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.

When The Media Totally Distorts The Truth

The American Thinker posted an article today about one network’s recent attempts to smear Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Governor DeSantis is a current target because of his state’s relatively successful handing of the coronavirus. He is also viewed as a future candidate for higher office and thus must be destroyed before that happens. The article explains the smear attempt and then explains what actually happened.

First the smear attempt:

…In addition to repeatedly and falsely implying that Florida handled COVID badly and is a hotbed of disease, the media are now attacking DeSantis directly.

Most recently, CBS’s 60 Minutes, openly accused DeSantis of a pay-to-play scheme with Publix, giving the latter the right to distribute vaccinations in exchange for a $100,000 campaign donation. You can see the set-up in the string of three tweets, below, which culminate in ostensible footage of an angry DeSantis baselessly swatting aside Sharyn Alfonsi’s challenging questions:

This is one of the tweets:

If that were the entire story, it would not be a good look. However, there is more to the story.

The article notes:

Well, it turns out that CBS forgot to include a few things when it put together that footage of a contentious exchange between the “brave” Alfonsi and the “evil” Republican governor. In fact, DeSantis carefully explained to the assembled media the decision-making behind choosing Publix to disburse vaccinations:

So, first of all, when we did, the first pharmacies that had it were CVS and Walgreens. And they had a long-term care mission. So they were going to the long term care facilities. They got vaccine in the middle of December, they started going to the long-term care facilities the third week of December to do LTCs. So that was their mission. That was very important. And we trusted them to do that. As we got into January, we wanted to expand the distribution points. So yes, you had the counties, you had some drive through sites, you had hospitals that were doing a lot, but we wanted to get it into communities more. So, we reached out to other retail pharmacies — Publix, Walmart — obviously CVS and Walgreens had to finish that mission. And we said, we’re going to use you as soon as you’re done with that. For the Publix, they were the first one to raise their hand, say they were ready to go. And you know what, we did it on a trial basis. I had three counties. I actually showed up that weekend and talked to seniors across four different Publix. How was the experience? Is this good? Should you think this is a way to go? And it was 100% positive. So, we expanded it, and then folks liked it. And I can tell you, if you look at a place like Palm Beach County, they were kind of struggling at first in terms of the senior numbers.

DeSantis explained too, that at a meeting with the Palm Beach County mayor, administration, and other “folks,” one of the things they calculated was “that 90% of their seniors live within a mile and a half a Publix.” The ultimate calculation, therefore, was what would be easiest for residents:

Please follow the link above to the article to read the rest of the story. As the mid-term elections approach, we can expect to see more character assassination directed at conservative candidates. Many Republican candidates will avoid this because they are part of the uni-party, but look for attacks (mostly baseless) on conservatives during the next year–particularly those who might run for President.

 

Would You Be Comfortable Living Next Door To These Two Boys?

Our criminal justice system is supposed to keep people who are a danger to society away from people they might harm. Theoretically it is also supposed to help criminals become law-abiding citizens by punishing them for their crimes and showing them the error of their ways. Well, evidently California has lost that concept.

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about a recent court case in California that resulted in a very questionable sentence for the defendants.

The article reports:

In a case that’s drawing a lot of attention based on the insane level of leniency shown, two 14-year-olds who bullied, murdered, danced on the body of, and filmed a helpless 13-year-old, have been let off with the mother-of-all-slaps-on-the-wrist by a Riverside County Superior Court Justice. 

According to local radio station KTLA:

Two 14-year-old Southern California boys who beat a fellow student in 2019, causing his death, won’t go to jail but must undergo anger management therapy, a judge ruled.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger A. Luebs imposed the therapy as a probation condition before releasing the teenagers to their parents on Thursday, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported Friday.

On Sept. 16, 2019, the teenagers were videotaped attacking 13-year-old Diego Stolz outside classrooms at Landmark Middle School in Moreno Valley, east of Los Angeles. One boy struck the teenager in the head from behind and he fell, hitting his head against a pillar. The boys then continued punching the boy, who died nine days later from a brain injury.

Would you feel comfortable with these children living in your neighborhood?

The article also notes:

Parts of his (Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger A. Luebs) sentencing were obnoxious, too:

Luebs directed that each offender enroll in character development and anger management classes, as well as perform 150 hours community service, not play violent video games, avoid social media and write letters of apology to the Stolz family. They were additionally ordered to permanently steer clear of one another.

Luebs warned the pair that any probation violation could land them in deep trouble, possibly resulting in time behind bars.

Why, exactly, are they getting ‘one last warning’ to behave themselves, when they’ve already done the worst they could possibly do?  These killers should have had their one-last-warning before they moved up to killing people. This didn’t happen out of the blue — one of these plagues-on-society was already on probation when he tried his hand at killing. How seriously are they going to take this latest ‘one-last-warning’? The message they’ve gotten so far is that if they get caught violating probation, all they will get is another one-last-warning. But remember, one more chance.

The article goes on to mention that California has been moving in the direction of reducing its youth prison population in past years. I guess its pretty easy to reduce your prison population if you don’t hold murderers accountable for their crimes.

The Impact Of The Year Long Lockdowns

We recently celebrated the anniversary of the ‘two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve lockdown’ that began last March. So what has been the impact of that year-long lockdown? There have been a number of articles written about the negative impact on school children, but there were also people who profited from the lockdown.

