Fighting With Facts

I will admit that in doing research for this blog, I read a lot of news. However, I don’t think I am any smarter than the average America. I may be better informed, but that is a choice I made. Anyone can make that choice. I believe that one of the major problems in America right now is that people are believing what they are told and not doing their own research. That was recently illustrated in a post at Townhall by Larry Elder.

The article reports:

A couple of years ago, I gave a speech before a conservative, predominantly white audience. I couldn’t help but notice a tall, heavyset Black man, arms folded, standing in the back. From time to time, I would look at him, only to see him frown and shake his head, I assumed disapprovingly, when I made what I considered important points.

After the speech, he came up to me. “I am angry,” he said. “Not at you — at myself. I thought I was well informed. I read the news. I watch the news. I now see I’ve been manipulated by the party that I voted for all my life.”

The article lists the things that the man learned from Larry Elder’s speech:

He said he had no idea that (according to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study) 44% of Philadelphia public school teachers send their own school-age kids to private school. Yet the Democratic Party adamantly opposes school vouchers, which would give K-12 children of urban parents a chance at a better school.

He did not know that Democrats, including President Barack Obama, tried to end the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program. It is a lottery that allows fortunate parents to opt out of their local public school for a better private school. The program is so popular that there are far more parents who want to participate than there are seats. “What’s more important, ” he asked me, “than making sure are kids are well educated?”

He did not know that, in 1965, 25% of Black kids were born outside of wedlock, versus 70% today, a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to slavery and Jim Crow. He did not know that Barack Obama once said, “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

…He did not know that, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, illegal immigration creates winners and losers. But the big losers are low- and unskilled American workers of color who compete against low- and unskilled illegal immigrant workers — who place downward pressure on the wages of the native-born.

The man did not know that, according to The Washington Post, in recent years, more unarmed whites have been killed by the police than unarmed Blacks. He was unaware of studies, including one by a Black Harvard economist, that found the police more hesitant, more reluctant, to pull the trigger on a Black suspect than on a white suspect. He did not know that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, police killings of Blacks declined almost 80% from the late ’60s through the 2010s, while police killings of whites have flatlined.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We need to remember that bias in reporting is not only reflected in the way things are reported, it is also reflected by the things relevant to a story that are not mentioned.

Beware Of Executive Orders That Sound Good

Most Americans want everyone who is entitled to vote to be able to vote and have their vote counted. They also want to make sure that illegal votes are not counted. Somehow the rhetoric surrounding voting rights has overlooked the idea of registering and counting only legal votes. This is not overtly stated, but when you look closely, you find very little interest in maintaining accurate voting laws and making sure voters are who they say they are.

Townhall posted an article today about an Executive Order by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden on Sunday signed an executive order aimed at expanding voting rights. It’s the Biden administration’s latest move to expand voting rights as they push the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the House Democrats’ bill to radically transform America’s election system, including prohibiting voter ID laws and mandating taxpayers fund political campaigns.

“It is the policy of my Administration to promote and defend the right to vote for all Americans who are legally entitled to participate in elections,” the executive order stated. “It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to expand access to, and education about, voter registration and election information, and to combat misinformation, in order to enable all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.”

Article 1 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Why are the Democrats in Congress trying to take this right away from the states?

Why is voter ID considered restrictive? You need an ID to do almost anything in America–receive medical treatment, open a bank account, board an airplane, buy liquor, take out a loan, etc.. Why not be required to show an ID to prove you are an eligible voter and that you are who you say you are?

President Biden Needs To Watch His Words

President Biden, who ran on a promise to re-unite the country has not been doing a very good job of keeping that promise. Some of the remarks he has recently made are totally unacceptable. Townhall posted an article on March 4th about Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s response to some recent remarks by President Biden.

The article reports:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has been taking heat from Democrats and progressives after he announced the state will be completely reopening and the mask mandate will be lifted. His actions have caused such a stir that it prompted criticism from President Joe Biden.

Biden, referring to both Texas and Mississippi, said lifting the COVID-19 lockdowns was “neanderthal thinking” and a “big mistake.”

Abbott was asked to respond to Biden’s comments during his interview on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.

“Two things, Brian, first, obviously it is not the type of thing that a president should be saying, but second, he kind of said it on the worst day he could have. Because the same day he said that, in Texas, the Biden administration was releasing illegal immigrants into our communities who had COVID,” Abbott said.

“The Biden administration was spreading COVID in south Texas yesterday because of their lack of constraint of testing and quarantining, people come across the border illegally. The Biden administration was exposing Texas to COVID,” Abbott continued. “That is a neanderthal type approach dealing with the COVID situation.”

Americans are required to quarantine, wear masks, social distance, etc., while illegal aliens are allowed to freely roam about the country??!! There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

 

Lying About The Numbers

Townhall posted an article today about the number of people who are in America illegally. The mainstream media frequently states that there are 11 million people in America illegally. That is the number being used when amnesty for everyone here illegally is discussed. But it is interesting to consider that 11 million was the number given during the 1990’s when the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) held her commission on immigration reform back. Are we to assume that the number has not increased since then? Somehow I doubt that.

In January, Breitbart reported the following:

Roughly 14.5 million illegal aliens live across the United States, costing American taxpayers about $134 billion every year, a new study reveals.

An annual study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that the illegal alien population in the U.S. has grown by at least 200,000 since 2019 and has cost taxpayers an additional $2 billion since last year.

That is probably a low estimate of the number of people here illegally and the cost of having them here. To put the number of illegal aliens in perspective, the population of New York City is approximately 8 million. The population of America is approximately 328 million. What impact would granting citizenship to 11 million people who may not understand the government or the responsibilities of citizenship in America have on our country?

