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.

This Really Does Border On Elder Abuse

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about former Vice-President Biden’s recent virtual appearance at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ 2020 Virtual Political Conference on Wednesday. If you would like to see a video of the appearance, follow the link to the article–the video is posted there. Even when reading from a teleprompter, Biden seems to lose his train of thought.

The article provides a partial transcript:

“Lonnie knows I believe this every fiber of being, we’re opposed,” Biden began confidently enough before he seemingly lost his place with the teleprompter.

Biden then switched to platitudes about making “it happen” and illuminating “the path forward.”

“What I propose is, is, it can be done. I think we’re in a position to really make it happen. And my team and your team are already working closely together to light up the path forward here,” Biden said.

…”Critical laws like the PRO Act to strengthen collective bargaining, on politics like prevailing and,” Biden continued, as he held up his hand in a futile effort to follow along. It was no use.

“Look,” a defeated Biden said as he gives up on the teleprompter. “I guess, I’m, I’m, I’m taking too much time, but you know …”

This is really sad. As much as I want to see Biden defeated in his presidential run, it would be cruel to put him on the debate stage with President Trump. I suspect the Democrat Party is going to find a way to avoid debates, but recent appearances by Biden have not inspired confidence in his ability to hold public office.

Another Reason To Remove The United Nations From Lower Manhattan

Frankly all the United Nations has done for years is make bad decisions, snarl traffic in lower Manhattan, and provide an excuse for diplomats to avoid paying their tickets for double parking. Well, they are getting worse.

Townhall posted an article today about another bad decision by the United Nations.

The article reports:

As Americans prepared to celebrate our nation’s founding and the God-given rights that are protected by the US Constitution, China’s illegal and outrageous crackdown in Hong Kong officially escalated last week. As expected, the rubber-stamp communist “legislature” in Beijing passed a “security” law that effectively cripples the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement to which China is bound by treaty until at least 2047. Pro-freedom activists have been rounded up and arrested, with concerns swirling that at least some show trials will take place on the Chinese mainland. What the regime is doing is patently illegal under international law. It is an abuse of human rights and a brazen affront to human liberty. And yet, the hopelessly corrupt “Human Rights” Council at the United Nations voted to bestow its blessing on the Communist government’s anti-freedom power grab. They didn’t stay neutral, mind you. They explicitly endorsed the abuse:

…Among the HRC member nations giving China the thumbs-up are Cuba, Iran, North Korea, “Palestine,” Syria, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. Yes, each of those counties is represented on the UN’s human rights body. Why isn’t the United States colored gold on the map above, given the government’s harsh public condemnations of these abuses? Because, quite rightly, the Trump administration pulled the US out of this farcical commission two years ago. I’ll remind you that the UN’s committee on women’s rights added…Iran last year. It’s all so ludicrous. When the HRC isn’t busy doing Communist China’s bidding, it spends much of its time condemning Israel for sport. And this disgusting Beijing lackeyism on the Hong Kong matter doesn’t come in a vacuum; it arrives in the context of ongoing and egregious human rights violations elsewhere in China:

Please follow the link above to read the rest of the story.

Even if you accept the premise that the United Nations was founded with good intentions and not as a future vehicle for one-world government, they have obviously lost their way.

Just for the record, the preamble to the United Nations Charter includes the following:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

    • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
    • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
    • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
    • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Their ruling on Hong Kong is in violation of a treaty and of international law. It is time for the United Nations to go away.

Is It Really About Fixing The Problem?

Townhall posted an article today about the efforts of Congress to pass a bill that would  address the issue of police reform. The article is behind the pay wall, so the link goes to a transcript of the original article.

The article reports:

Over the past two weeks, Republican Senator Tim Scott, a black man from South Carolina, extended the olive branch of bipartisanship to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on police reform.

On June 17, Scott introduced the JUSTICE Act as a way to tackle what he believes are needed reforms in cities across the country. He quickly gained 50 co-sponsors and opened the door to the “conversation” Democrats regularly claim America needs to have about race, communities and policing. But it turns out, the talking points about “having a conversation” weren’t stated in good faith. After Scott accepted 20 amendments on his legislation from Senate Democrats, they still voted it down, not even allowing debate on the bill.

But what’s even more egregious than playing politics with this issue is how Pelosi and Schumer framed their arguments without Scott in them.

Instead of discussing the content on the bill, the Democrats decided to attack Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The article notes:

The day before Democrats blocked opening debate on the bill, Pelosi accused Republicans working on Senator Scott’s police reform of murder. She did this while advocating for the partisan House version of police reform legislation.

