The Revolution President Trump Created

On July 4th, The American Thinker posted an article about the success of the Trump Presidency vs. the Reagan Presidency. It you are old enough, you will remember that the press hated President Reagan almost as much as they hated President Trump. But those were different times.

In a June 2017 article Todd Starnes notes:

A beautiful story of our true nature exemplified in the context of the political world, comes from the relationship between Republican president Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. Polar opposites politically–yet not allowing that to define their relationship. One time Reagan confronted O’Neill about some nasty things said in the newspaper, and O’Neil replied with: “That’s just politics, after 6 o’clock we’re buddies–we’re friends.” And that’s exactly what they were–frequently going out after work and simply having a beer together, and after Ronald Reagan was shot, the first person to come and visit him was Tip O’Neill. Reagan took it, that when things would get a little heated in some of their meetings, he would visibly set his watch to 6 o’clock, as a frolicsome reminder of their true identity in friendship.

Can you imagine a friendship between President Trump and Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi? I don’t think the responsibility for that lack of friendship falls totally on President Trump.

The article at The American Thinker notes a few significant positive changes to our politics under President Trump:

Before Trump, most Republican politicians saw lying to their base — or at least to a certain part of their base — as a necessary and proper part of their job.  Consider, for instance, this representative quote from Mac Stipanovich, chief of staff to Bob Martinez, the moderate Florida governor who later served in the first Bush administration:

There was always an element of the Republican Party that was bats— crazy. They had lots of different names — they were John Birchers, they were ‘movement conservatives,’ they were the religious right. And we did what every other Republican candidate did: we exploited them. We got them to the polls. We talked about abortion. We promised — and we did nothing. They could grumble, but their choices were limited.

The tawdry history of how the pre-Trump Republican Party has used and discarded the religious right — especially the pro-life movement — is rather long.  Even so, I think it’s important for conservatives to know it, so I will do my best to summarize it.

The article notes:

By the time that Donald Trump took office, only two pro-life justices remained: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  Because Trump got only three vacancies, he needed to fill all of them with men and women of principle in order for his side to come out on top.

This was a tall order, since no other Republican president had appointed more than one pro-life justice.  And yet Trump pulled it off.

The article concludes:

Trump kept his promise to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, even though the RINOs wailed and screeched. Trump also tried to keep his promise to build the border wall, but on that issue, his efforts sadly came up short, because he needed Congress to pass legislation that even most Republicans really, really didn’t want passed.

Fortunately, on judicial nominations, Trump had more freedom of action, and with the help of Mitch McConnel and the Federalist Society, he chose three pro-life judges in a row — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

So remember that the next time you hear anybody talking about how they wish we could all return to a time before Trumpistry made its mark on America. Remember that it is because of Donald Trump, and his unique level of respect for his base, that each state now has the right, if it so chooses, to enact laws protecting a baby’s right to life.

I will be voting for President Trump in the Republican primary if he runs. I will also be voting for him in the general election if he runs. The positive impact he had on the country is often overlooked by those who support the swamp.

Waiting For The Court Cases On This New Law To Begin

On June 23rd, The New York Post reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the restrictions New York State had put on concealed carry permits.

The Court ruled:

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is ​specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Well, the New York legislature decided that the Supreme Court decision was unacceptable.

On Saturday, The American Thinker reported:

In an act of breathtaking defiance and spitefulness not seen since Southern states engaged in “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision, the New York State Legislature gave a middle finger to the Supreme Court and voted Friday to effectively nullify the Court’s decision last week in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After an extraordinary session for the explicit purpose of defying the Court, Senate Bill S51001 was rammed through on a party-line vote by the Democratic supermajority, passed the Assembly, and received the signature of Gov. Kathleen Hochul.

Writing for the majority in Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas struck down New York’s century-old requirement that an applicant for a handgun carry permit demonstrate a “special need” if he wanted to carry for self-defense.  New York’s licensing process was entirely discretionary and arbitrary, and in many jurisdictions, licensing officers simply refused to issue permits for self-defense.  This was particularly true in New York City, where applicants were routinely and summarily rejected unless they were politically connected or celebrities — such as Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Don Imus.  In other jurisdictions, licensing officers simply invented acceptable reasons on a whim, often issuing handgun licenses for “hunting and target shooting” only, if at all.  (In one rural upstate county, a former judge who had authority as a licensing officer invented a requirement that he would not allow any permit-holder to have more than five handguns without appearing before him personally and giving a “good reason.”)

In Bruen, Justice Thomas ruled that these arbitrary restrictions were unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee to keep “and bear” arms for self-defense, ordering New York State and New York City to issue concealed carry permits to qualified applicants for that reason.

In response, Gov. Hochul (who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 when she ran for Congress in rural Western New York) vindictively declared that New York would restrict guns to the point where the State would “go back to muskets.”  Hochul called the Legislature back from recess and presented a bill that criminalizes as a felony offense concealed carry in perhaps 98% of the state.

At some point you begin to wonder why some people in our government are so anxious to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

When Justice Isn’t Justice

On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article about the incident last year where border patrol agents on horseback were accused of whipping illegal immigrants.

The article reports:

The Biden administration was left with egg all over its face when, after embracing a phony leftist narrative about Border Patrol agents “whipping” migrants illegally crossing into the U.S., it quietly dropped the matter and hoped no one would notice.

They should have apologized to the agents.

Instead, they’re coming for the agents a second time.

The article quotes Fox News:

The Department of Homeland Security is preparing to discipline “multiple” horseback Border Patrol agents involved in the infamous “whipping” incident of Haitian migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border back in September. 

The article concludes:

It doesn’t help that Border Patrol agents, who saved an entire elementary school from being massacred in Uvalde, Texas less than a month ago, were given the back of the hand by the Biden administration, with no real acknowledgment of their heroism at all.  When Joe Biden visited Uvalde, he studiously ignored the guys who charged the shooter and stopped his killing of kids.

While the left tried to racialize the incident with the phony “whips” narrative, a more authentic racism was starting to get obvious from the heroism in Uvalde as the Bidenites sought to punish the border agents.  That Border Patrol agents are largely Hispanic-Americans, well integrated with the border communities seeing the influx of crime and disorder from the migrant surges as well as crime in general, and are heroes in these communities.  The Bidenites still don’t notice that.

Now that Biden has a revenge thing going on against the Hispanic-American agents, it seems pretty obvious that Hispanic voters in those communities can see that the target is they.  This is why we are seeing defensive “challenge coins” like these turning up.

With the punishment/revenge drive relentless, expect these Hispanic voters in these Hispanic communities to create a bigger swing toward the Republican Party in coming elections.  Mayra Flores’s surprise win in this week’s vote for the Texas 34th Congressional District was just the beginning. 

The Bidenites, as usual, are asleep, but it hasn’t stopped their venal instincts to save their pathetic faces.  Spite and revenge are all they have left.

The Biden administration has violated all of the norms of criminal justice and enforcing laws without political bias and intent. This is simply another example of an administration that has little or no respect for the law.

The Role Of The Internal Revenue Service In Elections

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about the role the Internal Revenue Service has played in American elections.

The article notes:

Should the projections of a Republican tsunami at the midterms prove true, there are so many things that a Republican Congress must prioritize. Not the least of which is revising the civil-service laws to permit removing incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats, cutting drastically the federal bureaucracy, and reforming, among other agencies, the CDC, NIH, FBI, and the IRS.

