For anyone who wants to hear a discussion of some of the articles on this blog, please tune into WTKF on Thursdays at about 5:30 pm. The online link is here.
The polls are indicating that the Republicans will do well in the mid-term Congressional elections. That wouldn’t be unusual–the party opposite from the President always does well in the mid-terms. That trend was the reason President Clinton reversed direction on a number of issues after the first med-term of his presidency. There is a belief in some circles that the Republicans will do really well because the Biden administration has created problems with inflation, energy independence, border security, etc. Does anyone actually believe that the Democrats will sit quietly by and let the Republicans take over?
On Tuesday, The Epoch Times posted an article about a recent undercover tape released by Project Veritas.
The article reports:
A South Carolina state lawmaker who was on the June 28 ballot in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary runoff has been heard in leaked audio strategizing on how to utilize Democratic “sleepers” to run as Republicans in local elections, as well as requesting drug money from a state prison inmate.
Project Veritas, the watchdog organization that obtained the recording, confirmed to The Epoch Times that it verified state Rep. Krystle Matthews was the person speaking with Perry Correctional Institution inmate David Solomon Ballard.
“When we get enough of us in there, we can wreak havoc for real from the inside out,” Matthews is heard saying in the recording, dated Feb. 15.
Inmate phone calls are recorded, and those making the call are notified by an operator that calls are recorded.
It’s unclear what the relationship is between Matthews and Ballard, who in 2018 began a four-year sentence for threatening the life and family of a public official, and a 10-year sentence for resisting arrest and assaulting an officer, with multiple disciplinary actions taken against him since his incarceration. He also has an extensive arrest record.
Ballard had been jailed for threatening the life of Aiken County Sheriff Mike Hunt and his family, according to The State.
While in custody at the Aiken County Department of Public Safety, Ballard then assaulted a State Law Enforcement Division agent.
Somehow the expression “You are known by the company you keep” comes to mind.
The article continues:
“We need some secret sleepers,” she is heard saying. “Like, you need, we need them to run as the other side, even though they for our side, and we need them to win.
“We need people to run as Republicans in these local elections.”
…After discussing how sleepers could “change the dynamics in South Carolina,” Matthews goes on to complain about raising money for her campaign, saying she doesn’t care if she obtains “dope money.”
“Gimmie that dope boy money,” Matthews says, before telling Ballard to find her someone from his family to donate money to her campaign in their name.
Matthews then alluded to types “of black people.”
“I don’t recognize these black people,” Matthews said, and referred to herself as “a [racial slur] at heart.”
Matthews also said there needs to be people who can take yard signs down at night while people are sleeping.
Somehow at least some of our elected officials have missed (or avoided) the concept of ethics.
On Tuesday, The New York Post reported the following:
At least three Big Apple election sites told voters they didn’t have Republican ballots for New York’s primary race Tuesday, as thousands headed to the polls to cast their vote for governor, The Post has learned.
One voter, Ed Gavin, 62, arrived at his Bronx polling site in Spuyten Duyvil around 8:15 a.m. to cast his vote for GOP gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino but after checking in with a poll worker, he was handed a Democratic ballot instead, he said.
“My party never came up, my political preferences were never discussed … I opened the sleeve and I saw the names of Tom Suozzi, Kathy Hochul and Jumaane Williams. These were all Democrats for governor,” Gavin, a retired Department of Correction deputy warden, told The Post.
“I flipped it over because I thought maybe the Republicans were on the back but there were no Republicans.”
Gavin was incredulous and went back to the poll worker to inform them he’d been given the wrong ballot.
“They told me ‘we don’t have any Republican ballots,’” Gavin recalled.
The article notes:
The Post later visited the polling site and confirmed with a worker that Republican ballots were unavailable to voters earlier in the morning.
“We couldn’t find the ballots earlier, but we have them now,” the worker said.
The article reports:
Vincent Ignizio, the Deputy Executive Director of the city Board of Elections, didn’t dispute Gavin’s account when asked by The Post for comment, and instead, shifted blame to the polling location.
“Our 1,200-plus polling sites citywide are aware that we have both Republican and Democratic statewide primaries today, and the ballots for each to distribute. We have reiterated this to our borough offices to ensure all voters receive the appropriate ballots,” Ignizio said.
When Giove reported her issue on Twitter, a rep tweeted back to her that they would investigate what happened.
Gavin, who voted for Mayor Eric Adams during the mayoral election, called the snafu unacceptable and said he would’ve been just as angry if he found out there were no Democratic ballots available at the location.
Ed Gavin noted that some of the things he felt were on the ballot in New York this year were crime, bail reform, and criminal justice.
On Tuesday, NewsMax reported that the Biden administration has denied the request of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to celebrating the Fourth of July with fireworks at Mount Rushmore.
The article reports:
After the administration rejected Noem’s permit request for fireworks last year, the state in September applied to hold fireworks at the national memorial this year. The request was denied.
