Is This Even Legal?

Breitbart reported yesterday that the Biden administration is using military bases to fly illegal immigrants into the interior of America.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s administration is using the United States Armed Forces to help fly illegal aliens into the interior of the U.S., Fox News’s Tucker Carlson reveals.

On Wednesday evening, Carlson unveiled internal emails in which Lt. Col. Matthew Burrows informs military personnel that commercial planes at Laughlin Air Force Base, east of Del Rio, Texas, will board and fly illegal aliens into the U.S. interior.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has stated that refugees from the uprising in Cuba will be sent home. What a strange time we are living in.

The article continues:

 

Burrows, Carlson noted, asked personnel to keep the operation from becoming public.

“This show has confirmed that the Biden administration has enlisted the U.S. military, secretly, around our country,” Carlson said. That is happening at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas. We know it’s happening there because a man called Lt. Col. Matthew Burrows sent his subordinates spelling it out very clearly.”

Burrows’ email reads, “Over the next few days, weeks, or months, you may see passenger aircraft on our ramp transporting undocumented non-citizens. Please review the attached public affairs guidance on the issue” [Emphasis added].

“Burrows’ email then instructed uniformed military personnel to hide what was happening on the base from the country they’re sworn to serve,” Carlson continued:

The article contains a copy of the email.

The article concludes:

For months, Breitbart News has chronicled the Biden administration’s expansive Catch and Release operation through which at least tens of thousands of illegal aliens are being briefly detained, put up in migrant hotels, then bused or flown into the U.S. interior with only the promise that they will show up to their asylum hearings months, or a year, later.

In June, Breitbart News reported that it is not only border crossing family units that are being resettled via the Catch and Release operation. The Biden administration is busing and flying single male adult border crossers into U.S. cities that remain undisclosed to American citizens.

The latest available data, from February 19 to April 22, reveals that the Biden administration has flown about 7,200 border-crossers into the U.S. interior on domestic commercial flights. Border crossers are allowed to bypass photo identification requirements, boarding flights without a photo ID, and do not have to prove they are negative for the Chinese coronavirus.

If you send enough people into the interior of America, you can change the demographics of America. Assimilation is optional. This illustrates the logic behind controlled immigration. We are allowing people who are not tested for coronavirus and who have not met the citizenship requirements to enter the interior of our country. We are providing housing, food, medical care, etc. I think there are a lot of Americans who should have priority in obtaining these services. This makes absolutely no sense.

Is Anyone Protecting The Rights Of Americans?

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about unlawful surveillance of Tucker Carlson, a Fox News show host. The title of the article is, “Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Reveals NSA Conducting Surveillance on His Electronic Communication, Texts and Emails.”

The article reports:

As disturbing as this statement is, considering the prior admissions of warrantless wiretapping by the FBI using the NSA database, this does not come as a surprise.

Remember, for five consecutive years the U.S. intelligence community has admitted to the FISA court they continually conduct illegal searches of U.S. citizen data, using the NSA database, and they admit to illegally extracting information which is illegally shared with interests outside the intelligence community.

Tonight on Tucker Carlson the Fox News Host outlined how an NSA whistleblower contacted him and told him the NSA was conducting electronic surveillance of his communication.  To verify the authenticity of the claim the whistleblower told Carlson what the content of his private text messages and emails contained.  While alarming in part, again this should not be surprising. 

The article includes the following video:

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Who is protecting the rights of Americans?

 

 

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.

 

Unanswered Questions

Yesterday Tucker Carlson posted an article at Fox News that asks a lot of questions about the events of January 6th that remain unanswered.

The article notes:

Let’s start with the headline of the day: Five Americans died on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6. You’ve heard that, but it doesn’t really tell you very much. It’s the details, as always, that matter. Who were these people and how did they die? That’s how you understand what actually happened.

So with that in mind, here are the facts: Four of the five who died that day were Trump supporters. The fifth was a Capitol Hill police officer who apparently also supported Donald Trump. Why is this relevant? Of course, the political views of the deceased shouldn’t matter, but unfortunately, in this case, they do. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and many other elected Democrats claim the mob was coming for them that day. Yet the only recorded casualties on Jan. 6 were people who voted for Donald Trump.

The first among them was a 34-year-old woman from Georgia called Rosanne Boyland. Authorities initially announced that Boyland died of a “medical emergency”. Later video footage suggested she may have accidentally been trampled by the crowd. We’re still not sure, but that’s the best guess.