Townhall reports that the Tucker Carlson show on the Fox News reported the following:

The “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021,” unveiled by Democrats earlier this month, would provide a pathway to citizenship for what many have said to be “11 million” currently illegal immigrants.

After pointing out studies from Yale and MIT suggesting the number is much higher, Carlson spent several minutes explaining how the bank Bear Stearns used bank transfers, remittances, and other data points to estimate the immigrant population “to be as high as 20 million” 16 years ago, in 2005.

“That was all 16 years ago,” Carlson said. “And now, in 2021, the party in charge is still assuring us that the number of illegal immigrants in this country has somehow declined by up to 10 million people. Could that be true?”

“How insulting is that, even to float that idea?” he continued. “Consider everything that has happened since 2006. Amnesty for the so-called dreamers, the promises of mass amnesty, the endless caravans. So the 11 million number is above all, a lie. The 11 million number is one of the more obvious lies ever told. We’re a TV show. We are not social scientists, and it took about an hour to find this out. It’s a ridiculous lie.”

I am in favor of changing our immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally. However, we are currently in the middle of a pandemic and the economic consequences of that pandemic. I would strongly suggest that we work to get Americans back to work and on their feet before we open the gates wide to allow more people to come to America.

 

When The Government Decides What Businesses Are Good

There are those in Congress who are supposed to represent us that believe that the government should be able to decide whether a business should be allowed to operate or not. We have seen a lot of this during the coronavirus outbreak, but unfortunately that may only be a preview of things to come.

Yesterday Townhall reported the following:

Millions of Americans are out of work due to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Thousands more are unemployed because of President Joe Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite the tough times, progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) believes “now is the right time” for Congress to press forward with a $15-an-hour minimum wage, something they tied to the latest COVID relief package.

According to Khanna, Amazon and Target made a decision to raise their minimum wage to $15-an-hour across the nation. As a result, Khanna says, the companies have produced more jobs (yet he doesn’t take into account that more people are shopping online due to lockdown restrictions and the pandemic).

The Representative evidently does not see the value of every small business:

“Businesses like Amazon and McDonald’s, for example, can and perhaps should, pay more, but I’m wondering, what is your plan for smaller businesses?” CNN’s Abby Phillip asked. “How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?”

“Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages,” Khanna replied. “We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

According to the congressman, if workers were paid for their productivity, they would be making $23-an-hour.

“I love small businesses. I’m all for it but I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees,” he said. “It’s fair for people to make what they’re producing and I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

I have posted numerous articles about the job losses that will result from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The ideas of this Representative would not only limit the access to the workplace for young people seeking jobs, it would also cause the mom and pop restaurants and small shops either to close or to cause the owners to have to work 70-hour weeks because they can’t afford to pay anyone the minimum wage.

This Congressmen has not studied economics. He also needs a serious less on being compassionate to those who are struggling to keep a small business going.

It’s Time To Return To Single-Issue Bills

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about some of the items included in the coronavirus relief bill proposed by the Democrats. The bill is 591 pages long, and needless to say, is not all relevant to coronavirus relief.

The article lists some of the items:

The 591-page document includes another round of stimulus checks. Individuals making less than $75,000 will receive a $1,400 check. Couples earning less than $150,000 will receive a combined $2,800. As an individual or couple’s income increases, their stimulus amount decreases.

Of the $1.9 trillion, $350 billion will go towards states and local governments. Unemployment benefits will provide Americans with $400 a week on top of their state-issued benefits.

Under this bill, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is replenished with $7 billion in additional funding. The Emergency Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program will also receive $15 billion.

In addition, the bill ups the child tax credit to $3,600 for children six and under. That credit drops to $3,000 for kids ages seven to 17.

There are, however, a number of questionable liberal wishlist items in the bill. If passed and signed into law, the federal minimum wage – which currently sits at $7.25-an-hour – would increase to $15-an-hour over the next five years.

…Democrats set aside $50 million for “family planning.” As of now, the Hyde Amendment is in place, which bars taxpayer funds from being used for abortion. This, however, could set the stage for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment down the road. If this bill is passed and Congress later repeals Hyde, money that was funded in this relief bill could theoretically be used for abortion.

…Although higher education has teetered because of the virus, Howard University is the only higher education facility that would be given money to recoup funds lost during the pandemic. Gallaudet University is listed in the bill, but it’s a specialized university for students who are hard of hearing.

It is important to note that Vice President Kamala Harris is an alumna of Howard University, which is an unlikely coincidence.

…Another $135 million would be allocated for the arts and humanities, likely museums that received funding during the CARES ACT.

It is time to bring back legislation that deals with one issue at a time. Some of the items in this bill will actually do damage rather than solve problems. For instance, the $15 a hour minimum wage is likely to result in the closure of any small business that was not closed by the government shutdowns. This relief bill is looking like the Obamacare bill which became law in 2010. That law cost the Democrats their majorities in Congress. If this relief bill is passed without Republican votes, the result will probably be the same.

 

The Cost Of A $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

What would be the cost of waging the minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour? Townhall posted an article today about the consequences.

The article notes five negative consequences of a $15 an hour minimum wage:

It will destroy jobs

According to the Congressional Budge Office upwards of 1.4 million jobs will be lost if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. The cost of doing business will increase and the number of jobs will decrease.

It will hurt low-skilled workers

Low-skilled jobs will be the ones being lost, denying low-skilled workers entrance to the work force.

It will cause inflation

When the cost of doing business goes up, the price of the item produced goes up.

The rich will get richer

Bid companies can absorb the additional cost; small businesses probably cannot. This helps big corporations get rid of their competition.

It will hurt red states the most

Generally speaking, red states are well run and have a lower cost of living than blue states. A sudden increase in the minimum wage would skew their economic profile, causing a sharp increase in their cost of living.

