An Interesting Head Fake

On Tuesday there were rumors that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was going to send an airplane full of migrants to Delaware to President Biden’s home. The press bought into the story and waited at the airport. While they were waiting at the airport, they somehow avoided telling Americans what was actually happening at the southern border.

The Federalist reported the following on Wednesday:

As amazing as it was to watch the media’s best and brightest flock to Delaware at such incredible speed, the same can’t be said for those same “journalists” when it comes to traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border, where Customs and Border Protection just apprehended a dozen people listed on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) in August alone.

According to Fox News, the “[n]ew data released by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) this week show that there were 12 individuals encountered by Border Patrol between ports of entry at the border whose names matched on the TSDB – which contains information about the identities of those who are known or ‘reasonably suspected’ of being involved in terrorist activities.”

Let’s put this in perspective. In July 2021, I posted an article about the Biden administration using military bases to fly illegal immigrants around the country. The article came from Breitbart, the media didn’t even bother to report it. In April 2022, The New York Post reported on night flights of illegal immigrants coming into an airport in upstate New York (article here). Somehow the major media overlooked the story. It was okay for the government to fly illegal immigrants anywhere, and there were no complaints. When the immigrants land near the sanctuaries of the rich and powerful, anger, lawsuits, and hysteria follow. Meanwhile, people on the terrorist watch list freely enter our country through our porous southern border.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

Unacceptable Behavior By Search Engines

On Monday, The Federalist reported that Google and Yelp have both agreed to stifle search engine results for life-saving pregnancy clinics.

The article reports:

Despite the fact that nearly 2 in 3 Americans support public funding for life-saving pregnancy centers, many of which offer free or discounted pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and other care to women in need, both Google and Yelp have decided to harness their censorship power to implement the “fake clinic” framing touted by Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Two months after congressional Democrats demanded Google block search results for crisis pregnancy centers, the Silicon Valley giant also announced it would add labels to pro-life clinics explicitly stating that they do not offer abortion services.

Is this the policy of organizations that truly care about women’s health?

The article concludes:

“It’s well-reported that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion services, and it’s been shown that many provide misleading information in an attempt to steer people seeking abortion care to other options,” Yelp’s VP of User Operations Noorie Malik said in a statement. “With this new consumer notice we’re aiming to further protect consumers from the potential of being misled or confused.”

Shortly after news that the Supreme Court planned to overturn Roe v. Wade broke, Yelp and Google offered to subsidize travel for its female employees to get abortions. Google, which already has a long history of banning and throttling pro-life advertisements, even promised to delete the location history of anyone who visits an abortion facility.

Abortion is not healthcare. There are actually very few instances where the dangers of abortion are less than the dangers of continuing a pregnancy. Abortions do have risks, and the pro-abortion community has done a very good job of hiding those risks. To create obstacles for women who are searching for crisis pregnancy centers is certainly not in the best interests of women or of society.

The Rest Of The Story…

On July 6th I posted an article about oil from the United States’ Strategic Oil Reserve being shipped overseas. I was willing to give President Biden the benefit of the doubt because evidently there are international rules that govern where oil is sold. However, new information about the transactions involved is troubling.

Today The Federalist reported the following:

On Wednesday, Reuters revealed that more than 5 million barrels of oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves were sent overseas as part of President Joe Biden’s latest release initiated in March.

Some of that oil went to India, some to the Netherlands, and some was sent to China where the president’s son has engaged in years of potentially criminal business activity embroiling the Biden White House in scandal since the 2020 campaign.

On July 7th, The Washington Free Beacon reported:

“The Biden administration sold roughly one million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a Chinese state-controlled gas giant that continues to purchase Russian oil, a move the Energy Department said would ‘support American consumers’ and combat ‘Putin’s price hike,’” the Beacon’s Collin Anderson reported. “Biden’s Energy Department in April announced the sale of 950,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve barrels to Unipec, the trading arm of the China Petrochemical Corporation. That company, which is commonly known as Sinopec, is wholly owned by the Chinese government.”

…Power the Future founder Daniel Turner admonished Biden for selling “raw materials to the Communist Chinese for them to use as they want.”

“We were assured Biden was releasing this oil to America so it could be refined for gasoline to drive down prices at the pump. So right off the bat, they’re just lying to the American people,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “What they’re saying they did and what they did are not remotely related.”

Turner also said the decision highlights the Biden family’s “relationship with China.” Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is tied to Sinopec. In 2015, a private equity firm he cofounded bought a $1.7 billion stake in Sinopec Marketing. Sinopec went on to enter negotiations to purchase Gazprom in March, one month after the Biden administration sanctioned the Russian gas giant.

Obviously some of the decisions made have not been in the best interests of Americans, and some of the decisions made have probably enriched the pockets of Hunter Biden. However, I predict there will be no consequences. It is too close to the mid-terms, and there are too many Republicans who are afraid to challenge any of the corruption in the Biden administration. It is a shame there are not enough principled Democrats or Republicans to speak out against obvious corruption.

Who Is Actually Guilty Of Mass Shootings?

On Monday, The Federalist posted an article citing the statistics on who is actually committing mass shootings. It’s not white supremacists.

The article reports:

Of the 82 mass public shootings from January 1998 to May 2021, 9 percent have known or alleged ties to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or anti-immigrant views. Many of the anti-immigrant attackers, such as the Buffalo murderer, hold decidedly environmentalist views that are more in line with the Democrat agenda.

Other groups commit mass public shootings disproportionately more than whites do. While non-Middle Eastern whites make up about 64 percent of the population, they make up 58 percent of the mass public shooters. Another 9 percent are carried out by people of Middle Eastern origin, who make up only 0.4 percent of the country’s population. That makes Middle Easterners the most likely ethnic or racial group to carry out mass public shootings.

Blacks, Asians, and American Indians also commit these attacks at a slightly higher rate than their share of the population. Hispanics commit them at much lower rates (11 percent lower) than their share of the population.

It is interesting to me that Hispanics are the least likely to commit mass shootings. Is that related to the fact that in many cases, Hispanics have a fairly solid family foundation. What is the percentage of two-parent families in the Hispanic population versus other populations?

The fact that Middle Easterners have the largest number of mass public shootings in relation to their population should not  be a surprise. Many Middle Easterners who have come to America have not assimilated into the country and do not understand our culture. Many are also taught that killing infidels is a duty and will get them into paradise.

