When The Republican Swamp Gets A Newspaper

It is no secret that the Washington Swamp has members of both parties. Both parties have their goals, although sometimes for different reasons. For example, both sides want illegal immigration–the Democrats see future voters and the Swamp Republicans see cheap labor. Swamp creatures in both parties hated President Trump because he was a threat to their happy existence as part of the swamp. However, most of the time the Republican Swamp Creatures were more subtle in undermining President Trump.
An editorial in The Washington Examiner may illustrate the fact that the days of subtlety are over. The editorial, basing its statements on the recent testimony regarding January 6th by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, states that the testimony is proof that President Trump is unfit to be President because of his temperament. Well, there are a few problems with this. Ms. Hutchinson was not actually a witness to the events she described. She heard it through the grape vine? Also Secret Service Agents working for President Trump at the time are willing to swear under oath that her testimony is false. You would think that would give the editorial staff at The Washington Examiner pause, but evidently it did not. Where are the editorials that President Biden is unfit for office because he has no idea what office he holds?

There is also another problem with Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony according to The Gateway Pundit:

Please don’t worry–Ms. Hutchinson won’t get in trouble for lying to Congress–they liked what she said, so it’s okay.

Meanwhile, Breitbart reported the following on Tuesday:

The January 6 Committee’s credibility suffered a serious blow on Tuesday when reports surfaced that the lead Secret Service agent in charge of former President Trump’s security detail that day would contradict testimony delivered from star witness Cassidy Hutchinson.

On Tuesday, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that former President Trump literally tried to commandeer the presidential suburban during the January 6 riot and became borderline violent when Bobby Engel tried to stop him. Hutchinson said she learned of the story from Tony Ornato, the then-White House deputy chief of staff. Hours later, Peter Alexander of NBC News said that a source close to the Secret Service indicated that agent Bobby Engel will testify “under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”

The article at Breitbart included the following meme:

Someone is lying, and I don’t think it is the Secret Service.

 

In Case You Are Wondering, It Is Ultimately About The Money

The protests continue against the Supreme Court ruling against abortion, despite the fact that the ruling did nothing more than allow each state to make its own rules regarding abortion. So what is all this noise actually about? First of all, abortion is a million-dollar industry that contributes large amounts of money to politician’s campaign coffers. If abortion is limited, campaign contributions will also be limited. Secondly, it is cheaper for a corporation to pay for an abortion than to pay for maternity leave and the costs associated with motherhood. Also, a mother’s first priority is generally her child–not the corporation. So abortion does make a large contribution to the economy and to the political class. That explains some of the horror at the idea that some states will be limiting abortion. Meanwhile, the government is seriously interested in maintaining the status quo.

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

The Biden administration is considering setting up abortion providers on federal land in red states, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said Tuesday.

The administration has not decided yet whether it will pursue the plan, which is favored by left-wing legislators Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but Becerra said that “every option is on the table.”

…Becerra’s comments are at odds with those of Vice President Kamala Harris, who said just Monday that the administration was not discussing clinics on federal lands. 

The article concludes:

The proposal, if pursued by the administration, would offer women a safe haven for abortion access in red states, most of which have already curtailed access. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban overturned the 49-year-old constitutional guarantee of the right to an abortion, sending the power of regulating access to the procedure back to the states. But abortion is not federally illegal.

“We know that there is misinformation out there about what the Supreme Court did. We want to make sure it’s clear that Americans didn’t lose every right they have. Americans still can assert their rights, and we will do everything we can to protect you,” Becerra said

Just for the record, abortion was never and never should be a right.

Rewriting The Constitution

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article citing a recent quote by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden opened his remarks announcing a police reform executive order by remembering the victims of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting and calling on the Senate to confirm his nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

“To state the obvious: I’m sick and tired of what’s going on,” Biden said. He said the Senate could help ensure existing federal gun laws are enforced by confirming Steve Dettelbach as ATF director. Biden’s previous nominee, David Chipman, was withdrawn last year amid Senate opposition.

…But the president also argued the Second Amendment had limits, saying “you couldn’t own a cannon” when it was ratified and that there were gun control measures that could be passed that would address the violence without infringing on constitutional rights.

“The Second Amendment’s not absolute,” he said.

Well, not so fast. The Second Amendment is part of The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because some of the original thirteen colonies refused to sign on to the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added (North Carolina was one of those colonies). The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of government and protect the rights of Americans. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms to Americans–it prevents the government from taking away that right. Any executive order or law that limits the rights of Americans to bear arms or that creates a gun registry is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment does absolutely affirm the rights of Americans to bear arms.

Has it occurred to President Biden that the gun wasn’t the problem–a very disturbed young man who wanted to kill children was the problem. If he had not had a gun, he would have found another way. The Boston Marathon bombers used a pressure cooker. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. The weapon is not the problem–the person holding it is.

Information We All Need

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about Monkeypox. The article provides a brief summary of the things the public needs to know.

Here are some excerpts:

In total, 92 cases of monkeypox have been confirmed so far, with another 28 suspected cases, according to the World Health Organization. Most of the cases in the U.K. and Europe have been in young men with no history of travel to Africa and who were gay, bisexual, or had sex with men.

…All of the cases that have been confirmed through a PCR test were infected by the strain native to West Africa, but only one case has a direct tie to the region. The first to be confirmed in the U.K. was a person who had traveled from the U.K. to Nigeria and back. The person was immediately isolated upon return, and “the risk of onward transmission related to this case in the United Kingdom is minimal,” the WHO said. But that still leaves open the question of where the dozens of other cases came from.

A leading adviser to the WHO, Dr. David Heymann, told the Associated Press that sexual transmission at two raves in Belgium and Spain appear to have been major catalysts for the spread of the virus in Europe.

…There is not currently a vaccine made specifically to prevent monkeypox infection, but smallpox vaccines have proven to be at least 85% effective in preventing monkeypox. Experts also believe that administering a smallpox vaccine after a monkeypox exposure may help prevent the disease or make it less severe.

