Acceptable Return On Investment?

Yesterday Just the News reported that the jobs plan that is proposed by President Biden could cost taxpayers more than $666,666 per job created. The cost of the proposal is $2 trillion. Seems like a lot of money to pay for the creation of one job. The obvious question here is ‘how much does each job pay and where is the rest of the money going?’.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that House Democrats hope to draft the formal legislation for the American Jobs Plan by May and finalize it by July 4. The White House fact sheet about the plan includes a description of key parts of the proposal but does not list the specific infrastructure projects the bill would fund. 

Democrats are considering using budget reconciliation to move the bill through Congress to avoid the filibuster in the Senate. Democrats used that strategy for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that Biden signed last month.

If you are not yet familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy, now would be a really good time to look it up.

The article concludes by reminding us of some past history:

Biden oversaw the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. The Obama administration estimated that the bill would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2009. Politifact rated former President Obama’s claim in May 2009 that the bill “saved or created” 150,000 jobs as “mostly false.”

At the time, Republicans as well as some political and economic analysts argued that it was difficult to measure how many jobs a piece of legislation could “save.” In the end, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in November 2010 that the number of saved or created jobs fell somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million.

Déjà vu all over again.

Regaining Our Right To The Free Exercise Of Religion

Yesterday Just the News reported that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that three University of Iowa officials can be held personally liable for derecognizing a Christian student club over its leadership requirements.

The article reports:

The law is “clearly established” that government officials cannot practice viewpoint discrimination, as administrators did by enforcing a “human rights” policy against Business Leaders in Christ but not other student groups, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined.

It’s exceedingly rare for courts to deny “qualified immunity” to public actors for violating constitutional rights. Litigants must point to court precedents that officials should have known were binding on their specific behavior, making it unlawful.

Yet the University of Iowa is likely to suffer a second loss on qualified immunity in a closely related case involving a different Christian club, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Oral arguments for each case were four months apart, and both went badly for the university.

The three-judge panel upheld two constitutional claims by Business Leaders in Christ but divided on the third claim, on whether administrators should have known they were violating the club’s free exercise rights.

In a concurrence and dissent, Judge Jonathan Kobes said all three claims should have been upheld.

“The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious,” he wrote. “The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution.”

I suspect this may not be the end of these lawsuits.

There Is A Humanitarian Crisis At Our Southern Border

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about what is currently happening at our southern border. When the Biden administration opened the floodgates at the border, they created a humanitarian crisis of nightmarish proportions.

The article reports:

The Biden administration’s policies on the U.S.-Mexico border are inhumane to the illegal immigrants and harmful to America, says former acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Mark Morgan.

Regarding border protection, Morgan told the John Solomon Reports podcast, “This administration is absolutely — has dismantled everything, and everything that they’re doing is against the nation’s best interest, and I believe it’s for perceived political gain.”

The Trump administration’s border policy was working. There was no reason to change it other than it was connected to President Trump.

The article continues:

According to unofficial statistics of illegal border crossers, Morgan said, “I think within the last 10-11 days, they actually had a single-day encounter of over 6,000. Have you seen that officially? Has anyone in [the Department of Homeland Security] reported that? No. Six thousand! They’re averaging, now, anywhere between probably about 4,500 to 5,000 a day.”

“But here’s the truth, and here’s the stat they’re not presenting officially: 75% of the so-called unaccompanied minors are older teenagers — 15, 16, 17 years of age,” Morgan said. “They’re not being ripped from their parents. They’re making a tough decision on their own to leave simply because they want a better job in the United States.”

I don’t blame them for that, but they need to come legally. If that is too difficult, Congress needs to work together to improve America’s immigration policies.

The article concludes:

“In November of 2020, we had less than 800 in our CBP facilities,” he said. “Now the number is 10,000 and growing every day.”

The humanity of incentivizing illegal immigration is also concerning, Morgan said.

“What is humane about a United States actively participating in encouraging, facilitating illegal immigration, where independent studies have showed up to 30% of them are abused on their way up here, they’re traveled through COVID hotspots?” Morgan asked.

“They’re shoved in overcrowded, unsanitary stash houses and tractor trailers, left in the middle of the Rio Grande and desert environment by the coyotes to fend for themselves and they often die or have to be rescued by the Border Patrol. How is that humane? And the answer is, it’s not.”

This was a totally avoidable crisis.

The Truth Eventually Comes Out

John Solomon posted an article at Just the News today that details some of the recent court decisions involving questionable practices that were instituted during the 2020 election.

The article reports on activities in a number of battleground states:

The latest ruling came this month in Michigan, where the State Court of Claims concluded that Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s instructions on signature verification for absentee ballots violated state law.

…In neighboring Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court handed down a significant ruling in December when the justices concluded that state and local election officials erred when they gave blanket permission allowing voters to declare themselves homebound and skip voter ID requirements in the 2020 elections.

In a case challenging the practice in Dane County, one of Wisconsin’s large urban centers around the city of Madison, the state’s highest court ruled that only those voters whose “own age, physical illness or infirmity” makes them homebound could declare themselves “indefinitely confined” and avoid complying with a requirement for photo ID.