The American Thinker posted an article today about some of the people who profited from the lockdown.

The article reports:

A year after “15 days to flatten the curve” began our lockdowns, we have enough data to answer the classic question about lockdowns (which still exist a year later in many places, including much of California): cui bono?  (Who benefits?)

The answer is, as an individual, Jeff Bezos.  His stock in Amazon, the single biggest beneficiary of lockdowns, is worth billions of dollars more than before the lockdown.  As a group: educated professionals, able to work from home via Zoom and other internet-based services and able to afford home delivery.

…Small businesses, the bedrock base of the GOP, have been severely damaged and even bankrupted in mass numbers.  Government workers, the base of the Democrats, have not missed any paychecks for the most part.

Unionized teachers in public schools, members of the lower-income tier of educated professionals, still have not gone to work in schools in many places, as their unions scheme to use taxpayer relief dollars to pay them bonuses for trips to Hawaii and other goodies, while supermarket and other retail clerks have labored unceasingly, interacting with adult members of the public who are a far greater health risk than children.

The coronavirus lockdown undid a lot of the good things the Trump administration had done for lower-income Americans. Unfortunately the policies of the Biden administration do not favor people in the lower-income brackets. Some of the Biden administration policies that will have a negative impact on working Americans are higher gasoline prices, which impact everyone and result in higher prices across the board; a significant increase in the minimum wage,which will result in job losses and higher prices; and higher taxes on corporations, which will send jobs overseas and increase American unemployment. The major consequence of the Biden administration will be the shrinking of the middle class and a shrinking American economy. Under President Trump, the middle class shrank because people moved into the upper income classes. Under President Bide, the middle class will shrink because people moved into the lower income classes. This is not good for America.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Yesterday The American Thinker reported that the Biden administration has instituted a program that provides free free flights for illegal immigrants to their destination of choice. Paid for by the American taxpayer of course.

The article quotes a report from Hot Air:

Since January, according to the Washington Post, “the number of [illegal immigrant] minors in federal custody has more than tripled to 7,000” and that Health and Human Services has instructed ICE to “purchase airplane tickets and cover other transportation costs for minors whose relatives are already living in the United States.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is “getting ICE to help transport migrants northward so they can be processed and released.”

So what is this about? If Americans don’t see the number of illegal aliens massing at the border, they may not realize the enormity of the problem we are currently having with border security because of changes to the law that the Biden administration has made.

The article at Hot Air also notes:

I hope Mayorkas is at least negotiating a discount price on those airline tickets. The Trump administration purchased discounted tickets when it deported illegal migrants back to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The idea is to move them away from the border and further north, into other states for processing and release. Biden is moving a catch and release mandate outside of Texas as border towns are complaining of increased burdens of accomodating increasing numbers of illegal migrants, often just released into towns and cities without the ability to take care of themselves

Mexicans and Central Americans know that Joe Biden is not serious about border security. He is bending over backward to promote open borders. Human trafficking will flourish and coyotes will reap the financial rewards of exploiting desperate people. They’ve been told that unaccompanied minors will be taken care of and families often send them ahead, expecting them not to be turned away. By releasing them further into the country, just to ease crowding at the border, the possibility that they go to people with less than good intentions increases.

The current Biden administration policy on border security poses a risk to Americans. Unfortunately, it make take an act of terrorism or a gang attack on Americans for voters to realize that.

 

The Blacklisting Begins

The American Thinker posted an article today about Dawson Buchanan, a young Trump-supporter.

The article reports:

Dawson Buchanan, a young Trump-supporter, left a disturbing thread on Twitter.  He asserts that he was all set to begin working for a company called Private Jet Services.  However, shortly before he was to begin, PJS fired him.  He finally learned from the owner that PJS had a contract with the National Hockey League.  When the NHL learned that PJS had hired someone who had worked for the Trump company, the NHL said PJS had a choice: Buchanan or the NHL.  PJS opted for the company that helps pay its bills.

The article concludes:

What’s important for purposes of this post is that if Buchanan’s facts are accurate, it’s clear that the left is determined to marginalize Trump-supporters and other conservatives.  They have already made absolutely clear that they intended to deny them a voice in a computerized world, to leave them without access to banks, and to make sure that they cannot be employed.  Indeed, Curt Schilling has been told that, as a high-profile conservative, he’s now uninsurable.  I’m sure there’s a lawsuit there, too.  We are to be driven from pillar to post, like lepers of old.

In the long term, the left’s is an unsustainable tactic.  Depending on the circumstances, it’s almost certainly illegal in many cases.  And finally, if leftists are determined to “de-person” Trump-supporters, it cannot end well for America as a whole.  This is the behavior of hardcore socialists, in the communist or fascist mode, not of members of a pluralist liberal democracy.

The article provides a lot more details of the story. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

I refer back to the words of Edwin Black, a Jewish historian, who has stated that the three steps to the concentrations camps in Germany were identify, exclude and confiscate (or deprive of a way to make a living). We are now seeing the beginning of that in America. That should scare all of us.

Mafia-style Tactics

Yesterday The America Thinker posted an article about a recent event in Seattle.

The article reports:

Grocery retailer Trader Joe’s, which refused to cave in to political correctness in its product names, is experiencing new problems with Black Lives Matter protesters in Seattle, according to Breitbart News:

Black Lives Matter protesters pushed their way into a Seattle Trader Joe’s demanding the company give “15 percent at least.” The group has repeated the tactic of harassing the store’s staff and customers over the past few months.

