Something To Consider

Front Page Magazine posted an article today about the recent White House celebration of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. James Taylor sang, and everyone present celebrated the coming end of inflation.

The article reports:

Biden threw a party to celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act on the White House South Lawn even as the latest figures showed that core inflation has continued to rise. Grocery prices had the steepest increase since 1979. Rent prices shot up again and medical costs are escalating.

Even the most loyal media lapdogs could hardly stand this festival of lies. CNN cut away from Biden’s masque of red ink to show what was happening to the stock market. Reuters acidly headlined its coverage, “Biden celebrates ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ as food, rent prices climb”.

So what’s there to celebrate?

The Inflation Reduction Act is a lie. It doesn’t reduce inflation: it actually gooses it. The IRA is another inflationary leftist spending boondoggle that throws billions at green energy and $80 billion at the IRS to audit the middle class in the hopes of balancing out some of the crony cash.

The article notes the real intention of the Inflation Reduction Act:

The Biden administration isn’t fighting inflation, it’s deliberately increasing it even as its cronies in the Federal Reserve hammer home new interest rate hikes to force the economy into a recession. This two-step dance destroys savings, wrecks investments and allows for a massive wealth transfer to Democrat donors, special interests and voters. The more that the Democrat majority spends, the worse inflation gets and the more justification there is for higher rates.

If a recession arrives, there’ll be even more justification for government wealth transfers.

The transfer of wealth actually began during the Covid pandemic. Small businesses were forced to close while big box stores remained open. Amazon became the place to shop for people who were fearful of leaving their homes. Walmart remained open while the local clothing stores closed. In California, restaurants were forced to close while Hollywood created their own restaurants on movie sets. Churches closed while liquor store remained open. The transfer of wealth has been happening for a while.

The article concludes:

While inflation is a useful tool, it’s not the only one. The EPA, CDC, FDA, USDA and numerous government agencies with virtually unchecked regulatory powers can dramatically change product availability and price at the macro level leading to demands for further interventions.

COVID lockdowns were the patient zero of this new economy. Seemingly irrational and unjust measures shut down small businesses while allowing Amazon and major retailers to roll on. But there was nothing irrational about it. This was a deliberate strategy to further consolidate the retail sector, concentrating the pain among small businesses before offering them temporary subsidies, and narrowing the retail pipeline to put it even further under government control.Labor disputes in rail lines and UPS allow Democrat unions to shut down the supply chain.

But as they used to say on television, “This was only a test.” Socialism, on a much broader scale than we’ve seen it, is being tested. As destructive as these tests were, that’s still what they are. Anyone living under actual socialism can tell you that it can get much worse. And will.

When that happens, Biden will throw an even bigger party. And we’ll be the ones paying for it.

What We Believed Because Of What We Were Told

On Wednesday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about Watergate. Watergate was a long time ago, but the article explains how it is relevant today. The article is titled, “Exploding the Watergate Myth.” The article deals with a recent book written by John O’Connor, a veteran criminal prosecutor and friend of FBI number-two Mark Felt (who later admitted to being Deep Throat). The book is titled, The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened. I would also recommend another book that undoes much of what we have been told about Watergate–The Secret Plot to Make Ted Kennedy President by Geoff Sheppard. Both of these books totally contradict what we were led to believe at the time and both reach very interesting conclusions. For more information on the Geoff Sheppard book look here.

The article cites a lot of interesting ideas from the John O’Connor book:

By book’s end, Woodward and Bernstein – and their editors no longer look like heroes. Far from it. Also, the title All the President’s Men turns out to be a misnomer. Watergate wasn’t really a Nixon job. It was a CIA caper.

Where to start? Perhaps with Howard Hunt, the White House operative whose name was found in address books belonging to two of the Watergate burglars.  If you saw All the President’s Men, you may remember Woodward’s discovery that Hunt was also at the CIA and that he worked part-time at a PR firm called Mullen. Mullen never comes up again in the movie. In fact, as Woodstein soon found out, it was a CIA front.