The article continues:

Seventy-one percent of mass public shooters have no identifiable political views. But you would never know this from watching TV police dramas or listening to Biden’s constant claim that white supremacists pose the biggest threat of domestic terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed in testimony in April that white supremacy is the top terrorism-related threat to the homeland. But when pressed, Mayorkas couldn’t name a single white supremacy case that his department referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

White supremacists with guns are not the threat that our government would have us believe. It’s not just that white supremacy is rare. So too are gun crimes. The number of gun crimes has been falling dramatically, and they now make up less than 8 percent of violent crimes in America. Yet we constantly hear the opposite from politicians who support gun restrictions.

All of the current rhetoric coming from our political class has one purpose–to convince Americans that giving up their guns will make them safer. Those who study history understand that nothing could be further from the truth.

Does This Violate RICO Laws?

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was passed in 1970 as a way to deal with organized crime. It has since been misused to go after abortion protesters and other people, but it was originally passed to fight organized crime. I think it should be used on any person who violates the law in their protest of the Supreme Court leak regarding Roe v. Wade. On Thursday, The Federalist posted an article about plans by an pro-abortion group regarding protests of the recent Supreme Court leak.

The article reports:

A left-wing group is gathering abortion activists to march at Supreme Court justices’ homes next week, with stipends available for some protesters who participate in the Roe v. Wade crusade.

Beginning on Sunday, the group organized under the moniker “Ruth Sent Us” will embark on a week-long demonstration, with plans to protest outside the homes of the six conservative Supreme Court justices, whose alleged addresses have been published on the group’s website.

“Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights. We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics,” reads the group’s website, advertising monetary compensation for recruits. “Are you a muralist or chalk artist? Are you a graphic designer who would like to contribute remotely? Large-scale art will be included in the protests against the Supreme Court. Stipends available.”

What is the difference between protesting and intimidation?

The article concludes:

Demonstrators with “Ruth Sent Us” appear to be coordinating with several allied activist groups including Code Pink, Kavanaugh Off Our Court, and Black Lives Matter. While the website advertises “peaceful protests,” the recent memories of Black Lives Matter riots terrorizing the country remain fresh in the minds of the public as communities are still rebuilding. This week’s violence in Los Angeles offers little comfort.

Harassment of conservative policymakers at their private homes has become an increasingly popular tactic among left-wing activists, who demonstrated at Kavanaugh’s home in September over anxieties related to Roe v. Wade. Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Fox News prime-time anchor Tucker Carlson have each also suffered from protesters staking out their D.C.-area residences.

There is a difference between protesting and harassment. As soon as a protester steps on your lawn and you ask him to leave, if he stays there, he is trespassing. Trespassing laws need to be upheld. If people want to protest in the street, they should be allowed to, but as soon as a protester steps on a lawn, he should be arrested.

A Louisiana Court Gets It Right

On Tuesday, The Federalist reported that a Louisiana appellate court reinstated Attorney General Jeff Landry’s lawsuit challenging Mark Zuckerberg’s infiltration of the state election system with private “Zuck Bucks” that flooded the country during the 2020 election.

The article reports:

The lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, originated in October 2020. That’s when Louisiana, through Landry, sought a court order declaring that “private contributions to local election officials and the election system in general are unlawful and contrary to Louisiana law.” Landry’s lawsuit followed attempts by the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life to dole out millions in targeted grants to election officials throughout the state.

By the time Landry sued, more than 20 officials throughout the state had applied for grants of nearly $8 million, but after the attorney general warned them the funds were illegal, most abandoned their efforts. Orleans and Calcasieu parishes, however, went on to accept more than $810,000 in funds for the 2020 election.

While Landry succeeded in limiting the impact of the Zuckbucks in Louisiana to two parishes, his efforts to prevent what he called “the corrosive influence of outside money on Louisiana election officials” initially failed when a state trial court dismissed his lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and its partner organizations.

In tossing the case, the trial judge held there was no legal basis to prevent “registrars of voters, clerks of court, or other local election officials from seeking and obtaining grant dollars to assist with the funding the necessary staff and equipment for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Louisiana’s constitution, specifically article 6, § 23.

That provision authorizes “political subdivisions” to “acquire property for any public purpose,” by among other things, “donation.” The trial court then reasoned that because “registrar of voters and clerks of court are ‘political subdivisions,’” “they are allowed to accept private donations,” including to run elections. Accordingly, the trial court tossed the state’s lawsuit and allowed the private funds to flow into the parish coffers.

The article explains the problem with the Zuckbucks:

Details from other states confirm Landry’s concerns. In Wisconsin, a retired election clerk in a large Wisconsin county explained how, behind closed doors, “political activists working for a group funded by Mark Zuckerberg money seized control of the November elections in Green Bay and other cities, sidelining career experts and making last-minute changes that may have violated state law.”

Similarly, in other states, Zuckbucks created “a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias,” according to analyses conducted after the election. Post-election analyses of the data likewise reveal the $350 million in funding disproportionately favored Democrat-heavy areas — so much so that it could have changed the outcome of the election.

The article concludes:

Backlash against buying the election for Biden with Zuckbucks has prompted several states to pass laws expressly prohibiting the use of private funds for election purposes. As of March 2022, private funds are either restricted or banned in the running of elections in more than a dozen states. State legislatures in five additional states passed similar restrictions on outside funds, but those bills were vetoed by the governors — all of whom were Democrats.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards is one of the five Democrats to veto a legislative ban on the private funding of elections. But with last week’s appellate court decision reinstating Landry’s challenge to the use of private funds in elections, the state may nonetheless prevail in its attempt to keep outside money from interfering in future elections.

Before the case returns to the trial court, however, the Center for Tech and Civic Life may attempt to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Federalist contacted an attorney for the group, asking if an appeal would be forthcoming, but our request for comment went unanswered.

When get-out-the-vote drives are centered in areas controlled by one party and paid for by private money, they can swing an election. There is a difference between active citizens conducting volunteer registration and get-out-the-vote efforts and private companies pouring millions of dollars into those efforts. If every America took the responsibility of voting seriously and showed up to vote, these drives would have no impact.

Are Electric Cars Really Green?