A video tweeted Thursday night shows a large group of BLM activists entering a Seattle Trader Joe’s store. They chanted and beat drums as they marched through the grocery chain location.

Seattle has five Trader Joe’s locations, and Breitbart reports that three of them have been hit in this way.  It shows that Trader Joe’s, which resisted the demands, remains a target, based on Seattle’s failure to send police to protect them.

A Tweet included in the article notes:

This is exactly how mafia works. Either you pay us something – il “pizzo” it’s called in Italian – or we burn down the place at least. This can happen when the State is absent, that’s why defunding the police in crucial in every mafia system.

The article concludes:

BLM is led by “trained Marxists” who just happened to have learned their tactics at Hugo Chávez’s knee.  Here’s a piece I did on their pilgrimages to Caracas, where these kinds of shakedowns are what goes on in that hellhole.  And don’t think the Chavista agenda they embrace isn’t to harm the entire U.S.  Here’s one I wrote from 2019.  Venezuelans, too, have noticed the similarities.

Now their successors in the U.S. are turning Seattle into a hellhole, too, complete with Venezuela-style shakedowns. 

Seattle is getting pretty comparable to Caracas without police to enforce rule of law just on crime and disorder alone, but Trader Joe’s is no battered Venezuelan storefront shop.  It’s a huge national private corporation whose structure protects it from activist shareholders stirring up the pot and agitators calling for woke acts, allowing it to do what it always does which is put the interests of its customers first.  Instead of pay the danegeld, Trader Joe’s is in a position to walk out.

It’s shown backbone in standing up to rioters, and who knows how many shakedowns it has fended off.  But if it gets bad — and recall that Breitbart notes that three stores in Seattle have been targeted — it may well decide that the cost of doing business in Seattle outweighs the benefits and pull out of the city and open up someplace less mafia-like.

By then, the city may become a food desert — self-inflicted, based on the majority’s voting choices.

At some point, we are going to hear people who live in the cities that have refused to deal with the BLM protestors complain that there are no convenient grocery stores or other markets. At that point they will have only themselves to blame–if you keep electing people who refuse to enforce the law, eventually you have no law.

An Interesting Perspective On American Education

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about education in America. As we are currently seeing our younger generations declare that they prefer socialism over a free market economy, this is a good time to look at education.

The article reports:

We cannot say we were not warned. Decades ago, in an article perhaps long forgotten, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand gave an ominous warning on the state of American education at all levels, especially the ideologies and philosophies that were beginning to become pervasive within its university system.  Whatever one may think of Rand’s novels or personal character, an objective analysis of her work on education specifically displays her thoughts as unquestionably prescient.

If one believes the infestation within universities and public classrooms of Critical Theory and other like minded disciplines is a recent phenomenon, brought to their attention by pushback and defunding from President Trump, one is mistaken.  In her article “Cashing In: The Students Rebellion,” Rand points out that universities in the 1960s began to become training centers for “activists,” much like Marxist in the 1930s, who learned they could utilize legitimate current issues in order to manipulate the masses into cooperation, oblivious to the incoherent, illogical ideologies that compromised professors had effectively forced students to accept (Rand, 9).  These activists would later plant themselves in education, media, and politics, or even serve as muscle on the streets to work toward indoctrinated ideological objectives.

Rand continues to explain why 1960s students chose U.C. Berkeley president Clark Kerr as their target, given his liberal record.  Ironically, Rand notes, “it is clear that the revels chose Kerr as their first target, not in spite of his record, but because of it” (25).  In other words, a person poorly intellectually trained who is only versed in how to “play ball” or “go along to get along” knows how to do only what he himself did in university: avoid conflict and compromise.  With whom?  With anyone who seems to pose a threat or spouts the “correct” platitudes.  Berkeley’s “student rebellion” of 1964 engaged in violation of property and physical assaults, even of police, justifying itself by hiding behind a false mantle of civil rights, smearing opposition as racist, all the while receiving outside money and resources to help achieve its goal: the seizure of power.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The civil disobedience and riots we are currently seeing are not the result of recent events, they are the result of a planned attack on our nation that has been seventy years in the making. Pay attention. Your future, your children’s future, and your grandchildren’s future depends on your actions at this time.

Some Perspective On A Recent News Article

This article is based on three articles. The Daily Wire posted an Article yesterday, The American Thinker posted an article yesterday, and Breitbart posted an article on Friday. All three articles refute the claim currently being made by the political left that President Trump called dead soldiers “losers” and “suckers.”

The Daily Wire reports:

Four more witnesses have gone on the record to say that The Atlantic’s anonymously-sourced report claiming President Donald Trump called dead soldiers “losers” and “suckers” is false, bringing the total to 10.

Mick Mulvaney, former acting White House Chief of Staff, shot down The Atlantic’s report, saying, “As you all can probably imagine, I have seen more than my share of outrageous (and false) attacks on the President over the last few years. But this whole injured soldiers thing really, really pushes the envelope.”

“So, just to be clear: These claims are simply outrageous. I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.”

Johnny DeStefano, former counselor to the president, also disputed the report, saying: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”

The article in The Daily Wire concludes:

Fox News correspondent John Roberts further added: “. @AmbJohnBolton told me today that if @realDonaldTrump had said he didn’t want to visit Aisne-Marne because the interred heroes were “losers” and “suckers”, he would have written an entire chapter about it in his book #TheRoomWhereItHappened.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation also reported late this week that the owner of The Atlantic is a Biden megadonor who is in frequent contact with the person who authored the report.