But that little detail never made it way into any of their Post articles. Because on July 10, 1972, according to CIA records to which O’Connor gained access, Mullen’s president, Robert F. Bennett made a deal with Woodward – O’Connor calls it “a conspiracy of obstruction” – to feed him Watergate stories in exchange for a promise to omit from Post reporting any mention of Mullen’s role as a CIA front. It was a highly curious arrangement, given that, as O’Connor notes, “Bennett had no stories to feed Woodward, who, with Deep Throat’s help, hardly needed Bennett. So if Woodward kept quiet, and intentionally so, about Mullen, it was for the Post’s purposes, not the CIA’s.”

And what were the Post’s purposes? Well, it soon became clear to Woodstein that the Watergate break-in had been a CIA operation for which Hunt, because he was a White House official, had been able to claim presidential authorization. Yet the Post – which, as O’Connor notes, was founded in 1877 as “the official organ of the Democratic Party” and which in the 1970s, believe it or not, shared a general counsel (Joseph Califano) with the DNC – didn’t want to bring down the CIA. It wanted to bring down Nixon. And after learning that the CIA’s motive for the break-in had to do not with political secrets but with a prostitution referral service that was operating out of DNC headquarters, the Post wanted to protect Democrats.

Why, then, did Nixon pursue the ultimately self-destructive cover-up? Because John Dean – the White House counsel who, unbeknownst to Nixon, had had his own personal reasons for wanting the DNC’s prostitution records – urged Nixon to do so, never informing him that what he was covering up was, in fact, a CIA project. As O’Connor observes, if Nixon hadn’t pursued the cover-up, the truth about the break-in might actually have come out, and Nixon would’ve been seen not as its mastermind but as an innocent fall guy.

You may ask: if the Post hid the truth about Watergate, how did that truth stay hidden for so long? The answer requires you, if you’re old enough, to think back to the pre-Internet era. It was remarkably easy, back then, to hide facts – even facts that had gone public. As it happens, news stories containing key elements of the real Watergate story appeared at the time in various newspapers around the U.S. But they weren’t national newspapers. Their reports weren’t picked up by other media. And so they disappeared quickly down the memory hole.

The article at Front Page Magazine mentions the Geoff Sheppard book:

There’s another relatively new Watergate book that’s well worth reading. In The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President, Geoff Shepard, who was a young lawyer in the Nixon White House, doesn’t focus overmuch on the Post or the CIA or the reasons for the DNC break-in, but instead laments Nixon’s betrayal by appointees like John Dean and Elliott Richardson, demonstrates that Nixon was a victim of “extensive judicial and prosecutorial abuse,” and shows how, once Nixon was in their crosshairs, leading figures in the Deep State – from Bradlee to Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, both Kennedy family intimates – cynically worked together to remove from the Oval Office a man who’d just been re-elected by an overwhelming margin of 520 to 17 electoral votes, but whom they, the Beltway insiders who felt their own judgment should trump that of the American people, uniformly despised.

And they won.

The article concludes:

Woodward and Bernstein didn’t just destroy Nixon. They radically altered the course of American history. By bringing down Nixon, they gave us Jimmy Carter. They revealed to their colleagues in the American news media just how much power they all had to shape public opinion – and how much wealth and prestige they could accrue by bending the facts to fit a partisan narrative. Woodstein’s example made possible the news media’s use, decades later, of endlessly repeated lies about Donald Trump to bring down yet another successful presidency.

In short, the real story of Watergate is far different from the story we’ve been told all these years. The only remaining mystery now is this: to what, if any, degree will John O’Connor, in the face of a press corps and a community of academic historians who are devoted to the Watergate myth, succeed in replacing that myth, in the public record, with the Nixon-friendly, Post-damning facts? 

And this is the reason Watergate is relevant today–it provides a pattern for the media and deep state to destroy a successful presidency that is a threat to their power.

What Is The Role Of The Government In Marriage And Divorce?

