’t break them.”

He said that they considered moving to Texas, but chose Nashville because it “offers the creative talent we need to keep growing the business.”

“We were shocked by the reception when we announced the move,” Boreing said. “But, of course, our employees see all of the same challenges we see and it’s even harder for them to afford this place.”

California used to be ‘the place to live,’ but due to bad governance, it has become a haven for homeless people and drug addicts. The cost of living there has gone through the roof as a result of high housing costs, high taxes, and over-regulation. There is still hope for California to return to normal, but it would take a voting population that wanted to correct the errors of the past.

I Suspect This Is Not An Isolated Incident

Posted on by

On September 9, Live Action reported that Representative John DeBerry Jr., a Democrat who represents Memphis in the Tennessee State House, will be running as an Independent in his next election. The Democrats have removed him from the Democrat party because he is pro-life.

The article reports:

In April, the Tennessee Democratic Party’s executive committee voted 41-18 to remove DeBerry from the ballot for the August primary, a potential blow to DeBerry’s chance to run as an Independent or as a Republican, since the vote took place after the filing deadline had passed.

…Bryan Carson, an executive committee member from Memphis, told the Tennesseean that he believes DeBerry does not exemplify “basic Democratic principles,” and that DeBerry’s constituents do not realize what he stands for. “The people who’ve challenged him, they haven’t been able to raise the money to have a decent campaign to let them know what he’s actually doing in Nashville,” Carson said.

The article concludes:

DeBerry, an ordained minister with the Church of Christ, told the Catholic News Agency, “My work in Nashville as a legislator is nothing more than an extension of my work as a child of God, as a Christian,” he said, adding that he has not hidden his pro-life principles. “So for them to say that folks don’t know where I stand, they actually said that the people in my district don’t have sense enough to elect their representative.”

According to CNA, DeBerry “was one of more than 100 Democrats at the federal, state, and local levels who recently asked the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention to moderate the abortion language in the party’s platform.”

I wonder how many people who consistently vote Democrat understand that abortion is one of the main pillars of the Democrat party. If you are pro-life, you are not welcome.

It Keeps Getting More Fishy

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch News reported the following:

An official who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation wrote in a recently released email that he or she was in possession of an iPhone belonging to Lisa Page three days after the former FBI lawyer’s last day on the job and at a time when the device was thought to have been lost.

The special counsel’s office (SCO) and the Justice Department previously claimed to have no documents to show who handled Page’s iPhone after she turned it in on July 14, 2017, or who improperly wiped it two weeks later, before it could be checked for records, in violation of SCO policy.

But documents released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Sept. 11 tell a different story, with three officials certifying that Page turned over her phone and one claiming to have been in possession of it.

“I have her phone and laptop,” an administrative officer with the initials LFW wrote in a July 17, 2017, email to Christopher Greer, an assistant director at the DOJ Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

Beth McGarry, the executive officer at the special counsel’s office, told Greer in an email sent earlier in the day that Page “returned her mobile phone and laptop.”

The article notes:

The records officer’s log shows that Page’s iPhone wasn’t the only device to elude an examination for government records. A total of at least 22 iPhones with unique asset tags used by the Mueller team were wiped before the records officer could review the contents, according to an Epoch Times review of four inventory logs and various forms released on Sept. 11.

The Mueller team offered a number of excuses for the deletions. Two people claimed the phones wiped themselves. Others said they erased all the data by accident or had to do so because they forgot their passwords. Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor, wiped his iPhone twice.

Mueller’s team used a total of 92 iPhones, according to the documents. Four of the phones appear in the inventory logs, but not on the records officer’s log, suggesting they were either recorded without their unique asset tag or evaded the officer entirely. One of the four phones belonged to deputy special counsel Aaron Zebley. Another belonged to Zainab Ahmad, a special counsel attorney.

One phone was partially wiped. Four phones were improperly handed over to the OCIO and wiped before the records officer’s review. As many as seven phones with no asset tags noted by the records officer were either reassigned or wiped before the officer could assess the device for records.

If you or I accidentally or otherwise destroyed evidence in an investigation, we would be in jail. It bothers me that no one has faced any consequences for the illegal use of the government in an attempt to unseat President Trump. I am hoping that will change, but I am not optimistic.

Good News

Posted on by

Periodically I post an article that I do not fully understand. This is one of those articles. Hopefully the scientific types who read this blog will understand it. However, I can understand enough to know that this is really good news.

Yesterday The New York Post reported the following:

Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have isolated “the smallest biological molecule” that “completely and specifically neutralizes” the virus that causes COVID-19.

The antibody component is 10 times smaller than a full-size antibody, and has been used to create the drug Ab8, shared in the report published by the researchers in the journal Cell on Monday. The drug is seen as a potential preventative against SARS-CoV-2.

According to the report, the drug has been “highly effective in preventing and treating” SARS-CoV-2 infections in mice and hamsters during tests. The drug also reportedly does not bind to human cells, which suggests it will not have negative side effects in people.

“Ab8 not only has potential as therapy for COVID-19, but it also could be used to keep people from getting SARS-CoV-2 infections,” said co-author John Mellors, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Pitt and UPMC. “Antibodies of larger size have worked against other infectious diseases and have been well tolerated, giving us hope that it could be an effective treatment for patients with COVID-19 and for protection of those who have never had the infection and are not immune.”