The second casualty was 55-year-old Kevin Greeson, who died of heart failure while talking to his wife on a cell phone outside the Capitol. “Kevin had a history of high blood pressure,” his wife later said, “and in the midst of the excitement, suffered a heart attack.”

The third was 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips of Ringtown, Pa. Phillips was a Trump supporter who organized a bus trip to Washington for the rally that day. He died of a stroke on the grounds of the Capitol. There is no evidence that Phillips rioted or was injured by rioters or even went inside the Capitol building.

The fourth person to die, the only one from intentional violence, was 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran from San Diego. Babbitt was wearing a Trump cape when she was shot to death by a Capitol Hill police lieutenant. Babbitt’s death was caught on video, so hers is the best-documented death that took place that day. Yet it is surprising how little we know about it.

Babbitt was shot as she tried to crawl through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby within the Capitol, and that’s essentially the extent of what we know. Authorities have refused to release the name of the man who shot her or divulge any details of the investigation they say they’ve done. We may never know exactly why this unnamed Capitol Hill police officer took her life.

According to that officer’s attorney, “There is no way to look at the evidence and think that he is anything but a hero.” Of course, we can’t actually look at that evidence, because they’re withholding it. We can’t even know his identity. Killing an unarmed woman may be justified under certain specific circumstances, but since when is it heroic? When the dead woman has read QAnon websites? Republicans aren’t asking that question.

The last death mentioned is that of Officer Brian Sicknick. The media told us that he was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. There is some credible evidence that suggests that is not the case. (At this point, it might be a good idea to remember that Trump supporters generally support the police and are not inclined to attack them.)

The article notes:

Just one problem: The story they told was a lie from beginning to end. Officer Sicknick was not beaten to death, with a fire extinguisher or anything else. According to an exhaustive and fascinating new analysis on Revolver News, there’s no evidence that Brian Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher at any point on Jan 6. The officer’s body apparently bore no signs of trauma. In fact, on the night of Jan. 6, long after rioters at the Capitol had been arrested or dispersed, Brian Sicknick texted his brother from his office. According to his brother, Sicknick said he’d been “pepper sprayed twice” but was otherwise “in good shape”. Twenty-four hours later, Officer Brian Sicknick was dead.

The riot on January 6th was real. That may be the only thing real about everything that has been reported about that day. When the news is as skewed as this is, it would do us well to take a close look at who gains by the misreporting.

Is This Acceptable?

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There were thousands of people peacefully assembled in Washington, D.C. on January 6th. Unfortunately there were also a few hundred that decided to riot. However, that does not change the fact that those peacefully assembled had the right to be there. Unfortunately, many of those people who were peacefully assembled are facing consequences for simply being there.

Last night Fox News reported the following:

Tucker Carlson Tonight” has exclusively obtained evidence that Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the country with more than 60 million customers, is actively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the government. Bank of America is, without the knowledge or the consent of its customers, sharing private information with federal law enforcement agencies. Bank of America effectively is acting as an intelligence agency, but they’re not telling you about it.

In the days after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, Bank of America went through its own customers’ financial and transaction records. These were the private records of Americans who had committed no crime; people who, as far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol. But at the request of federal investigators, Bank of America searched its databases looking for people who fit a specific profile.

Here’s what that profile was: “1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6. 2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6. 3. Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day. 4. Airline related purchases since 1/6.”

The first thing you should notice about that profile is that it’s remarkably broad. Any purchases of anything in Washington, D.C.; any overnight stay anywhere in an area spanning three jurisdictions and hundreds of miles; any purchase not just of legal firearms, but anything bought from a “weapons-related merchant,” T-shirts included; and any airline-related purchases — not just flights to Washington, but flights to anywhere, from Omaha to Thailand. That is an absurdly wide net.

Bank of America identified a total of 211 customers who met these “thresholds of interest.” At that point, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has learned, Bank of America turned over the results of its internal scan to federal authorities, apparently without notifying the customers who were being spied upon. Federal investigators then interviewed at least one of these unsuspecting people. That person, we’ve learned, hadn’t done anything wrong and was cleared.

The article continues:

It’s not even clear that what Bank of America did is even legal. We spoke to a number of lawyers about this, and some of them told us that what Bank of America did might, in fact, not be legal and could, in fact, be challenged in court. One knowledgeable attorney pointed us to 12 U.S.C. 3403. That’s a federal law that allows banks to tip off the feds to any information that “may be relevant to a possible violation of any statute or regulation.”