…Meanwhile in Virginia, a judge in January approved a consent decree permanently banning the acceptance of ballots without postmarks after Election Day, concluding that instructions from the Virginia Department of Elections to the contrary in 2020 had violated state law. An electoral board member in Frederick County challenged the legality of the state’s instruction and won though the ruling came after the election.

The article concludes:

Several more legal challenges remain in states, as well as two audits/investigations of voting machine logs that are pending in Georgia and Arizona. And while there has been no proof the elections were impacted by widespread fraud, there are still significant disputes over whether rule changes and absentee ballot procedures in key swing states may have been unlawful.

In addition, the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project on election integrity is pursuing litigation over whether hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and routed to local election officials in several battleground states may have unlawfully influenced the election, according to the project’s director, Phill Kline.

“We’re expanding our litigation,” Kline told the John Solomon Reports podcast on Wednesday. “I still have suits that are active in Michigan and Georgia on this, and you’ll see us take new action in Wisconsin. And we will renew action in Pennsylvania. And, and our involvement in Arizona will take a little bit of a different tack, but will involve this. The Arizona legislature is going to do an audit and we want this within the scope.”

There is some value in the lawsuits being pursued–hopefully they will put states on notice not to be involved in similar actions in the future. Assuming that we manage to stop HR1 in Congress (a law that will end any common sense regulations on voting), these lawsuits provide a template for filing whatever lawsuits are necessary to preserve election integrity in the next election. The lawsuits just need to be filed well in advance of the election (as soon as election laws are violated).

Hidden Inside The Covid Relief Bill

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about the tax increases hidden in the recently passed Covid Relief Bill.

The article reports:

There is more than $57 billion worth of hidden tax increases in President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, Just the News has learned.

The final version of the legislation expands the number of employees who are covered by the $1 million limitation on the deductibility of executive compensation.

According to National Law Review, section 162(m) of the tax code “generally prohibits a public company from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to a current or former covered employee in a taxable year,” and under current law “the covered employees are the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and the three other highest compensated officers for the taxable year.”

The executive compensation deduction change in the stimulus bill covers 5 more of a company’s highest paid employees.

“TCJA [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] included such a limit, but Dems essentially doubled it to make it more draconian,” a House Ways and Means Committee minority spokesperson said. “Dems are under no illusions that their bill is about growth, so them putting a cap on executive pay is just political messaging.”

A $500,000 limit on the amount of losses that “passthrough corporations” can use to get liquidity is also tucked inside the bill, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation document obtained by Just the News.

The Joint Committee on Taxation spokesman also noted that the above provision that the Democrats have ended was what allowed small businesses to get the fast tax refunds from the IRS that kept many of them alive during the lockdowns.

The article continues:

Another tax provision in the stimulus, the second largest rescue package in U.S. history, involves new limitations on the interest expenses that multinational corporations can deduct on tax returns.

This change makes doing business in America less attractive and will return us to the days when American corporations moved overseas.

Aside from the cost of the Covid Relief bill, it is a bill that will stifle the growth of the American economy. That growth would have at least provided some of the money needed to fund the bill. We are headed back to the days of very slow economic growth or no growth at all.

This Needs To Be Investigated In All States Where The Policy Was Put In Place

Just the News is reporting the following today:

A Michigan county prosecutor on Thursday laid out his effort to review Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s policies on COVID health-safety policies on nursing homes, in response to a high number of deaths in such facilities over roughly the past year.

An estimated 5,537 people have died in long-term care facilities in the state since the pandemic started about a year ago, which is about 35 percent of all COVID-related deaths in Michigan over that time period. 

Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido said he’s effectively reviving a roughly 68-year-old review board, formed to protect children, to look into Whitmer’s policies.

Good governance is a matter of life and death. That has been proven in the past year–Florida probably has one of the highest elderly populations in the country and yet managed the virus very well. They protected the elderly and pretty much let the rest of the population go on with their business. Many of the states led by Democrats locked down their states but sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes where the most vulnerable residents of their state lived.

The article notes:

Lucido, following up on statements Monday calling on residents to ask for medical records of family members who died in a nursing home, then file a police report. He said Thursday that residents should give local law enforcement such information as when and where the death occurred. He also said the name of the attending physician should be included.

He said earlier that his efforts have been slowed by such records are protected under so-called HIPAA laws that protect patient information.

Whitmer said amid complaints that her administration has not been forthcoming with data related to virus deaths in nursing homes told a local TV station: “I’m proud of the work that we did. We can parse through different angles of statistics and compare ourselves with other states but … I think that it sometimes can be a fool’s errand because the way that we are congregating data varies from state to state. When there’s never a national strategy, (it’s) hard to really compare apples to apples.”

It is possible that the Governors in the states that sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes did not understand the risk. However, when the risk became apparent, the policies should have been quickly changed. Governor’s who did not change their policy after it became obvious what was happening need to be removed from office.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Right now I am part of a book study of the book, The 5000 Year Leap. The book deals with the progress made by mankind after the principles of liberty were put in place that allowed men to be free and to prosper according to their efforts. These are the principles that result in the survival of a republic. The first principle cited as a principle of freedom is the concept on Natural Law. One of the principles of Natural Law is justice by reparation, or paying for damages.  Under Natural Law, a criminal who stole something would have to make restitution to the person he stole from. Unfortunately our current justice system does not do that–if the thief is put in jail, the victim pays his room and board in addition to whatever loss he suffered. Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has recently made that system worse.