“We are not going to be able to host those fireworks this year at Mount Rushmore. I am suing [President] Joe Biden and the White House over not allowing us to move forward with that. The fact is that they’re violating federal law by not letting South Dakota celebrate our independence over that great monument,” Noem said on “The Chad Prather Show.”
“One of the reasons that they are doing that, I think, is specific to punishing South Dakota, but they claim lots of other reasons but they’re ignoring federal law by denying us that permit.”
Noem added that the state’s tourism business, South Dakota’s second largest industry, will suffer because of the administration’s decision.
…The National Park Service (NPS) — citing the COVID-19 pandemic, wildfire risks, opposition from tribal partners, environmental concerns, and ongoing construction at the federal landmark — denied Noem’s permit request for 2021.
NPS in March denied Noem’s permit application for 2022 fireworks, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported.
The state’s permit application was submitted through the South Dakota Department of Tourism and requested a “special event” to occur at Mount Rushmore from between June 15 to July 10, according to the rejection letter.
The article concludes:
The NPS letter also cited conflicting schedules, as the agency plans to host a “patriotic Independence Day celebration in 2022,” unreasonable interference with visitor services – basically, the closing to the public of the Memorial and possible damages to the park because of the increased fire threat, according to the newspaper.
Basically we are only allowed to celebrate July Fourth at Mount Rushmore when we have a Republican President. That should give everyone cause for thought.
It is no secret that the Washington Swamp has members of both parties. Both parties have their goals, although sometimes for different reasons. For example, both sides want illegal immigration–the Democrats see future voters and the Swamp Republicans see cheap labor. Swamp creatures in both parties hated President Trump because he was a threat to their happy existence as part of the swamp. However, most of the time the Republican Swamp Creatures were more subtle in undermining President Trump.
An editorial in The Washington Examiner may illustrate the fact that the days of subtlety are over. The editorial, basing its statements on the recent testimony regarding January 6th by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, states that the testimony is proof that President Trump is unfit to be President because of his temperament. Well, there are a few problems with this. Ms. Hutchinson was not actually a witness to the events she described. She heard it through the grape vine? Also Secret Service Agents working for President Trump at the time are willing to swear under oath that her testimony is false. You would think that would give the editorial staff at The Washington Examiner pause, but evidently it did not. Where are the editorials that President Biden is unfit for office because he has no idea what office he holds?
There is also another problem with Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony according to The Gateway Pundit:
Meanwhile, Breitbart reported the following on Tuesday:
The January 6 Committee’s credibility suffered a serious blow on Tuesday when reports surfaced that the lead Secret Service agent in charge of former President Trump’s security detail that day would contradict testimony delivered from star witness Cassidy Hutchinson.
On Tuesday, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that former President Trump literally tried to commandeer the presidential suburban during the January 6 riot and became borderline violent when Bobby Engel tried to stop him. Hutchinson said she learned of the story from Tony Ornato, the then-White House deputy chief of staff. Hours later, Peter Alexander of NBC News said that a source close to the Secret Service indicated that agent Bobby Engel will testify “under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
The article at Breitbart included the following meme:
On Tuesday, Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article about Attorney John Eastman. Attorney Eastman has an impressive record as an attorney. He is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the conservative think tank Claremont Institute. He is a former professor and dean at the Chapman University School of Law. He is also a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
His phone was recently seized by the FBI as he was leaving a restaurant. He was not shown a warrant for the seizure until after his phone was taken.
On Monday, The Washington Times reported:
Eastman said the agents who approached him identified themselves as from the FBI but appeared to be serving a warrant on behalf of the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, which he contends has no jurisdiction to investigate him since he has never worked for the department. He said the cell phone that was seized contains emails that have been the subject of a months-long dispute between him and the House panel.
“That litigation has received extensive media attention, so it is hard to imagine that the Department of Justice, which apparently submitted the application for the warrant at issue here, was not aware of it,” wrote his lawyers, Charles Burnham and Joseph Gribble.
There is little doubt that Attorney Eastman’s phone was seized because of his work on behalf of President Trump to investigate election fraud.
The article at Power Line Blog concludes:
The AP covers the story here. Orin Kerr takes up the legality of the search and seizure in a Twitter thread here. We remain to be illuminated on the criminal law for which the FBI claims it has probable cause against Eastman. Late in the thread he notes that the warrant does not extend beyond the seizure of John’s phone (i.e., it covers seizure only).
Eastman’s close encounter with the FBI last week was obviously coordinated with the close encounters of Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark and Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald. The FBI appears to have taken up the role of the ruling party’s enforcement arm.
We are rapidly approaching banana-republic status if we have not reached it already.
On Tuesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent comment by Joe Scarborough about illegal immigration.
The article reports:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Tuesday that there is “nothing progressive” about political leaders encouraging illegal immigration.