Now, the Justice Department instructs federal agents to remind banks of that law and, of course, they do so with maximum aggression. But the question is, what legally constitutes information that may be relevant to a possible crime? Does buying a muffin in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 5 make you a potential domestic extremist? 

According to Bank of America, yes. Yes, it does. 

What we need now is a good class-action suit against Bank of America.

 

Why Donald Trump Has Literally Been The Bull In The China Shop

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about a segment on the Tucker Carlson show last night discussing America’s relationship with China.

The article includes the following video:

Obviously, the election of President Trump upended this cozy relationship.

The article includes the following:

REMEMBER […] there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).

Investments, and the bets therein, expanded outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing…. investing in foreign manufacturing; multinational corporations moved manufacturing outside the U.S. and into Asia (China).

However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously. The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team; and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.

As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation and trade policies that benefited their, now international, interests.

When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were -generally speaking- beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.

When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global”.

Global financial interests, multinational investment interests -and corporations therein- became the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes were considered.

Unfortunately, if Joe Biden becomes President, we will go back to business as usual with China eating our lunch. President Trump is our only hope of remaining the free and prosperous country we are. The corruption is bi-partisan. Americans need to take a closer look at their candidates before they vote to see what the candidate’s connections to China are. China is also a major stakeholder in the mainstream media in America. That explains a lot about what news is reported and what news is not reported. If you haven’t found an alternative source of news yet, it’s time to start seriously looking.

Please follow the link above and read the entire article at The Conservative Treehouse. It explains a lot about how the rules governing our financial institutions have been quietly changed in order to favor Wall Street instead of Main Street and how this has benefited China.

It’s Never Really Been About The Virus

The coronavirus is real. I know. My husband and I are currently working through it. However, it is one more virus that shows up at various times in various places that we have to learn how to prevent and treat. It should not be an excuse for removing all of our God-given rights protected by the Constitution. It should also not be an excuse for claiming that the only solution to everything is one-world government. However, there is as much of that going around as there is the virus.

Last night on Fox News, Tucker Carlson showed a video of a speech given in September by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In the speech, Trudeau praised COVID-19 fears as an “opportunity for a reset” to “accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.” I guess Trudeau is part of the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ school of politics. Notice that he does not seem overly concerned with actually dealing with the virus.

We are already seeing this philosophy in action in some states in America. Churches have been shut down in California while strip clubs remain open. When you consider that one of the goals of those who seek to destroy America is to destroy the foundations of America (part of that foundation is the nuclear family), closing churches and opening strip clubs makes sense. Another foundation of America is law and order and respect for those who enforce the law. The undermining of that began during the Obama administration and continues in many of our blue cities and states. The fact that the police did not take action ahead of time to protect those who participated in the recent march in Washington to support President Trump tells us that the Mayor did not think the marchers were worth protecting. The fact that the leftists attacked old people and families tell us about their level of courage. The fact that the marchers that supported President Trump did not destroy property or loot is in contrast to other ‘protests’ in blue cities around the country. It is also in contrast to the march that took place in Washington to protest the 2016 election.

We need to remember the ‘broken windows’ theory. If you don’t deal with small infractions of the law, bigger infractions will follow. If you don’t  deal with small infractions on your civil liberty and freedom, bigger ones will follow. The coronavirus is real, and it can be dangerous, but hiding in your house and ignoring the threats to our liberty will have greater long-term consequences than any virus.

In Case You Missed It

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article today about last night’s Tucker Carlson show on Fox News. Tucker Carlson interviewed Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden.

The article cites a number of articles that have been written about the interview and includes a partial and full video of the interview. Please follow the link above to see those.

The article notes a few key points about the interview:

  • Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name,
  •  What China wanted was the Biden family name,
  •  Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over negotiations,
  •  In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him to step in and act as CEO,
  •  Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe’s brother,
  •  When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed to be falling into dangerous territory given that Joe could run again for president, James announced, “plausible deniability,” and
  • The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while channeling CEFC’s money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.

Regardless of how you feel about the relationship between China and the Biden family, I think after watching the interview, you might hesitate to do business with the Bidens just on the basis of their concept of ‘plausible deniability’ and the ethical perspective that statement reveals.

A Step Toward Something Antithetical To Our Republic

Fox News posted an article recently about an idea being suggested by some Democrats to form a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission after President Trump leaves office.