The article concludes:

Infectious disease experts said this outbreak is very different from COVID-19, which caught the U.S. public health infrastructure off guard. Unlike symptoms of COVID-19 infection, symptoms of monkeypox are visual and cases are easier to trace. Monkeypox is also far less transmissible than COVID-19. And unlike COVID-19, monkeypox is not an airborne pathogen.

“Contact tracing COVID-19 is a nightmare, and I don’t want to say it’s a piece of cake, but it’s a much more straightforward proposition [to trace monkeypox],” said Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

The Food and Drug Administration has also approved several antiviral medications to treat smallpox and diseases like it.

“That’s why I’m pretty optimistic that we’ll be able to contain it because the overall level of transmissibility is low, the incubation period is longer, and in about two weeks, the characteristic rash makes contact tracing easier, and we already have vaccines and antiviral drugs ready to go. … [COVID-19 is] really just the opposite of monkeypox,” Hotez told the Washington Examiner.

At least there is some good news.

Wisdom From The Bench

On Tuesday (updated Wednesday), The Washington Examiner reported that U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga threw out the lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis filed to prevent the ending of the special deal between Disney World and Florida.

The article reports:

A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) that sought to halt the dismantling of the Walt Disney World Resort’s Reedy Creek Improvement District.

U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga determined Tuesday that the federal court lacked standing because it was a state issue, the plaintiffs’ First Amendment arguments were flawed, and the lawsuit was premised on a piece of legislation that does not go into effect until July.

“In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that Senate Bill 4-C violates Florida’s Reedy Creek Improvement Act and ‘contractual obligations’ the state owes to Floridians,” Altonaga, a Bush appointee, wrote. “The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim for violation of Disney’s First Amendment rights. ‘[A] party generally may assert only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court.'”

In the 1960s, Florida established RCID as a special district under the Reedy Creek Improvement Act. RCID is run by the landowners in the district, predominantly Disney, who oversee basic local government functions such as zoning, infrastructure, and building codes.

The lawsuit was filed last week by William Sanchez, a Democratic contender for Senate. Michael and Edward Foronda and Vivian Gorsky were listed as plaintiffs. The suit challenged a bill DeSantis signed last month stripping RCID of its special district status.

The article concludes:

In response to DeSantis signing the bill, RCID released a statement arguing that the state would be on the hook for its roughly $1 billion in outstanding debt — something DeSantis has disputed.

“In light of the State of Florida’s pledge to the District’s bondholders, Reedy Creek expects to explore its options while continuing its present operations, including levying and collecting its ad valorem taxes and collecting its utility revenues, paying debt service on its ad valorem tax bonds and utility revenue bonds, complying with its bond covenants and operating and maintaining its properties,” RCID said in a statement, per CNN.

It is quite possible that after all is said and done, the taxes of the people in the counties involved may decrease instead of increase. This is something to watch.

The Investigation (With Coverup) Continues

On Saturday, The Washington Examiner reported that Special counsel John Durham has issued trial subpoenas for members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Before you get too excited about this, consider the following:

The Conservative Treehouse reported on April 16th:

Thanks to a more detailed filing by John Durham last night {pdf here, h/t Techno}, we can now see the guardrails, rules and general direction the prosecution is taking.

In essence, the underlying Trump-Russia conspiracy theory material from the Clinton campaign, via Rodney Joffe to Michael Sussmann, was fabricated – likely for a dual purpose:

(A) to coverup and make excuses for the stunningly embarrassing, potentially unlawful and politically terrible April 2016 DNC email leaks, which showed the DNC Club internally working to secure the nomination for Hillary Clinton, while trying to destroy her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

and

(B) to create the political Russia narrative against Trump, to be deployed later in the general election.

Within the general direction Durham is following, the FBI was duped by a purposeful and manipulative intent from the Clinton campaign.  Meanwhile, the CIA [Agency-2] did not buy into the technological evidence saying it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”  

…The prosecutorial approach by John Durham positions all of the corruption outside the institutions of government, thereby protecting them.

The swamp is deep and in control. The government agencies that were totally out of control will not be held accountable by the Durham investigation.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Hillary for America also tried to intervene Tuesday, saying it was “asserting attorney-client privilege and work protection” related to Perkins and Fusion. The filing included declarations from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and Elias.

“The Special Counsel continues to overreach: he seeks to admit evidence that the law squarely forbids, he seeks to prove unduly prejudicial allegations he has not charged, and he seeks to prove conduct that is utterly irrelevant to the one discrete crime he has charged,” Sussmann’s lawyers argued Friday night.

Durham also “seeks to prevent Mr. Sussmann from introducing relevant — indeed essential — exculpatory evidence in the form of testimony from his former client, Rodney Joffe,” Sussmann’s lawyers said Friday.

Durham pushed back Saturday.

“The goal of the joint venture could not have been more clear: it was to gather and disseminate derogatory non-public information regarding the internet activities of a political candidate and his associates,” he wrote.

“And that venture was far from collateral to the charged crime. Indeed, the above-described joint venture was the very project that led Tech Executive-1 to rely upon the defendant’s services; the very project that gave rise to the Russian Bank-1 allegations; the very project that prompted agents of the Clinton Campaign to meet with Tech Executive-1; and the very project that caused the defendant to meet with the FBI General Counsel and lie to him about the clients who were behind all of this work,” Durham said.

Durham has declined to promise that Joffe won’t be indicted at some point in the future, but if Joffe is not granted immunity to testify at trial on Sussmann’s behalf, then the charges should be dismissed, the defense team argued.

On Saturday, The Conservative Treehouse reported:

The current court battle is circling around various lawyers and groups saying they have attorney-client privileges in order to attempt to avoid document production and/or testimony that will put them in legal jeopardy.   The Clinton Campaign is claiming communication with Fusion is privileged. Fusion is claiming communication with Perkins Coie is privileged.  Perkins Coie is claiming they hired Fusion GPS for legal services, etc. etc. etc.

It takes much more time, but John Durham is working through each of the privilege claims in court, and so far, he has been successful in compelling compliance.