Just the News reported the following today:

The Senate recently approved the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package which includes $1,400 checks for eligible individuals, but some lawmakers are displeased that prisoners will also receive the monetary payments.

The package, which cleared the Senate on a party-line vote Saturday, must still be approved by the House prior to heading to President Biden’s desk, but according to Fox News inmates will be able to receive the individual payments under the legislation, as they were under prior coronavirus relief bills that included $1,200 and $600 payments for eligible individuals.

“The IRS had tried to withhold stimulus checks from incarcerated individuals, but a court forced their hand to offer the checks in October,” Fox reported. “There was nothing written in the previous two relief bills or the one passed Saturday against inmates receiving checks.”

The article continues:

GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas offered an amendment to the current stimulus bill to bar federal and state prisoners from getting a payment, but the amendment failed on a tight 50-49 vote, according to Fox News. Cassidy’s press release indicated that the proposal would have saved taxpayers about $1.9 billion.

“Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer,” Cassidy said during remarks about the proposed amendment. “They don’t pay taxes. They don’t contribute to the tax base. They can’t be unemployed. In other words, inmates are not economically impacted by COVID, and inmates cannot stimulate the economy. But under this bill, Democrats are giving prisoners, again sometimes incarcerated for heinous crimes, a $1,400 stimulus check.”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois argued against the amendment, saying that it would “cause harm to the families of incarcerated individuals.” 

There is nothing I can add to that last remark!

Words Matter

We have routinely heard the events at the Capitol on January 6th described as an armed insurrection. That has been the narrative of the mainstream media. However, it seems that there is a basic problem with that narrative.

Just the News posted an article yesterday about the Congressional hearings regarding the event.

The article reports:

No firearms were recovered on the U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 during the riot, and no shots were fired by the demonstrators, an FBI official on Wednesday told Congress.

“To my knowledge we have not recovered any [firearms] on that day from any of the arrests at the scene at this point,” said Jill Sanborn, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “No one has been charged with a firearms violation.”

Sanborn made her comments during a joint oversight hearing in the Senate to examine the breach of the U.S. Capitol. In addition to Sanborn, witnesses included the commander of the Washington, D.C. National Guard, and civilian officials from the Pentagon.

During testimony, Sanborn responded to questions from Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who asked whether firearms were present or used during the siege.

“How many shots were fired that we know of?” Johnson asked.

“The only shots fired were the ones that resulted in the death of the one lady,” Sanborn said, referencing Ashli Babbitt, a protester who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer during heightened tension inside the building.

The article also notes:

Other testimony examined the timeline of when the National Guard was dispatched to help an overwhelmed civilian police force during the siege on the Capitol.

The National Guard was dispatched to the riot more than three hours after Capitol Police made a desperate call for help with a “dire emergency,” a two-star general testified Wednesday before Congress.

Major Gen. William Walker, who commands the District of Columbia National Guard, told senators that the 1:49 p.m. call for help from the guard on Jan. 6 was approved in a message that reached him after 5 p.m. At that point, troops who were waiting on buses sped to the Capitol, and helped to secure a perimeter, Walker said.

There is something very wrong with both the actions of a few people on January 6th and the response to the events both as they unfolded and later. There is no reason that the area around our nation’s Capitol Building should look like the green zone in Baghdad.

Rules For Thee But Not For Me

Just the News posted an article today that should give the parents of school children pause.

The article reports:

A California teachers union president who has opposed reopening public school over COVID health-safety concerns was recently seen on video dropping off daughter off at a private preschool.

The video was posted on Twitter by the group GuerillaMomz on Feb. 27. The video shows Matt Meyer, president of the Berkley Federation of Teachers, dropping off his daughter at the school.

“Meet Matt Meyer. A white man with dreads and president of the local teachers’ union. He’s been saying it is unsafe for *your kid* to be back at school, all the while dropping his kid off at private school,” the group writes on the post.

Mr. Meyer explained that there were no public options for children his daughter’s age. He failed to note that all the public schools were closed because the Teachers’ Union has refused to allow them to open. If preschool is safe for his daughter and her teachers, why isn’t kindergarten safe for other children and their teachers?

The Censors At Amazon Are Censoring Any Books They Deem Offensive

There is a whole lot of offensive material out in our society that no one is censoring, so why has Amazon taken it upon themselves to censor anything that they find offensive? First of all, who defines offensive? Well, that seems to be the problem.

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about Amazon’s censorship. Amazon has some interesting ideas about what needs to be censored.

The article reports:

For example, a popular documentary on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was banned from their streaming service this past week. Before that move, the company deplatformed conservative Ryan Anderson’s book critical of gender theory, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement.”