I am not a scientist, and I don’t claim to be one. However, I do possess a certain amount of common sense. That common sense makes me wonder if the fact that an electric car uses electricity that has to be generated from somewhere else negates the ‘green’ quality of the electric car. Doesn’t it make more sense to use a combustible fuel that directly powers the car without a middle man than to use fuel that has to be generated somewhere else? And what are the sources of the electricity for electric cars? Again, I don’t claim to be a scientist. However, I am not the only one wondering if electric cars are really green.

On Wednesday, The Federalist posted an article about electric cars.

The article reports:

Instead of investing in American energy, Democrats are actively suppressing the American energy industry and then telling Americans to spend their savings on overpriced electric cars to solve their problems. But the left isn’t being honest about the environmental and financial costs of those trendy electric vehicles.

…To advance their climate agenda and deflect backlash about rising gas prices, Democrats are telling Americans that driving electric cars is for the greater good of the environment, fully knowing the charging stations for these cars are not fossil fuel free. 

In reality, one of Tesla’s Supercharger stations was reported to get 13 percent of their energy from natural gas and 27 percent from coal. Power plants burn coal to generate electricity to power electric cars and emit a higher fossil fuel footprint than the left would care to admit. 

While these vehicles may be falsely advertised, many who invest in these overpriced cars are able to avoid paying the currently outrageous gas prices. Still, Americans’ growing reliance on electric cars and the batteries they require will increase our dependence on countries such as China for materials. 

“Chinese companies, particularly CATL, have secured vast supplies of the raw materials that go inside the batteries,” The New York Times reported in December. “That dominance has stirred fears in Washington that Detroit could someday be rendered obsolete, and that Beijing could control American driving in the 21st century the way that oil-producing nations sometimes could in the 20th.” 

By increasing our use of electric cars, the United States will require more lithium batteries and will further rely on China to sustain our supply. While the current energy crisis could be an opportunity for America to increase our energy independence, the current administration refuses to take advantage. 

Americans buying electric cars is not a winning strategy for America.

Pay Attention To The Pattern

On Tuesday, The Federalist posted an article about the actions of private corporations regarding the war in Ukraine. Private corporations are denying services or products to Russia or to entitles connected to Russia. They are conducting their own private boycotts. Some of these companies are major corporation such as American Express, Apple, and Microsoft. That may seem like a good thing, but the pattern is troubling.

The article reports:

It could be tempting to cheer the move for targeting Russia’s authoritarian regime and condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked attacks on the people of Ukraine. But the actions by private companies against Russians are part of a larger swing by U.S. corporations to deny services to those whose opinions they deem unacceptable — and that’s exactly the kind of social credit system Russia is building to impose on its own people.

That’s what we saw in Canada when bank accounts and other assets of protesting truckers were frozen.

The article notes:

Punishment might include anything from slower internet speeds to being barred from flying or staying in certain hotels. There have also been reports of people being denied higher education and having their pets confiscated.

If you think comparisons between Russia and China’s authoritarian credit systems and the increasing dragnet in the United States are outlandish, just think about how Mastercard and American Express blocked donations to Americans whose beliefs about the 2020 election were found unacceptable, while Visa’s political action committee used the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021 to “temporarily suspend[] all political donations.” Paypal, Venmo, and Shopify all went after people who were supposedly involved in the riot.

A friend of mine had her Paypal account terminated because she used a credit card to buy a hamburger in Washington on the weekend of January 6th. She did not go near the Capitol–she went back to her hotel room after the rally, but her Paypal account was still canceled because her credit card company reported that she had made a transaction in Washington that weekend. This is not the America I grew up in.

The article concludes:

We shouldn’t cheer U.S. firms for appointing themselves the arbiters of who deserves to participate in our economy (and by extension, our society). If they can do it to Russia, they can do it to you.

But we also shouldn’t cheer such actions because they move us one step closer to blurring the line between ourselves and the authoritarian tyrants we purport to denounce. If we defeat Russia or China by making our differences unrecognizable, we’ve already lost.

What Happens Next?

On Tuesday, The Federalist reported that the Wisconsin Office of Special Counsel, headed by retired state Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman, has concluded that nearly $9 million in Zuckerberg grant funds directed solely to five Democratic strongholds in Wisconsin violated the state’s election code’s prohibition on bribery.

The article reports:

Last August, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos authorized the Office of Special Counsel, headed by retired state Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman, to investigate concerns about election integrity and the 2020 election. Gableman delivered an interim report to the state assembly on November 10, 2021. Earlier today, the special counsel provided a second interim report to the state legislative body, noting the report “is final in the sense that it provides a list of recommendations with time for the Legislature to act before the close of its session in March.”

The article also notes:

The Zuckerberg 5 also violated the federal and state constitutional guarantee of equal protection, according to the special counsel report. The grant money targeted specific voters for special voting privileges, to the disadvantage of similarly situated voters located in other Wisconsin counties. The report also detailed troubling evidence the Zuckerberg 5 counties allowing private groups working with the granting organization, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, to “unlawfully administer aspects of the election,” including in one county where one organization was unlawfully embedded in local government election administration.

The special counsel’s report also highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) illegal directive to clerks to ignore the state election code governing voting in nursing homes. In several nursing home locations throughout the state, 100 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election—an unheard-of rate that included many ineligible voters.

Non-citizen and incapacitated citizens also remained listed on Wisconsin’s voting rolls, in violation of the law, according to the report. Because some non-citizens qualify for driver’s licenses, the law requires non-citizens’ names be removed from the master roll, but that was not done, according to the special counsel. Likewise, individuals declared incompetent must, by law, be removed from the master list, but again that did not occur.

I suspect the problems in Wisconsin are not unique. I also suspect that these problems are simply the tip of the iceberg. I have personally seen evidence of strange things happening in calculating voting totals via Dominican voting machines and other computer anomalies that are also cause for suspicion. We need to take a really good look at how we vote and how those votes are counted before the mid-term election. Election integrity is important and needs to be upheld by our courts and our representatives.

Is This A Logical Outcome?

Peaceful protest is part of the American culture. Unfortunately in recent years, protesters have forgotten the peaceful part.  We had problems in the sixties and the seventies when the Capitol Building was bombed by Barack Obama’s friend Bill Ayers and various other buildings were bombed. We had problems in 2020 when cities were burned to the ground. But overall, we have generally managed to keep our protests peaceful. However, we might want to look at what our more violent protests have taught our children.

