Monthly Archives: February 2021

Why Borders Are Important

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Times reported the following:

Border Patrol agents arrested 11 Iranians Monday after they sneaked across the border into Arizona.

The five women and six men were traveling as a group, and were nabbed on a bridge near San Luis, a border crossing point. Agents said the group had just crossed the border.

These men and women may have simply been people seeking a better life, but because our southern border is generally porous, they were able to enter America illegally. We have no idea how many Iranians or people from countries that wish America harm have come in through our southern border.

If we intend to remain a country, we need to secure our borders.

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

Posted on by

First of all, I would like to bring to your attention an article about a Dedham, Massachusetts, coach who was fired for

Second of all, The John Locke Foundation posted an article today about the new proposed social studies standards in North Carolina.

The article notes:

  • America’s public schools have a duty to ensure that they cultivate active, knowledgeable, and discerning citizens
  • Studies suggest that many citizens have a negligible understanding of history, economics, and government
  • The proposed social studies standards for North Carolina public schools fail to provide a framework for ensuring that children possess a satisfactory understanding of our social, political, and economic systems

The article continues:

The fact that any American, let alone a voting-age adult, cannot recall basic facts about the nation’s political system is an indictment of the institution responsible for educating them: public schools. Taxpayers assume that the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the American public school system will produce active, knowledgeable, and discerning citizens. And yet only 15% of eighth-grade students were deemed proficient on the 2018 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) U.S. history test. Around one in four students scored at or above proficient on the NAEP civics and geography tests administered the same year.

In North Carolina, the State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction are responsible for ensuring that our public schools produce high school graduates equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to be productive citizens. And those formative efforts primarily occur in public school social studies classes. So when state officials began their periodic review of state social studies standards in 2019, it was an opportunity to strengthen standards that had not been revised in a decade.

While teachers ultimately retain control of day-to-day instructional matters, state standards lay the foundation for what children will learn in the classroom. More importantly, they provide children a framework for helping them understand the ideals embodied in the American experiment.

Unfortunately, members of the State Board of Education railroaded the social studies standards adoption process last year, asking Department of Public Instruction staff to infuse the standards with language that reflected their left-wing ideology. The tone of the standards was changed dramatically. The previous version tried to strike a balance between competing visions of the nation. It highlighted groups’ struggles without abandoning the hope that those struggles could become exceptions in our history and not the rule. Critically, the new version of the standards sought to convey one vision, clumsily placing race, class, and gender conflicts at the center of the story at the expense of seeking to ensure children possess a satisfactory understanding of our social, political, and economic systems.

Some members of the State Board of Education have disagreed with these changes. Dr. Olivia Oxendine, Amy White, Todd Chasteen, and most recently Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson have been the most outspoken opponents of the revised standards. Superintendent of Public Instruction Catherine Truitt identified critical shortcomings in the standards and requested additional time to review them. To accommodate her request, the State Board of Education called a special meeting on January 27, a week before the board’s regularly scheduled meeting.

Truitt proposed three revisions to the social studies standards and a plan for developing additional resources to support implementation. The word “systemic” would be removed from the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination.” In addition, the term “gender identity” would be changed to “identity.” Supporting documents developed over the next seven months would include a glossary and other resources for social studies teachers.

The article concludes:

North Carolina needs social studies standards focused on civic literacy and dedicated to providing students a balanced perspective of American history. A balanced view does not attempt to conceal the nation’s mistakes. Instead, it gives equal weight to failures and successes. It identifies errors and facts. It affirms our ideals, even as we work to create a society that honors them.

This perspective is shared by the 26,000+ North Carolinians who have signed Robinson’s petition opposing the draft under consideration. The State Board of Education should delay their scheduled vote on their standards this week to consider the concerns of the thousands of citizens who signed the petition and countless others who corresponded directly with the board members.

The consensus of America’s founders is that a free nation requires an informed citizenry. As James Madison declared, “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” Given that our schools have abandoned the advancement and diffusion of knowledge in favor of leftist indoctrination, it’s remarkable that we have any liberty left.

Even if you don’t have children in school, the decisions made regarding this program will impact your life. America and its freedom will not be defended by those who have no understanding of it.

Marching Orders From Beijing

Posted on by

The Epoch Times posted an article about a recent speech given by China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi . In the speech, the ‘diplomat’ warned the Biden administration not to meddle in China’s internal affairs. It’s interesting to see exactly what China considers its internal affairs.

The article reports:

“The United States should stop interference in the affairs of Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang,” Yang said, calling the issues regarding the three regions China’s “internal affairs.” He made the remarks while speaking at a virtual event hosted by New York-based nonprofit the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations.

Yang added: “They constitute a red line that must not be crossed. Any trespassing would end up undermining China-U.S. relations and the United States’ own interests.”