♦ A frequent question:  Why didn’t Durham charge Rodney Joffe yet?   It’s a good question, and the answer is likely because he’s building that case around something else.  Here’s my suspicion.

You will remember, back in 2016, 2017 and 2018, when I said the Clinton team seem to have some kind of “direct portal” into government databases.  There was some process clearly evident where the Clinton campaign itself had access to government databases.

We speculated about all kinds of contractors helping her, etc.  This is entirely separate from what Fusion GPS and other participants were doing to data-mine information.  This is not the people inside government connected to spygate (NSA, Fusion, etc), this is a portal specific to the Clinton campaign itself.

I always called this network the “Clinton Portal“, and the fingerprints from it just kept surfacing as the media described Trump-Russia connections, and then campaign officials would amplify.  I’ve said that since mid 2016, and I retained that view throughout.  Clinton’s campaign operation was data mining some government database, somehow.  The question was who and how?

Rodney Joffe is the explanation that answers that question.  Joffe exploiting contractor access to government databases (GA Tech via DARPA), in combination with his access to data from Neustar, gave him a unique position.  Joffe was Clinton’s Portal.

My hunch is that Durham is holding back on Joffe because accessing government databases, via a government contract (DARPA) that was not given for that intent, is a bigger set of charges.

Please follow the links above to see exactly what is  happening here. It is brilliant sleight of hand.

Waiting To See The Impact Of The Lies

On Friday, Hot Air reported that The New York Times had the tapes to back up their claim that Kevin McCarthy thought Trump should resign and he would take that recommendation to the president and that he hoped Twitter would ban the MAGA types in the caucus like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert who had pushed “rigged election” incitement before the insurrection. When initially faced with the accusation, Kevin McCarthy, in the true spirit of a Washington politician, lied about it.

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner reported on Friday:

House Republicans appear to be in no rush to consider dumping House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy over his double-speak reaction to the Jan. 6 riots and tapped comments that former President Donald Trump should “resign” over the affair.

According to multiple insiders, Republicans are first looking to see what Trump says (or doesn’t) on the growing scandal and then hope to kick questions about leadership toward a time after the fall elections so it doesn’t distract from the goal of taking back control of the House.

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans take control of the House in November if the uniparty is still in control. The statements by Kevin McCarthy indicate to me that he is a member of the uniparty threatened by the popularity of President Trump.

The Washington Examiner concludes:

Importantly, Trump and McCarthy talked Thursday, and the former president isn’t upset in part because McCarthy never pushed for Trump’s resignation, fought impeachment, and subsequently moved to punish Republicans who did vote to impeach.

“It appears that Trump doesn’t care and that McCarthy changing his tune showed he capitulated to him,” said a longtime GOP insider.

Since Trump left office, McCarthy has stayed loyal to the former president and is considered a close ally and adviser himself as the former president eyes another run for office. Trump is also known to hate the press, and the media are already cheering him on to dump McCarthy’s friendship over the resignation call.

Should Trump give McCarthy a pass, “McCarthy will survive,” said a Republican lobbyist close to House GOP leaders.

Helping McCarthy’s cause is the expectation that the GOP will win control of the House and the party’s goal of keeping the focus on Election Day and not internal politics.

Also working for McCarthy, insiders said, is that those on the leadership team, notably No. 2 Rep. Steve Scalise, are not eager to rock the boat because they may get tossed in the storm.

“Scalise wouldn’t challenge McCarthy unless it was a virtual guarantee he’d get the job,” said one ally. “He’s already set to be the House majority leader in a Republican House and McCarthy’s heir apparent,” said the ally, adding, “Why risk it?”

I suspect that there was a deal made that will not be made public that will keep McCarthy in office at least temporarily. This is something to watch over the next two years. It may eventually have a bearing on the next presidential election.

Rumor has it that the tape was leaked by Liz Cheney. The swamp desperately wants to divide the Republican party.

The Deep State Crosses Party Lines

In June I posted an article based on a post in The Conservative Treehouse about the appointment of Merrick Garland to the post of Attorney General.

The article in The Conservative Treehouse included the following:

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s (Ketanji Brown Jackson) nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.

Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)

On Friday, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Breyer.

On Friday, Just the News reported:

Jackson, 51, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and if confirmed by the Senate would become the first black female justice appointed to the nine-member high court. During earlier parts of her career, Jackson served as a clerk for Justice Breyer as well as a public defender, which made her resume appealing to Biden, who has voiced a desire to put more public defenders on the federal bench.

According to CNN, Jackson, received and accepted the offer from President Biden on Thursday night.

A decision Friday by the president would mark exactly two years since then-presidential candidate Biden promised to appoint the first black female justice to the court.

Biden said he would share his choice by late February. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said there would absolutely be a public announcement before March 1.

On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported:

The connection between Jackson and Ryan (former House Speaker Paul Ryan) is complex, as Jackson’s husband has a twin brother who is married to Ryan’s sister-in-law.

Ryan has also supported Jackson through previous nomination processes. When former President Barack Obama nominated her to a spot on the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit in 2012, Ryan testified on her behalf at the confirmation hearing and spoke highly of her qualifications, urging his fellow GOP colleagues to confirm her.

Jackson, 51, was known to be on a short list of contenders the White House considered for the role and exhibits a unique background, having been a federal trial court judge for eight years without experience as a prosecutor or major corporate lawyer. She also sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals bench, where notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh served as judges before their promotions.

It will be interesting to see exactly what her impact on the Supreme Court will be if she is confirmed.

This Is A Good Idea

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an opinion piece about a group called “Look Ahead America” lead by Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign aid.

The opinion piece notes:

A group fighting for the release of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot suspects is urging voters to press candidates on the fairness of the extended jailings of many of those arrested after the pro-Trump protests.

Matt Braynard’s “Look Ahead America” is hoping to create a small citizen-journalist army that will film its questioning of candidates about those held, some for months.