The dilemma I am about to share has not yet been reported in America, but I suspect it is only a matter of time. This story takes place in Denmark. Therefore, I share this article as food for thought as to how much power the government should have over marriage and divorce.

On Thursday, Front Page Magazine reported the following:

One of the many appalling challenges that have confronted Western European authorities since mass Muslim immigration began several decades ago is the arrival of adult – often elderly – men with underaged girls whom they identify as their wives.

Such marriages, of course, are not just permitted but encouraged under Islam. Muslims are taught to look in all things, big and small, to the example of their prophet, and they all know that one of the treasures of Muhammed’s harem – often described as his most beloved wife – was Aisha, whom he wed when she was six and deflowered when she was nine.

Needless to say, the pedofile alliances that are ubiquitous in the Islamic world – and legally sanctioned (or tacitly accepted) in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere – are invariably arranged and forced on girls by their parents. They’re also usually cousin marriages. The BBC’s website provides a helpful whitewash – I mean, justification – of such unions: “Arranged marriages ensure that Muslim marriages are based on compatibility rather than lustful feelings.” Yes, because there’s nothing more compatible than a 70-year-old husband and an eight-year-old wife. At least you can be pretty sure that the little girl isn’t feeling a hell of a lot of lust.

The article continues:

Støjberg’s (Inger Støjberg – a Liberal Party member of Parliament who was then serving as Minister of Immigration, Integration, and Housing in Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s center-right government) initiatives, then, offended media hacks and ivory-tower buffoons. But they also made her a national heroine, and arguably the most popular politician in Denmark.

Now, confronted with the child-bride issue, Støjberg didn’t disappoint. At first she decided to offer the girls – 23 in all – the option of divorce. Then, realizing that many of the girls, if offered a choice, would likely be under immense family pressure to stay with their “husbands,” she ordered that all of them – except for five who were between the ages of 15 and 17 – be severed at once from their so-called spouses and granted instant divorces. Between February 10 and March 18, eighteen “couples” were separated.

But Støjberg’s swift action on child brides landed her in hot water. Immigration officials and other government bureaucrats maintained that she had no power to end marriages, even if they involved minors. The European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child were both cited – not, mind you, in favor of saving girls from statutory rape, but in favor of allowing child molesters to keep on molesting.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. A heroine has gone to prison to protect children.

There are two sides to this story–balancing the protection of children and the rights of the government. I don’t ever want the government telling anyone they have to get a divorce, but I don’t want pedophilia allowed either.

I think we are going to have to look carefully at our immigration policies to see if we will permit these pedofile alliances to continue when immigrants enter the country. America has rules regarding pedophilia and the protection of children. Many of the Arab cultures do not. If people want to come to America, I think they need to follow our rules. However, I don’t want to give the government the right to demand a divorce.

What Happened In California

On Friday, Front Page Magazine posted an article by Daniel Greenfield. Mr. Greenfield generally focuses on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism, but stumbled upon the following information during an Uber ride from the airport. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. I will post some of the highlights.

The article reports:

After a long cross-country flight, I made it out of LAX and into an Uber. I wasn’t in the mood to talk, but the driver was. And hearing that I was a journalist, he wanted to tell me a story. I’ve heard a lot of stories over the years, but this may have been the most important one I let go.

He hadn’t always been driving an Uber at 11:30 at night. Not all that long ago he used to have his own business with 7 trucks before he was bankrupted by California’s insane regulations.

I listened, but didn’t pay enough attention. The impact of California’s Democrat legislative supermajority on truckers was just another data point alongside what was happening to freelancers of all kinds and a lot of small businesses. Stories like this were everywhere and there was little interest in them even in conservative circles outside the tarnished golden state.

…The massive supply chain mess that’s leaving stores empty and orders unfulfilled doesn’t have a single point of failure, but dozens of them. China’s energy shortages, the overhyped predictive powers of Big Data, the fragility of the global economy, fuel costs, and welfare state worker shortages are all players. But California’s truck bans are a key link in the great failure chain.