I’m focusing now on the IRS, which first hit my radar screen when with no consequences whatsoever.  Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice declined to press criminal charges against Lois Lerner, whose outfit delayed and denied the Tea Party reform groups the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled, hamstringing them against the very well-financed (probably including illegal funds from abroad) Obama crowd. 

This time, pay attention to Black Lives Matter, an utterly corrupt outfit whose riots and lootings destroyed so many cities and wreaked havoc on the black communities and their businesses.

The damage continues to this day as the riots fueled the defund police movement, a ridiculous effort that leaves the poor and the black communities particularly vulnerable to violent crime, and as another consequence caused an exodus of needed businesses from those places.

On her own, the mayor of D.C. ordered one street painted in huge letters “Black Lives Matter.” School kids were urged to walk out to support the group, while big corporations sent them money. All told, the group reportedly raised $90 million in 2020.

The article concludes:

While the IRS makes it harder for you to get your refunds, Black Lives Matter is not the only sketchy Democrat-controlled election-rigging outfit whose tax-exempt status the IRS has not looked into. David Horowitz and John Perazzo detail how Mark Zuckerberg funneled $419.5 million to tax-exempt outfits (Center for Election Innovation and Research and the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life through yet a third tax-exempt outfit, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.)

The purpose of these grants was obvious — it was to tip the scales for the Democrats in the 2020 election despite the fact that such tax-exempt foundations are “barred from contributing their resources to election campaigns.”

The grants to these two outfits and the ways they used them to tip the election for Biden are well laid out in this article. 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

The existence of such a regulation is meaningless, however, if it is not enforced. Consequently, this ban on campaign activities by “charitable” organizations didn’t daunt Facebook billionaire and Democrat Party patron Mark Zuckerberg and his wife when they plotted a massive campaign to swing the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrat, Joe Biden.

The Facebook couple donated to two left-wing tax-exempt foundations “with the intention of tipping the result to Biden by launching “get-out-the-vote” campaigns focused on Democrat precincts in battleground states.” And they achieved that purpose.

The authors contend that none of these travesties could have taken place “without the seditious collusion of I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rettig and his 63,000 agents“ who neglect their duty to protect our tax laws and elections.

I find their argument compelling. On the one hand, they tied the hands of the Tea Party, on the other, they put on blinders to the patent corruption of the BLM and Zuckerberg-funded outfits.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. If we don’t vote the current crooks (in both parties) out of office in November, I fear we will lose our country.

Our Justice System Has Turned Political

On Sunday, The American Thinker reported the following:

One of the most visible signs of our federal government’s corruption is the treatment being meted out to the January 6 prisoners, who have been deprived of their express and inherent rights under the Constitution, one of which is the right to an impartial judge. Dustin Thompson, however, was not accorded that right, as Judge Reggie Walton explicitly showed his political bias and hostility to Thompson. Walton should have recused himself before the trial. With the trial over, at the very least, the judgment should be reversed. Ideally, Walton would be removed from the bench and disbarred.

The Bill of Rights describes rights inherent in the individual; they are not “gifts” from the government. All Americans enjoy them automatically and the government may override these rights only by showing an overwhelming need to do so.

When it comes to the January 6 martyrs, however, the federal government under Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland has deprived these martyrs of multiple rights. Specifically:

    • the First Amendment (most of the defendants were peaceably assembling because the police let them into the Capitol),
    • the Fifth Amendment (for they have been deprived of life, liberty, and property for over a year without due process),
    • the Sixth Amendment (they’ve been deprived of speedy trials and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them), and
    • the Eighth Amendment (being denied bail is tantamount to impermissible excessive bail).

This is a disgrace. The January 6th prisoners are political prisoners in what is supposed to be a free country.

The article concludes:

The worst thing, though, was Judge Walton, who insulted Thompson in front of the jury for daring to support a president of whom Walton disapproved:

As the defense played Trump’s speech before the jury, he spoke words of disdain for President Trump and Rudy Giuliani. He did not stop.

“Anyone who follows Trump is weak-minded. Thompson is a flight risk,” Walton continued, as Thompson was shackled and taken from the courtroom.

Judge Walton, “Trump is a charlatan who caused an insurgency. He is tearing America apart. That’s the reason why our country is falling apart. I am proud of the jury for doing this.”

In 35 years as a lawyer, almost all in the leftist San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve never seen a judge show this type of bias in front of a jury, and I have seen some pretty horrible judges over the years. Walton should be disbarred. That won’t happen but his disgraceful, indecent, unprofessional conduct certainly justifies a reversal and dismissal on appeal. 

What has happened to our judicial system?

As November Approaches…

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about the upcoming primary elections. The author of the article makes a very good point–until the Republicans take the primary elections more seriously, they will not be able to elect candidates who will fight the Washington swamp.

The article reports:

What’s been even more disheartening than the Democrats’ destructive combination of viciousness and ineptitude has been that Republican congresspeople are supine.  Most of them crumble when anyone says “racist” or “January 6.”  Worse still are those Republicans who have chosen to ally with the Democrats regarding everything from January 6 to the radical LGBTQ+ agenda.  The only way to change this is through the primaries.  South Carolina is illustrative.

Too many Republicans began paying attention to South Carolina’s House of Representatives race for the 1st District in October 2020, when it was Joe Cunningham, the Democrat incumbent, versus Nancy Mace, the Republican.  Mace won, but what a disappointment she has been.

Mace is barely even a RINO, so left are her positions.  “I strongly support LGBTQ rights and equality,” she stated, and she means it.  She supports Roe v. Wade and wants to make marijuana legal, which Colorado’s experiment argues against.  Mace is a Liz Cheney–supporter.  Only reluctantly did she vote to remove Cheney as chair of the House Republican conference, but then only because Cheney was “divisive.”  And of course, Mace is on board with the Democrats’ January 6 narrative.

Had more voters paid attention during the primaries, they might have averted Mace’s candidacy and put a real conservative in Congress.

The article concludes with an example of why primary elections are important:

When it comes to her values, Centurion ( Ingrid Centurion, who is challenging Mace to be the Republican candidate for South Carolina’s 1st District)  is a true conservative.  She stands for free speech and the Second Amendment.  She opposes Critical Race Theory, COVID mandates, the extreme LGBTQ agenda, open borders, abortion, and the Democrats’ continued push to enshrine voter fraud.  I liked her and will keep an eye on her as we go into the primaries.

My point, though, isn’t to endorse Centurion.  It’s bigger than that: you must understand that, by November, it’s too late to get politically involved.  If we’re to have a Congress that will stand up to Biden, investigate corruption, and reverse creeping socialism, we must have conservatives on the ballot, rather than whatever RINOs the GOP selects.  The battle ends in November, but it begins with the primaries.

Until we elect people in the primary elections who will fight the Washington swamp, the Washington swamp will remain.

Is It Possible To Restore Trust In The FBI?

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article highlighting how the FBI has broken its relationship with the American public.

The article notes:

All large organizations suffer from the occasional presence of bad actors.  The FBI is no exception.  But it managed to retain a good relationship with the public in spite of its flaws because it was still solving rather than creating crimes. 