When Just the News reached out to Amazon over the ban on Anderson’s book, the outlet said the company directed them to a page outlining their “Content Guidelines for Books.” Under a section labeled “Offensive Content,” Amazon states that they “don’t sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech, promotes the abuse or sexual exploitation of children, contains pornography, glorifies rape or pedophilia, advocates terrorism, or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.”

“A review of those policies suggests that sometime in the last few months Amazon made a major change to the ways in which it moderates book content on its servers, imposing a much stricter standard on books than it had previously done,” the report said. It appears the company recently added so-called “hate speech” to their guidelines on book platforming and is amping up their censorship of the “offensive.”

The article notes an observation by Daily Wire podcast host and conservative author Matt Walsh that if Amazon bans conservative books (which is the direction they are going), publishers won’t publish them due to the lack of marketing outlets. This will abolish half of the political debate in America.

The article notes:

“When a company controls over 83% of the market for books, it begins the process of deleting ideas from a society,” the author argued. “A bookseller can sell whatever it wants. If ‘Marxist Books’ wants to only sell books that conform to its ideology, OK; that has integrity.”

“But this is the ‘world’s largest bookseller.’ Amazon can basically make books disappear for *all readers* — and does so on a blatantly dishonest basis. Under guise of removing ‘inappropriate’ content, they will really be removing ideas they disfavor,” she added.

Amazon has not banned books that speak favorably about transgender teenagers. This is not about objectionable material–it is about promoting a particular point of view–politically and socially.

Hopefully There Are Some People In Congress With Common Sense

Just the News is reporting that West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Republican Senator Susan Collins have both stated that they will vote against the confirmation of President Biden’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget – Neera Tanden. I need to say here that generally I believe an elected President is entitled to his picks for his cabinet, but some of President Biden’s picks are well outside the political mainstream.

The article reports:

Tanden is president of the liberal public policy research and advocacy group Center for American Progress, founded by former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

Her statement also echoed Manchin’s concerns: “Neera Tanden has neither the experience nor the temperament to lead this critical agency. Her past actions have demonstrated exactly the kind of animosity that President Biden has pledged to transcend.”

Collins also pointed out that Taden’ decision to delete more than a thousand tweets in the days before her nomination was announced “raises concerns about her commitment to transparency.”

Said Manchin: “I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, I cannot support her nomination.”

Manchin’s “no” vote means Senate Democrats need at least one Republican to vote in favor of Tanden to get her nomination through the chamber.

Unfortunately there may actually be a least one squishy Republican who will vote for her confirmation.

What Failed?

The snow and cold in Texas has been a disaster. That part of the country is simply not prepared for that kind of weather. I’m not even sure that New England, where I spent 45 years, would handle this situation well. Now it’s time to look at why the power went out, the water went out, etc. Admittedly, this was a hundred-year storm, but as those of us who live in hurricane zones know, you have to prepare for the hundred-year storm, regardless of what form it arrives in.

Just the News posted an article today citing some of the statistics that led to the epic failure of the power grid in Texas. There was failure in all areas of energy generation, but some were greater than others. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The article reports:

A statewide blame game has accompanied the crisis, with numerous industries and commentators alleging that, variously, wind, solar, natural gas and coal failed to meet the surge in heating demand accompanying the cold snap. Yet federal data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicate that, of the state’s major energy sources, wind experienced the sharpest drop-off in energy production

The plunge in temperatures led to both a surge in heating demand and the concomitant power outages. Data from the EIA show that at nearly the exact same time demand was surging and energy grids were buckling, wind energy experienced a catastrophic drop-off: In the evening of Feb. 14, wind in the state was producing just over 9,000 MWh of energy, while 24 hours later it was putting out less than 800 MWh, a roughly 91% decrease in output.

Virtually every other energy industry in the state also saw decreased output over the same time period amid record demand, yet none saw as steep a decrease as did wind power. Natural gas, the state’s largest source of energy, saw a 23% decline in output, as did coal, the second-largest source. Nuclear, which competes with wind for third place, dropped 26%.

Texas has come to rely increasingly on wind power in recent years. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts said last August that the state’s usage of wind power has “more than quadrupled” since 2009, with wind rising to supply 20% of the state’s total energy needs in 2019. Coal power, meanwhile, declined from 37% of the state’s electricity generation in 2009 to 20% in 2019. 

The article concludes:

The natural gas losses could also be partly explained by wind production having plummeted so steeply in the initial cold snap and remained at low levels in subsequent days while natural gas rates remained relatively elevated. With natural gas producing so much more KWh relative to other fuels, it stands to reason that its role now in ongoing outages would likewise be disproportionately large.

A 30-day review of energy production in Texas shows that, while natural gas and wind energy were at times neck-and-neck in production rates throughout January and into mid-February, natural gas production skyrocketed following the cold snap while wind plummeted. 

Natural gas energy output in Texas hit a high on Feb. 15 before declining sharply in the following days, yet it still remained over 400% higher than it was on Feb. 7, compared to an overall 83% decrease in wind output.

The lesson here is that green energy always needs good back-up.

There Will Be No Consequences, But The Truth Does Matter

Slowly but surely, documents from the Russian Hoax are being declassified. These documents tell a story that is very different from the one told to Congress by the people involved. Unfortunately, most of the bureaucrats who lied under oath to Congress will probably never be held accountable for their lies.