The article concludes:

Yes, people are struggling. I’m not denying that. But an oft-hidden fact is that employers are struggling too … to find workers willing to work … and they are adjusting their rates accordingly. Indeed, the average hourly wage has risen from just under $14 per hour in 2000 to over $25 today. If employers could get workers for less, they would. Instead, the MARKET has forced them to gradually raise wages in order to compete with other employers for labor. Working against this, ironically, is Democrat-encouraged immigration, which serves to dampen wage prospects for lower-skilled employees forced to compete with counterparts used to making less than 50 cents on the hour.

If we’re suddenly jumping from $7.25 to $15, it’s hard not to ask why they wouldn’t just go all out and say $20? Hell, why not $30, or even $50? Everyone in America should have the ‘right’ to a six-figure income, right? No? The same problems anyone with an IQ above 60 could see with such a proposal apply just as much at $15. Of course, none of this has ever been about logic, just politics.

We need the people in Congress to study economics.

A Moderate That May Not Be So Moderate

Townhall posted an article today about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Senator Manchin is currently seen as a possible brake on some of the more radical policies being discussed by the Biden regime. A recent remark during an interview might cast a shadow on that idea.

The article reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has become the moderate Democrat with much more sense than his colleagues. He repeatedly said he thought impeaching President Donald Trump, for a second time, was “ill-advised,” especially since there are not 19 Republicans in the Senate that would move to convict. But now the West Virginia senator has a suggestion: using the 14th Amendment to remove Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) from office.

“Let me read you what the 14th Amendment, Section 3 says. ‘No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’ Would you support, senator, the removal of Sen. Hawley and Sen. Cruz, through the 14th Amendment Section 3?” PBS News’ Margaret Hoover asked. 

‘Well, they should look – absolutely. I mean, basically, that should be a consideration. And he should you know, he understands that, Ted’s a very bright individual and I get along fine with Ted. But what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities,” Manchin explained. “Listen to the conversations that people have had, listen to some of the congress people that are still speaking, you know? Listen, around the country, people in different law, in elected positions, these people should be held accountable, because it’s sedition.”

Manchin went on to explain that the United States was formed because our Founding Fathers were tired of living under the tyrannical rule of King George. They believed in a republic so much that they “gave up everything” in pursuit of this new adventure. In his eyes, Cruz and Hawley’s objections to certifying the election results went against the Founding Fathers’ intentions and beliefs.

First of all, how did Senators Hawley and Cruz engage in insurrection? Was it because they contested the 2020 presidential election?

Might I remind you (from Fox News December 31, 2020)

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

If Democrats want to bring Americans together and heal our divide, this is not the way to do it.

Wise Words From A Wise Man

Dennis Prager posted an article at Townhall on Tuesday about what is currently happening in America. Dennis Prager is a student of history.

In an earlier article, posted January 5th, he states:

As a student of totalitarianism since my graduate studies at the Russian Institute of Columbia University’s School of International Affairs (as it was then known), I have always believed that only in a dictatorship could a society be brainwashed. I was wrong. I now understand that mass brainwashing can take place in a nominally free society. The incessant left-wing drumbeat of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and almost every other major newspaper, plus The Atlantic, The New Yorker, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, all of Hollywood and almost every school from kindergarten through graduate school, has brainwashed at least half of America every bit as effectively as the German, Soviet and Chinese communist press did (and in the latter case, still does). That thousands of schools will teach the lie that is the New York Times’ “1619 Project” is one of countless examples.

In the latter article he reminds us of some history:

On Jan. 6, 2021, a right-wing mob of a few hundred people broke away from a peaceful right-wing protest involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of American conservatives and forced its way into the U.S. Capitol. One Capitol policeman was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, and one of the right-wing Capitol invaders was shot by a Capitol police officer. (A handful of others who died in the vicinity of the Capitol did so of nonviolent causes.) Aside from smashed windows, the mob seems to have done little damage to the Capitol. Their intent is still not clear. It seems to have been largely catharsis. They hurt no legislators, and if they intended to overthrow the government, they were delusional.

Beginning the next day, the American left used the Capitol mob just as the Nazis used the Reichstag: as an excuse to subjugate its conservative enemies and further squelch civil liberties in America — specifically, freedom of speech.

The article lists the lies told about the event:

The first was blaming the attack on President Donald Trump. Over and over, in every left-wing medium and stated repeatedly by Democrats, Trump is blamed for “inciting” the riot in his speech just before it took place. Almost never is a Trump quote cited. Because there is none. On the contrary, he did say, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (italics added).

Another lie was the immediate labeling of the mob attack on the Capitol as “insurrection.” All left-wing media and Democrats now refer to the event as an “insurrection,” a term defined by almost every dictionary as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As morally repulsive as the actions of the mob were, they did not constitute a revolt against civil authority or an established government. Disrupting the work of legislators for a few hours — as wrong as that was — does not constitute a “revolt.”

The article points out that the riots of last summer were never labeled as “insurrections.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being snookered by a liberal media and by politicians with agendas that are not in line with American principles or the well being of average Americans. It truly is time to wake up to what is happening.

Losing Your Job For Attending A Rally

Townhall posted an article today about a public school teacher in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who attended the Trump rally in Washington on Wednesday.

The article reports:

Hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday to protest an election many consider to be unfair. One of those attendees, a public school teacher in Allentown, Pennsylvania, has been relieved of duty pending a formal investigation into his attendance at Wednesday’s protest. 

“Because of the emotion and controversy stirred by the events of January 6, 2021, the teacher has been temporarily relieved of his teaching duties until the School District can complete a formal investigation of his involvement,” reads a statement from Allentown School District Superintendent Thomas Parker. 

You can now be relieved of duty because people are emotional. 