“We encourage all of our fellow Americans to ask candidates for federal office the following question: What are you going to do about the patriots who are being politically persecuted for their participation in the Jan. 6 Capitol Protest?” he said.

He dubbed the effort the “J6 Question Project” and pledged to post the recordings on his website, which lists about 100 suspects who are behind bars.

The fact that these people are still in jail is a disgrace to our country. Our Congressmen took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They are supposed to abide by it. The extended jailing of the January 6th defendants is in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

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

The January 6th defendants have been in jail for more than a year. Where is the Congressional outrage? Where are the Congressmen defending the Constitution?

The opinion piece concludes:

Braynard’s group has held about 70 events around the nation to draw attention to the unusually long holding of Jan. 6 suspects arrested by the FBI, including many who never entered the Capitol but were seen in the crowds outside the day that President Joe Biden’s election was certified by Congress.

Several conservative members have also drawn attention to the long jailings, notably Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz.

Braynard, in a statement Thursday, said: “For the last year, Look Ahead America has successfully held approximately 70 events across the country to raise the profile of the hundreds of Americans who have been politically persecuted. Now is the time to turn that public awareness into action by confronting candidates for public office and recording their statements on what they plan to do about our brothers and sisters who have been persecuted not for what they have done but for what they believe.”

Illustrating The Current Imbalance In Our Justice System

On February 3rd, The Washington Examiner reported:

FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed the FBI is working just as hard to punish participants in the 2020 George Floyd riots as those involved in the Capitol riot, though neither the numbers nor his own boss’s words seem to back him up.

…Matthew Olsen, an assistant attorney general who heads the DOJ’s national security division, told the Senate in January that DOJ’s investigation into the Capitol riot is “unprecedented.” He also announced that his office had created a new “domestic terrorism unit” and said the Capitol riot is “being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism.”

The Justice Department said in January that at least 725 defendants have been arrested in connection with the Capitol riot and that more than 225 defendants had been charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement officers. DOJ said in February that more than 165 defendants pleaded guilty to federal charges, including 22 felonies.

“The number of FBI [domestic terrorism] investigations over the past two years since March 2020 has more than doubled,” Olsen testified.

…McFadden (Judge Trevor McFadden), in a December ruling, argued there was a “troubling theme” in how prosecutors handled Portland riot cases compared to Capitol riot ones.

“The Government dismissed 27 cases brought against Portland defendants, including five felony cases,” McFadden said. “Dismissal of one felony case is unusual. Dismissal of five is downright rare and potentially suspicious. Rarely has the Government shown so little interest in vigorously prosecuting those who attack federal officers.”

On February 5th, The New York Post reported:

A man convicted of attempting to set fire to a high school during the Black Lives Matter riots in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd has been sentenced to five years probation.

Mohamed Hussein Abdi, 20, was handed the probation sentence in a U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota, Thursday after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit arson, according to court documents obtained by Fox News.

Abdi was also ordered to pay just over $34,000 in restitution to Gordon Parks High School in St. Paul.

Court documents state that the sentence was “imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.”

Draw your own conclusions.

A Disturbing Statement

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported a troubling quote from President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden said Thursday that his gun violence prevention strategy is necessary to combat rising violent crime in cities across the country and that preventing the sale of certain firearms “doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights.”

“Making sure that people who are not allowed to have a gun, don’t get the gun in the first place,” the president said of his push to institute stricter background checks for firearm sales. “This doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right. There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right to talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

“There’s no amendment that’s absolute.” What? Didn’t this man take an oath stating, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

The article reports:

Biden, speaking alongside Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, additionally outlined new measures the Justice Department was taking on Thursday to clamp down on the illegal sale of “ghost guns” and other “assault” weapons. Those actions include:

    • Directing every U.S. Attorney’s office nationwide to increase resources dedicated to district-specific violent crime strategies.
    • Cracking down on the “Iron Pipeline,” an illegal flow of guns sold in the South, transported up the East Coast, and found at crime scenes in cities from Baltimore to New York City.
    • Launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, “which will train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes.”
    • Pursuing “unlawful gun sellers that put firearms in the wrong hands by taking steps such as prioritizing federal prosecutions of those who criminally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, including unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals without the required background checks.”

The president also called on Congress to approve $500 million in new funding “for proven strategies we know will reduce gun crime,” including $300 million to expand the COPS Hiring Program and $200 million for evidence-based community violence interventions.

Why is the President focusing on the guns rather than focusing on arresting criminals with guns and keeping them in jail? How many gun crimes in America are committed by repeat offenders? What does the President consider an assault weapon? These are questions that need to be answered.

Exactly Where Did The Money Go?

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner reported that Black Lives Matter shut down all of its online fundraising streams late Wednesday afternoon. California recently threatened to hold the charity’s leaders personally liable over its lack of financial transparency.

The article reports:

The move comes less than a week after a Washington Examiner investigation found that BLM has had no known leader in charge of its $60 million bankroll since its co-founder resigned in May. California and Washington recently ordered BLM to cease all fundraising activities in their blue states due to the failure of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that represents the national BLM movement, to report information about its finances in 2020, the year it raised tens of millions amid the racial protests and riots that followed George Floyd’s killing.

…The California Department of Justice told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday that “BLMGNF is prohibited from soliciting donations so long as its status is listed as delinquent.”

Despite the notice, BLM accepted a $1 donation from a Washington Examiner reporter based in California on Wednesday morning.

The California DOJ said Wednesday afternoon that it would not confirm or deny an investigation into BLM so as to “protect its integrity.”

BLM also received notice from the state of Washington on Jan. 5 to “immediately cease” all fundraising activities in the state. Washington warned the charity that it could face fines of $2,000 for each violation, but as recently as Monday, the charity accepted a $1 contribution from a Washington resident.

In April 2021, Townhall reported:

On Thursday, Facebook decided to censor a New York Post article about Black Lives Matter co-founder, Patrisse Cullors, a “trained Marxist” who has come under heavy criticism for the hypocrisy in her buying a $1.4 million home in a largely white neighborhood. The piece in question, by Isabel Vincent, from April 10, reported that “Marxist BLM leader buys $1.4 million home in ritzy LA enclave.”