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about a recent document that was declassified.

The article reports:

The very day in January 2017 that then-FBI Director James Comey signed a FISA surveillance warrant application declaring content from Christopher Steele’s dossier had been “verified,” he wrote President Obama’s outgoing intelligence community chief with a very different assessment of the British spy’s intelligence on Russia collusion, a newly released memo shows.

“We are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting,” Comey wrote in a Jan. 12, 2017 email to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that was declassified and made public through an open records lawsuit by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

The memo recounts an internal debate inside the U.S. intelligence community during one of the most delicate moments in the FBI’s then six-month old Crossfire Hurricane probe.

CIA officials had already informed Comey’s FBI that the target of the FISA warrant, Carter Page, wasn’t a Russian spy but rather an asset helping U.S. intelligence. The bureau had received warnings about Steele and the reliability of his source network, including that it might have been compromised by Russian disinformation. Agents had also just recommended on Jan. 4, 2017 shutting down the probe’s inquiry into incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lack of evidence.

The FBI had been warned the previous summer that Hillary Clinton’s campaign may have planted the false Russia collusion story as a way to “vilify” Trump and distract from her email scandal, and agents were about to interview Steele’s primary sub-source, who would discount much of the information in the dossier attributed to him as bar talk and unconfirmed rumor not worthy of official intelligence.

The article concludes:

The FBI also failed to disclose to the FISA judge that the source known as Person 1 was under a separate counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the IG report footnotes show.

In fact on Jan. 12, 2017, the very day Comey signed the FISA and engaged with Clapper, the FBI had received clear warnings in a report that some of Steele’s dossier information about Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was “part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations,” according to another declassified footnote from the IG report.

In other words, Comey’s representations to Clapper and sworn avowals of verification to the FISA court had already been directly undercut by his bureau’s own evidence.

Unfortunately I have no doubt that the illegal surveillance of American citizens is continuing under the Biden administration. Because there were no consequences under the Obama administration for these actions, there really is no incentive to end the illegal behavior.

 

When You Don’t Have The Evidence, Make It Up!

I haven’t written a lot about the impeachment farce currently going on in Washington because, frankly, I don’t think it is worth my time. It won’t change anyone’s mind or opinion about Donald Trump, and if the truth is told, it will probably damage the Democrat party. It seems as if the evidence the House Impeachment Managers have been presenting is not all accurate. Videos are edited, quotes are edited, and even Tweets are shown in a way that is misleading.

Just the News posted an article yesterday about one incident.

The article reports:

The author of a tweet introduced by Democrats at the Senate impeachment trial said Thursday her statement “we are bringing the Calvary” was a clear reference to a prayer vigil organized by churchgoers supporting Trump and not a call for military-like violence at the Capitol riot as portrayed by Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence also said she believes the California Democrat and House impeachment manager falsified her tweet, adding a blue check mark to the version he introduced at the trial suggesting she was a verified Twitter user with more clout when in fact her Twitter account never had a blue check and has never been verified.

“I noticed when they put my tweet on the screen that all of a sudden my tweet had a blue checkmark next to it,” she said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast. “… This way, if he entered that into congressional testimony, it’s a verified account, and it has, it could be applicable in law. Secondly, he wanted to show that my Twitter account had more gravitas than it actually did. He wanted to show that the president was trying to use me to bring in the cavalry.”

The person who introduced the Tweet as evidence evidently was not up on his/her spelling:

Lawrence, a Christian conservative activist and former Breitbart writer, said her tweet on Jan. 3 carefully chose the religious word “Calvary” — which means a public display of Christ’s crucifixion — as a reference to a prayer vigil they were hosting in Washington, and Swalwell distorted it to convey she was organizing a military cavalry, which is spelled differently and means a military brigade on horses.

That seems like a significant distinction.

The article concudes:

Lawrence’s account was backed up by a Christian church pastor, Brian Gibson, who was accompanying Lawrence and other activists on their trip to Washington at the time she wrote the tweet.

“I was sitting on the bus, and I saw Calvary come through,” Gibson told Just the News. “I went back to them, and specifically said, ‘Hey, guys, you spelt Calvary wrong, right?’ This is what I do for a living. I’m a preacher of the gospel. I’m a theology major, so that jumped off the page at me, and words matter, and I want them to be correct. And she said, ‘No pastor, I meant it. We meant to write Calvary like that. Because we were standing up for God, preaching the gospel. We have you ministers here that are going to be praying and leading people to Christ. And so that’s what that’s what we mean.”

Gibson, a religious freedom advocate, said he believes Swalwell badly served the trial, the country and Lawrence by falsely interpreting her meaning without checking,

“We’ve all learned a lesson in due diligence here, giving someone the benefit of the doubt,” he said. “And I think what we’re seeing, John, is a political witch hunt, where people have not crossed their t’s, dotted their i’s. And it’s the wrong way for some of our highest elected officials in the land to behave themselves. So I’m praying for Jennifer, I’m praying for everybody that has been put in harm’s way by this reckless behavior.”