But something fundamentally changed in the last five years.  The Comey clown car arrived in the center ring and unloaded under the spotlight.  As the public watched the comedy of James “The Cardinal” Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page, searching for phantom Russian colluders under the bed, while actual Russian colluders cheered them on, we knew we needed to take a closer look.  The examination has been shocking.

The “Midyear Exam,” the bureau’s name for the Hillary Clinton email investigation, was a farce.  No subpoenas were issued, central figures were given immunity without cooperation, evidence was destroyed by the FBI, and then the attorney general had a clandestine meeting with “Slick Willy” Clinton — the husband of the target.  Surprise: No charges were filed.  “The Cardinal” Comey held a press conference and announced that even though Hillary had broken numerous laws, she didn’t mean it, so he was giving her a pass.  It must have been an accident that an email server, containing classified documents, appeared in her bathroom — with a support staff.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was the investigation into alleged Trump collusion with Russia to steal an election.  Within a couple of months, the bureau knew that the whole thing was a hoax created by Hillary, yet the investigation continued for three years — eventually transitioning into a special counsel investigation.  Peter Strzok called “Crossfire Hurricane” the bureau’s insurance policy — against a Trump presidency.  It was a good way to show off for his mistress, Lisa Page — a rabid anti-Trump FBI lawyer.

The “Midyear Exam” was a cover-up, and “Crossfire Hurricane” was a setup.  Both were exposed by the clown show the FBI put on.  Now the public is paying attention.  Conspiracies that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago seem entirely plausible now.

The article concludes:

The FBI will cease being the “plumbers” (the nickname for Nixon’s henchmen) for the Democrats and become the enemy of both parties.  Then either it or America will die.  A free people cannot coexist with a secret police force, using investigations for purposes other than law enforcement.  The contest will be epic.

A recent Zogby poll found that by 46 to 31 percent, members of the public think their sheriff’s department has more legal authority than the FBI.  Obviously, the legal authority of the bureau is not subject to opinion.  It is defined by statute.  But there’s an important message in that poll.  We are self-governed.  Legal authority, without moral authority, equals no authority — at least not over free people.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We currently have a problem in the Department of Justice, and the FBI is only a small part of that problem. When anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is at risk of being investigated for being a domestic terrorist, we have entered the world of totalitarian governments. That is not a place I want to be.

Sharia Law In America

There are many aspects of Sharia Law that are different from American Constitutional law. One of the more obvious is the conflict between the concept of free speech and the penalty for blasphemy. On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about a bill that was recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that will move America in the direction of Sharia Law.

Congress.gov (you have to go to the site and put in the bill number as the specific link expires) describes HR 5665 as follows:

Passed House (12/14/2021)

Combating International Islamophobia Act

This bill establishes within the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia and addresses related issues.

The office shall monitor and combat acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement in foreign countries. The bill establishes the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia, who shall head the office.

The bill also requires certain existing annual reports to Congress about human rights and religious freedom in foreign countries to include information about Islamophobia, such as information about (1) acts of physical violence or harassment of Muslim people, (2) instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote hatred or incite violence against Muslim people, and (3) actions taken by a country’s government to respond to such acts. The office shall coordinate and assist in preparing these portions of the reports.

No funds made available pursuant to the bill may be used to promote or endorse a boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement ideology (i.e., economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations) or used to promote or endorse a Muslim ban.

It is no surprise that the bill is sponsored by Ilhan Omar.

The American Thinker reports:

The actual text of the bill not only seeks to eradicate blasphemy against Islam around the world – and solely against Islam at that – but even requires the federal government to reorganize some portions of the State Department along the lines of an Islamic religious institution which will be responsible for interpreting the Quran.  For example, the text of the bill mandates that “[t]he Secretary of State shall establish within the Department of State an Office” and the “purpose” of the office is described as “[m]onitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.”  That is, the State Department is required to create an office that is a cross between George Orwell’s Big Brother and the Taliban.

The word ‘combat’ in the text of the law is problematic but fits in perfectly with the concept of waging violent jihad against the countries deemed to have committed blasphemy against Islam.  Almost every dictionary defines the word primarily as an action pertaining to war.  While the internet firm Google’s dictionary defines ‘combat’ as “fighting between armed forces,” Cambridge Dictionary defines the word as “a fight, especially during a war.”  According to Collins Dictionary, “combat is fighting that takes place in a war.”  This is no hyperbole as the State Department has a long history of supporting Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.  Former Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel, ran her office as though it were an outpost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and she lost her security clearance when she was investigated for counterintelligence activities.  Little wonder then that Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used the term “Rogue State Department” and President Donald Trump described the State Department as the “Deep State Department.

This law is not consistent with our Constitution.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Every year Senator Rand Paul releases his annual “Festivus Report” detailing waste in government spending. On Monday, The American Thinker posted an article about the 2021 list.

The article reports:

For instance, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spent $11.3 million, in part, in an effort aimed at getting Vietnamese citizens to stop burning their trash.  (It might just as well have burned the $11.3 million.)  The federal government spent $25 million to help New York City display art projects around its boroughs.  (Yes, defund the police, but make sure criminals are inspired by art.)

The federal government also reportedly donated $14 million to the Wilson Center, a Washington think-tank known for putting on parties for members of Congress.  Well, Congress controls the purse strings, and what better way to use taxpayers’ money than to throw itself lavish soirées?

One point three million dollars went to a study, funded in part by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), to determine how hearing good or bad news affects peoples’ happiness.  (Guess what!  People are happier upon hearing good news than upon receiving bad news!  I would have told them that for 1.3 million pennies.)

The article also mentions spending for border walls (only not in America):

Incredibly, though the Biden administration halted construction of the wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico, Paul said the federal government saw fit to give the Department of Defense $250 million to build border walls in the Middle East and North Africa. And why do walls work in places like Hungary, China, Israel, and North Africa…but not here in the States? Why do they work when surrounding the homes of progressive politicians like Barack Obama, but not when utilized to protect their own country’s borders? And why is the Department of Defense helping to defend foreign nations but not its own?

The article concludes:

The U.S. federal government, via its National Institute of Health (NIH), also gave more than $465,000 to Portland, Oregon’s Reed College to fund a study on gambling that taught pigeons to play slot machines.

Sen. Paul released a statement to the Daily Wire in which he noted, “It seems like just yesterday the national debt was $20 trillion, but now the U.S. has managed to breeze past $28 trillion, spending and wasting more than we ever have.”

But remember, Sen. Paul, that people are happier after hearing good news.  So let’s focus on the fact that we now have pigeons capable of playing slot machines.

It’s time to take away the government’s checkbook until they can learn to use it responsibly!

Things Were Not What We Have Been Told They Were

January 6th will live in infamy. At least if the Democrats in Congress have anything to say about it. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions, unreleased video, mistreatment of prisoners, and other things around the edges of what Congress is trying to do. In case you haven’t noticed, the goal of the Congressional investigation is to make sure that President Trump does not run for office again. They impeached him twice and that didn’t work, so this is one of their last-ditch efforts. The next effort will be all mail-in ballots for the mid-term elections.

Meanwhile, on Monday The American Thinker posted an article about someone who seems to be a central character in the breaching of the Capitol but somehow hasn’t paid any consequences for his actions.