He also told the United States that it should “strictly abide by the One China principle” with regards to Taiwan, a self-ruled island that Beijing claims is part of its territory.

The Trump administration confronted China on its human rights violations against Falun Gong adherents, Hongkongers, Muslim minorities, Tibetans, and Uyghurs, by imposing visa restrictions and sanctions against Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials responsible for the abuse.

Translated loosely–let us continue to ignore our treaty regarding Hong Kong, let our human rights violations continue, and don’t interfere when we invade Taiwan. It would be truly awful for China to successfully take over both Hong Kong and Taiwan during the Biden administration, but I am sure that China is seriously considering the possibility.

The article concludes:

Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Washington-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), also commented on Yang’s speech.

“Bottom line: Beijing is ready [to] cooperate only on China’s terms,” he wrote.

U.S.-based China affairs commentator Tang Jingyuan said in a phone interview that the Chinese regime was using both soft and hard tactics to pressure the administration, in the hopes of restarting official talks with the United States.

Yang’s speech was an example of a soft approach, while recent incursions into Taiwan’s airspace and sanctions on former U.S. officials were hawkish tactics.

His speech could be read as an indication that the Chinese regime would be willing to make concessions if the United States would promise not to cross the “red lines.”

Ultimately, Tang believes the Chinese regime wants to “revert back to a time when human rights and commerce were decoupled from each other” during negotiations, so that the regime could continue to do business with the United States, while ignoring human rights issues.

That’s where we are, folks.

Titles Can Be Very Misleading

Posted on by

H.R. 1 was introduced into the House of Representatives on January 4, 2021. The bill is titled, “For the People Act of 2021.” The bill is anything but for the people.

Heritage Action took the time to dissect the bill and see exactly what its impact would be. Here are some of the highlights:

At 600+ pages long, H.R. 1 contains many provisions that are unhelpful, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Below are just a few of the terrible policies contained within H.R. 1:

Sabotages state voter ID laws—When arriving at the polls, voters will not be required to show ID and can simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say they are. This undermines many states’ voter ID laws, which were enacted to combat impersonation fraud, voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals, such as illegal aliens.

Mandates same-day registration—States will be required to immediately register a person to vote upon request, even on the day of an election. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

Automatically registers ineligible voters—States will be required to automatically add to voter registration rolls every person, regardless of voter eligibility, who partakes in certain government programs, such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. Other provisions of H.R. 1 then restrict the ability of states to verify eligible voters and the removal of ineligible voters from voter registration rolls. This provision will automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens.

Unconstitutionally requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote—Upon release from prison, every felon would immediately be restored the ability to vote. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict voting rights to those who have participated in “rebellion, or other crime.” States have the constitutional authority to decide when or if to restore that right, as long as they do so in a manner that is not racially discriminatory. H.R. 1 would attempt to unconstitutionally overrule the 14th Amendment with a statute.

Violates the First Amendment—H.R.1 deters political free speech by inserting a provision that makes it a criminal offense to provide “materially false” information that will “impede or prevent” someone from registering or voting. This provision is so vague that it would likely interfere with free speech and other legitimate activities.

Requires ballots be counted outside of the voter’s precinct—This removes the integrity of the local government to verify voter rolls and oversee elections and gives the power to count votes entirely to the federal government.

Creates unaccountable redistricting committees—Currently, congressional district lines are drawn by state governments that are accountable to their constituents. Allowing unelected officials to determine congressional districts is a nakedly political ploy to draw more Democratic districts.

Alters Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization—Currently, the FEC has six members (three from each party), preserving its bipartisan nature. H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one party a majority and the opportunity to weaponize the FEC for their party’s benefit.

We are at a point in our constitutional republic where one political party is attempting to gain full control in both the present and future. This is not healthy for the republic. This bill needs to be stopped. Please share the above information.

 

Changing The Rules One Rule At A Time

Posted on by

Yesterday American Greatness reported that the Senate Ethics Committee will be investigating Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) because  of their objections to the electoral results of the 2020 election.

The article reports:

The two Republican senators were the most vocal advocates for challenging the results of the electoral college, after widespread evidence and allegations of voter fraud in key swing states that may have swung the election away from President Donald Trump and in favor of Joe Biden. The investigation comes after seven Democrats in the Senate filed complaints against Hawley and Cruz; chief among them was Chris Coons (D-Del.), who is the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, who called for both senators to resign.

The ranking Republican on the committee is James Lankford (R-Okla.), who said that no statements or leaks will be made regarding the investigation until it is concluded, saying “we don’t bring up anything on the ethics stuff at all. We don’t confirm anything and we’re pretty lockstop about that.”

A spokesperson for Cruz’s office condemned the investigation, declaring that “it sets a dangerous precedent when ethics complaints are used as a political tool to try to intimidate and punish.”