I suspect the Swalwell was not the only Democrat who bought into the various lies included in the highly edited evidence brought forth in the trial.

Pushing Something Through When You Don’t Have The Votes

Yesterday Just the News reported that on Tuesday night the Democrats passed a gradual $15 minimum wage hike in a committee vote.

The article reports:

The increase from $7.25 an hour was part of the House Education and Labor Committee’s budget reconciliation markup for President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan. In the legislation, the minimum wage would reach $15 in 2025.

The language of the Raise the Wage Act was incorporated into the $170 billion COVID-19 stimulus funding legislation for public schools during the virtual committee markup that began late in the afternoon on Tuesday. The vote on the legislation was 27-21 along party lines. 

The Democrats admit that the only way to get this through in by the budget reconciliation process:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders told reporters on Wednesday that Democrats are including the gradual $15 minimum wage hike in Biden’s stimulus plan because they do not have 60 votes in the Senate to pass it.

“We’re not going to get the 60 votes we need and the only way we’re going to do it with 50 votes is through reconciliation,” he said.

The use of budget reconciliation allows Democrats to pass Biden’s stimulus plan without GOP votes in the Senate. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently projected that a gradual $15 minimum wage in Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief package would result in 1.4 million workers losing their jobs.

Has it occurred to the Democrats that if the measure won’t pass it might be because  it is a bad idea?

This Would Be Laughable If It Were Not Serious

The media worked very hard to blame President Trump for the coronavirus and any adverse economic effects that resulted from it. It is highly unlikely that they will hold President Biden to any standard regarding the virus. A recent statement by President Biden and the lack of reaction it got from the press illustrates that point.

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about some recent comments by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden on Friday appeared to make a startling concession in the fight against COVID-19, claiming that the U.S. is effectively powerless to stop the spread of the coronavirus for at least the first few months of his administration.

Biden made that remark during a speech on his economic relief plans related to the pandemic. “If we fail to act,” he said regarding his proposed measures, “there’ll be a wave of evictions and foreclosures in the coming months as this pandemic rages on.”

“Because there’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months,” he added.

What ever happened to ‘if we all wear masks for 100 days, the virus will go away’?

The article concludes:

The White House has proposed what it has titled the American Rescue Plan, a near-$2 trillion stimulus proposal that will send $1400 checks to individuals in most households across the country, increase the minimum wage, expand childcare, reopen schools and expand vaccination efforts nationwide.

Wasn’t President Biden against reopening schools a few weeks ago? Did anyone in the press ask him about this? This is all very confusing.

 

Unfortunately The Truth Doesn’t Matter To Most Americans

Just the News posted an article today about the first documents declassified by President Trump recently.

The article reports:

Dossier author Christopher Steele admitted to the FBI that he leaked the Russia collusion story during the height of the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton overcome her lingering email scandal and because he believed Donald Trump’s election would be bad for U.S. relations with his home country of Britain, according to documents declassified by the president in his final full day in office.

The FBI report of an interview agents conducted with Steele in September 2017, nearly a year after he had been terminated as an informant, provided explosive information about his motives in working simultaneously for the FBI and the opposition research firm for Clinton’s campaign. The document was obtained by Just the News and at times reads like a confession from the now-infamous former MI6 agent and author of the anti-Trump dossier.

The article concludes:

The most explosive revelation about the sub-source in the newly declassified documents was that former Trump National Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill, an impeachment witness in 2019 against Trump, had introduced Steele to his sub-source in 2011, well after the FBI had opened up its probe on the source.

“The primary sub-source was introduced to STEELE and ORBIS by FIONA HILL in or around 2011,” the report stated. “… Emphasizing the sensitivity, STEELE explained that Hill now worked for the National Security Council. HILL has a very high opinion of the primary sub-source.”

Steele said he later told Hill the sub-source she had introduced to him had contributed to the dossier.

It will be interesting to see how history treats the Trump presidency. Certainly the media in America and the government bureaucracy were unwilling to treat him fairly.

The Hits Just Keep On Coming

If you haven’t realized that the political left has decided to erase President Trump from American history and marginalize all of his supporters, you haven’t been paying attention. Just the News posted an article yesterday that further illustrates that point.

The article reports:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is leading a charge to strip President Trump after he leaves office of the regular intelligence briefings and access to classified information afforded former presidents.

“There’s no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” Schiff told CBS’ “Face the Nation” show over the weekend. “I don’t think he can be trusted with it now and in the future, he certainly can’t be trusted.”

But it was just two years ago that the California Democrat decried Trump’s threat to strip former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance and briefings, suggesting it was unfair and capricious. In the end, Trump didn’t follow through on the threat.

President Trump has never been the threat to national security that Adam Schiff represents.

The article concludes:

A source close to Joe Biden’s incoming administration told Just the News on Monday he expects the new president to let career intelligence professionals make decisions on stripping clearances or denying briefings, not politics.

Somehow I don’t believe that. I also don’t believe that Joe Biden will be making a lot of the decisions in his administration.

The Russian Hoax Continues To Unravel

Just the News posted an article (updated today) stating that President Trump is declassifying a massive trove of FBI documents showing the Russia collusion story was leaked in the final weeks of the 2016 election in an effort to counteract Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. That is not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention, but it might be a surprise to Americans who depend on the mainstream media for their news.