The article reports:

The House’s Soviet-style January 6 committee continues its unsuccessful efforts to tie Donald Trump, people in his administration, Republican congresspeople, and Fox News personalities to the events on that day. What they’re ignoring as they try to destroy their political enemies is those people caught on tape actively encouraging the crowd to breach the Capitol. The most notable of these people is one Ray Epps, but he’s not the only one. The Revolver has an extensive exposé looking not just at Epps, but at others in the crowd who ought to be at the top of the FBI’s dragnet but, somehow, aren’t.

…The Revolver studied all the people who are seen interacting with Epps on the available videos from January 5 and 6. It concludes that these people were operatives trying to entrap people.

The starting point for the analysis is the 12:50 barrier breach that Epps led along with a small team of people. They systematically destroyed all the barriers and “keep out” signage that people traveling from Trump’s speech to the Capitol would reach first.

By doing so, they created a honeypot that would lead people into the Capitol without their realizing they had crossed into illegal territory. Or, as The Revolver says, “the Ray Epps Breach Team thus set up what may amount to the largest legal booby-trap in American history.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire articles in The American Thinker and in The Revolver. It seems that we have some ethically challenged people in Washington who are running things. It is time they were replaced with people who love America and have some sort of moral code.

 

I Hate To Be Paranoid, But This Scares Me To Death

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about New York State Bill A416, which would provide amazing power to the Governor of New York and members of the administrative state.

The article reports:

In roughly three weeks, the New York state legislature will vote on Bill A416, which will give the New York governor (in this case, the power-mad Kathy Hochul), as well as the governor’s delegates (i.e., New York’s administrative state) the power to indefinitely detain anyone the governor or her agencies deem a “significant threat to public health.” Despite the broad power states have, this violates the Constitution. At a practical level, it should scare the pants off every American.

There is absolutely no doubt that, under our Constitution, the states have powers that the federal government lacks. The federal government is explicitly a creature of very limited powers, while the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that those limited powers not reserved to the federal government belong to the state “or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment, however, does not mean that states can play the dictator. Indeed, since the Civil War, states have been subject to the same constraints as the federal government when it comes to using its police power over the people within its borders. Thus, the second sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment states explicitly that

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Among the privileges Americans have is a pivotal one in the Fifth Amendment assuring us that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” That deprivation is precisely what New York state contemplates.

The article notes:

No matter the language in the bill, given that the New York governor has the uncontested power to declare a health emergency, people are at risk. If you’re wondering what that looks like, look to Victoria, in Australia. There, people are locked up in concentration camps for the mere suspicion of having COVID.

And again, it cannot be said often enough that this is a disease with an average mortality rate hovering around 1% (a rate that could be even lower if people were allowed treatment with Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine early in their diagnosis). By way of contrast, this is not AIDS, which entered the West with a 100% mortality rate but never resulted in such a draconian response.

If we don’t wake up and stand up quickly, we will lose our freedom and our country.

Does The Government Have The Right To Mandate Vaccines?

On Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article about events in Europe surrounding mandatory vaccines.

The article notes six basic provisions of the Nuremberg Code which was enacted after World War II to prevent medical experiments on people without their consent.

These are the provisions:

    1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. [This includes the consent being free of duress.]

[snip]

    1. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
    2. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
    3. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
    4. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

The Covid vaccine is an experimental vaccine. It has not even gone through a three-year-trial period to begin to establish any long-term effects.

The article continues:

In Austria, where vaccines will soon be mandatory, people must show their papers.  Germany is planning to go down this path, too.  In Slovenia and Dhanbad, India, you cannot get gas for your car unless you’re vaccinated.  In Greece, they fine unvaccinated people over $100 per month.  In Australia’s Northern Territory, there are concentration camps for people who might have COVID.  And of course, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs for refusing to get the jab.

It’s important to remember that this vaccine fanaticism exists even though it’s unquestionable now that people who are vaccinated can both catch COVID and infect others.  The vaccines have, at best, a minimal effect on the omicron variant (which hasn’t stopped Biden and Fauci from doubling down on vaccine demands), something we know because so many of the newly diagnosed cases of the omicron variant are in vaccinated people.

So: A disease that’s eminently treatable; a vaccine that’s not very effective, especially against the omicron variant; the same vaccine has unusually high risks; and government officials are high on the drug of totalitarianism.

Into this environment steps Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the E.U. commission, who wants all of Europe to follow Austria’s path with forced vaccinations, never mind that doing so would mean vaccinating unwilling people, violating the Nuremberg Code:

European Union countries should consider mandatory vaccination to combat Covid and the Omicron variant, the head of its Commission has said.

The article concludes:

In March 2020, the world’s political leaders were trying their best in an information vacuum. Now, however, we are seeing an Iron Curtain of COVID totalitarianism falling across the Western world — and we’d better say “no” before the dark night of fascism finally falls on America, too.

This Is Not Suprising

On Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article about the dwindling revenue going toward the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

According to Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton:

When one of the most recognizable nonprofits in the world loses 75% of its contributions over a four-year period, there are typically investigatory reports written into what has gone wrong. That isn’t the case with the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation received $62.9 million in 2016 but only $16.3 million in 2020, and very few people seem to have notice[d].

That is because most Beltway insiders know the Clinton Foundation’s primary purpose: to serve as a platform for Hillary Clinton’s political operation while lining the Clintons’ pockets by trading influence for money. That is why donations spiked when Hillary was secretary of state and most of the world thought she was destined to become president — and why they cratered after she lost.

The article continues:

It’s always been a political influence-peddling operation.  As Fitton notes, donations spiked when Hillary Clinton was riding high on the hog as President Obama’s secretary of state.  After she left office and lost the 2016 presidency to Donald J. Trump, she got “defunded,” big.  Trump cost the harridan a lot of baksheesh she had been counting on.  Issues & Insights has an excellent chart here demonstrating the trajectory along with a good editorial to go with it.

The Foundation, laughably enough, attributed the drop-off in donations to the pandemic.  Fitton shot that down with this:

This argument doesn’t explain the tens of millions the Foundation lost between 2016 and 2019 and ignores that charitable giving was up by 5.1% in America last year.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It includes a list of large honorariums paid to Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton for their speeches. Although the donations have dwindled, they are still coming in. The list of where the donations are coming from is very interesting. There evidently are some people who are betting that the Clintons still wield significant influence in American politics.

When Actions And Words Do Not Match Up

Gasoline prices in America have risen significantly in the past eleven months. America is not longer energy independent. Partially because of the increased cost of gasoline, Americans are paying more for everything right now. President Biden has said that he is concerned. But what is he going to do about it?

The American Thinker posted an article today titled, “Joe Isuzu Biden: Concern-trolling high energy prices to voters — and working on the sly to raise them higher.”

The article reports:

Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed that high energy prices, including soaring prices at the pump, are some kind of priority for him. He’s made loud noises for the cameras about a couple of piddly measures of his to cut energy costs for consumers, which would at best be temporary and at worst, useless. But out on the sly, he’s stepping up his war on Big Oil, something he doesn’t want you to know about, which will raise energy prices. He’s still Creepy Joe.

The White House has stated in a press release that President Biden is doing everything he can to lower the cost of fuel for Americans. President Biden’s actions paint a different picture.