The American Thinker reports:

The evidence is piling up that the easily refutable, anonymously sourced so-called story, claiming that President Trump disparaged veterans, wasn’t really an Atlantic news story at all; it was a coordinated hit job involving the press, Democratic operatives, and associated leftist groups connected to the military, executed with impeccable timing.  The Atlantic is building a name for itself for its uncorrected false stories, and this one’s not at all different.

First, Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic story came out Thursday, claiming that four anonymous sources had told him that Trump, on a visit to France a few years ago, didn’t want to go to a U.S. military cemetery there to honor fallen U.S. troops, because they were all “losers” and “suckers.”  It was raining, see, and he didn’t want to get his hair mussed up. 

This is solid crap,  The official email records, exposed at the time when the media tried to make a flap about it even then, showed that it was indeed bad weather that prevented the trip.

There was a motive, though: to distract attention from Joe Biden’s actual bad record with the military.  Andrea Widburg has an excellent must-read analysis here

Breitbart reported:

In an open letter obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, about 674 veterans wrote that their support for Trump, against attacks by the establishment media, remains unwavering because of his record of supporting the United States military and ending foreign wars.

“Recent baseless media attacks against President Trump from anonymous sources are just another example of the depths to which the President’s opponents are willing to descend to divide the nation and meddle in this election,” the veterans write.

Breitbart reminds us why this story was put together:

The story came as Trump has promised to bring thousands of American troops home from Afghanistan.

Unlike Trump, who has long opposed the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan, Biden has supported a long list of foreign interventions by the U.S. that have sent American troops overseas without a timeline of when they will return home.

Former President George W. Bush led the U.S. into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with more than 4,500 Americans dying in Iraq — including more than 3,500 killed in combat — and up to 205,000 Iraqi citizens dying in the war since March 2003.

In total, Bush’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and intervention in Pakistan have resulted in the deaths of between 480,000 and 507,000 people — including nearly 7,000 American soldiers who had deployed to the regions.

Biden voted for the Iraq War and supported U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan. Biden also opposed the U.S. raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, claiming that the risks were “too high.”

I am sure this is only the first of many hit pieces that will emerge about President Trump in the coming days. I am also sure that my liberal friends on Facebook will not bother to look at the evidence that the story is false. That is where we are. Fake news is one of the major causes of division in America. It would be nice if we could get rid of anonymous sources.

Who Is Paying The Bills?

The American Thinker posted an article yesterday about a ‘food truck’ supplying rioters’ needs in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The article is based on an article in The Washington Post on Thursday.

The Washington Post reports:

A Seattle-based nonprofit group that serves food to protesters said Thursday that several of its members were still in police custody in Kenosha, Wis., after law enforcement officers sprang from unmarked cars and arrested them ahead of Wednesday night’s demonstrations in the city.

The arrests were recorded by a bystander and shared widely on social media, renewing concerns that unidentified officers could be shielded in crackdowns on demonstrators. The organization, known as Riot Kitchen, was a fixture at protests in Seattle this summer.

Cellphone footage of the incident showed officers rushing out of black SUVs and surrounding a silver Toyota minivan belonging to the nonprofit near a Speedway gas station. One officer aimed a gun at the van while another bashed through the passenger-side window. Officers could be seen pulling two people out of the vehicle and handcuffing them.

Sounds pretty radical until you hear the rest of the story.

The American Thinker reports:

Turns out the “Riot Kitchen” — yes, it’s really called that — may have had some unusual cuisine on its menu:  

Police said they recovered helmets, gas masks, protective vests, illegal fireworks and suspected controlled substances from the vehicles. Nine people were arrested on disorderly conduct charges. Police did not immediately release their names.

…Now, it’s unclear from the report whether the bus used to slop the rioters was transporting incendiary devices or these items were found in the Riot Kitchen’s second vehicle, or there were yet other vehicles, which the Post didn’t go into, given that it was just covering the supposedly dreadful police treatment of this “non-profit” with its underserved clientele.  Most likely, based on the report, the “vehicles” described were the Riot Kitchen’s two vehicles, having raised lots of money (but not quite their goals) on GoFundMe, which is turning out to be quite a useful means of getting cash from anonymous and small fry donors, under the banner of “mental health support” with this pitch to the gullible and maybe not so gullible:

Hey everyone!! We’re RIOT KITCHEN, and we are a no charge kitchen serving protestors, activists, movements and those in need in Seattle WA.

We were founded by Maehem, a queer black woman who started out by wanting to help feed the protestors at The George Floyd protests in Seattle, WA

During CHOP we built a full functioning kitchen in Cal Anderson, with a experienced kitchen staff and a array of vegan, gluten free, vegetarian and other dishes

These include:

Vegan and meat kebabs, a plethora of hot and cold sandwiches, vegan sloppy joes, vegan chili Mac, vegetarian chili Mac, vegan and meat breakfast sandwiches, vegan/vegetarian/meat burritos and much more!

We want to continue RIOT KITCHEN on and into the future to keep serving our community!

To do that, we need a food truck and licensing. We need about $40,000 to make this happen!

This fundraiser is run by direct supporters of Maehem and her work, namely Maehem’s right hand “Grandpa” as well as Jennifer Scheurle.