The article concludes:

The superintendent said the district remains committed to meeting “the academic, social, and emotional needs” of students.

“Thank you for your support in creating a safe, equitable, and inclusive environment for students to raise questions and develop a diversity of perspectives about our community, our nation, and the world in which we live,” Thomas added. 

The statement was also provided in Spanish.

Everybody has come out and condemned the rioting that took place on Wednesday. Those who engage in criminal acts at protests should absolutely be prosecuted (and not bailed out by Democrats). But those who peacefully protest are exercising their First Amendment rights and should not be at risk of losing their jobs. Just because some in the protest engaged in criminal acts, doesn’t mean you did. If we changed that standard, just about every elected Democrat would be out of work, which wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world but you can’t count on Democrats to apply rules to themselves. They’re big on rules for thee but not for me. 

Firing a teacher for attending a rally does not seem like it encourages diversity. I sincerely hope a large lawsuit follows. The school superintendent is violating the teacher’s First Amendment rights.

What’s Good For The Goose…

Townhall posted a very interesting article today about the possibility of a government shutdown.

The article notes:

In late September, Congress passed a bill to keep the government funded at current levels through this Friday. Trump has refused to sign the comprehensive funding bill tied to providing new $600 stimulus checks to qualifying Americans. It’s clear that they don’t have much time to resolve their disagreements and pass a law President Trump will support.

Most likely, they will pass another extension, but Trump has already signaled he would rather use a pocket veto and let the next president handle the issue than sign a bill he can’t support. Such a standoff risks a government shutdown if a solution cannot be passed and signed.

President Trump has had three shutdowns in his term as president, the longest being 35 days between December 2018 and January 2019 over the issue of funding for the border wall. That shutdown forced about 800,000 federal government workers to go on furlough without pay. If an extension is not passed to avoid a shutdown, thousands of government workers considered nonessential would again be furloughed or forced to work without pay until the shutdown ends.

Government leaders love to say how they experience our pain for the lockdowns generated in many Democrat controlled states and cities during the COVID Pandemic restrictions. Many Americans have lost jobs; some have lost their businesses. Government workers can talk as though they understand, but they’ve had no cuts in salary or their retirement plans. They have been insulated from the consequences of their own actions.

While small business and their employees have been suffering, big box stores and Amazon have seen large profits. While your neighborhood restaurants and bars have been closed, many larger restaurants with more physical space have managed to remain open at partial capacity. The impact of the shutdowns has been very uneven, with small businesses and their owners being hit the hardest. Meanwhile, Congress and federal employees have continued to receive full paychecks. The people who made the decision to shut down have generally not suffered the consequences of that decision. Seems a little unfair.

The article concludes:

Currently, government workers have no skin in the game. There is no shared sacrifice. When any shutdown furlough ends, they’re usually paid retroactively for what income they lost. What do our citizens get for having their businesses closed and their jobs lost—$600 or maybe $1,200. Citizens will get crumbs and the promise of higher taxes.

President Trump came to Washington to take on the swamp. It put up more of a fight than expected. In fact, if the results of this election stand, the swamp will have won. The Biden administration has no plan to cut back the size of government. No, his plan is to feed the beast and free it to take control of more of your life.

Could we shut down government for two years until the mid-term elections? Unfortunately, probably not.

It’s time for the President to just say no to the ridiculous pork in the spending bill and send more money to the people who have actually been hurt by the shutdowns.

Some Suggested Solutions To Election Fraud

On Monday Townhall posted an article containing suggestions on how to prevent election fraud. Admittedly, the horse has already left the stable, but we need to figure out what to do to avoid future election fiascos.

The article notes:

The truth is that country-wide popular elections are a modern advent. Our country started out with mostly legislative selection of electors. In our nation’s first presidential election, six of the 10 states appointed electors by direct legislative appointment, without holding popular elections. In the second presidential election, nine of the 15 states did the same. In the third, nine of the 16 states did not hold popular elections.

Today, Americans don’t trust their state legislatures with that responsibility. We practice popular vote elections for electors. But with 150 million or so people voting, problems are bound to occur.

States were entrusted with administration of federal elections, but Congress was entrusted with oversight of the same.

The article reminds us of the responsibilities of the state and federal government as outlined in the Constitution:

The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides Congress with broad authority to regulate congressional elections: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, adds: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

In 1879, the Supreme Court determined that Congress may make election law regulations and may alter them; and, that federal law supersede state law if there is a conflict, “for the power of Congress over the subject is paramount. It may be exercised as and when Congress sees fit to exercise it.” 

Exercising their powers, Congress has passed legislation to regulate the timing of federal elections, voter registration requirements, absentee voting requirements, accessibility provisions for the elderly and handicapped, and prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices.

But federal election laws, compared to Congressional legislation in other areas, are lacking.

The article proposes several solutions to the problem of voter fraud:

Congress must act. Half of the country believes the 2020 election was determined by impure votes. That’s a problem and one to which Congress holds the key to prevent from recurring. Congress must exercise its right, and its responsibility, to “pass laws for the free, pure and safe exercise” of the right to vote.

New laws must limit the time for casting a vote in the elections. New laws must regulate the types of equipment/voting machines that can be used and what kind of safeguards they must have to preserve the integrity of the votes. New laws must regulate “improper use of money” or dark money interjected to influence our elections — this is a power Congress “undoubtedly” possesses according to the Supreme Court. These are but some of the concerns that plagued the 2020 election. The list is extensive and Congress must address voter concerns accordingly.

As far as the four states at the heart of the 2020 election tumult, we can address our national grievances with them by demanding that Congress attach conditions to federal funds sent to, or even deny funding to, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia, until they implement acceptable changes to their election administration. Congressional spending power is a potent tool of persuasion.