The article includes the following:

…from Axios:

Oil and gas companies should pay more to drill on federal lands and waters, the Department of the Interior argued in a report released Friday, saying that the current rates were “outdated.”

Driving the news: The Department of Interior report said that the federal government’s oil and gas leasing and permitting program “fails to provide a fair return to taxpayers, even before factoring in the resulting climate-related costs that must be borne by taxpayers.

Note “the resulting climate-related costs that must be borne by taxpayers.” Climate change is not proven science. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pick up the tab for a theory?

The article continues:

Axios yaks a lot about the federal rate being lower than some private rates, but forgets that much of federal land for lease is utterly undeveloped, with zero roads, zero electricity, zero satellite transmission, zero internet, zero water, the works. The other thing is that many of these unexplored federal lands are pretty speculative. A rate would be high and would find a buyer were an oil company to be fairly sure it would get a good return on its investment, meaning, it knew the oil was there and waiting. With many federal lands, that’s pretty speculative, which would explain low rates.

The report cited was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving, a classic ‘Friday night news dump’ as they say, done with hopes that voters would not notice. An analyst cited by Axios noticed, however:

    • “This approach could still significantly curtail future federal oil and gas production activity while remaining consistent with existing laws,” a note from research firm ClearView Energy Partners said.

The article concludes:

Biden is saying one thing, and doing another. Anyone with a brain can see that taxing energy companies at higher rates is going to have fewer companies taking chances. Anyone with a lick of common sense can surmise that shutting down pipelines is going to mean less energy and higher prices at the pump. Joe is hoping you don’t see that as he throws out his shiny strategic reserve bauble to distract you. Anyone with any degree of mental sharpness can see that Joe Isuzu is a three-card monte operator telling voters the sky is green and hoping they’ll be easy marks for it, believing him against the evidence of their own eyes. He seems to think we’re stupid.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. The difference between what the Biden administration is doing and what the Biden administration says it is doing is the reason people hate politicians.

Where Are The Lawyers And Judges Who Support The Constitution?

The American Thinker reported the following today:

On Friday, the attorney for Kelly Meggs, one of the prisoners being held without bail for events on January 6, filed a notice informing the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of a report that guards had negligently or intentionally disbursed a toxic substance in such a way that prisoners were inundated with it, resulting in several being evacuated on stretchers. Meggs’s lawyer also mentioned the dire conditions in the jail and requested, that the court release on bail those arrested in connection with events on January 6.

Here, in its entirety, is what Meggs told his family about the gas incident in the jail, all because one of the detainees didn’t want to wear a mask (which they’re forced to wear 24/7, even when in solitary):

When a January 6 detainee in the CTF / D.C. jail refused to wear a mask, the guards responded with some kind of mace or pepper spray.

This created a disturbance and the wing was locked down at 10 AM.

“They sprayed mace or some type of gas at an inmate and kept missing so it went into an intake that fed into other cells and the lady with the key left because she didn’t like the gas, so the inmates in the cells who were being fed the gas from that intake were locked in for like 15 minutes while it was going into their rooms and they couldn’t see/breathe.”

“Had to take some guys out in stretchers to the med bays”

This is third-world prison authority behavior. How is it acceptable in America? Is anyone concerned about the civil rights of these prisoners being violated? Has it occurred to anyone that if the ruling authorities can do this to people before their trial, they can do this to any American?

The article concludes:

There are other examples of leaders facing down overwrought crowds. Four-hundred-and-two years later, in 1783, as the American Revolution was winding to an end, the officers in the Continental Army hadn’t been paid for months, so they started to plot a coup. Washington learned of the planned meeting and allowed it to take place. He then showed up to read a letter from Congress begging the offices to be patient.

Washington looked at the letter, squinted, and then put his glasses on, something the shocked men had never seen him do. Then, Washington spoke the words that reduced many of them to tears: “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.” That was the end of the coup.

When the American people entered Congress, not a single politician had the courage to go out and face them. Every politician ran away and hid. Even now, Marjorie Taylor Greene is the only politician with the courage to force her way into the prison to speak with the captives. What a pathetic bunch of poltroons we have placed in a government that was created by great men and once was home to them too.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

Who is willing to stand up for these prisoners?

A New Tax Proposal

The Democrats are currently floating the idea of taxing unrealized capital gains. As is their usual modus operandi, the Democrats are saying that this new concept of taxation will only apply to billionaires. Of course it will.

Today The American Thinker posted an article about the idea.

Here are a few highlights from that article:

Our current secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, is busy trying to find a way to tax wealth without calling it taxing wealth.  She has eyes on taxing unrealized capital gains.  What this means simply is taxing people for money they have not earned or received.  That’s it in a nutshell.  That definition should leave even those who have never had a course in accounting or finance shaken.

Not only is Janet Yellen considering this, but the Democrat party is on board as well.  Democrats claim that it is needed in order to pay for their agenda.  You know — the one that President Biden says pays for itself.  The idea of taxing you for the income you have not made is also a policy speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi proposes.  Apparently, there is some confusion here.

Looking at this from my point of view, I recalled a picture of Casey Stengel, nicknamed “the ol’ Professor,” when he was the manager of the New York Mets in 1962 — a team considered the worst team to ever play in the major leagues.  He had his hat off and scratched his head with the caption: “Can’t anybody here play this game?

Think about how absurd this idea is. Imagine if an Internal Revenue Agent showed up at your house and said, we decided that you have to pay tax on the money you never earned. Aside from how insane that sounds on the surface, one need only ask: “If I didn’t receive or earn that money, with what do you expect me to pay the tax?” That, in a nutshell, is the entire problem.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It describes some of the lessons we can learn from history about creative accounting. If you honestly believe that the ultra-rich will not find a way to avoid this tax so that it has to be passed down to the middle class, then you have truly not been paying attention.

The Coercion In This Is Just Weird

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about a telephone call from the White House to the Department of Justice targeting religious objects to receiving the Covid vaccine.

The article reports:

That good Catholic, Joe Biden, is troubled by the fact that people are raising religious objections to taking the COVID vaccine. We know this because a leaked White House telephone call lets us listen in as a Department of Justice attorney works with the administration to brainstorm ways to force vaccines on religious people over their faith-based objections. The First Amendment is a dead letter in the Biden White House.

In 1558, when Elizabeth I ascended the English throne, England had seen Catholics and Protestants engaged in deadly fighting for 25 years. Elizabeth wanted none of it. “I would not open windows into men’s souls,” she said, voicing the world’s first expression of religious liberty. By the 18th century, though, Britain had passed a series of laws mandating religious tests barring non-Anglicans from roles in government or academia.

In response, the Founding Fathers ratified the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from requiring religious tests for people to participate in society. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” And thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment applies to all governments in America, whether federal or state.

Additionally, contrary to what many leftists assert, the First Amendment does not operate to bar people from having their religious beliefs inform their politics or their dealings with the state. It’s a limit on government, not on people. Or as Elizabeth would have said, the government cannot open windows into men’s souls.

Nevertheless, a leaked White House recording of Marty Lederman, a Department of Justice attorney, has him cynically talking about getting COVID vaccines into those Americans who object on religious grounds. He doubts their faith but reluctantly concedes that there’s little the government can do — except for using government force to override them by claiming a compelling government need:

The question of religion and medicine is not a new one. The Christian Science religion does not believe in taking drugs of any kind. The Catholic religion objects to the fact that fetal tissue may have been used in the development of the Covid vaccine. Up to this point, religious objections to vaccines or other medical procedures have been accepted.