The “Morning Joe” panel criticized the current state of the U.S.-Mexico border by pointing to Texas authorities finding at least 46 people dead inside an 18-wheeler semi-truck in San Antonio. The Mexican foreign minister said a total of 50 died and among the deceased were 22 Mexicans, 7 Guatemalans and 2 Hondurans.
Scarborough said these tragedies will continue as long as the U.S. “keeps sending the message” that the nation does not “have laws” and therefore migrants can enter the country illegally.
“It’s kind of like when I talk about homelessness, there’s nothing progressive about having people sleeping in 10 degree weather, sleeping on grates, that’s not progressive. There’s also nothing progressive about encouraging migrants to risk their lives going across the desert to come into the United States illegally. Immigration, it is who we are, and all immigrants around the world should be given an equal chance to immigrate to America legally. Immigration makes us stronger as a nation.”
The article concludes:
Hispanic voters have fled the Democratic Party during President Joe Biden’s administration, though historically largely backing Democratic leaders for decades. A May 18 Quinnipiac poll found only 26% of Hispanic respondents that said they approved of how President Joe Biden is handling his job while 60% said they disapproved.
Inflation and supply chain issues have ranked the highest in Hispanic voters’ priorities and has caused them to shift political parties.
Newly-elected Republican Texas Rep. Mayra Flores won a southern Texan district that had not elected a Republican in several years.
Our nation is stronger when we allow people who want to be contributing members of American society to immigrate. We need immigrants who respect our laws and are willing to become part of American society. We do not need people who come here illegally and expect everyone else to support them. Do you suppose that since Hispanic voters are fleeing the Democrat party, the Democrats will begin to move against illegal immigration?
The protests continue against the Supreme Court ruling against abortion, despite the fact that the ruling did nothing more than allow each state to make its own rules regarding abortion. So what is all this noise actually about? First of all, abortion is a million-dollar industry that contributes large amounts of money to politician’s campaign coffers. If abortion is limited, campaign contributions will also be limited. Secondly, it is cheaper for a corporation to pay for an abortion than to pay for maternity leave and the costs associated with motherhood. Also, a mother’s first priority is generally her child–not the corporation. So abortion does make a large contribution to the economy and to the political class. That explains some of the horror at the idea that some states will be limiting abortion. Meanwhile, the government is seriously interested in maintaining the status quo.
On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:
The administration has not decided yet whether it will pursue the plan, which is favored by left-wing legislators Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but Becerra said that “every option is on the table.”
…Becerra’s comments are at odds with those of Vice President Kamala Harris, who said just Monday that the administration was not discussing clinics on federal lands.
The article concludes:
The proposal, if pursued by the administration, would offer women a safe haven for abortion access in red states, most of which have already curtailed access. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban overturned the 49-year-old constitutional guarantee of the right to an abortion, sending the power of regulating access to the procedure back to the states. But abortion is not federally illegal.
“We know that there is misinformation out there about what the Supreme Court did. We want to make sure it’s clear that Americans didn’t lose every right they have. Americans still can assert their rights, and we will do everything we can to protect you,” Becerra said
Just for the record, abortion was never and never should be a right.
On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported that three retired military generals (West Point graduates) signed a letter expressing concern about the current leadership of West Point.
The article reports:
The letter, titled “Declaration of Betrayal of West Point And the Long Gray Line,” asks for the following information:
- An explanation for the irregularities in the enforcement of the Honor Code.
- A justification for the mandatory vaccinations of cadets with the COVID Virus despite widespread adverse reactions to the inoculation, as well as provisions for exceptions for cadets with religious objections.
- An explanation for teaching Critical Race Theory at the Academy that constitutes an attack upon the Constitution and our constitutional Republic. This is behavior that constitutes unconstitutional conduct, if not sedition.
- An explanation of reported mismanagement of the cadet dining facility resulting in unsanitary conditions, inadequate food prepared for the meal, and food served that was reportedly unfit for consumption.
- Political activism on the part of civilian faculty members constituting political activity violating the long-standing policy of the Academy and Army Regulations.
- The practice of exclusive reliance upon radical progressive guest speakers to address the Corps of Cadets. This practice results in prejudiced political activism on the part of the Staff and Faculty in violation of Army Regulations.
- An explanation for the failure of the Superintendent to respond to correspondence inquiring about problems identified at the Academy.
The article explains the reason for the letter:
They believe that there is a rejection of the principles of the military academy which could endanger its original mission “to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army.”
The U.S. military is not meant to be a social experiment. It is not supposed to be the forefront of social change–it is supposed to be the best example of military readiness and preparedness. The inclusion of Critical Race Theory in the curriculum of military academies does not promote unity in our military. It separates people out by groups and makes it more difficult for soldiers to work together. The generals who wrote the letter need to be commended for their actions.
On Monday, Townhall reported that the Supreme Court had released a decision regarding religious liberty.
The article reports:
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday in favor of public High School football coach and former U.S. Marine Joseph Kennedy’s right to pray on the field after games.