While I was riding home that night, California trucking companies were going bankrupt at a rapid rate. Few outside the industry were paying attention or understood what that might mean.

2019 was described as a “bloodbath” for the trucking industry with 640 trucking companies across the country filing for bankruptcy in just the first half of the year. Thousands of truck drivers were left unemployed. Many went into the expanding last mile delivery business, some as contractors for Amazon. But California truckers and businesses had their own special woes.

Two years ago, Governor Newsom signed the Democrat supermajority’s Assembly Bill 5 into law. While AB5 was billed as a crackdown on Uber and Lyft, forcing the companies to treat l freelance contractors as employees, the gig economy companies pushed Proposition 22 so that they were the only ones exempt from the law. (A Democrat judge has since illegally blocked the approved ballot measure while falsely claiming that it was unconstitutional.)

AB5 however was less about Uber than it was about outlawing freelance employees in order to force them into unions. The union power grab inconvenienced Uber and Lyft, but crushed freelance workers in a variety of fields including journalism. One of the fields was trucking.

Over the summer, the California Trucking Association actually went to the Supreme Court to fight AB5 and allow owners and operators to use independent contractors. The CTA listed 70,000 owner operators. In the years since AB5, Ubers have become scarcer and more expensive, which is what the law was actually designed to do, but the consequences to the trucking industry have been far worse albeit invisible to most people until now. While truckers are still protected from AB5, many in the industry are not willing to bet their future on SCOTUS.

AB5 was not only the assault on the trucking industry by California Democrats who were aggressively trying to unionize the industry and to impose environmental regulations on it.

The article then goes on to detail California’s efforts to switch all of its trucking to electric trucks.

The article notes:

While the ultimate truck ban was scheduled for 2045, an initial phase-in of 5% to 9% begins in 2024. Last year, California’s DMV began refusing to register thousands of trucks with an estimated 100,000 trucks under threat. With “green” trucks costing $70,000 more, this was a non-starter for already troubled independent owner-operators and even larger companies.

…Biden called for ports to operate around the clock, but that’s not going to magically bring back thousands of trucks or truckers. California Democrats still haven’t changed their regulations and without that, there’s no incentive or even legal structure that would allow trucks to operate.

Laws have consequences.

Common Sense In Dealing With Economic Migrants

On Thursday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about a new proposal in Denmark to deal with the economic migrants flooding their country.

The article reports:

Denmark has done something sensible – and remarkably, its left-wing politicians have been the ones promoting the measure – by proposing that migrants be required to work 37 hours a week in order to receive welfare benefits. If they refuse, they will be stripped of their benefits and, presumably, will either capitulate and go to work, or leave Denmark, in order to move to another European country that might take them in, or to return to their countries – overwhelmingly Muslim — of origin.

The report on the measure was discussed in an article in The U.K. Daily Mail.

The U.K. Daily Mail reports:

The proposal by the minority Social Democratic government, a traditionally left wing administration that has adopted right wing anti-immigration policies, would require migrants who have been on benefits for at least three years to find work. 

It said the programme was necessary because many women of foreign descent do not work, especially those with roots in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey. 

…’If one cannot support oneself, one must have a duty to participate and contribute what is equivalent to a regular working week to receive the full welfare benefit.’ 

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has claimed the policy is intended to help migrants integrate into Danish society, with plans to encourage them to learn the language, but the proposal has been widely criticised as unfair. 

The article at Front Page Magazine concludes:

Could anyone except the Muslims be outraged by such an obvious requirement? Nothing could be fairer, nor more infuriating to Muslims who believe the world of Infidels owes them a living.

If there are not enough 37-hour-per-week jobs available from private employers, it is not beyond the ability of the public sector – the various governmental agencies – to offer full-time jobs, albeit menial ones, to migrants. And of course, it is possible that migrants could take on more than one job – many Americans work two or three jobs to make ends meet – to fulfill the 37-hour requirement.