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about Quintez Brown, a 21-year-old Black Lives Matter activist.

The article reports:

Quintez Brown, a 21-year-old Black Lives Matter activist, allegedly marched into the office of Louisville, Ky., mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg on Valentine’s Day and opened fire, sending a bullet through Greenberg’s clothing before fleeing the scene. Despite the story’s shock value, corporate media can’t be bothered to do much reporting on the story — and we all know exactly why.

Despite Brown’s history as a BLM activist and his flirtation with black nationalism on social media, most media outlets have shrugged off his motive for the shooting with a “who knows?” or even tried to pin it on Republicans. Brown was also a vocal gun-control advocate and was interviewed by Joy Reid on MSNBC at an anti-gun march in 2018.

The article continues:

The Las Vegas Sun completely whitewashed Brown’s far-left associations, asininely writing that “While there’s been no indication yet that the activist had ties to any right-wing organizations, the shooting comes amid a rise in threats against politicians fueled by increasingly violent rhetoric coming from extremist Republicans.” After backlash, the Sun tweaked the sentence to admit, “[I]t’s been reported that the activist was involved in the Black Lives Matter and gun-safety movements” — but still followed the line with the original sentence in its entirety rather than issuing a correction.

ABC simply called Brown a “social justice activist,” and after the local BLM chapter helped bail him out, David Muir vaguely referred to the group as a “community organization.”

My first question is, “What is an anti-gun advocate doing with a gun?” Again, please notice that this murder was attempted to be used by the media to smear people who hold conservative beliefs.

 

Ten Lies Told

On Wednesday, The Federalist posted an article listing ten lies President Biden told during his press conference.

This is the list of lies:

1. The Nation’s Problem Is COVID

2. Wages Are Up

3. Biden Created Jobs

4. The Supply Chain Crisis Isn’t That Bad

5. Inflation Was Already A Thing Before I Took Office

6. Republicans Want To Steal Minorities’ Right To Vote

7. Schools Aren’t Closed

8. Build Back Better Will Save Americans Money

9. White House Reporters Are The Most Informed Americans Of All Time

10. I Didn’t Compare My Democrat Colleagues To Racists

Please follow the link above to read the details. Some of these statements are such obvious whoppers I don’t even want to comment on them. I remember how often the press accused President Trump of lying with no evidence. Now we have a President who truly struggles to tell the truth and the media is generally silent. It is my hope that American voters are smarter than the press thinks they are.

Why Does The Government Need To Track This?

On Saturday, WND reported the following:

The federal entity that helps officers in the District of Columbia courts in formulating release recommendations and providing supervision and services to defendants awaiting trial, the column said, has developed “a new records system that will store the names and ‘personal religious information’ of all employees who make ‘religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement.'”

The bureaucracy revealed, according to the column, that such a list will “assist the Agency in the collecting, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the Agency.”

The article also notes:

The Federalist explained the system claims “that the database will legally allow for the ‘collection, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information’ for an indefinite period of time.”

The less data collected on American citizens by the government, the happier Americans will be. This is definitely an example of government overreach.

The article concludes:

Those concerned are allowed only a few weeks to submit their concerns.

I suggest we all get concerned.

What I Never Thought I Would See

On Monday The Federalist posted a list of thirteen things that have happened that they would not have believed five years ago.

Here is the list. Please follow the link to the article to read the details:

1. Men As Women

2. Blocking Puberty

3. Drafting Women

5. Massive Illegal Immigration

6. Widespread Censorship

7. Parents Labeled Terrorists

8. President’s Mental Abilities Doubted

9. Asking Athletes for Advice

10. Record Debt and Inflation

11. Covid Restrictions Continue and Some Increase

12. Major Scientific Advances Not Celebrated

13. Losing Our Lead

Please follow the link above to read the details. We are obviously not in a good place.

The Emails Tell The Story

On Monday The Federalist posted an article about the politicization of the coronavirus. The article included quotes from emails between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins. The purpose of the emails was to create an implement the strategy to discredit information about COVID-19 that contradicted their pro-lockdown approach to curbing the virus.

The article reports:

In early October, experts in biostatics, immunology, public health policy, and more signed and released the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) urging health officials to reconsider the dangerous COVID-19 lockdown policies that “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.” Shortly after its publication, Collins emailed Fauci to orchestrate a “quick and devastating published take down” of the GBD and the doctors promoting it.

The article includes screenshots of messages between Dr. Fauci and Francis Collins discussing how to take down the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). A smear campaign against those involved in the GBD followed. Wait! I thought science was taking opposite opinions and finding the truth.

The article concludes:

Fauci also has a damning list of COVID-19 sins that he has yet to address or apologize for. In addition to moving the goalposts to suit whatever agenda keeps him on TV and in the good graces of the corporate media, reports released this year indicate that Fauci lied to members of Congress about funding for gain-of-function research, colluded with Big Tech to shut up conservatives who questioned his motives and statements, and even authorized the torture of beagles in the name of “science.” Emails obtained by corrupt members of the media who were unwilling to criticize Fauci also detailed the bureaucrat’s tendency to hide key COVID-19 information such as mask efficacy from the public to protect himself.

Collins’ and Fauci’s demands for compliance continue as the Biden administration struggles to justify its COVID-19 response amid a climbing number of virus-related deaths in the United States. As of Monday, more than 805,000 people in the U.S. had died from COVID-19.

I think it’s time for Dr. Fauci to find another job. Fear mongering to the American people is not going to work at some point.

An Ordinary Citizen Would Be Arrested For This

Falsifying evidence is a criminal offense. We are about to find out whether the laws actually do apply to the people in Congress.

On Wednesday, The Western Journal reported the following:

It’s amazing to me that California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff is not in jail. This lawmaker has played it fast and loose, first during the Trump/Russia collusion investigation, which put him on the map, and next in the House impeachment inquiry of former President Donald Trump. There is no line this unethical, truth-challenged, repellent snake won’t cross in the name of politics.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis reported on Wednesday that Schiff was up to his old tricks at Monday night’s hearing of the Jan. 6 Committee. According to Davis, Schiff “claimed to have proof” that Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican, texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows “to instruct former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.”

Davis claims that Schiff misrepresented “the substance of the text message and its source.” Schiff “even doctored original text messages, which were obtained and reviewed by The Federalist in their entirety.”