Congress is responsible to every eligible American voter, certainly to the 150 million who voted in the 2020 election, to enact laws to preserve the purity of federal elections. This is their job. Their job is not to tweet about free college for all, it’s to protect federal elections. It is our job to make sure our elected representatives do their job.

Congress, do your job!

This Should Make Every Small Business Owner In America Furious

On Friday, Townhall posted an article about some recent comments by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the stimulus bill that has been held up in Congress for months.

The article reports:

When asked by CNN reporter Manu Raju if it was a “mistake” to wait months for a concerted effort to pass a clean COVID relief bill, Pelosi got defensive.

“I’m going to tell you something — don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake, as a preface to your question if you want an answer. That was not a mistake, it was a decision, and it’s taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. Now, that is it. Now the fact is, I’m very proud of where we are,” Pelosi said.

She went on to say the reason why she wants to pass a bill now is because Joe Biden has been declared the winner of the presidential election and a number of vaccines are being produced.

What sort of logic is this? Small business owners have been suffering for months, and she is holding up a bill until after the presidential election!

The good news here is that the Democrats have lost seats in the House in this past election, and hopefully some Democrats will be willing to work with Republicans to craft legislation that could actually pass the Senate. It is time for the Democrats to put away the ideas that their radical base loves and embrace ideas that everyday Americans love. If you want to see a shining example of a bill that will go nowhere in a sane Congress, just look at HR1, the first bill the Pelosi House passed when the Democrats took over the House. The bill sought to federalize elections, make it more difficult to remove voters from voter rolls after their status had changed. The bill would also limit the ability of states to find duplicate voter registrations.

It’s time to work on bi-partisan legislation that will actually be good for the American people.

 

When Do We Get The Vaccine?

Townhall posted an article today about the coronavirus vaccine.

The article reports:

James Hildreth, a top vaccine adviser for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said the federal agency will decide on Thursday whether or not it will grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine candidate. 

“We’ll spend the day on Thursday reviewing the data from Pfizer, and at the end of the day, a vote will be taken. So, by the end of the day next Thursday, there could be a decision made about the vaccine,” Hildreth told NBC News on Saturday.

As far as when the first vaccinations might happen in the United States, the FDA adviser said that could begin as soon as Friday. 

The article continues:

The Trump administration has prioritized the development of vaccines for the Wuhan coronavirus and news about Pfizer’s development of a safe and effective vaccine candidate arrived much sooner than many top experts had predicted. And vaccinations beginning on Friday is more welcome news as coronavirus cases surge across the nation and some states and local governments prepare for another round of lockdowns.

Pfizer announced in early November that its vaccine candidate developed with BioNTech SE was show to be more than 90 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 infections, well above the FDA’s efficacy requirement of 50 percent for a vaccine.

The article concludes:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities should be prioritized for vaccination. Individuals over the age of 65, essential workers, and those with underlying medical conditions should be vaccinated in a second phase.

It seems to me that any first responders should also be put at the top of the list.

This vaccine has been rushed through. It seems to be safe at least in the short term, but we have no way of knowing what the long term effects will be. However, if it will get us back to interacting with each other without being scared to death, I think it is probably a good thing.

Getting Fired For Doing Your Job

On Friday Guy Benson at Townhall posted an article about the recent firing of the police chief in Portsmouth, Virginia. The police chief was fired for doing her job.

The article reports:

This story out of Virginia is really quite something. If I’m understanding it correctly, it very much appears as though the city’s (Black, female) police chief was placed on administrative leave and then fired as retaliation for her investigation and attempted prosecution of criminal activity related to “Black Lives Matter” protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing. The only attempt at a justification for the firing I’ve found is that perhaps she was overzealous in the charges she pursued, and even that critique is disputable. There is also “an unspecified conflict of interest” that has not been established or expounded upon. Her real supposed transgression, it would appear, is that she sought to hold prominent people accountable for illegal acts — resulting in punishment for her because said prominent people believe, apparently correctly, that they’re above the law.

The article quotes an NBC report:

The police chief of Portsmouth, Virginia, was fired Monday in what she suggested was a politically motivated move moments before criminal charges were dropped against a prominent state senator and several local Black leaders accused of conspiring to damage a Confederate statue during a protest this year. The latest twist in the case involving state Sen. Louise Lucas, a high-ranking Democrat who is Virginia’s most senior Black legislator, drew praise from members of her own party who condemned the charges. Portsmouth police in August charged Lucas and 18 other plaintiffs, including a school board member and members of the local NAACP chapter and the public defender’s office, with conspiracy to commit a felony and injury to a monument in excess of $1,000.  When Greene, who is Black, later announced the charges, she said Lucas and others “conspired and organized to destroy the monument as well as summon hundreds of people to join in felonious acts.” According to the police version of events in a probable cause summary, Lucas was with a group of people who were shaking cans of spray paint, and she told police that they were going to vandalize the statues “and you can’t stop them … they got a right, go ahead!”  At the Portsmouth protest, demonstrators managed to rip off the heads of some of the city’s Confederate statues while toppling another statue, which police said fell on and critically injured a demonstrator.

Here we see another example of laws that only apply to the ‘little people.’ The person who should be fired (impeached, actually) is the State Senator, who should be charged with inciting violence. The police chief was merely trying to administer justice equally–something many Democrats strongly oppose.

The Biden Economic Policy

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about Joe Biden’s economic plan if he is elected President.

The article reports:

On his campaign website, Biden has a long document of his economic plan that reads like it was torn from any union membership guidebook. Dubbed “THE BIDEN PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING WORKER ORGANIZING, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND UNIONS,” it almost reads like a worker’s manifesto. One telling sentence in the midst of this collectivist screed explains it all: “Yet employers steal about $15 billion a year from working people just by paying workers less than the minimum wage.”