The article reports:

The memos to be released as early as Friday include FBI interviews and human source evaluation reports for two of the main informants in the Russia case, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and academic Stefan Halper.

The president authorized the release of a foot-high stack of internal FBI and DOJ documents that detail significant flaws in the investigation and provide a detailed timeline of when the FBI first realized the Steele dossier was problematic, multiple government officials told Just the News.

Among the bombshell revelations is an admission by Steele that he violated his confidential human source agreement with the FBI and leaked information from his dossier to the news media in the final weeks of the election because he wanted to counteract new revelations in the Hillary Clinton email scandal that were hurting her election efforts. The former foreign intelligence officer made the confession in a fall 2017 interview with agents.

Steele, who was hired by Clinton’s campaign law firm to compile anti-Trump dossiers attempting to link Trump to Russian influence, told agents he had two clients at the time — Clinton and the FBI — and chose the interests of the Democratic candidate over the bureau in leaking.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If someone is not held accountable for this hoax, we will have taken one more step in the direction of becoming a banana republic.

Who Goes To Jail And Stays There?

Just the News is reporting today that a Bail fund promoted by Kamala Harris won’t share records of alleged criminals it sprung from jail. The bail fund was set up last summer to bail out several accused and convicted criminals — at least one with a markedly violent history–from jail in the midst of last year’s deadly Black Lives Matter-led riots in Minnesota.

The article reports:

In June 2020, as violent unrest swept the country in the wake of Minneapolis resident George Floyd’s death at the hands of city police, Harris — then two months away from being chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate — tweeted out a link to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which claims to “pa[y] criminal bail and immigration bonds for those who cannot otherwise afford to.”

…Harris’s support for the organization amid the riots last year was one of the factors that helped the Minnesota Freedom Fund realize a reported windfall of tens of millions of dollars, a gargantuan increase over the group’s 2018 returns of around $100,000.

Yet the bail fund was mired in controversy over the summer due to reports that it had helped spring from jail multiple alleged violent criminals, including at least one individual with multiple rape convictions on his rap sheet. 

A review by the Washington Post found that MFF helped bail out of jail one individual who allegedly shot at police officers during riots in Minnesota.

Local Fox affiliate KMSP, meanwhile, found that among those who received bail money from the MFF were also “a woman accused of killing a friend [and] a twice convicted sex offender.”

The article notes that the specifics of exactly who was bailed out remain elusive:

Yet a full accounting of the individuals bailed out by the fund last year was not available as of press time.

A representative of the Minnesota Freedom Fund told Just the News via email this week that the records of those it has helped bail out “are available via the Hennepin and Ramsey County jail rosters.” The group did not respond to repeated inquiries asking if it kept those records in its own files.

The records within the jail rosters, meanwhile, are not easily accessible.

Tom Lyden, a reporter with KMSP who originally broke that station’s coverage of the controversies surrounding the bail fund, said that the documentation “is difficult to find and it is not available online.”

“You must go through items in the file, which you can only do at a live terminal,” he said.

I don’t think the Trump supporters are the ones supporting insurrection. Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is amazing how supposedly public records can be so hard to access.

Actions Have Consequences

Unfortunately it appears that the Democrat’s definition of unity is to silence any dissenting views on their policies. The idea of compromise and debate seems to have vanished somewhere in the recent election. This is not the way our country was set up, and many Americans are unhappy with the direction the Democrats are already taking us.

Just the News posted an article yesterday about the approval ratings of some of our Congressional leaders.

The article includes the following screenshot:

The article concludes:

Less than a majority of Republican voters (45%) expressed approval for McConnell, showing a growing divide within the Republican party. Meanwhile, a majority of Democrats (67%) still approve of Pelosi, who was recently elected Speaker of the House by a slender margin.

This survey polled 1,200 registered voters and was conducted by Scott Rasmussen from Jan 7-9, 2021.

The poll’s cross-demographic tabulations can be found here and here.To see the poll’s methodology and sample demographics, click here.

The Republican Party does not easily unify. It is made up of people who do not naturally fall into lock step. There are many Republicans (myself included) who would like to see the Republican Party actually lead instead of sitting back and playing the victim. Mitch McConnell has done a good job of confirming judges, but he has not always been on the President’s team. That is unfortunate because the President is the highest elected official in the Republican Party–he should be considered its leader. It is unfortunate that the Party has not been willing to unite behind him to get things done. Had the members of the Party been willing to take a strong stand, they might have been able to work out an infrastructure bill and get it passed despite the Democrats’ objections. Had the party stuck together instead of playing their ‘never Trump’ games, they might have been able to overcome Democrat resistance to policies that would have moved our country forward. I believe the approval ratings above reflect the frustration of the American people that the two parties have not been able to work together for the good of the country. Based on their actions so far, I don’t see that changing under a new Congress and administration.

 

What Are They Afraid Of?

Just the News reported the following today:

Nineteen Democratic lawmakers signed on to a letter on Wednesday urging Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to remove President Trump from office.