The article explains the changes Representative Schiff made to the text messages:

Davis (The Federalist’s Sean Davis) explains that in addition to lying about “substance” and the “source” of the text, Schiff “even doctored the message and graphic that he displayed on screen during his statement. The full text message, which was forwarded to Meadows from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on the evening of Monday, Jan. 5, was significantly longer than what Schiff read and put on screen, but Schiff erased significant portions of the text and added punctuation where there was none to give the impression that Jordan himself was tersely directing Meadows to give orders to Pence on how to handle the electoral vote certification.”

Davis continues: “The original text was written by Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz and included an attachment of a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting that Pence had the constitutional authority to object to the certification of electoral votes submitted by a handful of states. The piece that Schmitz had sent to Jordan was published at the website everylegal.vote the next day and even included the same ‘DISCUSSION DRAFT’ heading and timestamp on the document that Schmitz sent to Jordan.”

He explains that Schmitz sent this text to Jordan “on the evening of Jan. 5, including the Word document as an attachment. Schmitz then texted to Jordan a three-paragraph summary of his Word document, which Schiff sliced and diced and then attributed to Jordan.”

Would anyone like to wager on how much of the above chicanery will be reported by the mainstream media?

Changing The Words In An Attempt To Make This Sound Acceptable

A healthy society protects its children. Unfortunately, there are those among us that have forgotten that principle. A lot of what is currently taught in our schools is not appropriate for the ages involved and is not healthy for our children or our society.

On Monday, The Federalist posted an article about Allyn Walker, an assistant professor at Old Dominion University.

The article reports:

After witnessing Twix’s latest ad or hearing about Sex Offender Story Time, you might have mistakenly assumed that the left’s push to sexualize children and normalize pedophilia couldn’t be any more blatant. But alas, the word “restraint” isn’t in the vocabulary of those whose insatiable hunger for the most potent forms of moral rot have driven them to take bites out of the few remaining taboos that we haven’t “progressed” past quite yet.

The latest attempt to normalize pedophilia comes from Allyn Walker, an assistant professor at Old Dominion University who uses the nonsensical pronouns “they/them” and has advocated for pedophilia to be “destigmatized,” calling for pedophiles to instead be referred to with the insultingly euphemistic term “minor attracted persons.”

Walker is the author of the book “A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor Attracted People and Their Pursuit Of Dignity,” which challenges “widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors—often referred to as ‘pedophiles’—are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs).”

Walker’s attempt to legitimize non-offending pedophiles isn’t the first of its kind. Vice also looked into allegedly “non-offending” pedophiles, including a foster parent pseudonymously called Gary who, to no one’s surprise but everyone’s horror, was accused by one of his foster children’s biological mothers of sexually abusing her daughter.

Should we change the name of shoplifters to ‘creative shoppers’? This is an attempt to normalize deviant behavior. The danger here is that if this behavior is normalized, parents will have no legal recourse if an adult sexually abuses their child.

The article concludes:

If it feels like there is no limit to the degeneracy, and in this case genuine evil, that the left will attempt to mainstream, it’s because there isn’t one. “Tolerance” is a key staple of leftwing rhetoric, but no parameters have ever been set. Tolerance is not a virtue in and of itself. It is entirely dependent on what your society is tolerant of. For a wide swath of the left, their answer seems to be all sexual behaviors, with no limits.

There is no off switch to progress, no regulating mechanism within progressive ideology that can ever account for this degree of moral decline. Our rapidly decaying social standards and taboos used to be capable of slowing our descent, but now the brake lines have been cut.

You might get fired if you refuse to play into a transgender co-worker’s delusions and use biologically accurate pronouns. You might suffer the same fate if you come out too vocally against critical race theory in your child’s classroom or if you refuse a COVID-19 vaccine.

The unending march of “progress” has resulted in a society where any of these offenses against neo-liberal totalitarianism and woke ideology might leave you without a job, but you’ll be granted support from your university for being a pedophilia sympathizer, which is now entirely system-approved.

Progressivism evidently can’t be trusted to regulate itself. Any hope to stop and eventually reverse our decline lies solely within the prospect of a right that eschews the left’s bankrupt moral framework and the language used to justify it. Now that we know where it leads, we have no other option.

It’s time to call pedophilia what it is–a crime. Renaming it to make it sound acceptable is a really bad idea.

The Politically Incorrect Truth

NFL Quarterback Aaron Rodgers has received a lot of criticism for refusing to take the coronavirus vaccine. On November 5th, The Federalist posted an article listing some of his comments on his refusal.

The article lists nine main points from an interview of Aaron Rogers on “The Pat McAfee Show.”

The nine points:

1. ‘You’re Selfish’ Smear Is Media Propaganda

2. Personal Health Should Be Private

3. ‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated’ Is a Lie

4. The Left Politicized the Vaxx

5. The Vaxxed Are Still Infectious

6. ‘Health Is Not a One-Size-Fits-All’

7. COVID Recovery Offers Robust Immunity

8. Science Is Better Than Shaming

9. Overall Health Is Important Too

The concluding paragraph of the article notes:

Early data showed that obesity tripled a person’s risk of hospitalization, and 78 percent of those hospitalized with the Wuhan virus were overweight or obese.

The coronavirus does not seem to have a pattern. I have known very healthy people who became seriously ill, and I have known people who fit the pattern of high risk who contracted the virus and recovered without incident. To me, the bottom line is simple–all of us need to do whatever we can to be healthy. Any health decision should be made by the individual considering the advice of a personal physician. The government has no business forcing Americans to take a vaccine that has only been in use for a limited amount of time. We have no idea what the long term effects of the coronavirus will be. To take or not to take the vaccine needs to be an individual choice.

The Impact Of Public Opinion

Many parents of school children objected when they were called domestic terrorists because they had questions or disagreements with what their children were being taught in school. As parents began speaking out, other Americans became aware of the situation and also voiced their opinion. The actions of the parents and others have gotten results.

Today The Federalist reported the following:

The National School Boards Association has apologized for a letter that Attorney General Merrick Garland used to target parents as “domestic terrorists.”

“We regret and apologize for the letter,” the NSBA said in a memorandum sent to members on Friday. “To be clear, the safety of school board members, other public school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

The original letter, publicly sent to Biden administration officials after the organization worked with the Biden administration to craft its language, asked the federal government to take action against parents and citizens who “threaten” or “intimidate” school board officials and education administrators. It said nothing of the reports of some school officials engaging in the same behavior against parents.

“NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety,” the original letter read. “… As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

As many as 20 state school boards have since distanced themselves from the NSBA in backlash against the letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.

Fourteen state school boards, including Pennsylvania’s, said they were not alerted before the NSBA sent the letter. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association voted unanimously last week to exit the NSBA.

The article concludes:

House Republicans grilled Garland on his decision to mobilize the FBI against parents.

“It concerns us that [your letter] was issued just five days after the National School Board Association sent a letter to President Biden which referred to concerned parents as the equivalent of ‘domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes,’” Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson said. “Given the timing of all this, your memo appears to have been motivated by politics more than any pressing law enforcement need. This is concerning to us and it’s worthy of investigation.”

“A snitch line on parents, started five days after a left-wing political organization asked for it,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said. “If that’s not political, I don’t know what is.”

This incident shows the power of Americans when they choose to speak up. All of us need to be ready to stand up against over-intrusive searches and threats from our government. It seems as if our law enforcement agencies on the national level have been politicized. The best protection for all of us is to make sure we elect local officials who respect and abide by the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise we will find ourselves living in a surveillance state.

Rewriting History To Prevent A Second Trump Presidency

Today The Federalist posted an article about the media’s renewed interest in the Steele Dossier. What is happening right now with the Dossier is a shot across the bow in an effort to prevent President Trump from running for President in 2024.

The article lists four things the author learned from the Hulu documentary about the Steele Dossier.

These are the four things:

1. At Least the Media Came Out of the Shadows

2. Steele Selected Stephanopoulos For a Reason

3. Christopher Steele Stands By His Dossier

4. He’s Crazy Like a Fox

Please follow the link to read the entire article, but here are a few excerpts:

Raddatz (ABC reporter Martha Raddatz) was not the only ABC personality interviewed during the program, and in this respect the media’s penchant for becoming the story reached a pinnacle, so much so that Hulu followed Stephanopoulos from his New York apartment en route to the airport and then to England. Once there, Steele’s screen time paled in comparison to the time Stephanopoulos devoted to interviewing his colleagues.

…Of course, Steele couldn’t have really taken the lead in the story because he remains in legal jeopardy and subject to potential civil liability. Steele needed to thread a needle: saying enough to create sympathy and shore up a legal defense while ensuring he stayed silent on anything of substance. Stephanopoulos served his purpose.

President Clinton’s former White House communications director promised the publicity Steele needed and provided a surface of seriousness to sell the story as a true piece of journalism. And Stephanopoulos was willing to travel to England, most definitely a requirement for Steele to avoid the subpoena power of the John Durham special counsel’s office.

…While Stephanopoulos’ painting of Steele as a patriotic and sympathetic character did not quite descend to the Jane Mayer level of propaganda, the generous profile of Steele nonetheless laid the groundwork necessary to soften the more serious questions that would end the show. The Hulu special’s biographical focus also served to elevate Steele, suggesting a more substantial role in British intelligence than likely and bolstering his credibility by highlighting his connection to the FBI’s investigation into the World Cup soccer bribery scandal.

Against this backdrop, a viewer unacquainted with the depth of the Spygate scandal, such as Stephanopoulos and ABC’s regular audience, might find Steele’s assurances that his sources and their stories are credible, even against the backdrop of the U.S. inspector general’s “devastating” report that “eviscerated” Steele’s reporting, according to one of the few non-ABC figures interviewed, former New York Times reporter Barry Meier.

“With respect to your work,” Stephanopoulos noted, the IG report concluded that “certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, place and title information, much of which was publicly available.”

The article concludes:

Those well-versed in the entire Russia-collusion hoax likely watched Steele in disbelief, wondering how delusional he must be to sit calmly before a worldwide audience and defend the unbelievable. But the interview served a purpose, because the few times Stephanopoulos challenged Steele, it works to his own benefit as it provided the dossier author the opportunity to counter claims that he peddled knowingly false information to the FBI

While Steele professed in the interview that he had done nothing wrong and did not fear being charged and extradited to the United States, sometimes the best defense is an offense. What better way to counter a potential charge of making false statements to the FBI than to profess you believe the information passed on was true? Well, that, and the defense colloquially known as Orange Man Bad, which Steele seemed to also hide behind, speaking of Trump as a continuing threat to the United States and United Kingdom’s national security.

Steele may be right about one thing, though, when he said in the final minutes of the interview that he “think[s] this book is not finished by a longshot.” Hopefully, however, it will be Durham writing the final chapter.

The Hulu version of events is pure propaganda, but those who get their news via the mainstream media and watch the ‘documentary’ will  see it as truth. That is part of the reason for the divide in America, and the media bears much of the responsibility for that divide.

Harsh Words, But True

The Federalist posted an article today by Fred Fleitz, who is currently president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. He served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the National Security Council. Fleitz held national security jobs for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He believes that the only way back to some sort of credibility for America after the Afghanistan fiasco is to replace President Biden’s top national security advisers with experts who have the experience, principles, and gravitas to reverse the damage Biden is doing to our national security and will stand up to future unsound and dangerous decisions by this president.

The article reports:

In a perfect world, Biden would immediately resign, be impeached, or be removed from office under the 25th Amendment for this unprecedented incompetence and dereliction of duty.

To remove the president under the 25th Amendment, the vice president and the majority of the cabinet would need to determine that Biden is unfit for office. Congress would then need to approve that process by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. It is hard to see how a majority of Biden’s cabinet or two-thirds of the Democrat-controlled Congress would agree to such action.

Impeachment would require passage of articles of impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction and removal by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Democrats will not permit this now, but it might be possible in early 2023 if Republicans take control of Congress in the 2022 midterm elections.

The article notes that removing President Biden from office is probably not possible right now. When you talk about removing President Biden from office, you need to remember that he will be replaced by Vice-President Kamala Harris. At that point, the Democrats lose their 51st tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That fact may partially explain why Joe Biden has not already been removed.

The article reports:

It is pointless now for National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley to claim or leak to the press that they opposed Biden’s decision to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. They knew this decision was wrong and dangerous. They were duty-bound to resign and report Biden’s reckless decision to Congress.