There is something really strange going on here. First of all, anecdotal information from morticians and hospital workers indicates that the vaccine does not protect you from catching the disease, being hospitalized with the disease, or from dying from the disease. If the vaccine does not truly protect you, why is the government pushing it so hard? Why is the government putting corporations in a position where they are firing people for not receiving an ineffective vaccine? Why are the statistics on injuries caused by the vaccine not being made available to public on a regular basis?

We Need People In Office Who Will Defend The Constitution

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sounds pretty basic. So why do we still have people who were sent to jail for their activities on January 6th sitting in solitary confinement that have not yet had trial dates or trials?

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about Thomas Caldwell (who is mentioned on this blog here.)

The article reports:

It’s become clear since the January 6 protest that there’s not a scintilla of truth to the leftist narrative that an insurrection occurred. Nevertheless, the Democrats have used this hoax narrative to criminalize conservative protests. In Biden’s America, conservatives will always be too paranoid — and rightly so — to exercise their First Amendment rights because they know that the crowd will be infiltrated by FBI agents acting as agents provocateurs. They know that if they’re illegally entrapped this way, they will become Public Enemy No. 1 and end up as political prisoners. And Julie Kelly has a heartbreaking article to prove that.

…If there was an insurrection, it was the Deep State against ordinary Americans.  And that’s where we get to Julie Kelly’s heartbreaking article about the horrifying experience one Navy vet (with 20 years of service) had with our government because he dared to communicate with the Oath Keepers about potentially providing security (a plan that fell through).  Notably, he never entered the Capitol, nor did he commit any serious crime.

It began with a nighttime raid fit for a drug kingpin surrounded by Dobermans and armed guards:

Thomas Caldwell’s wife awakened him in a panic at 5:30 a.m. on January 19.

“The FBI is at the door and I’m not kidding,” Sharon Caldwell told her husband.

Caldwell, 66, clad only in his underwear, went to see what was happening outside his Virginia farm. “There was a full SWAT team, armored vehicles with a battering ram, and people screaming at me,” Caldwell told me during a lengthy phone interview on September 21. “People who looked like stormtroopers were pointing M4 weapons at me, covering me with red [laser] dots.”

…Caldwell spent 53 days in jail, 49 of them in solitary confinement. He could not access his medication to relieve excruciating back pain caused by spinal injuries Caldwell suffered while serving in the Navy. When prison guards asked why he was incarcerated, he said, “I’m a political prisoner because of January 6.”

In prison, Caldwell said he suffered “sadistic brutality by some correctional officers and there was warmth and compassion, the latter by other employees and every single inmate.” His faith, he said, and the love of his wife sustained him. “I thought I would die in jail.”

That should not happen in America.

The Truth Eventually Comes Out

The American Thinker posted an article today about recent revelations concerning Dr. Fauci and his relationship to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The article reports:

Perhaps, at long last, the deadly reign of Anthony Fauci will come to an end. That’s because The Intercept, a hard-left publication, has revealed 900 pages of government documents definitively proving that Fauci used his position to fund gain-of-function research into bat viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”)—and then lied to Congress about it.

Since February 2020, the wizened Fauci has been the face of the government’s response to the pandemic. In the ensuing 20 months, Fauci was frequently wrong, incredibly arrogant, and deeply dishonest. Because he was the anti-Trump, though, we were stuck with him. Democrats, especially, appreciated how he dismissed treating COVID with time-tested and affordable medicines such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin and, instead, insisted on masks, lockdowns, and mandated vaccines.

In July, during a Senate Health Committee hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R. KY) directly accused Fauci of using his position to fund illegal gain-of-function research at the WIV. The Hill, which reported on the hearing, assured its readers that Paul was making “an unsubstantiated accusation.”

Fauci came out swinging in response to Sen. Paul’s accusation. “Senator Paul,” he said, “you do not know what you are talking about.” He also said, “If anybody is lying here, Senator, it is you.”

The article explains what happened at the Intercept after the Congressional hearing mentioned above:

The Intercept aggressively attacked Sen. Paul after the hearing. Glenn Greenwald, who founded The Intercept and then got the boot for being insufficiently totalitarian, posits that it was then that the outlet sought to bolster its attack on Rand Paul by filing a FOIA request against the National Institutes of Health.

What happened, instead, was that The Intercept received over 900 pages of documents showing that it was Fauci who lied. Richard E. Ebright, a Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers, summarized what those documents revealed:

The article includes a number of screenshots of tweets about the documents.

This is one of the tweets:

The article concludes:

Last year revealed to Americans that our most lauded experts are idiots and, in the case of Fauci and Collins, highly culpable, dishonest idiots. Everything they told us has been proven wrong, from COVID’s origins, to the lockdowns and masks, to the attacks on affordable early treatments, to the vaccines’ safety and efficacy.

We’ve also learned that all Democrats and some Republicans who have political or administrative power will abuse it. Democrats also weaponized COVID to corrupt our elections and saddle us with a corrupt, senile president who has opened America’s borders, destroyed her economy, creating a glide path for Islamic extremists to come here, degraded America’s standing in the world, handed power to the Chinese, and, in all probability, will give a nuclear pass to Iran.

…And one more thing: Dr. Fauci needs to go to jail for the rest of his life because, through his funding illegal gain-of-function research, followed by his non-stop stream of dangerous lies, he has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on his hands. Francis Collins can be his cellmate.

Lying to Congress is a crime. Does anyone expect the current Department of Justice to prosecute Dr. Fauci, the darling of the political left?

Exactly Who Is Unvaccinated?

The mainstream media is telling us that a large percentage of the people who have not received the Covid vaccine are Trump supporters. This is somewhat illogical since President Trump was the one who cut through the red tape to make the vaccine possible. It is also interesting that President Biden and Vice-President Harris both badmouthed the vaccine during the Trump presidency–stating more than once that they did not trust it. So where are we now?

The American Thinker posted an article today with some of the statistics on who is vaccinated and who is not.

The article reports:

At present, the U.S. is 51 percent fully vaccinated. While that may not seem like success, if you break it down the numbers are more favorable. 62 percent of adults and 81 percent of the elderly are fully vaccinated. Another segment of the population has natural immunity based on having had COVID. Given natural infection as a second and more robust pathway toward herd immunity, America has done well.

For whatever reason, the media and much of the medical profession has consistently downplayed the immunity based on having had Covid.

The article continues:

Who isn’t yet vaccinated in America and why? There is vaccine hesitancy, which according to Wikipedia “is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services.” It’s not simple and straightforward, either. “Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience, a fear of needles, or a lack of understanding about how vaccines work.”

Last March, Forbes reported that 49 percent of Republican men and 47 percent of Trump supporters will refuse any vaccine, setting the narrative for who is to blame now for the delta variant surge. Unknown then but known now is that the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. According to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “Vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”

Former CIA and NSA Director General Michael Hayden agrees with Forbes and his intelligence expertise leads him to conclude that Trump supporters are “our Taliban” and that “the MAGA wearing unvaxxed” deplorables should be sent to Afghanistan, presumably to be left to the whims of the real Taliban. I wonder if he wants unvaxxed Democrats, including blacks, of whom the majority are unvaxxed, to be sent to their deaths in Afghanistan?