The article notes:

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted Saturday that such a commission would “erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”

Sounds like granting permission to the ‘cancel culture.’ This sounds more like revenge than like moving the country forward.

The article quotes author JD Vance, who appeared on the Tucker Carlson show last night:

Vance added that the idea would not only damage the country, but shows how “whiny” liberal Democrats still are about Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election loss.

“Instead of trying to win the next election and moving on with the life of American democratic politics, they want to go backward and punish everybody,” Vance said.

It’s a pretty safe bet that creating a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would further divide the country–not unite it.

 

So Why Is This Required?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The article reports:

On Tuesday Tucker Carlson opened his show by questioning the CDC rules and data on mask wearing and the COVID-19.

Earlier this week the CDC confirmed that mask wearing was ineffective and over 50% of US coronavirus cases were patients who were habitual mask wearers.

The article quotes a Breitbart article:

Mass communications are now controlled by a tiny number of people, all of whom have identical agendas. There is no modern Anti-Mask League, there couldn’t be a modern Anti-Mask League. Facebook and Google would shut it down the first day. The governors of Michigan and New Jersey would indict its leaders.

Dissent used to be a defining feature of American life, but no more. Now, we have mandatory consensus. Masks are good. Anyone who questions the utter goodness of masks is bad…

…So what is the science on masks? Well, as it happened, we have the latest for you tonight. And the science comes interestingly from the CDC whose Director has told you that masks were magic, more effective than vaccines.

But the numbers from the CDC suggests otherwise. A new study conducted by 11 medical institutions analyzed a group of people who tested positive for COVID during the month of July. Here’s the interesting part.

Among those who were infected, more than 70% reported they had quote, “always worn a mask” for the preceding 14 days. Another 14.4% said they had quote, “often worn a mask.” In other words, almost everyone, 85% who got the coronavirus in July was wearing a mask and they were infected anyway.

So clearly this doesn’t work the way they tell us it works. Clearly, someone has been lying to us, many people actually. How did this happen? Well, the short answer is we’re not sure how so many people got the coronavirus were wearing masks, but there are clues, clues that our leaders appear to be ignoring.

We are always hearing “Trust the science” from those who want mandatory masks. Well, this is the science. Why are we still wearing masks.

Just for the record, when Tucker Carlson posted the CDC statement that masks were ineffective, Facebook censored his post. At some point you have to wonder why the establishment is so determined to keep us masked.

 

Telling The Truth

Rick Grenell definitely left his mark as acting Director of National Intelligence. Things that should never have been classified were unclassified so that the American people could see for themselves what their government had been up to. Hopefully, John Ratcliffe, who replaced Ambassador Grenell, will be as equally concerned about unnecessary government secrecy.

Ambassador Grenell was interviewed on Tucker Carlson Tonight last night. Fox News posted an article about the interview late last night. The article includes a video of the interview. Please follow the link to view the interview. It is telling.

The article reports:

Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Monday that his time in the Trump administration has shown him that the great political struggle is no longer between Republicans and Democrats, but between the District of Columbia and the rest of the U.S.

The article includes a screenshot of something Ambassador Grenell tweeted:

The article continues:

“The fact of the matter is,” Grenell said, “we have a real problem in Washington, D.C., because it’s a system that it no longer is Republicans and Democrats pushing against each other to create good policy. It’s a fight between Washington and the rest of America.”

“What we have [is] a system in Washington where people get jobs if you’re there, if you know someone and you work your way up, and it’s like musical chairs from one agency to another,” Grenell added. “There is no outside thought, there’s no outside perspective.”

Grenell, who also spent two years as U.S. ambassador to Germany, characterized Trump as a great disruptor of this insular system.

“He’s breaking their system,” he said. “He doesn’t play by the rules.

The article concludes:

“I saw that at ODNI,” Grenell added. “I saw that by entering the intelligence world, and senators from the Democratic Party saying, ‘You have no experience, what are you doing — why should you be there?””

Grenell specifically called out Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, by noting that Grenell had received his first intelligence briefing back in 2001, before Warner was elected to public office.

“He said that I wasn’t qualified,” Grennell said of Warner. “I actually am a receiver of intelligence, and [I’m] an expert on the consumer part of the intelligence and how to utilize it, but that perspective is never brought to Washington.”

Change is hard–particularly if that change means you are losing control of something you have controlled for a very long time. That is the current battle in Washington. Does the bureaucracy want to represent the American people or do they want to represent only their own interests?