When your platform is rooted on the concept that a business owner who retains their own money is “stealing” it from employees you have already revealed that the economy is not your focus. Donald Trump would do well to expose Biden’s plan for all the flaws it presents, with three targeted topics.

The three topics listed in the article are:

TAXES

Before he called a lid on this week Biden was involved in an earnest battle to explain away his proposed tax increases to pay for his various pipe dreams. The president has run ads declaring Biden is hiking rates on most Americans but Joe is battling this back — with the help of a compliant media — by insisting that he will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000. 

The problem: Even as the press struggles to back this claim they give evidence that there will be higher payments for most. Even those nominal brackets that get small increases are going to also feel it as prices rise, and other expenses are called into play. Plus there is the convenient wordplay involved. While Joe is not raising taxes on that sub-400K group he has pledged to repeal the Trump tax cuts. These have been real benefits felt by over 80 percent of Americans. Those cuts led to a number of benefits, from higher paychecks to lowering the unemployment rate, and even had unforeseen results such as lowered utility bills for citizens. So while Joe is not technically raising taxes, he is raising the burden on many workers.

TARGETING CORPORATIONS

No shock that Joe’s union-driven economic plan is hostile toward businesses. That language of demonizing companies as stealing from the employees is peppered throughout his plan, and the entire goal laid out is rather apparent — union jobs are more important than driving the economy. Looking past his promise to raise the tax rate on corporations and to close loopholes and other benefits for companies, this proposal completely targets businesses and does so repeatedly in the name of union stewardship. 

Collective bargaining is prioritized and there is a lengthy list of penalties, done entirely for the repeated promise to “Check the abuse of corporate power over labor.” From top to bottom Biden’s plan continuously mentions how companies will be penalized. He also targets right-to-work states where employees are NOT required to join unions, going so far as to promise to “Ban state laws prohibiting unions from collecting dues or comparable payments from all workers.” (Federalism? Who wants that?!) 

…AB-5

In California last year they passed a new employment law based on state Assembly Bill-5, which was targeting the gig-economy, independent contractors, and freelance workers. The intent of this union-derived bill was to target the workers at Uber, Lyft, and food delivery companies. It was said to be an effort to move these workers to full employment status so they could receive higher salaries and benefits, but what it actually was designed to do was shift these independent workers onto company payrolls so they could in turn become unionized.

None of these proposals would actually help ‘working people.’ They would actually strengthen unions and the elite who run them, raise the cost of living for the average person, and generally weaken the economy. The economic proposals of Joe Biden would simply undo the economic progress we have made in the past four years.

The State Of The American Economy

Townhall posted an article today about some of the economic indicators that show that the American economy is rapidly recovering from the self-inflicted recession.

The article reports:

Breaking news: The US economy is roaring! Over the last few months, we have witnessed the sharpest economic snapback in US history. While many are still out of work, the future looks increasingly promising for those seeking employment. One would think that we were still mired in the deepest throes of April’s COVID-19 crisis if you take heed of the media’s narrative in recent weeks. It is clear the Democrats and Joe Biden are making the pandemic their closing argument for the 2020 election. But why? The economy is a losing argument for the Left.

The article cites some of the economic indicators that signal a strong recovery:

The commodity market is a clear window into the cost of goods and the level of demand that exists. As the Coronavirus shut down economies all over the world, global goods demand collapsed. Most notably was the oil market, as energy fuels the economy as a whole. Supply was steady, but a massive collapse in activity that forms demand left producers with a supply glut. The supply/demand gap was so large that oil futures (commodities trade primarily in the futures market) actually went negative, a historic event.

Just 7 months later the market has not only stabilized, but also has rebounded significantly. Oil, itself, is up over 100% from levels seen this Spring. This is a sound indicator of the resumption of robust economic activity. We are now escaping from economic contraction and are closing in on expansion. As consumers travel more and demand comes back for finished goods, the oil market will continue to flourish. This is one of many reasons why the Third Quarter GDP measure, to be released at the end of October only days before the election, will show the most significant rise in US history. The commodities market isn’t limited to oil. There are other very useful economic gauges within the basic goods market.

One of the most important, in terms of assessing global activity, is copper. Copper is a basic material used throughout manufacturing. The copper market collapsed this Spring along with all other raw goods during the crisis. At its low, copper was trading down roughly 35%. As activity has roared back to life, copper has been on an absolute tear. As of this writing, copper is up over 50% above its COVID lows, and is, in fact, higher than the market was trading pre-COVID. That’s a very promising signal emanating from the commodity market.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There is a large body of indicators showing that the economy is on the path to full recovery. The majority of states still closed down are blue states, and the leaders of those states will have to answer to the voters. Meanwhile, the economic policies of the Trump administration are working their magic.

This Goes Well Beyond A Gaffe

Townhall posted an article today about a recent statement by former Vice-President Joe Biden. The statement reflects an attitude that is totally disturbing.

The article reports:

“The American public, the blinders have been taken off…They’re saying, ‘Jeez, the reason I was able to stay sequestered in my home is because some black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf.”

I object. There are people of all races and sexes stacking grocery shelves. They are essential workers. They work hard to do their jobs. To say stacking shelves is the primarily the job of a black women is not factual.

The article notes:

So, only black women restock shelves, Joe? There isn’t a racial or ethnic group that Joe Biden hasn’t insulted. Period. Joe, you’re also a career politician. You’re a former vice president. Please, don’t act like you buy groceries anymore. You don’t. Besides this being just a completely idiotic and wrong statement, it once again circles back to Joe blundering his way with black voters. The sad thing is the dude is pandering, but setting himself on fire in the process.

This is the same man that said all 7-Elevens were run by people with Indian accents. This kind of rhetoric does not bring people together. It is insulting.