“For the sake of our democracy, we emphatically urge you to invoke the 25th Amendment and begin the process of removing President Trump from power,” the letter says. “President Trump has shown time and again that he is unwilling to protect our Democracy and carry out the duties of the office.”

This represents the coup they have been planning since President Trump took office. Why would they do that with only 17 days left until the inauguration? Maybe because the President could still declassify a lot of information that might be a problem for the people in Congress and for the incoming administration.

The article continues:

Rep. David Cicilline tweeted that if the vice president does not make such a move, Congress should impeach Trump.

Multiple legislators on Wednesday called for the president to be impeached: “I am drawing up Articles of Impeachment,” Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar said in a tweet.

“Impeach,” Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a one-word tweet.

“Donald J. Trump should immediately be impeached by the House of Representatives & removed from office by the United States Senate as soon as Congress reconvenes,” Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley tweeted.

This is somewhat amazing. When you look at the economic accomplishments of President Trump, the foreign policy successes, the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus, the fact that the middle class has prospered during the Trump administration, and the fact that we have gone four years without a new war, you wonder what in the world they are talking about.

The 12th rule of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Unfortunately for our country, we have watched that rule in action for the past four years. That does not say good things about our future.

Who Gets To Choose?

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about a law proposed in the New York State Assembly. The proposed law strengthens my conviction that very few of our lawmakers around the country have actually read the U.S. Constitution.

The article reports:

A law proposed in the New York State Assembly would permit state officials to remove and detain state residents if they were deemed to be a “danger to public health.”

Assembly Bill 416 dictates that, “upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease,” state officials may “order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons.”

“Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises,” the bill continues.

Individuals seized under the law’s provisions would be “detained for such period and in such manner as the department may direct,” namely so long as the state government determines that the individual is contagious.

Such individuals would be “detained in a manner that is consistent with recognized isolation and infection control principles in order to minimize the likelihood of transmission of infection to such person and to others.”

The law is currently in committee and has not yet made it to the assembly floor calendar. Can you image the civil rights abuses that could potentially take place if this law is passed? Who decides that someone is endangering the health of others? Is this going to work like the Covid rules for protests worked–open-my-business protesters were harassed and sometimes arrested while being accused of spreading Covid and violent protesters that tore down statues and destroyed property were not a problem with spreading Covid?

If laws like this law are passed, our children and grandchildren will grow up in a very different country than the one we grew up in.

Sunlight Is Needed

Yesterday Just the News reported the following:

Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Miller during an interview on Newsmax TV expressed the hope that evidence pertaining to election-related issues will be shared directly with the American people next week.

If a minimum of one member of each congressional chamber objects to the electoral vote returns of a state during a joint session of Congress presided over by the vice president on Jan. 6, each chamber will separately debate for up to two hours and then vote on the objection, according to the Congressional Research Service: “An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”

The evidence needs to be shared with the public. However, I am not convinced that all media outlets will share the information. We have seen Facebook, Twitter and YouTube consistently block or ‘fact check’ any content that portrays Joe Biden or any member of his family in a bad light. Those of us who have learned to navigate alternative news sources have a pretty good idea of what went on with the 2020 presidential election, but I am not convinced that the American public as a whole has any idea of the level of corruption. The videos that many of us have seen both of witness testimony and surveillance videos have not been seen by a majority of Americans. Therefore many Americans may not understand what the fuss is about.

The article concludes:

Miller mentioned during the interview multiple examples of election-related concerns. “These are the specific types of evidence that we want to be able to present to the American public on the national stage and not allow local politicians to sweep it under the rug,” he said.

President Trump has not conceded to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election contest.

An election that includes rampant cheating will not move America forward. Unfortunately I fear that however this comes out, the country will be more divided than ever.

 

 

Who Is Our Government Supposed To Represent?

A lot of us have questions about who our government is actually representing, but what about the question of who they are supposed to represent? Theoretically, the census determines how many representatives each state has and also impacts the electors in the Electoral College. So who should be included in the census? Various courts have been dealing with that question for a while.

Just the News reported today that a recent Supreme Court ruling states that illegal aliens will not be counted in the 2020 census. That makes perfect sense to me–if they are here illegally, why should they be represented in Congress?

The article reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated two lower court decisions that blocked the government from excluding illegal aliens during the process of allotting congressional seats.

The decision to remand the two cases to lower courts “with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction” follows a ruling by the high court earlier this month that allows the Trump administration to pursue plans to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the high court’s ruling yesterday, just as they had in Trump v. New York earlier this month.

So what is the possible impact of this decision? California had been relying on its illegal alien population to counter the fact that many residents of that state are leaving the state to settle in other states. This is the result of continued poor fiscal policies in California and a refusal to deal with many quality of life problems. Homelessness in California is out of control while taxes on ordinary people are increasing and the cost of living in the state is increasing. Because of this ruling, California may lose a Congressional Representative and an elector in the Electoral College. Other states with large populations of illegal aliens may also lose representatives or electors.

Regardless of how you feel about illegal aliens, amnesty, a path to citizenship, etc., Congress is supposed to represent American citizens. They don’t, but they are supposed to.