What should we call this insistence of the Social Democrats in Denmark, that “if you come to Denmark, you have to work and support yourself and your family”?

I’d call it Common Sense.

Why in the world should any nation open its doors to people who want to be supported without contributing anything? America was built by people who came here to work hard and prosper. Denmark should be able to expect the same from its immigrants.

Questionable At Best

Yesterday Front Page Magazine posted a rather disturbing article about some of the Biden administration’s policies in the Middle East.

The article reports:

Iran and its proxies have targeted the US with missile strikes in Iraq. Its Houthi proxies have struck at Saudi Arabia from Yemen. So even as Biden is helping lubricate the flow of money to Iran’s terror machine, is pulling anti-missile batteries out of Iran’s way.

You’ll have to navigate some media spin for the story.

The Pentagon is pulling approximately eight Patriot antimissile batteries from countries including Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, according to officials. Another antimissile system known as a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad system, is being withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and jet fighter squadrons assigned to the region are being reduced, those officials said.

…US forces in Iraq have come under fire from Iranian and proxy missiles. Either pull all the troops out of harm’s way or keep protecting them. Removing missile defenses while keeping thousands of American forces there just invites Iran to attack our troops.

…Iran is escalating. Biden is appeasing. As usual.

A senior defense official said the equipment withdrawals amount to a return to a more traditional level of defense for the region. Under former President Donald Trump, the U.S. actively deployed defensive systems as well as troops, jet fighter squadrons and naval warships to support its maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

By traditional, the echo chamber spinners mean Obama’s old appeasement policies.

Sometimes I wonder if the Biden administration isn’t simply trying to see how much damage they can do to America in a short time.

Following The Money

We have reached the point where very few of our representatives and so-called public servants in Washington have defining principles. If you want to know why a politician can change his stand drastically on an issue in a short period of time, all you have to do is look for the shift in the political winds or follow the money. It is not by chance that many Congressmen enter Congress as middle-class Americans and are millionaires within five years. The latest example of money vs. principles is the former Speaker of the House John Boehner. On Friday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about some of former Representative Boehner’s financial interests.

The article reports:

All that’s left is for Boehner to join the roster of ‘ex-racists’ touting Biden. When the slimy ex-speaker calls Biden a “good guy”, that’s not an endorsement anyone would want.

And when Biden quipped that he “loved” Boehner, that’s almost as bad.

What’s there to love? Let’s forget the booze and go right to the pot.

While Boehner can be found addressing the Bank of Montreal, the Edison Electric Institute (an electric company lobby), and a Portland life insurance company offering services to the “ultra-affluent” for pay, he’s better known for going to pot.

Boehner, who had opposed drugs as an elected official, received the high honor of heading up the National Cannabis Roundtable to lobby for drug legalization. The former House Speaker came by the position naturally since he was already on the board of Acreage Holdings.

Acreage Holdings has one of the biggest marijuana operations in America. As Democrats began to legalize drugs in select states, companies were formed to get in on the action. But despite all the hype, the marijuana business was a disaster. 

Legalizing and taxing pot just meant users buying cheap ‘illegal’ pot from drug dealers.

Acreage tried opening operations everywhere only to pull back. The marijuana company suffered $286 million in net losses in 2020. But there was some good news. 

Canopy Growth, a Canadian company, controlled by Constellation Brands, a liquor company which owns everything from Svedka Vodka to Robert Mondavi, has a deal to buy Acreage on the condition that marijuana is federally legalized in the United States.

And the only way that could happen is with a Democrat in the White House.

As one headline bluntly put it, “Canopy Growth Is Headed to $0 Without a Biden Victory”.

The article notes the financial windfall for Boehner if marijuana becomes legal federally:

Boehner had 625,000 shares of Acreage at the time the article was written and it noted that, “if his former colleagues in Congress help make marijuana federally legal, he’d be eligible to receive Canopy shares worth about $16 million.”