“So far they [Republicans] were trying to get away with murder, actually, the murder of George Floyd,” she claimed during an interview with CBS Radio.

When confronted about her words during an interview with MSNBC, Pelosi shamelessly pivoted away from the mention of Senator Scott and back to Mitch McConnell.

“Will you apologize?” MSNBC anchor Peter Williams asked during an interview.

“Absolutely, positively not,” Pelosi said.

“Is Tim Scott working in good faith?” he followed up.

“I’m sorry?” Pelosi asked as if she had no idea who Senator Tim Scott was.

“I’m talking about Mitch McConnell,” she said.

The article concludes:

Washington D.C.’s most partisan Democrats are attempting to write Senator Tim Scott out of the conversation. They’re doing it on purpose for political reasons and to continue their false narrative that Republicans are “racists.” It is despicable.

We have reached the point where it’s more important for many in Congress to gain political advantage than to solve a serious problem. It’s time to change the composition of Congress. If your Congressman voted against debate on this issue, it’s time to elect a new Congressman.

Actions Are More Important Than Words

Townhall posted an article today about Civil Rights Attorney Leo Terrell, who recently made some surprising comments about his view of the Democrat party.

The article reports:

“This is why I stopped drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid. I can’t take this hypocrisy anymore. It’s ridiculous,” he explained during a Friday night segment on “Hannity.”

“Richard Russell from the South was against integration. He was opposed to anti-lynching bills. That’s what bothers me about this whole thing, that Democrats, just because of the D in their name, they could be a racist,” Terrell explained. “That statement by Joe Biden is so offensive and then you have Spike Lee out there and say, ‘It’s okay.’ That’s offensive. If any Republican said the same thing they would be in trouble, big trouble.”

“Joe Biden gave us the crime bill in 1994. President Trump gave us the First Step,” he said. “The bottom line is this: I don’t need the Democrats to insult me or try to placate me with African garb, Nancy Pelosi. Pass some laws. Pass some reforms. Show me something other than some kind of condescending act just because you’re a Democrat. That doesn’t follow anymore.”

The article concludes:

Terrell also made one very true point: if someone identifies as a Democrat but they believe in law and order, they won’t see it from that political party.

Something to think about before November.

The Presidential Campaign Of Joe Biden Continues To Sadden Those Of Us Who Are Watching Closely

I’m sure Joe Biden is a nice man. He definitely has a beautiful smile. But I truly believe that he is not the man he was even five years ago. He has always been known for gaffes, but he seems to have taken that to a new level since campaigning for President.

Townhall posted an article yesterday about the latest questionable statement by the former Vice-President.

The article reports:

Joe Biden on Thursday compared the death of George Floyd to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, saying Floyd’s death had a bigger global “impact” than King’s.

At an economic reopening roundtable in Philadelphia, the former vice president spoke of how the advent of smartphones had precipitated global participation in the movement against police brutality and racial injustice.

“Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did,” Biden said.

“It’s just like television changed the Civil Rights movement for the better when they saw Bull Connor and his dogs ripping the clothes off of elderly black women going to church and firehoses ripping the skin off of young kids,” he continued.

“What happened to George Floyd — now you got how many people around the country, millions of cell phones. It’s changed the way everybody’s looking at this,” he continued. “Look at the millions of people marching around the world.”

There is a lot to unpack in that statement. First of all, the civil rights movement has been part of America since the 1950’s. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a pioneer in that movement. There have been great strides made in that movement, many as a result of the peaceful manner in which Dr. King conducted himself. George Floyd was not working to further the rights of black America. He really had not accomplished a whole lot in his young life. His murder simply provided an excuse for the culture of outrage to mobilize. My second point is that Joe Biden has been in Washington since 1973. If things are so bad, what has he been doing for the past forty-seven years?

The death of George Floyd was horrible. It should never have happened. However, I am not sure that in the heat of the moment we have begun to put his death in context. The bad behavior of one policeman should not be used to condemn all police, just was the bad behavior of the protesters who have decided to riot should not be used to condemn all protesters. How many people have been killed by the protesters? What does that accomplish?

The Double Standard Rears Its Head Again

Former employees are not known for their objective opinion of their prior boss, and sometimes being quiet is the best course of action. Unfortunately Generals Mattis and Kelly did not get that message. They are entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is not helpful at this time, nor does it represent a consistent standard on their part.

Townhall posted an article today about the recent comments by Generals Mattis and Kelly.