 

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about some recent comments by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The article reports:

Former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that he sees the coronavirus as “an opportunity” to change the way U.S. citizens vote forever.

“Coronavirus gives us an opportunity to revamp our electoral system so that it permanently becomes more inclusive and becomes easier for the American people to access,” Holder told Time magazine.

Holder went on to say that he supports shifting toward a system with more mail-in ballots.

“There has to be a sea change in our thinking there,” he said when asked how important he thinks mail-in ballots will be going forward. “Allow people to access their primary American right by voting at home. It’s not as if this is an untried concept. Oregon has been doing this for years. But we have to make sure that we’re being sensitive to the needs of poor communities and communities of color by doing things like having prepaid postage on envelopes. Construct a system so that you’ve got expanded in-person voting, you’ve got expanded at-home voting and expanded no-excuse absentee vote-at-home measures.”

Holder said he believes that these changes during the coronavirus crisis will help “enhance our democracy.”

Democrats across the country have been pushing for increased mail-in voting during the coronavirus crisis despite reports over the past week suggesting over 28 million mail-in ballots have been lost in the past 10 years and that thousands of ineligible voters could possibly receive mail-in ballots, including many dead people.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on his show this week he believes these efforts to push mail-in voting are part of a broader effort on behalf of Democrats to “encourage” voter fraud to win elections.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a sentiment similar to Holder’s claim that increased mail-in voting is a positive step forward for democracy.

This is the voice of desperation. The only way to push Joe Biden across the finish line in the 2020 election is with voter fraud. The greatest amount of voter fraud in America occurs with mail-in absentee ballots. We have all heard the stories from people who have gone to the polls to vote and were told they had already voted. There are also stories from people who requested absentee ballots and had them stolen and cast by other people. This is not a step forward for the voting process–it is an open door for voter fraud.

Anecdotal Evidence?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about recent comments made by Dr. Marc Seigel on the Tucker Carlson show.

The article reports:

Dr. Siegel: Tucker, I want to tell you about a 96-year-old man in Florida who one night, “I don’t think I’m going to make it. I feel very weak. The end is coming. I’m coughing. I’m short of breath. I can’t get up from the couch.” The next day he was on hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics per his cardiologist. He got up the next day he was fine. This man is my father.

Follow the link to the article to see the video. We haven’t had time to do the kind of studies that we normally do to introduce a new drug, but this drug has been used for other purposes for a long time. Many reports and studies are showing that it may be the ‘magic bullet’ for the coronavirus. I hope so.

Is Lying Under Oath A Problem?

A name that seems to be in the news a lot lately is Marie Yovanovitch, who was appointed to be the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine by former President Barack Obama. She was fired by President Trump. Just for the record, ambassadors serve at the discretion of the President and can be fired for any reason. Marie Yovanovitch, however, had a reputation for saying negative things about President Trump and not supporting his policies. That is why she was fired.

Marie Yovanovitch was called before Congress as a witness in the faux impeachment hearings. She testified on October 11 in a closed-door session.

The Daily Wire posted an article today citing some problems with her testimony.

The article reports information obtained by the Tucker Carlson show:

“This show has obtained exclusively an email for that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent by private email to the former American ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Carlson continued. “Yovanovitch, you know, is a key player in the Democrats’ impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.”

This is the content of the email:

I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring. I’d appreciate the change to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right.

The article continues:

Carlson noted that Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) asked Marie Yovanovitch about the email during her testimony and she allegedly stated that she never responded to the email.

“In fact, it turns out that she did respond,” Carlson revealed. “She said she ‘looked forward to chatting with [the Democratic staffer].”

“As Congressmen Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador’s original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath,” Carlson concluded.

Zeldin confirmed Carlson’s segment on Twitter, writing: “It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her ‘impeachment inquiry’ deposition under oath.”

The article concludes:

“I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” Zeldin told Fox News on Thursday night. “We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact. Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”

“I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department,” Zeldin concluded. “It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

Those attempting this faux impeachment need to remember that there are electronic records everywhere and Youtube videos of previous statements. They are in danger of being hoisted on their own petard!

Common Sense From The Detroit Police Chief

Breitbart posted an article today about a recent statement by the Detroit Police Chief.

The article states:

Detroit Police Chief James Craig suggested concealed carry by law-abiding citizens “is about staying alive” during an October 30, 2019, interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Craig, a vocal advocate of concealed carry for self-defense, said, “There’s been research that shows criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police.”