Just A Reminder Of One Of The ‘Costs’ Of Green Energy

On September 23, 2019, Townhall posted an article about one of the generally unmentioned ‘costs’ of green energy.

The article reports:

In 1969, there were far more active coal plants in America than today. However, in 1969, there were also 2.9 billion more birds in America. In the last decade alone, 289 coal plants have closed—a 40 percent reduction. Meanwhile, wind turbines and solar panels are going up at a record pace and scientists are reporting a “full-blown crisis” in the disappearance of 29 percent of North American birds.

…Five years ago—in 2014—Yahoo! News reported that wind turbines are responsible for killing over 573,000 birds annually. Bird scientist Shawn Smallwood testified that one large solar farm alone—the Ivanpah solar panel project in California—likely kills 28,380 birds annually. Meanwhile, we’ve built more wind turbines and solar farms. Scientists claim to be “stunned” that birds are dropping in droves. But the writing, or bird guts, has been on the turbine blade for years.

The article concludes:

As birds die and billionaires binge, poor people pay higher prices—and face energy shortages thanks to the Democrat push for “clean” energy. Even in the energy-rich state of Texas, there are whispers of a “mandatory power cut” for consumers amid triple-digit heat. Wind and solar puts a strain on the power grid because it is not very profitable or efficient. In August, Texas became “the most expensive place to buy power in all of the United States’ major markets,” reported Express-News.

Wind and solar are about 2,000 years out-of-date, and I don’t normally associate antiquity with cleanliness. The Roman and Egyptian ruins are called “ruins” because of all the dust and rubble. It’s a myth that archaic technology will result in clean air and healthy ecosystems.

We will save birds—and the ecosystems they nourish—when we stop destroying their habitats with lethal blades and blinding panels.

Those who claim to care about the environment might want to take another look at the impact of green energy on the bird population.

Follow The Money

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article tracing some of the campaign donations to Joe Biden.

The article notes:

Some smart sleuthing by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters at The National Pulse shows the donations made to Black Lives Matter actually go to ActBlue.  From there ActBlue takes those contributions and sends them forward to the Joe Biden Campaign.

As of May 21st, ActBlue has donated $119,253,857 to the “Biden for President” effort. So a contribution to Black Lives Matter, the ideology behind the shooting of the police officers, is a contribution to the Joe Biden campaign.

It’s a smart workaround and provides a back-door for all of the Hollywood and social influence crowd to use.  By supporting donations to Black Lives Matter, the leftist movement writ large is essentially funding the DNC.   The BLM movement is simply a vessel for them to use and exploit.

Keep in mind you are now hearing of multi-million donations to Black Lives Matter from big corporations.  Any corporation that pays into this scheme is actually paying to fund Joe Biden 2020 and the Democrats.  Now all of those “donations” make sense.

In June, The National Pulse noted:

After reaching the BLM homepage, which features a “Defund The Police” petition front and center, if a user chooses to donate, they’re rerouted to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.”

The page notes: “By proceeding with this transaction, you agree to ActBlue’s terms & conditions”and includes a banner “ActBlue Charities is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and donations are tax-deductible to the full extent allowed under the law” at the bottom of the page.

ActBlue is not a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and can make political donations.Act Blue Charities is the 501(c)(3). That is how they get around the IRS regulation that prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from being involved in partisan politics. The banner is totally misleading.

Yesterday Townhall reported:

The conservative group Take Back Action Fund is sounding the alarm on millions of political donations made to former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. According to the group, more than half of the 2019 contributions Biden received on the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue came from unemployed people, Fox News reported. That number has increased in 2020, particularly in light of the pandemic.

The organization decided to look at data from 2019, before the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, to get a better idea of what donations were like at a time when the unemployment rate was relatively low – around four percent. Last year, 48.4 percent of ActBlue’s donations were from “unemployed.”

This is a snapshot into the funding of Joe Biden’s campaign.

I Can’t Figures Out If This Is Good News Or Bad News

Yesterday Townhall posted the following headline, “Oops: It Looks Like the Vast Majority of Positive COVID Results Should Have Been Negative.” It seems very likely that we have been snookered!

The article reports:

According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.

“Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time,” warns The Times.

So, if overtesting is causing “bottlenecks” that keep us from identifying contagious people in time, what does The New York Times believe the solution should be? More testing!

The article concludes:

It looks like the CDC was right, and not The Times, when the CDC issued guidance saying not everybody and their mother should get tested for COVID-19. 

If the coronavirus has made one thing clear, it’s that so-called “scientists” and “experts” are wrong all the time. They can’t accurately forecast a virus, they tell us different things about the effectiveness of a face mask, they insist the virus can’t spread at leftwing protests, and there’s a myriad of other examples too long to document here showing us the “experts” are really just making it all up as they go along, with their political biases on display for everyone with eyes to see.

There are some serious questions currently arising as to the necessity and wisdom of locking down our economy at all, much less continuing lockdowns. It may be time to take a another look at what we have done and what we should do in the future in dealing with the coronavirus.

Media Bias?

The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally will be held from August 7th-16th this year. It is interesting to contrast the media’s coverage of this rally with the coverage of the violent protests in various cities across the country.

Townhall posted an article on Saturday about the Sturgis Rally noting:

About a quarter-million motorcycle riders are expected to descend upon the town of Sturgis, South Dakota, taking part in the 10-day annual rally that kicked off on Friday. The rally is not a left-wing protest, so the media is criticizing attendees for not wearing facemasks and participating in a large gathering amid the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. 

The mainstream media and even medical officials have decided that the best way to avoid contracting the Wuhan coronavirus is to participate in left-wing protests. Crossing back and forth over the border between Mexico and the United States is seemingly another harmless exercise. But when a large gathering doesn’t fit into the media’s list of liberal-approved activities, the press castigates participants for venturing outside during the pandemic. 