On January 29, 2021, The New York Post reported:

Black Lives Matter transferred millions to a Canadian charity run by the wife of its co-founder to purchase a sprawling mansion that had once served as the headquarters of the Communist Party, public records show.

M4BJ, a Toronto-based non-profit set up by Janaya Khan and other Canadian activists, snagged the 10,000 square foot historic property for the equivalent of $6.3 million in cash in July 2021, according to Toronto property records viewed by The Post.

Khan is the wife of Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter Global Foundation Network and a self-avowed Marxist.

It seems as if there might be a number of valid reasons for shutting down the online fundraising streams for Black Lives Matter.

 

This Is Not The Path To Law And Order In America

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article detailing the next executive order dealing with police reform that President Biden is expected to sign in the near future.

The article reports:

Seven GOP senators, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, signed a letter to Biden on Friday that raised a series of concerns about the restrictions outlined in a leaked draft of the order.

…If implemented as written, the order would prevent police departments from purchasing flash or stun grenades, which are nonlethal tools used by law enforcement to disorient suspects in dangerous situations. The order also bans armored cars, which police use to navigate in active shooting situations, almost all drones, and long-range acoustic devices.

The group of Republicans also took issue with the draft order’s enforcement structure of denying local police departments access to money from the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program if police departments don’t comply with many of the order’s provisions.

Those would include “supporting alternatives to arrest and incarceration” and implementing diversity recruiting and training programs.

The news of Biden’s expected implementation of the order, which could reportedly be as soon as next week, comes as Biden has faced growing pressure from activists to pursue liberal policies in the absence of legislative action.

The article concludes:

When reform talks fell apart in September, Scott said he opposed the idea of cutting police departments off from grants in some circumstances because doing so would amount to defunding the police.

The Biden administration requested a significant increase in COPS grant funding for fiscal year 2022 — asking for $537 million, up $300 million from the previous fiscal year.

While the White House is likely to tout that request as an effort to increase police funding, Republicans are likely to argue that the Biden administration is still effectively cutting police funding by tying the grants to liberal reforms that not all police departments may be willing or able to adopt.

Federal money always comes with strings. We can see how well liberal law enforcement policies have worked in cities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles to name a few. Law enforcement works best at the local level where elected officials can be held accountable for their successes and failures. Cities that continue to elect people who will not hold criminals responsible for their crimes will continue to see crime increase.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Forgot To Report This

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, who funneled foreign campaign contributions to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, has pleaded guilty to that charge.

The article quotes a Washington Examiner article from Monday:

The Department of Justice revealed in a December sentencing memo that Nader had pleaded guilty to a single count on July 22, 2020. The court filing says Nader and Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, a Los Angeles-based chief executive of Allied Wallet, “orchestrated a scheme to funnel over $3.5 million in foreign funds into the 2016 presidential election.” The DOJ added that they “did so to gain direct access to unsuspecting high-level political figures to further their professional endeavors: in the defendant’s case, out of a desire to lobby on behalf and advance the interests of his client, the government of the United Arab Emirates; in Khawaja’s case, in the hopes of securing political appointment in the future.”

Nader was indicted in December 2019 for what prosecutors said was his role in a scheme to conceal large sums of illegal campaign contributions to help Clinton in 2016. He was accused of conspiring with Khawaja to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions to political committees associated with Clinton.

Khawaja gave more than $4 million to Clinton’s campaign and other Democrats during the 2016 cycle but later donated $1 million to former President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee after Clinton lost. As he shifted his focus to Republicans after the 2016 election, the Lebanese-born Khawaja met with Trump at a Manhattan fundraiser and got a photo with the president in the Oval Office.

If you want to get foreign money out of American politics, the Clintons might not be a bad place to start.

The Great Divide Increases

There are a lot of differing medical opinions on the coronavirus and the vaccines for the coronavirus. Somehow the prevention and treatment of a disease has become political. I don’t understand how or why that happened, but it is now a reality. The Washington Examiner posted an article on Thursday that further illustrates this divide.

The article reports:

Nearly two years after former President Donald Trump tossed politics into the nation’s battle against the coronavirus, the partisan divide appears to have grown, with Republicans fighting mandates and Democrats calling for harsh punishments for those who refuse to get vaccinated.

In an expanded survey of the public’s view of mandates and punishments to get people vaccinated, Rasmussen Reports found that Democrats even support fines, home confinement, and prison for those who fight the government on masks and shots.

…Consider: Twenty-nine percent of Democrats would go so far as to support taking children away from parents who refused to be vaccinated.

…Next came a question on President Joe Biden’s mandate that companies of 100 employees or more should demand workers to get vaccinated. Just 22% of Republicans agreed, while Democrats were all in at 78%.

Asked if voters favor a federal or state fine for those who refuse a vaccine, only 19% of Republicans said “favor” to 55% of Democrats.

The conclusion of the article is frightening:

Rasmussen next asked if people favor home confinement for those who are not vaccinated. On the GOP side, 79% were opposed, while 59% of Democrats favored it.

The survey also asked about those who challenge the government’s view of vaccines and if opponents should be jailed or fined for questioning it on social media. A remarkable 48% of Democrats supported those punishments.

And nearly half of Democrats favored fixing tracking devices on those who refused to vaccinate.

Rasmussen added that Biden supporters would go even further than Democrats.

“President Biden’s strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. Among voters who have a Very Favorable impression of Biden, 51% are in favor of government putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities,” and 54% favor imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics,” said the pollster.

It seems as if the Democrat party has forgotten the concepts of freedom and equality.

The Real Numbers

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the crisis at America’s southern border.

The article reports:

Newly revealed Immigration and Customs Enforcement data show that deportations have dropped 90% under the Biden administration, noted for its open-border policies and red tape tying the hands of immigration agents.

What’s more, removals of illegal immigrants convicted of murder, rape, and arson have experienced a dramatic drop from pre-pandemic policies put in place by the Trump administration, which put a high priority on them.