“Joseph Kennedy began working as a football coach at Bremerton High School in 2008 after nearly two decades of service in the Marine Corps. Like many other football players and coaches across the country, Mr. Kennedy made it a practice to give ‘thanks through prayer on the playing field’ at the conclusion of each game,” the opinion explains. “In his prayers, Mr. Kennedy sought to express gratitude for ‘what the players had accomplished and for the opportunity to be part of their lives through the game of football.’ Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers after the players and coaches had shaken hands, by taking a knee at the 50-yard line and praying ‘quiet[ly]’ for ‘approximately 30 seconds. Initially, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own. See ibid. But over time, some players asked whether they could pray alongside him.”
“Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks. Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided.”
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is nothing in the First Amendment about separation of church and state. That concept is not part of our Constitution. That concept came out of a letter written by
Thomas Jefferson. Americans should be free to pray anywhere they want to, and other Americans should be free to join them. The Supreme Court made the right decision according to our Constitution.
On Saturday, The Epoch Times reported the following:
A retired Texas couple says FBI agents on June 22 broke through the gate of their rural home, threw flash-bangs, handcuffed them, and trained lasers on them before searching their home for evidence connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol.
Lora DeWolfe and Darrel Kennemer, who live on seven acres near San Marcos, Texas, told The Epoch Times they attended the Jan. 6 rally at the Capitol but did nothing wrong. They believe the FBI mistakenly identified Kennemer as someone else.
The FBI didn’t arrest them, they said. Agents eventually produced a search warrant saying Kennemer was suspected of “assaulting, resisting or impeding” officers and “entering restricted building or grounds.”
Both said they went no farther than the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 and didn’t harm anyone or damage anything. They said the allegation of assault was false, and the FBI kept showing Kennemer a blurry photo of a man who looked similar but wasn’t Kennemer.
Why is the FBI raiding the homes of innocent people rather than simply knocking on the door and asking questions? This behavior is more reminiscent of a police state than a democratic republic.
The article notes:
The ordeal began when their gate alarm woke them up in the pre-dawn hours of June 22, DeWolfe said. At first, they thought a deer had tripped the alarm, but DeWolfe got up and saw a white car. Kennemer got his AR-15 rifle and went outside, not knowing what to expect, DeWolfe said.
“I’m seeing one single white vehicle moving pretty fast, and I was thinking someone’s going to die,” Kennemer said.
FBI officers got out of the white vehicle and told Kennemer, who had his rifle up in the air, to drop his weapon. He kept his rifle and asked the FBI to show him a warrant. Kennemer said someone threw a flash-bang at him repeatedly because he wouldn’t drop his weapon at first.
DeWolfe said Kennemer put the gun down when she came out of the house. She noticed red laser sights trained on both of them.
“There was a drone flying around and an aircraft,” she said. “They never showed a warrant until the end.”
DeWolfe then tried calling a neighbor before the FBI told them to drop their phones, which ended up recording the first few minutes of the raid.
Agents entered the house and threw a flash-bang that frightened their dogs, causing one to run away, DeWolfe said.
Unfortunately, the FBI is accountable to the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, so there will be no consequences for this unacceptable behavior. It is possible that Congress may investigate, but since the Democrats hold Congress, that too is highly unlikely.
On Friday, The Daily Caller reported that Colorado will now use taxpayer dollars to fund healthcare for illegal aliens. It’s not that I don’t want people to get the healthcare they need, but the first priority for healthcare needs to be American citizens who are here legally. If you are here illegally, you need to go home. If home is a political nightmare, maybe you need to find people to join you in fixing it.
The article reports:
The program was approved under Section 1332, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that allows states to create their own requirements for insurance markets. Both the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved Colorado’s waiver request, submitted in November 2021. The federal government will provide $1.6 billion in pass-through funding to the state of Colorado over a five-year period to facilitate its healthcare exchanges.
Colorado’s application makes clear that its new healthcare exchanges are intended to facilitate the sale of taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to illegal immigrants.
“The State will be implementing a State-based subsidy program in plan year 2022, aimed at reducing the out-of-pocket cost sharing for individuals and families purchasing coverage through the exchange. In plan year 2023, a new subsidy program will be offered to Coloradans not eligible for federal subsidies, including Coloradans without a documented immigration status,” the state wrote in its application of the Colorado Option.
The article concludes:
Congressional Republicans are calling out the approval, with Colorado Rep. Ken Buck claiming that it violates the “clear intent” of the Affordable Care Act.
“While Americans suffer at the pump, Biden gives their tax dollars to illegal aliens,” Buck said in a statement. “This is one more episode of the Biden administration’s almost unbelievable commitment to putting the needs of Americans behind everyone else.”
“Democrats are putting illegal aliens first and Americans last. While Coloradans struggle to pay for gas and are being destroyed by inflation, Democrats’ top priority is to take your tax dollars and use them to give illegal aliens free Obamacare,” fellow Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert added.