Please support us in enabling this wonderful project and its caring people to enrich Seattle’s community now and in the future.

The article at The American Thinker concludes:

The project is a signal of the vast logistical network of these rioters, something that shows they’re organized, and as their aim is to support criminals, part of a conspiracy.  An army marches on its stomach, as Napoleon once said, and Antifa itself is the army; RiotKitchen206 is the food.  Update: Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has more here.

This “non-profit” got its start, not surprisingly, in Seattle’s CHOP zone.  They have a history of going to Portland for assorted projects, and now they claim they were on their way to feed the rioters in Washington, D.C. when the Kenosha riots happened, and by coincidence, they just happened to be right there.

It’s gaslighting.

Their YouTube is an entire collection of gaslightings, trying to tell Americans that they just want to feed people, they’re all about peace, just a Summer of Love, really, persecuted by the Seattle cops, too (putrid language warning), and pay no attention to their name, those knives and fist in their logo, or what the Kenosha cops found in their trucks.

It’s time to investigate totally the funding of the riot bus and bring the people funding the chaos up on RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges. What is happening in our cities is not spontaneous. It is planned for a purpose.

Do You Think They Knew Something?

The American Thinker posted an article today about the recent trade agreement with China and the impact the coronavirus might have on that agreement.

The article notes:

Yet another indication that China knew it was about to release a deadly and destructive pandemic on the world is seen in its last minute insertion into the Phase 1 trade deal of a clause releasing it from its obligations under the deal in the event of a natural disaster. It is another reason why China pushes the wet markets story about the origin of the Wuhan virus and dismisses a leak from or accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. If the lab origin for the Wuhan virus is officially confirmed, China’s economy is fatally screwed. 

The article quotes  K.T. McFarland, who served as Deputy National Security Advisor under Michael Flynn for the first four months of the Trump administration:

One of the reasons that they keep insisting, despite mounting evidence that it came from a lab in Wuhan, they keep insisting, no, no, it came from a wet market, or maybe it was America who did it.  They cannot admit culpability for the following reason, if they do, then there’s a clause that they put into the Phase 1 US-China Trade Deal, where in essence in this trade deal it said we would lift sanctions, we would lift the tariffs on them and then they would buy a lot of agriculture and other goods from us.

But there’s a clause that’s in there, a get out of jail free clause, which says, however, if there is a natural occurring disaster, the two parties will renegotiate.  In other words, China doesn’t necessarily want to keep the terms of the deal.  And so it’s very important for everybody, for them, to say, well, it’s a naturally occurring disaster coming out of the wet lab.  It wasn’t China who did that.

So not only do they give themselves an out for the trade deal, that they were pressured into signing, but they also will give themselves an out if companies and countries and individuals, all come to the International Courts and try to sue China.

The article notes that tariffs may be one way to force China to pay for its negligence in misinforming the world about the virus. I think that is a good idea.

The Question Of The Day

Theoretically the purpose of the nationwide lock-down was to insure that the healthcare infrastructure was not overwhelmed by the demand for hospital beds and respirators. Okay. That makes sense. As the coronavirus has continued to work its way through the nation, we have seen American ingenuity come to the forefront with additional hospital beds and respirators discovered or invented to meet the need. We have also seen that  the actual case load is only a fraction of what the ‘experts’ warned us about. Some of that is due to staying home, but some of that is due to estimates that were totally inaccurate. Now it is time to assess the damage the lock-down has done to America’s economy and search for a balance between the health and economic well-being of Americans.

The American Thinker posted an article today titled, “When Should Trump Restart the Economy?” That is definitely the question of the day.

The article reports:

As the world shudders into Easter and the death toll on the China virus continues to rise, the question is: should we quarantine or should we restart the economy before the shutdown kills us?

Or, more exactly, when should President Trump brave the sneers of the White House press corpse and proclaim that America is Back?

The answer, I think, is pretty clear. It will be midway between the point where only crazed libertarians propose a return to work and the point where Nancy Pelosi would announce that she is appointing a House Select Committee to investigate Trump’s criminal delay in restarting the economy.

In other words, effective political leadership is tricky.

The article notes how the media will treat any decision the President makes:

My prediction is that President Trump will issue a back-to-work order about two weeks before the geniuses in the media and left-wing hate groups catch up to reality. There will be two weeks where all the usual suspects are telling us that the walls are closing in on Trump. A couple of Inspectors General will change the rules on whistleblowers and leak to their favorite House committees which will start super-secret investigations in the House basement.

Then it will become evident to all that Trump made the right decision. However, he did it the wrong way.

Whatever the President does, he will be criticized in the press. He might as well do what he thinks is right and take the heat (as he has done all along). Frankly I am very grateful to have a businessman in the White House right now instead of a politician. Businessmen solve problems–politicians extend problems so that they can be re-elected.

Please follow the link above and read the entire article. It makes a lot of sense.

The Silver Lining?

I’m not ready to say that there is a silver lining to the coronavirus, but I will admit that there are lessons we can learn from it. The American Thinker posted an article today listing some of the lessons that can be learned from our experience with the coronavirus.

The article notes:

Businesses now see that their precious supply chains and just-in-time inventory models are laden with risk.  Also, the American public and even our brain-dead political class are now aware of the folly of being dependent on China for so much of our essential goods, especially prescription medicines and health care products.  Both these factors will accelerate the relocation of U.S. businesses out of communist China….