A New York Times article wrote that, “Boehner’s pro-weed epiphany coincides with the prospect of a payday as high as $20 million.”

That’s a lot of money. And to collect all that drug money, Boehner needs Republicans to lose.

Who was Boehner going to back in the election? Not the Trump administration which had tossed Obama’s pro-marijuana Cole memo which had been used to build a new drug industry.

And not Republicans who aren’t friendly enough to his new drug industry friends.

I am not someone who wants to see marijuana legalized. The marijuana of today is not the marijuana of the 1960’s, and we don’t know enough about the long-term effects. I also don’t think we need another chemical available that impacts brain function either short term or long term.

Is Voter Fraud Real?

One of the objections to voting by mail is the possibility of increased voter fraud. There are some politicians and media people that claim that voter fraud does not exist and that voting by mail would not be a problem. I would like to share a few articles that call that idea into question.

The first article was posted today at The Gateway Pundit.

The article reports:

In a Gateway Pundit exclusive a non-citizen in Oregon recently came forward and explained how the Oregon government automatically registered her to vote.

“I just want to highlight to American citizens this does happen. I don’t know why there’s this blind belief that it cannot happen. It does happen, it happened to me,” says a woman who has come forward to tell the story about how she, as a non citizen, ended up getting registered to vote without even knowing it, and had ballots sent to her.

Ever since the advent of vote-by-mail, elections integrity activists have pointed out all the different ways that such a system could be compromised.

While rumors have circulated for years that illegal aliens and non citizens were voting, most of the evidence pointing to such has been circumstantial, with few traces of actual hard evidence.

…Ballots started arriving in her mailbox in 2016, and continued through 2018, for a total of five elections. She says she likely would have received a sixth ballot had she not taken the steps to cancel her voter registration.

Thank God for her honesty.

The next article comes from WHSV Channel 3 in West Virginia.

The article reports:

West Virginia’s secretary of state says they’re investigating an absentee ballot fraud scheme in the state that was connected to the state’s mass effort for absentee voting amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the start of April, West Virginia county clerk’s offices began an effort to mail absentee ballots to every registered voter in the state.

West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner announced the plan at the end of March.

Essentially, every voter registered in the state was sent ab absentee ballot application to their registered address.

State leaders encouraged all voters to fill out the applications and submit them to their county clerk in order to receive an absentee ballot for the election, and then mark the ballot according to state instructions by election day. And voters responded, with about 18% of West Virginia’s registered voters requesting absentee ballots for the June 9 primary election.

Now, on May 21, Secretary of State Mac Warner announced that his office had investigated a ballot fraud scheme and referred their findings to the United States Attorney for prosecution.

According to Warner, allegations of the scheme were referred to and investigated by the WV Election Fraud Task Force, which is a multi-agency law enforcement effort that was formed in April as a way to deter potential voter and election fraud with upcoming elections. Investigators responded to a complaint quickly, and Warner said the absentee ballot fraud scheme was uncovered early and will have no impact on the outcomes of any elections.

However, West Virginia law prevents Warner from disclosing any facts or details of the investigation.

The third article was posted at Front Page Magazine on Friday.

The article reports:

A former Judge of Elections has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia. 

“Demuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear. This is utterly reprehensible conduct. The charges announced today do not erase what he did, but they do ensure that he is held to account for those actions,” said U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

…Domenick J. Demuro pled guilty in March to the charges in a filing that was unsealed Thursday, the DOJ said. He admitted to being directed by an unnamed political consultant to inflate votes for “clients and preferred candidates” in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primaries in exchange for “money and other things of value.” While he only cast 27 fraudulent ballots in the 2014 election, 40 votes in May 2015, and 46 in 2016, election results showed that the numbers accounted for over 22 percent of the total votes cast from Demuro’s voting location in 2014, over 15 percent in 2015, and over 17 percent in 2016.

You get the picture. Voter fraud does exist. If voting by mail is put in place, we will have voter fraud on steroids. If you value the republic and honest elections, you will not support voting by mail.