As long as we have Americans struggling to pay for health care, we should not be subsidizing illegal aliens. We are already diverting funds designated for veterans to other places (article here), we don’t need to spend more tax money on people who are not even here legally.
On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the attorneys who argued the concealed carry case before the Supreme Court were forced to retire from their law firm.
The article reports:
The lawyers who won a major Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week got even less than a pat on the back from the white-shoe law firm they work for – they were forced to quit.
Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.
“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”
The article concludes:
The decision has implications for at least eight other so-called “may issue” states, where bureaucrats have the final say in whether a citizen merits a permit. In New York, the law was used to render concealed carry handgun permits nearly impossible to obtain.
Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Murphy, also an experienced appellate attorney, were partners in the firm. But they wrote that they were resigned to leaving after being told they can’t take on Second Amendment cases.
“This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client,” they wrote. “What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.”
We are in danger of losing our Republic.
On Thursday, PJ Media reported that Publix supermarkets are refusing to give Covid vaccines to children under five years old. Walmart is refusing to give the vaccine to children under three years old.
The article reports:
With nearly 1,300 stores in seven southern states, most of which are in the Sunshine State, the Florida-headquartered corporation was a major player in executing that state’s vaccination program in 2021. But in March of 2022, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo became the first state surgeon general to advise against COVID shots for healthy children. (Florida state guidelines do recommend parents of children with underlying health conditions or comorbidities consider vaccinating their kids against COVID.)
More recently, Florida became the only U.S. state that declined to pre-order pediatric COVID shots, Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, from the federal government.
Aside from the fact that this is an experimental vaccine, most of the current Covid cases are among vaccinated people. That makes sense because most of the population is vaccinated, but if most of the current cases are among vaccinated people, what good is the vaccine? The claim is being made that if you are vaccinated, you will get a milder case of Covid, but where is the science behind that. How can that be measured?
The article notes:
“I would say we are affirmatively against the COVID vaccine for young kids,” Gov. Ron DeSantis said on Thursday. “These are the people who have zero risk of getting anything.” He assured Floridians that “There’s not going to be any state programs that are going to be trying to, you know, get COVID jabs to infants and toddlers and newborns. That’s not something that we think is appropriate, and so that’s not where we’re going to be utilizing our resources in that regard.”
DeSantis went on to assert that the FDA panel that approved the shots for infants and toddlers did so to placate panicky parents. “To do an emergency-use authorization for a 6-month-old or a 1-year-old simply to placate anxiety, that’s not the standard when you’re doing this.”
This is an experimental vaccine. Why are we experimenting on our children?
On Thursday, The Daily Caller reported that Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has proposed an amendment to a defense bill that would provide transparency to parents of children in Department of Defense Education Activity schools.
The article reports:
The proposal amends the National Defense Authorization Act and “reinforces that service members with children in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools have the right to be involved in their children’s education, while increasing transparency and accountability in DoDEA schools,” according to a draft obtained by the Daily Caller.
Stefanik proposed the bipartisan bill after she says she discovered that DoDEA school’s educator training included “radical gender ideologies.” Stefanik alleges that one teacher training told educators to “keep gender transitioning students a secret from parents,” who are service members.
…Under the amendment, DoDEA schools would also be required to post the curriculum for each course and grade level on the school website and make “all instructional and educator professional development materials, including teacher’s manuals, films, tapes, books or other reading materials, or other supplementary materials used in any survey, analysis, or evaluation, available for inspection by the parents of children attending the school.”
The amendment has bipartisan support, according to a video from the House floor. Democratic Rep. Salud Carbajal of California expressed support for the amendment as he claims it would give parents more input in their child’s education.
The article concludes:
“America’s servicemembers have the right to be informed and involved in their children’s education, and it is unbelievable that some DoDEA educators do not trust with their own children the very men and women in uniform who keep our nation safe and secure,” Stefanik said. “There is no need for elementary school students to be taught radical gender ideology, and parents deserve full transparency from DoDEA schools about what is being taught in their child’s classroom.”
The Department of Defense Education Activity did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.
Please follow the link to the article to see the kind of material that someone thought was appropriate to teach to four-year olds. Four-year olds need to be more interested in blocks and sand boxes than homosexuality.
On Saturday, NewsMax reported that President Biden signed the gun control bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The article reports:
The legislation will toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.
Most of its $13 billion cost will help bolster mental health programs and aid schools, which have been targeted in Newtown, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, and elsewhere in mass shootings.
Biden said the compromise hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators “doesn’t do everything I want” but “it does include actions I’ve long called for that are going to save lives.”
“I know there’s much more work to do, and I’m never going to give up, but this is a monumental day,” said the president, who was joined by his wife, Jill, a teacher, for the signing.
…Biden signed the measure two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down a New York law that restricted peoples’ ability to carry concealed weapons.
While the new law does not include tougher restrictions long championed by Democrats, such as a ban on assault-style weapons and background checks for all gun transactions, it is the most impactful firearms violence measure produced by Congress since enactment a long-expired assault weapons ban in 1993.