Sounds like a really nice guy. I wonder if he has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

The vaccines do however reduce the risk of severe illness and death, allowing many to suffer milder infection, gaining natural immunity, and pushing the country closer to herd immunity where COVID becomes a seasonal nuisance like influenza.

What is the media not saying about the vaccine-hesitant?

As reported in Summit News, “A new report by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh has found that the most highly educated Americans are also the most vaccine hesitant.” This was not a survey of a few hundred, but of 5 million Americans.

They found a U-shaped curve with the greatest hesitancy among the least and most educated. “The most common concern for those who are hesitant to take the vaccine is potential side effects, with a lack of trust in government close behind in second.”

So much for the media narrative that only the missing-teeth, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal Trump supporters are against vaccination.

Someday I hope the media will start telling us the truth about vaccines and herd immunity. Until then, Americans have the right to be skeptical.

The Question Of The Day

The American Thinker posted an article today asking a really good question about the 2020 election. The questions is very simple – “What if the 2020 Election Audits Show Trump Really Won?” There is no quick and obvious answer.

The article notes a few historical precedents and a few observations about our Constitution:

I. This we do know…

* With a strict constructionist view of the wording in the Constitution, the words are not there to “road map” how to fix possible presidential election fraud.

* The Constitution mentions nothing about the Electoral College re-convening. Historically, the Electoral College has never re-convened for a second time for a presidential certification.

…*  We do know that of the 4 key contested battleground “purple states” that were crucial, all had election irregularities election day, election night, and the following election morning.

…II.  So, what would happen if it became clear there was no election integrity in the four most important contested state cases?  What would happen?

*  Would the Supreme Court do absolutely nothing?  Would the Supreme Court say the Constitution is mute, and therefore they themselves have nothing they can do?  Would they say no federal law exists to right the wrong?  Would the Supreme Court remain impotent?

*  Would the Supreme Court place President Trump back in office and back into the White House?

*  Would Biden remain the president, nothing changes, and Biden serves out the remaining four years?  With Trump supporters seething but doing nothing?

*  Would Biden and his Attorney General Merrick Garland, after the Arizona audit proves fraud, stop “by any means necessary” any audits being conducted in any other states?  A complete stoppage of all future state audits.

*  Would Garland/Biden cite federal supremacy, federal civil rights laws, or federalize the state National Guards to make sure any remaining audits are stopped?

*  Is it possible that Biden and Kamala Harris would both be impeached out of office and Nancy Pelosi become President of the United States?   President Nancy Pelosi!  Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and is therefore third in line to the presidency.  The Constitution and federal law are clear on who is third in line: Speaker of the House.  President Pelosi!

*  Would President Trump admit that there is really nothing MAGA Nation can do, short of violence, and therefore simply just concentrate his efforts on the Republicans taking back the House and the Senate with Trump as their leader in 2022?  This is constitutional and legal but only works if there is not election theft again in 2022. 

III.  Four separate entities and groups are crucial to what might happen next if there is obvious election fraud and a stolen presidential election and the Constitution, federal courts, and federal law are mute on what happens next.

  *  The Supreme Court.  Even though it is obvious that the Supreme Court does not want to deal with the 2020 election, the Court might actually make tough decisions concerning the outcome.  Probably the big fear of the Court is that if they rule constitutionally against Biden, the progressives within the Deep State would just ignore the Court.  And the Court would be spectacularly neutered for all to see. A big fear.

  *  The military. What would the military do?  Especially what if the top brass goes one way, but the rank-in-file soldiers go the other way?  The generals appear to have already sold their soul to Biden.  So, it would surprise no one if the military generals stayed with Biden/Harris.  But what if the real soldiers themselves go the other way?

* The progressives. Considering what the progressives did, and allowed, and cheered for in the violent deadly riots last summer; we have a pretty good idea of how they would react. We saw the violence the progressives are willing to bring. We know how far the progressives would go if Biden were being removed by the Court.

* Trump supporters. Would they gear up for the 2022 off-year elections so that the Republicans under Trump’s leadership take both the House and Senate with filibuster-proof majorities? Would they wait passionately until the 2024 presidential election and support Trump? Or would they become more like the progressives and take matters into their own hands? Would they say enough is enough, and it “gets real,” really fast? Especially if the Supreme Court rules constitutionally for Trump, but the progressives say NO.

Conclusion. We just don’t know. We do not know what comes next. This is the situation America finds itself in when roughly half of the American people believe at the very least the election results to be very, very questionable; and then roughly half of the American people would not allow Biden/Harris to be removed from office no matter what the forensic audits might clearly show. The Constitution is mute. Federal law is silent. State laws are inconsistent. Emotions are very high. Compromise is unlikely at this point.

Frankly, I think the most rational solution is to make sure the mid-term election is an honest election, to make sure any election fraud in 2020 is widely reported, and to let the people vote the crooks who were involved out of office. Then a secure 2024 election would be able to undo some of the damage the Biden administration has done to America. However, I am extremely concerned that the American voters will never be made aware of the fraud that occurred.

 

Sending Mixed Messages To Everyone Involved

I am very confused by actions vs. words regarding the Biden administration’s border policy. The Vice-President says that she has been to the border. I must have missed that. The President says the border is closed. I guess I  missed that also. Meanwhile, the current spoken message of the Vice-President is, “Don’t come.” However, the actions of the Biden administration tell a different story.

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about the difference between what the Biden administration is saying about the border and what the Biden administration is doing to encourage illegal immigration.

The article quotes a USA Today article:

Vice President Kamala Harris will host a roundtable Tuesday with a group of female immigrants [sic] who have temporary protection from deportation as the administration looks to revive a bipartisan push to grant them legal status through a pair of bills that have languished in the Senate. 

…The vice president will use the meeting to call on the Senate to pass two bills that cleared the House with bipartisan support earlier this year: the American Dream and Promise Act,  which would give DACA recipients the ability to live and work in the U.S, as well as the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would enable more than 1 million undocumented farm workers to apply for legal status. 

Ai-jen Poo, co-founder and executive director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, who will also be in attendance, said the meeting ties the importance of immigration reform to economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic by highlighting immigrants who work as care professionals. 

The article concludes with a statement about the prospects of getting a bipartisan immigration bill through Congress:

It’s a coming failure.

The softest of these bipartisan senators on immigration — Sens. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and others — have all said a deal is dead in the water until the border surge is controlled.  Politico has that story dating from March here.

Anyone see Kamala Harris at the border to halt the border surge, which would seem to be her job as border czar as well as a boon to help win Republicans in Congress over to her side?  I haven’t.  The surge hasn’t even peaked yet, as I wrote about here, and some 180,000 or so rolled in from countries well beyond Central America just last month.  More are expected in June.

Harris was presumably chosen by Joe to be his vice president because of all her congressional ties and capacities to cut compromises across party lines.  Yet right now, her failure to go to the border, or more importantly even halt the border surge, is precisely what’s keeping her from hammering out a deal with Republicans.