Making this worse, most of Biden’s senior national security advisers are unqualified yes-men. Putting aside buffoonish Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan are third-stringers out of their league. And Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin apparently has so little influence with Biden that the president forgot his name at a press conference.

The article concludes:

Biden’s senseless Afghanistan policy and unmistakable signs of his mental decline strongly suggest he is not capable of serving as commander-in-chief. Democrats almost certainly will not agree to remove him, so their Republican colleagues must pressure them to pursue the next best option: surrounding Biden with highly qualified and principled national security experts who will not tolerate more irrational national security decisions.

To safeguard America’s national security and global leadership, we need bipartisan action now to compel President Biden to take this action.

Our country’s security is in danger as long as Joe Biden is President.

 

A New Level Of Insanity

It seems to me that I would expect the American Medical Association be be a leader in the desire to ‘follow the science.’ Sometimes science is pretty settled, like gravity, the need for people to breath oxygen, DNA, etc. Well, evidently that was a false expectation on my part.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday about a recent policy statement by the American Medical Association.

The article reports:

“Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization,” said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.

A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

Robert Jackson, MD, who’s with the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, told WebMD Health News he opposed the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

The article concludes:

By neglecting to specify sex on the hard copy of a birth certificate, medical professionals could improperly treat someone. But instead of recognizing medical truths, the AMA is rallying behind people who flat out deny biology.

The AMA supports health care for transgender children, noting that “it is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.” For an organization that blindly supports genital mutation on minors, it’s no surprise that they want to eliminate sex on a birth certificate.

The science of X and Y chromosomes is pretty well accepted. Also, the differences between boy and girl babies are generally pretty obvious at birth. This is a totally unscientific position for the American Medical Association to take. It makes me wonder if I can trust anything else they expect us to believe.

This Needs To Be Repeated Every Day Until It Ends

The Federalist posted an article today about the contrast between how the Justice Department is treating those arrested in Washington on January 6th and those arrested during the riots in America’s major cities last summer.

The article reports:

One would think a major report from a group representing America’s top law enforcement leaders analyzing the widespread riots of 2020 would have garnered significant media attention. One also would think such a report would garner widespread discussion after the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capital due to the parallels between it and the 2020 riots. Given our hyper-partisan environment, however, one would be woefully wrong.

Specifically, back in October 2020, the Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) released a comprehensive report full of data from dozens of cities that provides deep insights into the 2020 riots that plagued America after George Floyd’s death in Minnesota. The MCC’s “Report on the 2020 Protests and Civil Unrest” served as an excellent after-action report that cities, states, and the federal government could use to reform their practices and, equally importantly, to prepare for future riots.

The article notes the difference in the events of last summer and the events of January 6th:

Now here’s a prime example of dissimilar treatment for far worse actions. The January 6 riot involved no guns or fires among protesters, only makeshift weapons like flag poles, batons, and objects from the area.

In contrast, the 2020 riots involved guns, incendiary devices, lasers, paint bombs, and fireworks that were used to torch buildings and cars, hurt police officers, and destroy meaningful parts of many U.S. cities. Despite the far greater violence and destruction the 2020 rioters perpetrated, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) haven’t hunted those rioters down with anywhere near the vigor and vim used against what are in many cases at most trespassers.

…In stark contrast, the left and the media continue to falsely claim law enforcement officers were killed on January 6. While some law enforcement officers were certainly injured during that riot, the numbers and severity are far below the law enforcement injuries from the 2020 riots.

More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured during the 2020 riots, with numerous officers being shot and one, retired captain David Dorn, brutally murdered while protecting his friend’s shop from rioters. The 2020 rioters also shot other protestors.

In contrast, the only person violently killed on January 6 was the unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt, at the hands of a Capitol Police officer whose identity still remains unconfirmed by public officials.

The article notes:

Left-wing rioters wisely did their acts in cities controlled by Democrats and with Democrat district attorneys, who went soft on them despite their disproportionate violence. In contrast, those who rioted on January 6 had the great misfortune of being in a jurisdiction controlled by anti-Trump Democrats and zealously left-wing U.S. attorneys looking to impress their fellow leftists.

Most of the people involved in the civil unrest that took place last summer have had their charges dropped. Many of the people involved in the January 6th unrest have been refused bail. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is a chilling commentary on what has happened to our justice system in recent years.

Why Economics Needs To Be Taught In School

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article about some comments recently made on mainstream media about inflation. The comments indicated that economics is not universally taught in our colleges.

The article notes:

Did CNBC get its understanding of economics from the back of a cereal box? The outlet is arguing that the silver lining to skyrocketing inflation is — “rising wages.”

The liberal outlet noted how “[a]s the economy picks up in the wake of the Covid pandemic, concerns about inflation are also gaining steam.” After conceding that prices of goods are rising, CNBC took a nosedive into ineptitude: “Companies facing a labor shortage are also paying more to get workers to walk in the door.” Did CNBC even consider that rising prices of goods are eating into American pay? Bloomberg News just reported that American pay boosts “are failing to keep pace with surging prices for everyday goods.” CNBC seemed to only figure that out after the story was originally published. Its original headline was “The upside to inflation: rising wages.” The headline has since been changed to alter the entire context of the story: “It’s not certain rising wages will be enough to outpace inflation.”

Rising wages are a good thing when they are part of a strong economy.

On November 2, 2020, The Federalist reported:

Many on the left refuse to admit President Trump’s populist policies have provided massive benefits to working-class Americans. Matthew Yglesias argued at Vox that Trump’s refusal to endorse a federal $15 per hour minimum wage proves Trump has abandoned populist ideals. Progressives claim the Trump economy helps billionaires, not workers, and snidely dismiss his outreach to minorities.

Yet, during the first three years of the Trump presidency, wage growth was off the charts, especially for low-income workers and African Americans. The third-quarter economic data released Thursday confirm once again that Trump is on the job for U.S. workers.

The Biden campaign has tried to tie COVID-linked economic devastation to Trump’s leadership. The new third-quarter economic data once again shows that’s wrong. The total number of U.S. wage earners increased more than 5 percent in that period, and the third-quarter rebound for African Americans occurred at a 17 percent faster rate than for wage earners as a whole.

During the Trump administration, inflation remained at about 2 percent.