The last time the Senate Ethics Committee conducted an investigation of any kind was in 2017, against then-Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), who was credibly accused of sexual misconduct in the past and ultimately resigned from the Senate. The committee previously failed to take any action against Senator Bob Menendez (R-N.J.), despite overwhelming evidence of corruption and bribery between Menendez and one of his top donors.

I have previously pointed out that Democrats have historically raised objections to electoral college votes when Republicans were elected. Somehow that did not result in an ethics investigation.

In case you have forgotten, I have previously posted on the subject:

On December 31, 2020, Fox News reminded us:

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

This is not a direction we should be heading. Our government in Washington is looking more like tyranny every day.

Putting Americans Last

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about an investigation into Elon Musk. It seems that Elon Musk is being investigated for discrimination against non-citizens in his hiring practices.

The article notes:

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating SpaceX over whether the company discriminates against non-U.S. citizens in its hiring practices and said Elon Musk’s company is stonewalling a subpoena for information, court documents revealed Thursday.

The DOJ’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section received a complaint of employment discrimination from a non-U.S. citizen claiming that the company discriminated against him based on his citizenship status.

“The charge alleges that on or about March 10, 2020, during the Charging Party’s interview for the position of Technology Strategy Associate, SpaceX made inquiries about his citizenship status and ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,” DOJ attorney Lisa Sandoval wrote in a court document filed Thursday. The document was a request for a judge to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena for documents related to how the company hires.

Back in the age of dinosaurs when I was still working, you had to prove that you were an American citizen and eligible to work before you were hired. Why in the world did we change that? It seems to me that in America, American citizens should be first in line for jobs.

Not Surprising

Posted on by

On Sunday, Newsmax reported that the spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration have been withdrawn by the Biden administration. Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of the 2020 election will be the bankrupting of America.

The article reports:

Under the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the president can request that Congress rescind budget authority that it had previously approved.

The cuts, known as rescissions, totaled $27.4 billion, according to a Jan. 14 letter to Congress from the Trump White House. The proposed cuts had come after Trump grew frustrated with some of the spending included in a December spending bill.

“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed,” Trump said in a statement as he signed the bill into law in late December. “I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.”

Hold on to your wallets.

Common Sense Is Not Always Appreciated

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about some recent comments by Justice Samuel Alito.

The article reports:

Associate Justice Samuel Alito said on Sunday that he was “not surprised” by the reaction to comments he made last year about state restrictions in response to the CCP virus pandemic.

Alito, 70, told a Federalist Society virtual convention last November that he thought the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic serves as a “sort of constitutional stress test.” He argued that America has “never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020” and raised concerns over their impact on individuals’ civil liberties.

The rare public address garnered mixed reactions from lawyers, with some criticizing him for engaging in what they say is political speech.

That’s not political speech–that is honesty.

The article cites one example of a situation that he had previously written an opinion on for the Supreme Court:

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a Nevada church, sued Gov. Steve Sisolak, claiming that his order placed an unfair limit on churches compared to casinos, restaurants, and amusement parks. The order restricted the number of attendees at churches to 50 while allowing other businesses to operate at half capacity.

The court in a 5-4 rejected the church’s request to lift the restriction, prompting dissenting opinions from conservative-leaning justices.

“The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities,” Alito wrote in his dissent. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored his own separate dissent.

The article concludes:

He also warned about the possibility of abuse when officials are afforded significant discretion, adding that “simply slapping on” the label of “emergency” cannot be a ground for “abrogating our most fundamental rights.”

“And whenever fundamental rights are restricted, the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes,” Alito said.

His comments came at a time when state officials and courts are facing challenges as they navigate the uncharted waters of the pandemic. Many states, in particular states with Democratic leadership, saw extensive lockdowns and restrictions, which were put in place to mitigate the spread of the CCP virus. However, critics argue that some measures significantly impeded constitutional rights and civil liberties, and at times were applied in an unbalanced way.

There have been a lot of restrictions placed on Americans due to Covid. Some of those restrictions make sense, some don’t. Masks may be of some value, but the material of the mask does not have the filtering capacity to filter out the coronavirus germs. So why is there a mask mandate? Why is there now a policy being put in place requiring masks on all public transportation? Why are you more likely to catch Covid in a church than in a gambling casino? We have reached the theater of the absurd.

This IS A True Story

Posted on by

The Black Lives Matter movement has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

CNN posted an article about the nomination this morning.

The article reports:

Norwegian MP Petter Eide nominated the global movement “for their struggle against racism and racially motivated violence,” he wrote in his official nomination papers, which were obtained by CNN.

“BLM’s call for systemic change have spread around the world, forcing other countries to grapple with racism within their own societies,” he said.

The Black Lives Matter protest movement, rekindled in the days after an unarmed George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis last May, continues to shine a light on what it calls systemic racism and police brutality from America’s small towns to its urban centers.