The article notes:

First of all, let me say that this nation is in debt to former Marine Generals Mattis and Kelly for their service to the United States. Kelly in particular deserves our respect and appreciation. His own son gave his life as a Marine in service to America.

But I have to disagree with their recent public comments in opposition to President Trump. Not that President Trump can’t be exasperating at times. He has a tendency to irritate his supporters as often as he infuriates his enemies. Not one of his most endearing qualities for sure, nor a wise political strategy.

But my question to Generals Mattis and Kelly is, were things better under Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Did you agree with Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States?

…Unless you weren’t paying attention, Barack Obama publicly complained about the U.S. Constitution preventing him from what he wanted to do. Barack Obama told us all, “I have a telephone and a pen,” and warned he was going to do whatever he wanted in spite of what the U.S. Constitution allowed.

So who has posed the greater threat, a duly elected president who has been fighting an ongoing coup d’etat since the day he took office, or a closet commie who is hiding behind the scenes and working hard to undermine his successor’s presidency and complete his “fundamental transformation” of our country?

Why aren’t you standing up in solidarity with President Trump who is trying to protect this nation right now against a radical leftist insurrection? Instead of criticizing the president, why aren’t you offering counsel on how to address the insurgency that is underway in our land?

If you haven’t seen what has been taking place, how a coordinated, multifaceted, and expansive conspiracy to undo a presidential election through unconstitutional means that has been underway since November of 2016, then I wonder how you could ever have risen to such a high rank in the United States Marine Corps.

The article concludes:

Perhaps it’s time for both Generals Mattis and Kelly to do a little soul searching. The preservation of our liberty and freedoms which President Trump doesn’t threaten at all, but which is indeed threatened by the radical leftists in the Democratic Party, has been on full display for over three years now.

It’s Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and especially Barack Obama who threaten the very future of our country. They are the ones you should be speaking out against. Not the president who is trying his hardest to uncover the corruption and abuse of decades of career politicians from both political parties.

Well said.

The Dead Case Continues

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about the continuing saga of Michael Flynn. This story should have been over years ago, but there are enough deep state operatives running around Washington to keep it alive. The real root of the case is that Michael Flynn is a very smart man who would have figured out the corruption in the Department of Justice in his first week on the job.

Townhall focused on the missing 302, the form that the agents interviewing General Flynn would have filled out at the time. The original 302 has somehow gone missing. The article includes a timeline of the case.

The article cites the latest developments in the case:

Sidney Powell is part of Flynn’s new and aggressive legal team, who said in October that new documents would show an FBI entrapment plot. Well, that day arrived for sure. Flynn has fought to withdraw his guilty plea since the beginning of this year. Right now, his legal team has filed a new writ of mandamus to get this case tossed, the judge removed, and the amicus brief motion dismissed as well. Yeah, I forgot to mention that Sullivan decided he was going to allow every anti-Trump legal team in the world to file amicus briefs. The good news is that the DC Court of Appeals had every right to dismiss the writ outright, no questions asked. Instead, they’ve ordered Sullivan to respond to Powell’s writ personally and defend his actions regarding this case. Legal observers noted this is a huge development and a sign that Flynn’s legal team already passed a huge hurdle. Not only that, but the DC Court gave this judge the most serious method regarding a response. It’s quite clear that the DC Court of Appeals is disturbed by Sullivan’s actions. We’ll circle back to that in a few days. It seems that at least part of the writ might be granted and bring Flynn closer to putting this nightmare behind him. 

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog reported the following:

Judge Emmet Sullivan has hired Beth Wilkinson to represent him as he defends his unusual actions in the Michael Flynn case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Sullivan already asked for assistance from outside counsel when he appointed John Gleeson to argue against the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn prosecution. That extraordinary move helped land Sullivan in the dock, so to speak, thus causing him to enlist Wilkinson as his lawyer.

A highly regarded litigator, Wilkinson represented top aides to Hillary Clinton in her email controversy. She also assisted Brett Kavanaugh when Christine Blasey Ford made her unsubstantiated allegations against him.

Sullivan’s retention of a hired gun litigator is the latest in a long line of bizarre developments in the Flynn case. The likelihood that, in the face of the D.C. Circuit’s order that he file a brief explaining himself, Sullivan would finally bring an end to the farce by granting the DOJ’s motion was never great. With Sullivan now lawyering up, it seems clear that the farce will drag on, with yet another bizarre twist, for a while longer.

It would be really interesting to know who is paying Judge Sullivan’s legal fees.