As expected, all the usual suspects are running hit pieces about the rally being a superspreader event. The double standard at this point must be apparent to even the most casual of media consumers. 

While many in the town favored postponing the rally this year due to the Wuhan coronavirus, many others in town, including local business owners, were glad to see rallygoers arrive on schedule. 

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem was among those supportive of the rally.

“I trusted my people, they trusted me, and South Dakota is in a good spot in our fight against COVID-19. The #Sturgis motorcycle rally starts this weekend, and we’re excited for visitors to see what our great state has to offer!” Gov. Noem tweeted on Thursday.

Appearing on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle earlier this week, Gov. Noem pointed out how the media wrongly predicted a large surge in coronavirus cases following President Trump’s rally at Mount Rushmore for the Fourth of July holiday.  

The article at Townhall concludes:

The 250,000 expected attendees will be around half the size of last year’s turnout. If it was 250,000 people riding into town on Vespas and calling to defund the police, the media would be praising them for their courage.

The New York Times has a different viewpoint (as expressed in an article August 7):

Save for a few hard-to-spot hand-sanitizer stations, it could have been any other major festival in pre-pandemic times.

“Screw Covid I went to Sturgis,” read a black T-shirt amid a sea of Harley Davidson and Trump 2020 outfits sported by the throng of people walking along Main Street. Their gear did not include face masks, and social distancing guidelines were completely ignored.

South Dakota is among several states that did not put in place a lockdown, and state officials have not required residents to wear masks, giving attendees who rode in from outside the state fewer restrictions than they may have had back home.

…Still, Nelson Horsley, 26, of Rapid City, S.D., said he expects there will be a rise in coronavirus cases in the area once the rally concludes next weekend. But he said he didn’t feel the need to wear a mask while walking around downtown Friday afternoon. He compared the virus to getting the seasonal flu.

“I haven’t seen anyone out here wear a mask so it kind of feels like it defeats the purpose,” he said, to wear a mask himself.

What if there isn’t a rise in coronavirus cases after the rally? What does that tell us about what we have been doing to end the virus?

The article at Townhall notes:

“Not only do we have one of the lowest death rates, we’ve got about 40 people in the hospital today statewide, our infection rates are low, our job losses are low, our economy is doing better than virtually any other state, and I think it’s a real testimony to what could have been possible in other states, but those governors just made the wrong decisions,” Noem told Ingraham.

Experience tells us that if there are even two cases of coronavirus as a result of this rally, they will be shouted about by the mainstream media. We need to pay attention to see what actually happens.

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Townhall reported yesterday that the death sentence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of two asylum-seeking brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, has been overturned by a U.S. Appeals Court.

The article reports:

Dzhokhar’s lawyers argued that the terrorist himself was a victim of intense media coverage and an unfair jury trial. The attack on the 2013 Boston Marathon killed three people and wounded around 280 others. Many of the victims lost limbs and suffered other horrific injuries. 

“A core promise of our criminal-justice system is that even the very worst among us deserve to be fairly tried and lawfully punished,” reads the federal appeals court ruling vacating Dzhokhar’s death sentence. 

In 2015, a jury found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 charges against him and sentenced the bomber to death. But because Dzhokhar had destroyed the lives of so many Bostonians, his defense attorneys have successfully argued that his death sentence was unfair because the trial should have been moved to a different city — presumably a city where Dzhokhar didn’t kill people. Dzhokhar told investigators that he and his brother’s next target was planned for New York City’s Times Square.

Dzhokhar will be given a new trial on the basis that his previous trial was unfair and should have been moved to a different city.

Let’s contrast that with the trial of General Michael Flynn. After a federal appeals court Wednesday ordered a trial judge to dismiss the case against President Trump’s first national security adviser, Micheal Flynn, the judge refused to dismiss the case.

On July 30th, The Business Insider reported:

A key federal appeals court in Washington DC agreed Thursday to reexamine the fight over whether former Trump national security adviswer Michael Flynn’s guilty plea can be summarily dismissed.

The new order from 10 members of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit comes a little over a month after a three-judge panel there ordered a lower federal district court judge who is overseeing the case against Flynn to dismiss the prosecution at the Justice Department’s request.

Recently declassified information on the Flynn case indicates that General Flynn was targeted as a way to tarnish the Trump administration (article here). There is enough information out there to prove that General Flynn’s guilty plea was coerced and that the charges against him should be dismissed.

Contrast the way our courts are treating someone who was caught after executing a terrorist act and a patriot who served our country for many years. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Actually, It’s Just An Eagle

Townhall posted an article today about an eagle used on t-shirts by the Trump campaign. The eagle is an ‘imperial eagle.’ Some over-excited members of the press are describing the eagle as a “Nazi symbol.”

Before you get to concerned about that, you might want to examine the history.

The article includes the following:

The following is from the USA Today fact check on the matter:

The article also mentions that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi uses a similar symbol on her website. The Marine Corps also uses a similar symbol in their emblem. The bald eagle is America’s national bird. To liken the use of it to racism and Nazism is simply over the top.

The article concludes:

This is the very example of why the American people hate the mainstream media. Everyone has become obsessed with these “fact checks,” yet simple things like this are totally bogus. For whatever reason, anything and everything President Donald Trump and his campaign does has to be racist or stoke anti-Semitism. The term “Make America Great Again” has been labeled racist. These shirts are being compared to Nazi Germany propaganda.

Unfortunately this sort of reporting is why many ill-informed Americans believe that the President is a racist. Based on his history, this is simply untrue. To claim that President Trump is a racist simply divides Americans and creates an obstacle to our working together to better the country.