In January, President Trump restricted people coming in from China.  He was called this and that for that action, but now it can be seen that the president was both prudent and foresighted.  That is what leadership looks like.  Europe currently has a greater problem with the Wuhan Virus because it did not act in a similar fashion.  The Democrats and media will never give Trump credit for this, but the average person sees it, thus discrediting both the media and Democrats even more.  Plus it drives home the point once again that borders are vital to a nation’s security and well-being.

And speaking of the Europeans, they are in high dudgeon because on Thursday night, President Trump announced that the United States will suspend travel from 26 European countries into the U.S. for the next 30 days starting Friday, March 13.  Europe is complaining that it wasn’t consulted on the travel ban ahead of time.  But to consult with the Europeans would be to give them an opportunity to delay the ban when time is of the essence — or, even worse, to undermine it.  

I guess some lessons have to be learned the hard way.

An Interesting Take On Impeachment

The American Thinker posted an article today about the next step in the impeachment process.

The article notes:

The latest reporting I’ve seen is that the Senate will take up President Trump’s impeachment trial this week.  What’s wrong with that, you ask?  I’ve already said what’s wrong: the Schiff-Nadler Star Chamber violated President Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights to procedural due process, rendering the resulting impeachment articles null and void as “poisoned fruit.”  The GOP leadership should do what the Founders would have done: challenge the legal legitimacy of the impeachment articles.  The logic blueprint I will present below — Mr. Jefferson knew logic — will help make the case in court.

As we know, protecting the rights of the accused is of fundamental importance in a just legal system and is a key motivation behind the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which asserts that “[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted due process broadly to include:

    • procedural due process rights,
    • substantive due process rights, and
    • prohibition against vague laws
    • as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Of concern here are only procedural due process rights (PDPRs), which include:

    1. An unbiased tribunal.
    2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
    3. The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
    4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
    5. The right to know the opposing evidence.
    6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
    7. A decision based only on the evidence presented.
    8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
    9. A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
    10. A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

I can sum this up with one question, “If you were on trial would you be happy to have the same rights as a defendant that President Trump was given by the House of Representatives?”

If the God-given rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution matter, the impeachment case put together by the House of Representatives needs to be thrown out for not respecting those rights.

When The Government Gets Involved, The Incentive For Innovation Goes Down

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about the Crescent Dunes thermal solar plant in central Nevada. The thermal solar plant has failed.

The article reports:

Crescent Dunes was a serious project designed to attack the great weakness of solar electricity.  Sunshine is strongest in the middle of the day, but demand for electricity peaks at the end of the day and in the early evening.  This is especially true during the Las Vegas summer, when air-conditioners are running full blast as temperatures soar well past 100 degrees in the late afternoon.

A method of storing plentiful midday solar electricity so it can be utilized in the evening was needed.  Otherwise, solar would hit a ceiling at far less than 50%.  One method is to use batteries.  That is wildly expensive and quite dangerous as the flammable batteries store vast quantities of energy.  That’s not stopping the Gemini project, scheduled for a site north of Las Vegas.  The Gemini solar project will have a $500-million battery system that stores as much energy as 5 million sticks of dynamite (1,400 megawatt-hours).  There have been dozens of fires at similar installations around the world.

The Crescent Dunes project stores energy in the form of molten salts.  During the day, sunshine is concentrated by motorized mirrors aiming beams of sunlight at a central tower, where the liquid salts are heated to a high temperature.  The hot salts are stored in a large tank.  When power is need in the early evening, heat is taken from the tank to make steam and drive a turbine-generator to make electricity.  Crescent Dunes was plagued by leaks in the salt tank, forcing it to close for months at a time.  By contract, the electricity was sold to NV Energy for $135 per megawatt-hour, or about six times as much as it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity in existing natural gas plants.

Crescent Dunes is eligible for the usual government subsidies amounting to around 75% of the construction cost.  It was granted a $700-million government loan guarantee on the ground that it was pioneering, experimental technology, which it was and is.  That problems emerged is not surprising.  That happens to pioneers.  But the not unexpected failures at Crescent Dunes besmirch the propaganda that solar energy is the wave of the future.  Thus, it is necessary to kill Crescent Dunes for the spurious reason that it is obsolete technology.  Like all utility solar, it is useless, but it was an honest attempt to fix the severe problem that solar doesn’t work well late in the day, and not at all after the sun sets.

If green energy were allowed to emerge on its own in a free market, we might have actually solved some of the problems associated with it by now. However, when you introduce government subsidies into the free market, you lessen the drive to innovate. Useful inventions make money for their inventors. That provides incentive to create new ways of dealing with problems. When the government gets involved, those incentives are gone (at taxpayers’ expense).

Some Perspective From A Former FBI Agent

Sometimes the people who have done a job are the most qualified to analyze how a job was done. Frank Watt, a former FBI Agent, posted an article at The American Thinker today about the surveillance of Carter Page. The title of the article is, “Two Possibilities in Trump Wiretapping, and Neither Is Good.”

Mr. Watt reminds us that because the surveillance of an American citizen violates that citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights, there has to be proven justification for that surveillance. We know that was not the case with Carter Page, in fact, some things were left out of the application for surveillance that would have immediately called into question the need for surveillance.