He explained police are not ever-present, thus they usually arrive after a crime not during one: “By the time we’re called it’s usually after the fact, so we’re reacting to the crime.” But armed, law-abiding citizens can be present to act as the crime is unfolding.

That makes sense. There is a lot of validity to the idea of every citizen learning to be responsible for their own safety. I personally think everyone should take a Concealed Carry class simply to understand their rights and responsibilities in regard to gun ownership.

The article concludes:

On January 2, 2014, Breitbart News reported Craig noting that “good community members who have concealed [licenses]” deter crime and save lives.

On December 1, 2015, Breitbart News reported Craig saying armed citizens also help fight the threat of terrorism. The  Detroit News quoted Craig saying, “A lot of Detroiters have CPLs, and the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug. If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.”

He suggested the knowledge that citizens  “would shoot back” probably makes “extremists…reluctant to target Detroit.”

Armed citizens are one of the best crime deterrents available. The idea of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens collapses when you realize that criminals will not surrender their guns–leaving the general public unarmed and vulnerable.

Some Insightful Thoughts On The Democrat Party Primary

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel posted an article at Townhall today about the Democrat Presidential Primary Campaign. The writers noted some changes in the Democrat Party that may be a problem in the 2020 presidential election.

The article reports:

This week, we were served some less-than-breaking news. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination. If you’ve never heard of him, that’s OK. Few Democrats have. He served in the Marine Corps for four tours in Iraq, but other than that, he hasn’t done much.

What’s interesting is why he’s being forced to drop out of the race. By any sane standards, Moulton is a thoroughly liberal Democrat. On every issue, he’s more left-wing than President Barack Obama was on the day he left office. Three years ago, Moulton would have been considered a liberal firebrand. But not anymore. By the lunatic standards of the modern Democratic Party, Moulton is now a flaming moderate, and that’s the kiss of death. Moderates are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party.

The article notes that when candidate Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, encouraged the Democrats at the debate to be more practical in their platforms, his comments were not well received.

The article also notes some of Vice-President Biden’s recent statements:

Biden: “My senior semester, they (Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy) were both shot and killed. Imagine what happened if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would’ve happened in America?” Imagine you’re Biden’s political director, sitting offstage. All of a sudden, Biden wanders into the unscripted territory and says, “Imagine the assassination of Obama.” This is not an attack on Biden, but he’s not going to be the nominee. So the actual race comes down to Warren’s and Sanders’ competing visions of how to achieve the same socialist fantasy. Warren is promising reparations based on skin color. That’s popular. Sanders wants a government takeover of the entire energy sector. They will be working to out-crazy each other for the next six months. That is a dynamic guaranteed to produce even more extremism. And it has some Democratic leaders worried. The Democratic National Committee voted on a proposal to hold a debate focused exclusively on climate change. Why wouldn’t they? Well, because the solutions the candidates would promise live on television are insane: spend $16 trillion, ban airplanes, seize control of the entire U.S. economy.

Finally, the article concludes:

The Trustafarians love stuff like that. Normal people find it terrifying. Even the party hacks here in D.C. don’t like it, and that’s probably a compliment. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi believes climate change is an existential crisis? Of course, she doesn’t think that. Plus, she flies private. Obama can say whatever he wants about carbon emissions. He can shake his chin and be concerned, but when you’re spending 15 million of your own dollars on a beachfront estate on Martha’s Vineyard, you’re not too worried about the oceans rising. But the Democratic base doesn’t get the joke. Democratic primary voters believe the talking points. And very soon, they will be powerful enough to nominate their own presidential candidate. And when that happens, it’s going to be a very different party.

The 2020 Presidential campaign and election will require serious amounts of popcorn.

 

Ruining The College Board

David Coleman has been the President of the College Board since 2012. David Coleman was one of the people responsible for developing the Common Core standards. He has now brought his total misconceptions of what works in education to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), long used as an indication of a student’s ability and possible clue to how well they would do in college.

Yesterday The New York Times posted an article that reported the following:

The College Board, the company that administers the SAT exam taken by about two million students a year, will for the first time assess students not just on their math and verbal skills, but also on their educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, entering a fraught battle over the fairness of high-stakes testing.

The company announced on Thursday that it will include a new rating, which is widely being referred to as an “adversity score,” of between 1 and 100 on students’ test results. An average score is 50, and higher numbers mean more disadvantage. The score will be calculated using 15 factors, including the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s neighborhood.