The new data were unveiled today by the Center for Immigration Studies and policy director Jessica M. Vaughan, known for her ties to ICE and Border Patrol officials. She told us that President Joe Biden’s “deliberate refusal to enforce immigration laws is one of the most clueless and egregious acts of negligence in modern government history.”

It is no surprise that deportations are down, though the level is shocking, she said in her report. When Biden came to the Oval Office, he moved swiftly to dismantle former President Donald Trump’s border policies, which had greatly slowed the flow of illegal migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes a chart showing the drop in the number of deportations and the report by the Center for Immigration Studies. It makes no sense to stop deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes in America. If the liberals in Congress and some of our states are so determined to empty out our prisons, it seems as if they might actually want to send dangerous criminals back to where they came from.

I Wonder What The Real Story Is

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported the following:

The FBI has conducted searches of at least two New York locations tied to the conservative investigative group Project Veritas, reportedly in connection with the alleged theft of a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, the youngest daughter of President Joe Biden.

“I awoke to the news that apartments and homes of Project Veritas journalists, or former journalists, had been raided by FBI agents,” Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said in a statement posted on his website on Friday. “It appears the Southern District of New York now has journalists in their sights for the supposed ‘crime’ of doing their jobs lawfully and honestly. Or at least, this journalist.”

The Biden family claims the diary was stolen in a burglary in 2020, but that may or may not be the case.

The article notes:

A right-wing outlet called the National File published dozens of pages of 40-year-old Ashley Biden’s purported diary in October 2020, with the handwritten pages covering a number of salacious, personal topics. The outlet said at the time it “has obtained what a whistleblower has identified as a copy of the complete diary” belonging to Biden’s daughter with first lady Jill Biden, as well as an audio recording of Ashley Biden, “admitting this is her diary.”

O’Keefe said Friday, “Late last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary. We had never met or heard of the tipsters. The tipsters indicated that the diary had been abandoned in a room in which Ms. Biden stayed at the time, and in which the tipsters stayed in temporarily after Ms. Biden departed the room.

“The tipsters indicated that the diary included explosive allegations against then-candidate, Joe Biden. The tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary.”

O’Keefe added, “At the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof. We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, but that attorney refused to authenticate it. Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner. We never published it.”

So where is the diary now? Why is the FBI spending its time looking for a diary?

An Interesting Reversal

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent statement by Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International.

The article reports:

Polar bears would not exist today without climate change, and they may even be thriving because of current climate trends. That’s what the co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) told scientists, economists, and academics who took part in an international conference challenging alarmist claims about global warming.

…During his talk, Moore described some of the events that helped gain notoriety for Greenpeace, such as the campaigns directed against nuclear testing and whale hunting dating back to the 1970s. He eventually felt compelled to leave Greenpeace when activists began to lose sight of their humanitarian mission while engaging in campaigns that were not rooted in sound science, he explained.

“At a philosophical level, Greenpeace had started with a strong humanitarian orientation to save human civilization from nuclear war,” Moore said. “That meant we actually liked people. That’s the peace in Greenpeace. The green, of course, was the environment. … I decided to fashion myself a sensible environmentalist basing my positions on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, and fear.”

The article concludes:

Moore also suggested there is good reason to view contemporary climate conditions as beneficial to polar bears. That’s because the reduction in sea ice during the summer months enables the sun to shine through the opening in the ocean in a manner that is beneficial to the marine life that supports the polar bear population, he said.

While commenting on energy policy, Moore called for the development of more nuclear power plants to help reduce fossil fuel use. He estimated that there are about 440 plants worldwide, but he would like to see something in the neighborhood of 4,000. Moore said he favors reducing fossil fuel use not because of carbon dioxide emissions, which he views as beneficial, but because fossil fuels should be conserved for energy needs that only those energy sources can supply.

“Fossil fuels are the most important energy for making civilization,” Moore said. In fact, he added, fossil fuels are “causing us to live longer and live better.”

It is interesting that Moore currently is a director for the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit group that includes scientists devoted to highlighting the benefits of carbon dioxide. He has written a book titled Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. I suspect his return to actual science has not been well received by those at Greenpeace.

 

 

Censorship Abounds

This morning as I was doing my research for this blog, I came across the following article, “Ohio lawmakers propose school choice for all students” at the Washington Examiner. In the morning when I come across an article I think I would like to post on my blog, I copy the link and post it in the Right Wing Granny group on Facebook. Imagine my surprise when it didn’t post and Facebook told me it did not meet the community standards. Wow.

Here are some excerpts from the Washington Examiner article:

Two Ohio lawmakers want to give all Ohio students the option of school choice and create K-12 education competition, which they say would raise the level of public and private education throughout the state.

The Ohio Backpack Bill, originally introduced in May and updated with a sub-bill to House Bill 290 , would allow all parents to send their children to public school or establish an education savings account. The state would send the money earmarked for that student to the public school or into the parent’s account, allowing it to be used for private school tuition or other education expenses.

…The state sends money allocated for each student to the public school district. If a student qualifies for school choice through income-eligibility, the local public school district sends the money to private school.

“It’s about students and increasing the education opportunities for all. This bill seeks to find the right educational opportunity for each of the children in Ohio,” Rep. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, said. “It creates a true money-follows-the-child program. Money goes to public school if parents want, and if a parent wants an educational scholarship account, then the state has to put that money in that account, which the parent can use for education expenses.”

The bill addresses only state education funding. Local public school districts still would collect local and federal money. The average state expense per student is $6,600, according to Christian Education Network Executive Director Troy McIntosh. The legislation would allocate $5,500 per K-9 student and $7,500 for 9-12 students.

“This is not a bill intended to benefit the kids that want to run off and attend a private school,” McIntosh said. “We want this bill to benefit every student in Ohio. An overwhelming majority of parents are realizing and asking for this sort of program.”

The state treasurer would oversee the program. Educations savings accounts could be used for private school tuition, homeschool expenses, tutoring, books and other educational expenses.