Pay attention to the words used here–the President is signaling that he is going to push for further limitations on the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Red flag laws are unconstitutional and can be easily misused by a politicized Justice Department (or local police department or angry neighbor or angry ex-wife or angry ex-girlfriend). They deny due process to the person whose guns are being seized. Notice also that the language has changed from assault weapons ban to assault-style weapons ban. That gives the people who plan to pass a law in the future to seize these guns more latitude in the guns they seize.
We need some good court challenges to red flag laws to make their way through the courts.
From my friends at Power Line Blog::
On Friday, John Hinderaker reported at Power Line Blog on Friday that the Supreme Court had released its decision on the Dobbs case.
Townhall posted a similar article on Friday.
John Hinderaker reported:
The Supreme Court released its opinions in the Dobbs case this morning. Consistent with the leaked draft by Justice Alito, it overrules the Roe and Casey decisions. You can read the opinions here. I haven’t had time yet to review Alito’s majority opinion to see how closely it conforms to what was leaked.
The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in the result. He would have upheld the Mississippi statute without entirely overruling Roe. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions.
The Supreme Court issued an opinion Monday morning in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. Justices ruled 5-4 to uphold Dobbs, which limits abortion to 15-weeks in Mississippi, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade and returning abortion law to the states. The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito.
“Now today, the Court rightly overrules Roe and Casey—two of this Court’s “most notoriously incorrect” sub- stantive due process decisions,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
The ruling comes more than a month after a draft opinion of the case showed five justices planned to overturn Roe, with Justice Samuel Alito writing about the decision. The draft opinion is nearly identical to the final ruling.
This ruling does not end legal abortion–it simply allows each state to make its own decision on the matter. The theory behind the federalism principles that our Founding Fathers embraced was that the people in the states, who were the closest to the voters, should be the people making the majority of the laws. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional as it ignored the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We need to pay attention to the documents involved in the founding and establishment of America.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about the gun bill that was rammed through the Senate on late Tuesday.
This is the list of the Republicans who voted to end the filibuster (from The Hill):
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
It should be noted that most of these Republicans are not running for re-election. I suspect the polling on restricting gun rights shows that voting to move forward with this bill does not reflect popular opinion. All of these people should be voted out of office for not protecting the U.S. Constitution.
The Daily Wire posted a list of problems with the current bill as detailed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):
Red Flag Laws
- Incentivizes local disarmament proceedings, of which many states currently employ secret ex-parte hearings.
- Calls only for standards equivalent only to civil court.
- For all the bluster in the measure about protecting due process and the constitutional rights of the subjects of the hearings during the “appropriate phase,” it implies that states will still be able to hold secret ex-parte hearings to deprive the People of their rights.
- Entitles the subject to an attorney “at the appropriate phase,” but it must be at the subject’s expense.
- Expands the definition of “engaged in the business” by striking “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” in the current definition and replacing it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”
- This confusion could lead to new and successful prosecutions of private sellers who may fall under the broad and vague definition of “engaged in business” and therefore the need to be licensed.
New Misdemeanor Firearms Prohibitions
- By expanding the definition of a prohibiting misdemeanor domestic violence in such a vague, broad, and subjective way it invites confusion, and potential firearms prohibitions.
Transfers and Straw Purchases
- Prohibits the government from arming drug cartels, unless the government exercises more oversight on said drug cartels, thus allowing the free flow of arms to these cartels to continue in perpetuity.
Employer Background Checks
- Allows all employers to ask for a firearms background check prior to employment or during current employment, regardless of its connection to job duties.
Americans need to wake up and realize that this bill is an infringement on our rights as Americans.
On Wednesday, Breitbart reported the following:
On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) argued that the Senate gun legislation “paves the way in the future to look at” other gun control provisions.
Host Anderson Cooper asked, “Well, there [are] probably a lot of people who wanted this to — obviously, you said you wanted this to go farther in terms of gun safety or gun control. What do you say to those who say that this doesn’t go far enough and that this may make it harder to try to get further changes in the future?”
Klobuchar responded, “We have worked on this for decades. And after Parkland, I sat across from Donald Trump at the White House, along with a number of senators, he said he was going to do something about background checks. I still have the piece of paper, eight times, nine times, he said it…nothing happened. After Sandy Hook, nothing happened. And when you talk to the families who have been working on this for so long, they understand how difficult this has been, how disappointing this has been. So, to start with something that’s going to save lives, even if a particular provision wouldn’t have saved their own babies’ lives, that is an act of love and generosity of spirit that you hear from the families of those that have lost loved ones. That’s why we’re moving ahead. And I think it actually paves the way in the future to look at some of these other provisions. But if you do nothing and you just go home, then we’ve got nothing. And that’s why it’s so important to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.”