The rating will not affect students’ test scores, and will be reported only to college admissions officials as part of a larger package of data on each test taker.

The new measurement brings the College Board squarely into the raging national debate over fairness and merit in college admissions, one fueled by enduring court clashes on affirmative action, a federal investigation into a sprawling admissions cheating ring and a booming college preparatory industry that promises results to those who can pay.

Below is a picture of what constitutes the adversity score:

The American Thinker quoted Tucker Carlson, who noted the following about the idea:

It’s kept a secret. “Trust us,” in effect, they say. There is no appeal possible. And as a black box whose inner workings are secret, it becomes an ideal vehicle for engineering the racial results admissions offices desire.

It is easily gamed – fake addresses, even possible income manipulation (by claiming a lot of depreciation, for instance, the way that Donald Trump reported negative income in the 1980s)

And it provides perverse incentives, rewarding victim status, not achievement. Parents who start out with no advantages and work hard to provide a better life for their kids will now be handicapping them if they have high incomes and live in nice neighborhoods with good schools.

Obviously if you are a middle class parent living with the father of your children in a respectable neighborhood, the answer would be to divorce your spouse and move to Detroit. That is obscene.

It might also be a good idea to consider the consequences of this new program–how will children who do not have good SAT scores but have great adversity scores do in college? What will be the drop out rate? Will they understand the classes they are taking? The way to achieve diversity in colleges is to change the culture in communities where the work ethic has been lost. There are many first-generation Chinese children living in New York City in poverty that are gaining admission to the top schools in the city because their parents have taught them to work hard in school. Rather than risk putting students in college that are academically unprepared for what they are going to face, shouldn’t we simply encourage a cultural change in poor communities that rewards hard work in school. It can make a difference–Ben Carson is a shining example of a child growing up poor with a single parent who lacked education that taught her children the value of education. Let’s lift people up instead of making excuses for them because of where they grew up.

Things That Began Well Don’t Always End Well

This is my eulogy for Fox News. I remember Fox News Sunday when Tony Snow was hosting it. It was balanced and informative. That has changed in recent years. I enjoy Tucker Carlson. I understand we may not agree on everything, but he is fair, logical, and informative. I used to enjoy Hannity and Colmes when they debated both sides of an issue. I guess the fairness and balance of Fox News will be a distant memory.

The Los Angeles Times posted an article yesterday about some changes to Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox as it prepares for a merger with Walt Disney Company. 21st Century Fox created a new company, Fox Corp., made up of Fox News Channel and Fox broadcast network.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported that Paul Ryan will be a board member for Fox Corp., the new parent company of Fox News.

The Washington Post reports:

Last week, Ryan reportedly told a crowd during a lecture in Vero Beach, Fla., that the Democrat who defines the race as one about Trump and Trump’s personality could beat him. But he quickly backtracked on Twitter to clarify that he believes Trump deserves to win.

“To be clear, GOP wins elections when they’re about ideas not when they’re personality contests like Dems & media want. We’re clearly better off because of @RealDonaldTrump,” Ryan tweeted. “His record of accomplishment is why he’ll win re-election especially when compared to Dems’ leftward lurch.”

Ryan will serve on the seven-member board along with Murdoch, Fox’s founder, and his son, Lachlan Murdoch, Fox’s chairman and chief executive.

I believe the choices currently being made will be the end of Fox News as the most-watched news network in America.

Misplacing The Blame

For years the Republicans told us that if they controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate, they would repeal ObamaCare, defund Planned Parenthood, and build a border wall. We gave them the House and the Senate. Then they said they couldn’t do what they said because they didn’t have the Presidency. So we gave them the Presidency. We were so naive. When they knew their votes on these matters would not be vetoed, they broke the promises they made to the voters and voted against repealing, defunding, and building.

On Thursday Breitbart posted an article about some recent comments by Tucker Carlson.

The article reports:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in an interview Thursday that President Donald Trump has succeeded as a conversation starter but has failed to keep his most important campaign promises.

“His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund Planned Parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn’t done any of those things,” Carlson told Urs Gehriger of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche.

“I’ve come to believe that Trump’s role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does,” said Carlson, whose new book Ship of Fools is a New York Times bestseller.