The article notes:

Based on what we are told by the I.G., there are only two possible conclusions that can be reached regarding the official conduct of those responsible for infringing on Carter Pages Constitutional freedoms: 

The first is that the hand selected team of investigators, attorneys, and Senior Executive Service officials with decades of law enforcement, administrative, and judicial experience were abject failures at a task that they were hired to perform. Speaking from personal experience, in FBI, DEA, and state and local wire tap investigations, the slightest omissions, misstatements, and clerical errors are routinely identified and corrected by the street agents and line prosecutors who do these investigations for a living. To believe that a “varsity level” team, with unlimited time, support, and resources, somehow inadvertently overlooked seventeen major omissions, misstatements, and/or outright falsehoods, is simply not believable. 

The second possibility is that nearly everyone who significantly participated in obtaining FISA coverage on Page knowingly and deliberately operated outside the law to one degree or another. The reasons behind the decision to do so are irrelevant. The particulars regarding the seventeen I.G. findings are startling, taken individually. It’s difficult to see how any of the individual omissions or misstatements could have happened accidentally. Viewed collectively, the apparent intentionality is nearly impossible to reconcile as anything but corruption. 

In light of the I.G findings, the presiding FISA court judge seems to have come down on the side of intentional abuse. In a recent court order, Judge Rosemary Collyer gave the FBI until January 10 to explain to the court why the FBI should be allowed to continue to utilize FISA. The statement that the FBI “withheld material information” and that “FBI personnel misled NSD” suggests that the judge isn’t buying the “series of unfortunate events” excuse peddled by prominent figures in defense of the indefensible. 

The article concludes:

Whichever explanation seems more likely, the end result should be infuriating to every American. Either your nations premiere law enforcement agency was breathtakingly incompetent when the stakes were the highest, or select officials in that organization made deliberate decisions to break the law, undermine the Constitution, and illegally spy on a fellow American. Either possibility has deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and DOJ in addition to the reputations of thousands of honest FBI Agents and DOJ attorneys. Despite the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians, the FISA process has indisputably proved an invaluable resource in safeguarding the country from terrorism. If the heinous abuses documented in the I.G.s report result in a weakening or loss of FISA, we will all be the worse for it. If those responsible are not held to account, this will happen again. There is no happy face to put on this episode. 

It is time for those guilty of corruption to be tried and held accountable for their actions.

Time For A Flip

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about the criminal investigation into Spygate.

The article notes:

When Barr appointed John Durham to handle the investigation, later in May, the finger-pointing among those involved in investigating Trump started, leading to the the pressing question was Who’s going to cut a deal first in Spygate?

The drama between Brennan and Comey is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of the FBI-CIA up through the Obama administration, including then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the White House itself.

There is the potential for a lot of finger pointing, as Karie Pavlich tweeted:

The Comey vs Brennan vs Clapper vs Lynch vs Obama show is going to be awesome

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1128438654781808641

Since the NY Times reported that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, that is the question again.

The stakes are so much higher for those involved. Whoever cuts a deal first could be spared prosecution or prison. So someone is likely to sing, and that someone likely is a mid-level person in the FBI who was disgusted with what happened but close enough to it that the person is at risk.

The question in the article is, “Who is going to be the first to flip?”

An article posted in The American Thinker today may provide a clue. The title of the article is, “Andrew McCabe withdraws his lawsuit against the Department of Justice.”

The article at The American Thinker notes:

Here’s the interesting question: Did he dismiss it because concluded it’s a loser, especially in light of anticipated indictment — or did he(his attorneys) conclude his suit waived his 5th Amendment rights?  By dismissal with consent, without prejudice, does that waiver go away? If so, it might mean he expects to be indicted.

Mark Levin last night said he’d been offered plea deal — and turned it down.  So makes sense to dismiss suit to preserve waiver, which I suspect dismissal in this fashion likely does[.]

I realize we have wandered into the weeds here, but the big picture is simple–there are some people who are not willing to go to jail simply for following orders. Those people will make a plea deal to save their own skins and thus implicate the people giving the orders. I suspect there are more than a few high ranking people in the intelligence community who are not sleeping well right now. Their dream of having Hillary Clinton elected and all of their misdeeds buried for good has obviously not come true.

Avoiding The Obvious For Political Reasons

Hillary Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, have written a book called The Book of Gutsy Women. There are more than a hundred women included in the book. The book includes such people as Madame Curie, Anne Frank, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Florence Nightingale. Included also are Ellen DeGeneres and Billie Jean King. Actually there are a lot of good choices in terms of who is included in the book. More telling, however, is who is not.

On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article titled, “Five ‘Gutsy Women’ Who Didn’t Make it into Hillary Clinton’s Book.” Those five women are Margaret Thatcher, Clare Boothe Luce, Ayn Rand, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and Phyllis Schlafly.

The article notes:

To be “gutsy,” according to the Clintons, is “about never giving up — and working to pave the way for the next generation.”

With that in mind, here are the profiles of five gutsy women who didn’t make the list because they don’t fit Hillary’s politically correct narrative.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The women conveniently left out were significant trailblazers. It’s a shame that Mrs. Clinton and her daughter choose not to recognize accomplishment when it doesn’t fit their political agenda.

Changing And Omitting Numbers To Get The Results You Want

The American Thinker posted an article today about how some of the conclusions on the Canadian global warming model were reached. Anyone who has ever taken at least one science class would be horrified.