The current bill is unconstitutional. It contains red flag laws which allow the government to seize property without giving the property owner due process. Red flag laws have the potential of creating the same kind of mass hysteria that fueled the Salem Witch Trials. They could also be easily misused by citizens or the government to disarm people they did not like or who disagreed with government policies. Any Republican who votes for this bill should be voted out of office.
On Tuesday, Media Research Center posted an article about how the American media is reporting on the baby formula shortage in America.
The article reports:
The Biden administration continued to unravel last week, spiraling into the 30s in several approval polls. But the network evening newscasts are doing their best to protect the President from responsibility when it comes to the many crises threatening his presidency. The latest example is the baby formula shortage with which millions of parents across the country are facing.
Media Research Center NewsBusters analysts looked at every baby formula shortage story on the evening newscasts from when they started covering it regularly. (For ABC and NBC, that was May 9. For CBS, it was May 10.)
Do the thirty percent who actually support President Biden buy food or gasoline?
The article continues:
According to our analysis, out of the 54 evening newscast stories on the formula crisis, only 10 featured mentions of culpability or blame for the Biden administration. The other 44 did not.
ABC’s World News Tonight offered the most stories: 22 total. Of those, however, 17 had no suggestions of blame for Biden and only three hinted that the President could have some responsibility. The CBS Evening News produced 17 total stories. Fourteen had no mention of blame compared to just three that did. Finally, Nightly News managed 15 stories on the shortage. Eleven with no mention of blame and four that dared to suggest that Biden may be responsible for things happening in the country.
Instead, ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News projected Biden as proactive, taking decisive action to solve the spiraling crisis. On the May 18 NBC Nightly News, Lester Holt trumpeted, “Breaking news tonight, the major move by President Biden to tackle the nationwide baby formula shortage.” This is despite the fact that Biden’s FDA didn’t move to increase foreign imports of baby formula from abroad until mid-May.
As USA Today noted on May 26, “The problem was apparent months ago, long before the White House appeared to kick into high gear to respond to the crisis.”
The article concludes:
Whether one thinks it’s fair to blame the Biden administration for the shortage, we know that the Trump administration (and Republican presidents in general) don’t get the benefit of the doubt on things like this. Also, as I explained in a May 24, 2022 study for NewsBusters, journalists had no interest in assigning blame on Biden for the skyrocketing gas prices.
Afghanistan, inflation, gas prices, the baby formula shortage. When it comes to network reporting, nothing seems to be Joe Biden’s fault. The American public clearly don’t agree with this assessment, but the press is doing its best to cover for the President.
Can you imagine what President Trump could have accomplished if he had had this kind of media coverage?
I receive and email every day from The Daily Malarkey. It is basically a write-up of some of the foolishness that is currently going on in the media and the so-called leadership of our country.
Here is an excerpt from today’s email:
Media Doing Opposite Of Supposed Mission
FOX headline: “MSNBC, WaPo, ABC figures warn voters against gas prices influencing their vote in November; Some media pundits worried that gas prices, inflation will dominate midterm concerns” “After downplaying concerns about the economy in the last year, some media outlets are now panicking that high gas prices and inflation will tank Democrats in the midterm elections, with some pundits even scolding voters for making it a priority. “Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell told readers that it was a ‘wild fantasy’ to believe the GOP could lower gas prices, as she warned voters to ‘think carefully about what they’ll get if they cast their ballot based on gas prices,’ in a Sunday opinion piece.” “Quoting colleague E.J. Dionne, she cautioned that if Republicans win in November that could lead to ‘far more radical and sinister forces’ trying to ‘undermine democracy.’ “On MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ branding guru Donny Deutsch fretted that pocketbook issues would win out with voters this year and in 2024 as more important to them than America’s democracy being ‘in peril.’ “MSNBC host Joy Reid and political analyst Matthew Dowd characterized a red wave as a ‘threat’ the media needed to warn voters against on Monday. “‘We have to tell the voters what the threat is just like we do, Joy, we tell them about inflation, and we tell them about job growth, and we tell them about a hurricane, and we tell them about tornadoes, and we tell them about wildfire, we have to treat this assault just like we have to tell them about the assault on democracy,’ Dowd said. “Fellow MSNBC host Tiffany Cross took the same approach on her show Saturday, complaining that inflation was more of a concern for voters than the Jan. 6 committee hearings. “‘Come this November, will voters be more concerned with saving money than saving democracy?’ the ‘Cross Connection’ host asked. “Cross griped that inflation and ‘high prices’ dominated media coverage, which led Americans to be less interested in the ‘compelling testimonies and evidence’ in the Jan. 6 committee hearings.” “‘The View’ host Joy Behar absolved Biden of any responsibility for the energy crisis and said Republicans just wanted to make Biden ‘look bad.’”
An honest media would be a wonderful thing. Should we reward the Biden administration for doing a really bad job of running the country by electing people who will endorse their policies?
On Tuesday, Issues & Insights posted an article about the Biden administration’s plan to fight inflation.