This is wonderful news. Hopefully it will result in a better understanding of how all viruses work and how to combat them.

When You Release People Who Broke The Law, Bad Things Happen

Posted on by

PJ Media posted an article yesterday about a Portland man who had been arrested for starting fires and then released.

The article reports:

On Sunday, police arrested a man who confessed to starting a brush fire with a Molotov cocktail in Portland. They booked him in Multnomah County Jail. Portland being Portland, the authorities released the suspect that evening. The man then went on to start six more fires before the police arrested him yet again. The cops took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation.

What community resources were used to put out the six fires? What was the cost of putting out the six fires? How much disruption would have been avoided had the police taken him to a hospital for a mental evaluation and kept him in custody after the first arrest?

The article continues:

A reasonable person might expect the story to end there. The suspect confessed to the crime, the cops booked him in jail and got him off the streets. With a little time and some well-deserved punishment, the arsonist might reconsider his destructive ways. After all, the Pacific Northwest is undergoing a particularly harsh fire season, and fires near Portland have discolored the sky with smoke.

The story did not end there, however. Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt has notoriously taken the side of violent antifa rioters against the police they attack, and he announced that his office would not prosecute many riot-related crimes, even when some of those crimes endanger the lives of police officers. Perhaps that attitude helps explain why Domingo Lopez Jr. left jail on Sunday evening. Apparently, the suspect had enough time on his hands to set a whopping six more fires before the police again detained him.

The article concludes:

“Portland Fire and Rescue extinguished three of them while passing community members put out the other three. All were caught early. No one was injured and no structures were burnt,” the police reported. Officers again arrested Lopez, seizing a lighter as evidence.

“Lopez was transported to a hospital on a Police Officer Hold for a mental health evaluation. He was issued citations for 6 additional counts of Reckless Burning,” PPB added.

This is what happens when authorities release dangerous criminals — they commit more crimes and endanger more people. Yet activists want to abolish the police?

This madness needs to end.

When people are arrested, they should not be immediately released.

Note that the article includes seven fires that were not caused by global warming.

This Is Not A Surprise To Most Of Us

Posted on by

MRCTV is reporting today on an interesting choice of words by Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris during a broadcast targeting Hispanic voters in Arizona.

The article reports:

Kamala Harris may have just let out a Freudian slip – and if anyone’s upset by it, it won’t be her political opponents.

The California senator, who is running to be Joe Biden’s vice president should the pair win the election in November, seemed to momentarily place herself at the top of the ticket in an odd moment during a virtual round table Monday, encouraging voters to cast their ballot for “A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden.”

“A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden as the president of the United States…the Biden/Harris administration will provide access to $100 billion in low-interest loans and investments from minority business owners,” Harris awkwardly claimed.

If Joe Biden is president, why is it the Harris administration? Who is pulling the strings?

Steven Hayward at Power Line Blog notes:

I’m betting the Secret Service is taking resumes of food tasters right about now.

The article at MRCTV concludes:

Harris’ mix-up between herself and the man who is actually running for president is also in line with many concerns on the right over Biden’s age, mental acuity and physical ability to do the job of POTUS, with many saying that a vote for Biden is really a vote for Harris if and when Biden becomes unable to hold the office.

When you consider Kamala Harris’ record as California Attorney General, the thought of her in the White House is troubling. Her prosecution of cases was very uneven and often appeared to be politically motivated.

Follow The Money

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article tracing some of the campaign donations to Joe Biden.

The article notes:

Some smart sleuthing by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters at The National Pulse shows the donations made to Black Lives Matter actually go to ActBlue.  From there ActBlue takes those contributions and sends them forward to the Joe Biden Campaign.

As of May 21st, ActBlue has donated $119,253,857 to the “Biden for President” effort. So a contribution to Black Lives Matter, the ideology behind the shooting of the police officers, is a contribution to the Joe Biden campaign.

It’s a smart workaround and provides a back-door for all of the Hollywood and social influence crowd to use.  By supporting donations to Black Lives Matter, the leftist movement writ large is essentially funding the DNC.   The BLM movement is simply a vessel for them to use and exploit.

Keep in mind you are now hearing of multi-million donations to Black Lives Matter from big corporations.  Any corporation that pays into this scheme is actually paying to fund Joe Biden 2020 and the Democrats.  Now all of those “donations” make sense.

In June, The National Pulse noted:

After reaching the BLM homepage, which features a “Defund The Police” petition front and center, if a user chooses to donate, they’re rerouted to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.”

The page notes: “By proceeding with this transaction, you agree to ActBlue’s terms & conditions”and includes a banner “ActBlue Charities is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and donations are tax-deductible to the full extent allowed under the law” at the bottom of the page.

ActBlue is not a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and can make political donations.Act Blue Charities is the 501(c)(3). That is how they get around the IRS regulation that prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from being involved in partisan politics. The banner is totally misleading.

Yesterday Townhall reported:

The conservative group Take Back Action Fund is sounding the alarm on millions of political donations made to former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. According to the group, more than half of the 2019 contributions Biden received on the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue came from unemployed people, Fox News reported. That number has increased in 2020, particularly in light of the pandemic.

The organization decided to look at data from 2019, before the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, to get a better idea of what donations were like at a time when the unemployment rate was relatively low – around four percent. Last year, 48.4 percent of ActBlue’s donations were from “unemployed.”

This is a snapshot into the funding of Joe Biden’s campaign.