What we see now is the tiny light at the end of a tunnel…of an oncoming train.  She’s going to be defeated on this, too, same as she was in her pathetic bid for diplomacy.  But as for illegal border surgers, they’re hearing her message loud and clear, to keep coming.

Her lips say “no, no,” but her hands say “yes, yes.”  No wonder Willie Brown found her irresistible.

The Biden administration is not capable of solving the border crisis without going back to the policies of the Trump administration–something they will never do.

Is There A Cure?

The American Thinker posted an article today about a change in the severity of the Covid-19 outbreak in India.

The article reports:

India has been suffering horrendously from COVID of late, and the complete death toll may never be known. But in the capital city of Delhi, mass distribution of ivermectin began and the results have been stunning.

The article includes the following graph of Covid cases in India:

The article notes:

In poorer countries, where vaccines are unavailable to too expensive for mass use, they have been forced to resort to ivermectin. This has had the effect of conducting a mass experiment (albeit not with the double-blind, randomized, controlled conditions that “gold standard” medical research requires. Maybe that will enable the ivermectin deniers to maintain their posture of self-righteousness.

Note that the emergency use authorization under which the experimental mRNA vaccines have been approved for mass use would not be given if there were an accepted effective alternative therapy. Billions of dollars flowing into the hands of vaccine makers would not have happened.

Meanwhile on May 1st, Mountain Home Magazine posted an article about ivermectin.

The article reports:

An earlier Australian study, reported in the journal Antiviral Research, showed that Ivermectin, which blocked other RNA viruses like Dengue virus, yellow fever virus, Zika virus, West Nile virus, influenza, the Avian flu, and HIV1/AIDS in vitro, decimated the coronavirus in vitro, wiping out “essentially all viral material by 48 hours.” But more research was needed in human beings.

But by October Marik’s concerns were answered. The studies were well-designed university trials that showed amazing anti-COVID-19 activity at the normal doses used to treat parasites. Though small and endlessly diverse by large, Western big pharma “one-size-fits all” random control trials, the Ivermectin studies were a mosaic of hundreds of scientists and many thousands of patients in trials all over the world, all showing the same remarkable efficacy against all phases of COVID-19 no matter what dose or age or severity of the patient. “Penicillin never was randomized,” Marik says. “It just obviously worked. Ivermectin obviously works.”

Marik was astonished. “If you were to say, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID-19, what would you ask for?” he said. “I think you would ask firstly for something that’s safe, that’s cheap, that’s readily available, and has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. People would say, “That’s ridiculous. There could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics. That’s just unreasonable. But we do have such a drug. The drug is called Ivermectin.”

If it was universally distributed at a dose that costs ten American cents in India and about the cost of a Big Mac in the United States, he said, Ivermectin would save countless lives, crush variants, eliminate the need for endless big pharma booster shots, and end the pandemic all over the world.

There were no effective, lifesaving, approved COVID-19 treatments that doctors had used to slow down or stop the coronavirus in the history of the pandemic, in any phase of the disease, except the one, corticosteroids, that Marik and company had discovered.

Now they had discovered another treatment, even more powerful, that could save the world.

Please follow the link to read the entire article in Mountain Home Magazine. It details the legal hoops a family had to go through to get the ivermectin treatment for their mother that saved her life. At some point we are going to have to look at whether or not there is a financial aspect of pushing the coronavirus vaccine rather than focusing on the treatment of the virus. I truly believe people have died due to conflicting financial interests.

Questionable Numbers

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about some numbers from the recent census data that cast doubt on the vote count of the 2020 election.

The article reports:

According to a website called The Election Wizard, newly released Census data contains an “anomaly” when it comes to squaring it with the reported electoral results:

US Census data released last week called into question the official vote tally from the 2020 election. As part of the Census, the government collects data on citizens who self-report as having voted in presidential elections. The collected data shows an unusual anomaly in the reported results.

According to the Census, the recorded number of people voting in 2020 was tallied at 154,628,000. On the other hand, official results place the number of actual ballots cast slightly north of 158 million. That’s a discrepancy of nearly four million votes.

The article notes:

Speaking to pollster Richard Baris during an episode of “Inside the Numbers,” lawyer Robert Barnes said historically, the Census tends to “pin on the nose” the recorded vote numbers with the actual results. In other words, often the two data sets reasonably match.

Barnes is right. For example, the bureau was nearly spot-on in 2008, slightly under-reporting that 131,100,000 voted, while the official results showed 131,300,000 ballots cast.

Of course, sometimes the Census has missed the mark. But for decades, in almost every case where the Census grossly botched the results, it was because the bureau over-recorded the number of those who voted.

…Barnes pointed out the Census data also calls into question a number of contested states too.

For example, in Georgia, the bureau recorded roughly 4.8 million voting, while official results show slightly less than 5 million. Barnes said the discrepancy is consistent with claims that there were roughly 100k questionable ballots cast in Georgia.

Please follow the link above to the article–it includes a video of a discussion of these numbers. It does take something of a leap of faith to believe that Joe Biden received more votes in 2020 than Barack Obama received in 2008.

About Those Polls

The American Thinker posted an article today about some recent polls showing President Biden’s approval rating and Americans’ opinions about his speech before Congress. The number reported by our mainstream media are very misleading.

The article reports:

Opinion polls are a well-known and effective method of shaping opinion. These methods have been well described and include sampling whoever answers the phone versus likely voters, the latter being a practice of Rasmussen Reports in their high accurate presidential opinion polls. Oversampling Democrats is another fraudulent way to produce a poll result favoring the DNC media agenda.

President Biden last week addressed Congress, at least those select few members invited to listen to Sleepy Joe propose new spending in excess of $4 trillion, an amount larger than what the federal government takes in annually through already-confiscatory taxes.

Despite most or all members of Congress, as well as the president and vice president, already being vaccinated, the sparse audience was wearing masks and sitting at least six feet apart. If fully vaccinated, why were the attendees acting as though they were not? If the government message is that the vaccine works and everyone should take it, why are the top government leaders sending the opposite message?

The article explains how to skew a poll:

The last figure was the sum total of the three main legacy television networks – CBS, ABC, and NBC, plus Fox News. Nielsen reports the audience from more sources at 26.9 million. Either way, Biden drew considerably less of the audience that Trump did in his first congressional address and far less than in Trump’s final address, even when cable media are included. As the Last Refuge noted,

That’s over a 60% decrease in viewership.   No crowds ever attended his rallies.  There was no crowd at his installation.  There are no views for his on-line speeches.  The audience for his regular speeches are non-existent.  Virtually no viewers at home.  An empty chamber for his speech,… and yet we are to believe he received 81 million votes.

At least China Joe beat the Oscars, which had only 9.85 million viewers, down 58 percent from last year’s all-time low. Perhaps the woke leftists in Hollywood and the White House are not as popular as CNN believes they are.

Back to the poll, commissioned by CNN, conducted by SSRS Opinion Panel: The sample was 589 respondents, only slightly more than the size of the U.S. Congress. Of those surveyed, 45 percent identified as Democrat compared to 23 percent as Republican, a two-fold difference.

Is it any wonder that seven out of 10 gave the speech a thumbs up? They should have saved money and just surveyed the CNN newsroom, getting the same or an even more favorable result.

All Americans need to do their own research. When a poll comes out that seems odd, look up the poll and see who was polled. That’s how you spot fake news.