“This model is not new. This approach is gaining momentum in Ohio and nationwide,” McClain said. “We want to fund students not systems. When parents have options, they are more engaged. When schools compete for students, children’s outcomes rise.”

The article concludes:

Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer said the bill would give parents recourse in districts similar to Upper Arlington, which recently created single-sex bathrooms, or others that imposed mask mandates.

I suspect the previous paragraph is what caused the problem on Facebook.

What Will Be The Long-Term Impact Of This?

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article today about what is happening with the Haitian refugees that are coming into our country right now.

The article quotes the Associated Press:

Many Haitian migrants camped in a small Texas border town are being released in the United States, two U.S. officials said, undercutting the Biden administration’s public statements that the thousands in the camp faced immediate expulsion.

Haitians have been freed on a “very, very large scale” in recent days, according to one U.S. official who put the figure in the thousands. The official, with direct knowledge of operations who was not authorized to discuss the matter Tuesday and thus spoke on condition of anonymity.

Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days, an outcome that requires less processing time from Border Patrol agents than ordering an appearance in immigration court and points to the speed at which authorities are moving, the official said.

The Homeland Security Department has been busing Haitians from Del Rio to El Paso, Laredo and Rio Grande Valley along the Texas border, and this week added flights to Tucson, Arizona, the official said. They are processed by the Border Patrol at those locations.

The article notes that a U.S. official has stated that large numbers of Haitians are being released into America rather than being sent home as we have been told.

Meanwhile, Yahoo News reported the following yesterday:

Haitians deported from the U.S. on Tuesday assaulted the pilots on board one of the flights when it arrived in Port-au-Prince and injured three U.S. immigration officers, according to a source familiar with internal reports of the incident.

Unrest broke out shortly after a flight carrying single adult men arrived and released the men to Haitian authorities on the tarmac. Then, the source said, several of the men stormed another recently arrived flight carrying families.

The men assaulted the pilots of that plane, who work for a government contractor licensed to fly deportation flights for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while the families were still on board. Three ICE officers were also attacked on that plane, each suffering non-life-threatening injuries, the source said.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported:

Haitian migrants who were being transported on a federally contracted private bus away from the border revolted during the ride and overtook control of the commercial vehicle before escaping, according to two law enforcement officials.

A large white bus bound for San Antonio, Texas, was overtaken Monday afternoon during the two-and-a-half-hour trip from the international bridge in Del Rio. The migrants on board had been picked up from the makeshift migrant camp, where thousands are waiting to be taken into custody, two federal law enforcement agents told the Washington Examiner.

“They did break out of the bus, and they did escape,” a senior federal law enforcement official confirmed to the Washington Examiner on Tuesday.

There seems to be a pattern here, and it is not a good one.

Letting Down Our Citizens And Our Allies

On Friday, The Washington Examiner is reporting the following:

Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue has told his British Army counterpart, a high-ranking field-grade officer of the British army’s 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, that British operations were embarrassing the United States military in the absence of similar U.S. military operations, according to multiple military sources. I understand that the British officer firmly rejected the request.

Col. Joe Buccino, a spokesman for the XVIII Airborne Corps, denied that Donahue made such a request.

“The XVIII Airborne Corps denies the central thrust of this story,” the spokesman said. “Specifically, Gen. Chris Donahue, whose sole focus is security at HKIA, never made such a request to any British Army officials and would have no motive for doing so.”

The article concludes:

A bureaucratic tug of war between the State Department, Pentagon, and White House is also disrupting evacuation operations out of Kabul. This is aggravating British, French, and other Kabul-present military authorities. I understand that these governments have been further aggravated by the failure of the White House and Pentagon to communicate adequately, or in some cases, to communicate at all, on their intentions and actions. All these allies admit, however, that only the U.S. military could provide the airfield defense and air traffic control capabilities now on display.

Still, as I noted on Wednesday , the Biden administration’s conduct of the Afghanistan withdrawal has raised deep concerns by allies as to the administration’s credibility and confidence. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, allied officials reemphasized this concern to me on Friday.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It has been a long time since America has so totally botched a military operation and alienated our allies at the same time. In this case I am more inclined to believe the British account of the incident than the American account. Our military leadership does not seem to be reliable right now.

This Really Is Not Surprising

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about what is happening at America’s southern border.

The article reports:

Unprecedented numbers of known or suspected terrorists have crossed the southern border in recent months, the outgoing Border Patrol chief said.

The head of the Border Patrol, Rodney Scott, told his 19,000 agents before retiring on Aug. 14 that their national security mission is paramount right now despite the Biden administration’s focus on migrant families and children who are coming across the United States-Mexico boundary at record rates.

“Over and over again, I see other people talk about our mission, your mission, and the context of it being immigration or the current crisis today being an immigration crisis,” Scott said in a video message to agents, obtained by the Washington Examiner. “I firmly believe that it is a national security crisis. Immigration is just a subcomponent of it, and right now, it’s just a cover for massive amounts of smuggling going across the southwest border — to include TSDBs at a level we have never seen before. That’s a real threat.”

TSDB refers to known or suspected terrorists, as identified in the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database.

The article concludes:

The Washington Examiner was first to report in June that Biden administration officials were forcing out Scott at Border Patrol headquarters in Washington after 16 months on the job.

One person with firsthand knowledge of Scott’s decision said in May that Scott was told to retire, resign, or move away from headquarters. The decision by Scott’s bosses was “completely driven by politics,” even though Scott’s position is apolitical and he is a 29-year employee of the Border Patrol.

“I did choose to retire, but I am not retiring to run away from this crisis. I’m just going to fight for you from a slightly different angle,” Scott said in his message to agents, though he did not explain his future plans.

“I am asking each one of you to look in the mirror and remind yourself, and if you haven’t thought about it before, think about the fact that you are not immigration police and our job is not immigration on the border,” Scott said. “Our job is to know who and what comes in this country and then to filter it out based on the rules applied by Congress and by law. That’s critically important, and when you put it in the context of immigration only, I think you miss the bigger fight. This job is extremely important. Your mission’s very important.”