The article reports:

Environment Canada, led by Justin Trudeau-appointed Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, is all-in on the hypothesis that manmade global warming is an existential threat to humanity. It is so important to hand control of energy use to the government that mere actual, historical data that might raise doubt about the extent of purported warming over time must be thrown out and replaced by “models” of what the “scientists” think the historical temperature record must have been.

In other words, the computer models Canada uses to measure and project “global warming” are themselves based on other computer models.  The expression “Garbage in / garbage out” refers to the vulnerability of all computer models to poor quality data used as the basis of their calculations.  The raises the awkward question of the quality of the models used in place of actual historical data. And it raises the question of why this scrapping of actual data and substituting of guesses (aka, models) was not made clear from the outset.

If the numbers don’t add up to the conclusion you want, make up your own numbers.

The article continues:

Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter notes that in many cases the data that were scrapped indicated higher temperatures in the past:

For example, Vancouver had a higher record temperature in 1910 (30.6C) than in 2017 (29.5C).

Toronto had a warmer summer in 1852 (32.2C) than in 2017 (31.7C).

The highest temperature in Moncton in 2017 was four degrees cooler than in 1906.

Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017.

So what is this about?

An Investor’s Business Daily article posted on February 10, 2015 states the following:

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The climate is an excuse, the goal is world-wide government where the average person will be subject to the whims of the elite.

The Deep State Doesn’t Go Down Easily–In Any Country

The American Thinker posted an article today about Boris Johnson and his efforts to follow the will of the British voters and exit the European Union. Although I don’t fully understand the procedures involved in the British Parliament, I can see that there is a massive effort to block the exit the people of Britain voted for.

The article reports:

Yes, if thing stand as they do now, delays will go on into eternity, each deadline pushed back, and an exit from the European Union impossible.  The E.U. will notice this and just keep throwing up a wall of resistance to a deal to ensure that Britain stays, like it or not, or else keep moving the goalposts — into eternity.  When delays are endless, what an opportunity.  These useless satraps have nothing better to do, after all.  They like the pounds flowing in.  And such a coincidence: the parliamentary betrayal happened on the 80th anniversary of France and Germany declaring war on Britain.  Plus ça change…

What happened Tuesday certainly involves complicated parliamentary maneuvers, and the people writing of such disappointment do understand how these stakes work.

That said, it seems that the worst that can happen is that the country will be forced into a general election — very soon.  Johnson says that’s what he wants.  There’s actually reason to think Labor may just try to stop him.  But it’s likely he’ll succeed.

Advantage Boris.

After all, how was it that Johnson, instead of the eminently more reasonable-seeming Theresa May, ended up in his position?  He’s only there at all, and not too long ago, because of a powerful groundswell of public support for respecting the will of the majority on leaving the European Union.  Three years of dithering and delays by the inept May kowtowing to the wishes of the European Union and its endless delays is precisely why the Tories decided to take a chance on Boris, someone they rejected earlier as too wild and crazy.

The article concludes:

Johnson, meanwhile, is weathering the storm like a sea captain, tweeting his stance copiously, and coming up with excellent summations of what’s at stake. 

…He’s showing courage.  He’s not losing his nerve.  Voters will take note.  And while nothing is certain, it seems more than a little likely that with his gutsiness and steady hand, he will win this election, sweeping out the weaklings in his party, and then steam full speed ahead toward Brexit, which is what the British really voted for, deal or no deal.  The E.U. in such conditions, unlike now, is going to really, really, really want a deal.

I love the fact that he is using Twitter to bypass the media and speak directly to the people. That reminds me of another world leader. Please follow the link and read the entire article. Even though this is occurring in Britain, it matters to America. Boris Johnson is a leader with the courage to take on the deep state. We need more of that sort of leadership around the world.

How Red Flag Laws Can Be Misused

The American Thinker posted an article today about a move during the Obama administration to deny gun rights to veterans and senior citizens.

The article reports:

The Obama administration’s idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill was based on a bizarre and discriminatory definition of who might be mentally unstable. In 2013 it was reported that the Veterans Administration was sending letters to vets warning them that they might be declared mentally incompetent and denied their Second Amendment rights unless they could prove otherwise:

The contempt by the Obama administration for our Constitution and our rights has reached a new low with news the Veterans Administration has begun sending letters to veterans telling them they will be declared mentally incompetent and stripped of the Second Amendment rights unless they can prove to unnamed bureaucrats to the contrary…

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reads…

While mental health is a factor in the current gun control debate and recent mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., and elsewhere have in common the questionable mental state of the shooters, to single out returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan this way is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

As the Los Angeles Times has reported, the Obama administration would have liked like to make our Social Security records part of the background check system. The move would have stripped some four million Americans who receive payments though a “representative payee” of their gun rights. It would be the largest gun grab in U.S. history.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

The article concludes:

Keeping guns out of the hands of the truly mentally unstable is a worthy goal, but it should not be used as a cause for disarming veterans who carried a weapon in defense of their country or seniors who might need some assistance in paying their bills.

They deserve the presumption of innocence, and sanity, every bit as much as Vester Flanagan. Stripping away their Second Amendment rights in the name of mental health would be a gross injustice that would not make us safer, but would merely create millions of unarmed victims for the next shooter with an agenda.

We need to make sure that American citizens understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is there to limit the rights of government–not the rights of citizens. If we want to preserve our republic, we have to continue to fight to protect those rights our Founding Fathers codified in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.