The article reports:
“Today the Democratic House takes a strong step to bring down crucial kitchen table costs of the pump and grocery store and across the board.”
That’s the transcript of what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor before all but five of her fellow Democrats voted for the “Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act” last week.
Pelosi’s garbled syntax aside, the only thing this bill would lower is the public’s trust in anything Democrats say these days. Despite its title, this bill would expand government but do nothing – repeat, nothing – to lower prices today, tomorrow, or any time in the future.
Among the Democrats’ brilliant inflation-fighting ideas is to create a new meat police to harass the meat industry. Another is to expand a subsidy program for farmers that has already proved ineffective in keeping food prices from skyrocketing. Finally, it would expand the use of ethanol – a plan that even President Joe Biden admits will fail to lower fuel prices.
…The bill also claims to lower food costs by encouraging farmers to adopt “precision farming” techniques that would lower their reliance on fertilizer, the cost of which has also spiked.
Here’s how Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee describe this: “Expanding access to precision agriculture has the potential to reduce fertilizer use and lower costs while also providing resource benefits including clean water and reduced carbon use. It is also a priority to help deal with the water shortages facing growers in much of the Western United States.”
But this program has been around for 26 years and Washington has dumped more than $25 billion into these subsidies. What effect has all this largesse had on food price inflation today? Go to your nearby grocery store for the answer.
The article concludes:
Biden doesn’t believe this will make any difference either. The Washington Post reported recently that while talking up E-15 as a money saver in public, “privately, Biden dismissed the policy as ineffective” and “worried … that it exaggerated ethanol’s ability to cut gas prices and could harm his climate goals.”
There’s also the inconvenient truth that encouraging farmers to turn more corn into fuel will leave less corn for food, pushing up grocery prices. So even if consumers did see gasoline prices fall, they’d pay for it in higher food prices
The Democrats’ bill does have one thing in its favor. It makes it clear that the only way to change the direction of economic policy coming out of Washington is to change the leadership in Washington.
I am praying for an honest mid-term election.
Over the years, men have done things in the realm of nature that have not exactly worked out as they planned. The Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 resulted in a dramatic increase of the seal population off off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. That was a nice gesture to save the seals, but it resulted in an influx of great white sharks in the area because of the increased food supply for the sharks. There is also the example of kudzu, which was introduced to Americans during the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876 where it was touted as a great ornamental plant for its sweet-smelling blooms and sturdy vines. From the 1930’s to the 1950’s the Soil Conservation Service promoted it as a great tool for soil erosion control and planting it was encouraged throughout the south. Kudzu is now recognized as an invasive plant and has killed multiple trees throughout the southern United States. Gypsy moths came from a scientist in Massachusetts who was trying to breed a more hearty breed of silkworm to create silk for America. A few escaped and have the resulting moths have now gone as far south as New Jersey. It’s not good to mess with mother nature.
On Wednesday,The Daily Caller reported the following:
Field biologists discovered an 18-foot invasive Burmese python weighing 215 pounds in the Florida Everglades.
Researchers from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida believed their scale was broken when they weighed the beast, as none of them could comprehend a Burmese python would ever grow so huge, National Geographic reported Tuesday. The snake, the largest ever discovered in Florida, was captured using a male scout snake with a GPS tracker attached to it, the outlet continued. Burmese pythons are effectively impossible to spot without scout snakes, according to BroBible.
The article explains that these snakes are not native to Florida. The snakes were probably introduced by pet owners whose pets excaped or who let their pets loose because they got too big. It is frightening to me that they found deer hoof cores inside the animal. Please follow the link to read the entire article for further details.
The Biden administration’s policies have had some very interesting results. On the surface, seeing these results should have caused a rethinking of the policy involved, but it hasn’t. History will tell us whether the destruction of the American economy and the end of American energy independence was truly accidental.
On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse reported the following:
(Via New York Times) – The ruble cemented its unlikely status as the world’s best-performing currency, rising to new multiyear highs this week. Since collapsing in the weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which triggered sweeping international sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy, the ruble has come roaring back.
On Tuesday, it traded at its strongest level against the U.S. dollar since June 2015. It has gained about 35 percent so far this year, beating every major currency, and has more than doubled from its post-invasion low.
[…] Higher earnings from oil and gas exports, which have surged as prices rise and demand in Asia makes up for cutbacks in Europe, have kept the ruble elevated. At the same time, Russian imports have fallen sharply, partly the result of many foreign companies pulling out of Russia, which also support the ruble. (read more)
Oddly enough, had America continued the energy policies of the Trump administration, the overall cost of oil and gas would be less, but the American economy would be stronger and the Russian ruble would be weaker. The results of the Biden administration’s energy policies and the actions of the Biden administration regarding sanctions on Russia have had exactly the opposite effect of what was needed. Historians will debate whether this was accidental or intentional. We have officially reached the place where the difference between a conspiracy theory and a news story is about four months.