Firing competent people is not the path to good government.

Closing Which Border?

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about the border policies of the Biden administration.

The article reports:

Members of President Joe Biden’s party are upset about his decision not to allow Canadians into the United States despite Canada’s plan to begin admitting Americans in the coming weeks.

“As Canada prepares to further open the border next month, the United States is failing to reciprocate, jeopardizing an already tenuous recovery for thousands of businesses, families and communities across Upstate New York,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in a statement. “It is critical for the United States to level the playing field and create a uniform system, following the science and data, to safely — and finally — reopen the border for those vaccinated.”

In Washington state, Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene said the move would prompt “further suffering in our border communities.” Rep. Brian Higgins, a New York Democrat, agreed, adding the negative impact would be felt across the 5,500-mile border between the continental U.S. and Canada.

Since March 21, 2020, the government has not allowed foreigners on “nonessential” travel to enter the U.S. at a land port of entry as a pandemic measure. However, people from outside the U.S. are often permitted to fly into the country from abroad.

Why are we closing our northern border to Canadian citizens while allowing illegal immigrants to flow freely into America at our southern border?

The article continues:

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the decision as being based on a “specific threat to human life or national interests” as the COVID-19 delta variant spreads worldwide and cases spike in the U.S. and Mexico.

More than 75 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Biden earlier this month asking him to reinstate international travel fully because the closure cost $125 billion in export profits last year.

While land ports of entry remain closed on the southern and northern borders, hundreds of thousands of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border since February. Tens of thousands of migrants have been allowed to go deeper into the U.S., even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in 2020 all migrants be turned away at the border and not detained or released into the U.S.

Migrants are not given coronavirus vaccines before they’re released from federal custody.

So I guess illegal immigrants are going to be allowed to spread the coronavirus while the Canadians who have been vaccinated and probably won’t spread the coronavirus are kept out of America. In what world does this make sense?

Big Brother Is Watching

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The article reports:

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra argued that the federal government is entitled to know who in the United States has been vaccinated, responding to anger from GOP House members who say the Biden administration is infringing on personal liberty.

“Perhaps we should point out that the federal government has had to spend trillions of dollars to try to keep Americans alive during this pandemic, so it is absolutely the government’s business. It is taxpayers’ business if we have to continue to spend money to try to keep people from contracting COVID and helping reopen the economy,” Becerra said on CNN Thursday.

Unfortunately, there is a clause in the HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) law that allows the government to collect this information.

According to the CDC:

The Privacy Rule allows for the existing practice of sharing PHI with public health authorities that are authorized by law to collect or receive such information to aid them in their mission of protecting the health of the public.

So essentially all the government has to do is say that it is necessary for them to have your personal information regarding the Covid-19 vaccine in order to deal with the Covid-19 epidemic.

The article concludes:

Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs tweeted Wednesday, “In 2021, the nine most terrifying words in the English language: ‘I’m from the government, have you been vaccinated yet?’” Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert, meanwhile, tweeted Tuesday, “Door to door to vaccinate Americans this year… door to door to confiscate guns next year?”

To date, more than 67% of U.S. adults have received at least one dose of vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Roughly 58% of adults have been fully vaccinated.

And how many Americans have natural immunity because they have had the disease? When I had my antibodies checked seven months after having Covid-19, I still had antibodies. Why would I want to get the shot to do the same thing?

When The Justice Department Is Compromised

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported the following:

President Joe Biden has, for a second time, selected a nominee with ties to his son Hunter Biden for a top post at the Justice Department, picking a former longtime partner at the law firm where his son worked for years and that was involved in helping the younger Biden in his business dealings with Burisma.

Biden announced on Friday that he had nominated Hampton Dellinger, a Yale Law School graduate and former deputy attorney general in North Carolina, to be assistant attorney general for DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy. Dellinger’s LinkedIn indicates he founded Hampton Dellinger PLLC in November after working as a partner at Boies, Schiller, and Flexner from May 2013 through last year. Hunter Biden was a counsel at the same firm, starting there in 2010 and reportedly leaving in 2017. In 2014, the president’s son landed the Ukrainian energy giant as a client for the firm and took a lucrative position on its board.

Biden discussed the firm’s involvement in the Burisma saga in his memoir, Beautiful Things.

“I brought Burisma to Boies Schiller Flexner. … They wanted to see whether Burisma was legit or plagued with corruption before taking them on,” he wrote.

The article also notes:

Devon Archer, a business associate of Hunter Biden, was convicted in 2018 for securities fraud and conspiracy charges. Biden sent an email to Archer in April 2014 just over a week before then-Vice President Joe Biden gave a press conference with Ukraine’s prime minister, with Hunter Biden writing, “The announcement of my guys [sic] upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” In the laptop emails obtained by the New York Post, Hunter Biden also wrote to Archer about his financial expectations, saying, “If we are not protected financially regardless of the outcome we could find ourselves frozen out of a lot of current and future opportunities. The contract should begin now — not after the upcoming visit of my guy. That should include a retainer in the range of 25k p/m [$25,000 per month] w/ additional fees where appropriate for more in depth work to go to BSF [Boies Schiller Flexner] for our protection. Complete separate from our respective deals re board participation.”

In 2019, The New York Times reported that “unreported financial data from the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office show the company paid $283,000 to Boies Schiller for legal services in 2014.”

Burisma adviser Vadym Pozharskyi messaged Hunter Biden and Archer in May 2014, according to laptop emails obtained by Fox News in October, worrying about “one or more pretrial proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs with regard to Burisma Holdings.” Pozharskyi told Biden that “we urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions.”

Please follow the link to the article to read the entire story.

I have stated before–President Biden is not responsible for the behavior of his adult son. However, he is responsible for enabling, aiding, and abetting that behavior when it is illegal. To appoint people to the Justice Department who have ties to Hunter Biden’s questionable activities is a slap in the face to all Americans who believe in equal justice under the law.

Is there anyone in the Justice Department who cares about the reputation of the Department?