The article notes the political leanings of MP Eide:

Eide, who has represented the Socialist Left party in parliament since 2017, told CNN he saw in Black Lives Matter a “legacy from both the civil rights movement in America and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.”

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has always recognized a strong connection between racial justice and peace,” Eide said.

Now this makes sense. In case anyone has forgotten, Black Lives Matter was responsible for violence, death, destruction of businesses and a campaign of terror in some cities in America last summer. There was nothing peaceful about what they were doing. If you read their charter, you find out that they do not support the nuclear family (the building block of western civilization).

I believe the online charter for Black Lives Matter has been altered from what it originally was. This is a quote from the original charter:

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

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

Nominating Black Lives Matter for the Nobel Peace Prize is like nominating Jaws for an award for deterring people from swimming at the beach.

 

The Timeline Of The Coverup

Posted on by

As Kevin Clinesmith pays no real price for ruining Carter Page’s life and for kneecapping the Trump presidency, it is time to look at the timeline of one of the biggest scandals in American history. It’s also time to examine why those responsible are still peacefully continuing on in the Washington swamp.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article titled, “Systemic Contingencies – The Need For Bill Barr’s Positioning Revealed, 2018.” The article illustrates how the deep state managed to avoid responsibility for what they did to President Trump and many of his supporters. It’s a complex article, so I suggest that you follow the link and read it for yourselves. My summary will be woefully inadequate.

Some highlights from the article:

By mid-2018 there was a concern amid the deepest part of the deep state.  Congress was asking President Trump for declassification of key documents, the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel held control authority over those documents, and -during the prior five months- Weissmann and team had been working through a careful process to diffuse a dangerous sunlight situation…. the communication amid the players was critical.

At the same time President Trump was frustrated. Openly and publicly frustrated. The OIG, Michael Horowitz had released a report saying the FBI did nothing wrong in the Clinton investigation (no bias).  President Trump was railing against the ineffectual AG Jeff Sessions and contrasting ever increasing research by those outsiders starting to put the puzzle together. 

In the background, and unbeknownst to the public, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was working to facilitate the needs of Robert Mueller, quietly expand the scope of authorities to assist Mueller’s attack-dog Andrew Weissmann, and secretly was in direct communication with a man named Bill Barr to work the control angle against the office of the President, Donald J Trump…..

In mid 2018 it was apparent and predictable -as more information surfaced- the president would move to remove his ineffectual Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.  It wasn’t a matter of ‘if’ Sessions would be removed, it was a matter of ‘when’ Trump would pull the trigger.  Sessions recusal was a key element to the activity of the DC operation against Trump; if Sessions was removed, all of those in charge of constructing the cover-up operation would be at risk.  Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein and now Bill Barr were developing a plan of action.

The article then details some of that plan.

The article notes:

By September 2018 the pressure from legislative supporters for Trump to declassify documents controlled by the special counsel (they held authority over all documents) was at a fever pitch.  Congress was begging Trump to declassify.

When it looked like President Trump was going to take unilateral action, DAG Rod Rosenstein stepped in and told President Trump if he declassified any documents the special counsel would look upon that action as direct evidence of his interfering with their investigation.  Declassification would be weaponized against him.

Rosenstein’s threat worked…. Trump backed down (September 21st)…

The article concludes:

During the early December remembrances and private meetings, former President George “Dubya” Bush put the finishing touches on the plan.  President Bush recommended his friend Bill Barr to be the permanent replacement for Jeff Sessions.  The June 8th letter to Rod Rosenstein was referenced as a baseline to solidify the recommendation.

Once again, President Trump trusted…. The bad actors had now successfully executed the Bill Barr (insurance policy) part of the strategy against the office of the president.   Barr knew if he spoke a good game he would keep President Trump satiated… so he did.

Almost everyone fell for it and the media played their part in railing against Barr.

In addition to the hindsight timeline, one of the “tells” inside the scheme was how Bill Barr talked about the honor and integrity of Robert Mueller and DAG Rod Rosenstein.   By heaping praise upon them he was affirming their status as not being questioned.  The actions, actual behaviors by Mueller and Rosenstein, were being overlooked.

The rest, as they say, is history…

ps. Bill Barr quietly appointed John Durham on October 19th 2020, just outside the 90 day window of reversal, for the exact same reason as the appointment of Robert Mueller. A special counsel insurance policy to protect the deep state.

After watching what has gone on in Washington for the past five years, I am not optimistic about the future of our country. I am also not optimistic about the future of this blog. At some point, after censoring the big guys, the friends of the Biden administration will begin to shut down the little guys. So much has happened in this country so quickly, I won’t even hazard a guess as to how much longer conservative bloggers (even the little ones) will be free to express their ideas.