On May 18, 2021, The Post Millennial reported:

It’s not just anecdotal evidence, the Consumer Price Index released last week shows that prices are up across the board by .8 percent for April. That’s after a .3 increase for January, .4 increase for February, and a .6 increase for March. In contrast, the last few months of the Trump administration had increases as well, albeit much lower. October showed a .1 percent increase, while November and December both showed increases of .2 percent.

Newsbusters also notes:

CNBC’s “Key Points” section also contradicted itself by admitting that prices of goods were increasing while lauding how pay was increasing at the same time. Newsflash, CNBC: rising costs of living takes away from the benefit of a pay increase.

    • “Although consumers may be paying more for everyday items, it’s not all bad news.”
    • “As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.”

CNBC must have realized this contradiction and changed its “Key Points” section to reflect new points entirely:

    • “As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.”
    • “The question is, will it be enough to outpace the rise in prices.”

CNBC couldn’t stop contradicting its points. It even warned that economists were saying rapid increase in wages could in fact cause inflation, further undercutting the entire story:

And still, some economists fear a too-rapid increase in wages could prompt companies to raise prices and create the very phenomenon of inflation, causing more harm than good.

No kidding. Elections have consequences, but at least President Biden doesn’t do mean tweets.

Quick Action Is Needed

President Biden has announced that he will withdraw all American military troops from Afghanistan on September 11th. Although I question his choice of that particular date, I think it is the right move. However, it is necessary in withdrawing those troops to protect those Afghani civilians and military who have helped America in its efforts. To leave those people behind is to insure their capture, torture and death.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday detailing some of the current situation.

The article reports:

During our nearly 20-year presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. military and countless government personnel have been aided by Afghan interpreters. These brave men and women bridged the gap between Americans and Afghans, often patrolling, and sometimes even fighting, alongside our forces.

Because of their selfless service to American personnel, the Taliban consider interpreters arch traitors. According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, “at least thousands” of Afghan interpreters have been killed in retaliation by the Taliban and other criminal elements.

The United States created the Special Immigrant Visa program in 2006 to grant threatened interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan refugee status and ultimately citizenship. The SIV program has failed to deliver the safety it promised, however, as evidenced by the host of critical gaps identified in recent reports from Brown University, the Truman Center, and the Department of State’s Office of the Inspector General.

Currently, a backlog of 18,800 applications of Afghan translators awaits processing. Rather than the nine-month processing period promised, applications have taken an average of 658 days to process, putting translators and their families at unnecessary, continued risk. The Washington Post estimates that around 1,000 Iraqi and Afghan interpreters have been killed while awaiting their visas.

Numerous interpreters whose lives are imperiled have been unable to apply for — or were rejected from — the SIV program. Many are unable to locate their employers to supply the necessary proof of employment. Others have been denied because the application makes untenable demands on Afghans who live under wartime constraints.

On Feb. 4, President Biden signed an executive order mandating a 180-day review of the SIV program. While such a review is long overdue, lawmakers believe the effort is inadequate.

The article concludes:

Maj. Thomas Schueman is among other veterans and service members making sincere appeals for their former interpreters. Schueman’s interpreter “Zack,” is unable to apply to the SIV program because his former contracting agency cannot be reached to provide proof of employment.

Zack has previously been identified by the Taliban for his work with the Marines. He says the local Taliban “are threatening [him] all the time.” Schueman considers assisting Zack a way of honoring his “lifelong contract” of “service to [his] troops.”

Miervaldis reports that No One Left Behind has recently received thousands of e-mails and Facebook messages regarding interpreters concerned about their SIV status. As the Taliban step up violent attacks on government forces, the targeting of interpreters will likely increase.

Rather than allowing our allies to stand by in peril as we address decades of failures in our SIV program, we must grant our interpreters asylum with haste. Neglecting to protect those who assisted us would be a moral failure, as well as a stinging blow to those who fought alongside our Afghan allies. It could also have resounding national security implications should we look to forge local alliances in future conflicts.

We need to make sure that all of the interpreters get out of Afghanistan before our troops leave. To leave them behind would be a stain on America forever.

Taxes For Thee But Not For Me

As I have stated before, any tax increase on ‘the rich’ wind up impacting the middle class rather than the rich. Those creating tax policy seem to forget that ‘the rich’ have tax accountants that help them avoid paying the tax increases. That is not illegal, but it is particularly annoying when those avoiding the taxes are the same people who are increasing the taxes on everyone else.

On Wednesday The Federalist posted an article about the Biden’s income tax returns.

The article reports:

On Monday, the delayed due date for filing federal taxes for the last calendar year, the White House made a theatrical show of releasing President Biden’s 2020 tax returns. In so doing, the new administration wanted to show a contrast with Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who did not release his tax returns.

But while the White House emphasized the release of Biden’s returns, it does not want reporters to scrutinize the content of those returns, because doing so would highlight a pattern of hypocritical behavior by the current president and his family. To wit: For the fourth year running, the First Family used a questionable tax loophole to avoid paying more than $500,000 in Medicare and Obamacare taxes — a loophole that the Biden administration now claims it wants to close.

The article includes the following information:

But Jill Biden continued to use this loophole in 2020 on earnings from her corporation. As the chart below shows, the Bidens avoided a total of $516,992 in taxes over the past four years:

2017 Return 2018 Return 2019 Return 2020 Return
Total Wages Paid $245,833 $500,000 $308,932 $200,000
Total Corporate Profits $10,048,739 $3,236,764 $228,703 $90,854
Medicare Taxes Avoided (2.9% of Corporate Profits) $291,413 $93,866 $6,632 $2,635
Obamacare Taxes Avoided (0.9% of Corporate Profits) $90,439 $29,131 $2,058 $818
Total Taxes Avoided $381,852 $122,997 $8,691 $3,452

The article concludes:

The president’s tax plan also includes provisions to “increase investment in the IRS, while ensuring that the additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes.” If Joe Biden believes in this provision so much, he should start by asking the IRS to audit his 2017 through 2020 tax returns, given that tax experts have called his use of the “corporate profits” loophole so aggressive as to potentially violate federal guidelines.

The current febrile atmosphere of cynicism and contempt toward Washington stems in large part from politicians who say one thing and do another. For Joe Biden — who preaches “tax fairness,” yet uses loopholes he wants to eliminate for others — to understand this phenomenon should not take much effort. He only need to look in the mirror.

In the Biden administration, the rules only apply to the little people.