I like Tucker Carlson. I enjoy his TV show, but I think he is totally wrong on this. Republicans in Congress also made these promises. They had the votes to keep all of these promises, pass the laws needed, and send the bills to President Trump for his signature. I don’t think the problem is President Trump. I think the problem is Republicans in Congress that have reneged on their promises because of the groups that are funding their campaigns. Opensecrets.org is the website that tracks campaign donations. If you want to know why we don’t have a border wall, look at the expenditures of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They are a group that likes the cheap labor of a porous border. The contribute heavily to Republican lawmakers. That is one reason there is no border wall. There won’t be as long as the Congressmen who receive money from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are in office. If you want to know why Planned Parenthood is still getting government money, look at the campaign donations they make. How much money is the healthcare lobby pouring into Congress? The problem is not President Trump.

Asking The Right Question

First of all, The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that points out that the migrant caravan is not walking to America–they are arriving on flatbed trucks.

That actually makes sense. Who is paying for the trucks and the gasoline?

That article explains:

The migrants ‘walking’ through Mexico to reach the US appears to be more of a production than reality.

It’s clearly impossible for an individual or a group to cross the southern Mexican border and then walk all the way to the northern Mexican border in a matter of a couple of days. It is simply not possible.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that I believes sums up the problem with the immigrant caravan headed this way.

The article at The Daily Caller reports:

Things got awkward fast after Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Univision anchor Jorge Ramos to state exactly how many caravan members HE planned to personally take in.

Ramos, an outspoken immigration advocate, spoke with Carlson remotely on Tuesday from the caravan in southern Mexico. The Fox News host’s question came after the Univision host made several comments defending its members, including insisting unequivocally that none of them were from the Middle East.

“How many of these migrants are you taking in personally into your home and are supporting once they get into the United States?” Carlson asked.

“I think that’s a great question and that’s precisely the kind of question that people like you ask when you don’t want to understand that this has nothing to do with individuals,” responded Ramos. “It has to do with nations. And what we have to understand is that these refugees are not a threat to the United States. I know that in Fox News …”

“Before you attack Fox, this is a simple question,” Carlson interrupted. “How many are you taking in?”

After a back and forth that included Ramos stating that immigrants’ desire to come is “really a love letter to the United States,” the Fox News host pressed again: “I’m asking you a very simple question – How many of these migrants are you personally taking responsibility for? How many are going home to Jorge’s place in Miami at the end of the day? And please be specific.”

“I think that again this has nothing to do with individuals. I wish I could help all of them,” responded Ramos.

The problem is that we all want to help them, but we are not able to help all of them without overwhelming ourselves. Those who are saying we need to let in these thousands of people and feed and clothe them need to remember that we have homeless Americans (many of whom are veterans) that we need to help first. I am sorry that they have been misled to make the trip north by empty promises, but notice that the countries that they passed through on their way here have not provided them with asylum (as required by international law). The only way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America is to send them home.

In looking at the potention damage letting this caravan of people into the country could do, we need to remember the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. That is the promise of communism. We see how well that has worked in the past.

The Timetable On The Vote On Judge Kavanaugh

Below is a quote from Tucker Carlson regarding the timing of the vote on Judge Kavanaugh. The remarks were made on the Tucker Carlson show last week. The transcript is from the Tea Party:

Tucker Carlson: Here are the basic facts about it. According to the original schedule most of us assumed was real two weeks ago the senate should have already voted on the nomination by now and Kavanaugh almost certainly would have been confirmed. He had the numbers. And then the wrinkle. Democrats leaked the name of Christine Ford to the press. For alleges that sometime back in high school, about 36 year ago, Kavanaugh jumped on her at a party and groped her over her clothes. She’s provided very few details including when and where it allegedly happened. Kavanaugh has denied the story entirely and so has the other person Ford said was present, a man named Mark Judge. That’s pretty much what we know. In order to know more we’re going to need to hear from Christine Ford. But both sides once agreed on that because it’s obvious she should have a chance to speak. Everyone thought that was a good idea. It was a consensus view. Republicans in the senate asked for her to testify this week, she refused. They offered to send a staff to her house in California to take her testimony privately and she refused that too. Finally they asked her to testify this coming Monday, she said she won’t but she won’t explain why she won’t. Ford’s attorneys now say she’s willing to explain herself in the senate next Thursday.

Thursday is a significant date in this story. Because of senate rules which are complex, if Ford testifies next Thursday the vote on Kavanaugh will be pushed back at least another week. In this environment that very well means – forever. His nomination will be over.

And So will any Trump nomination to the court. There is a time before the midterms for the White House to introduce and vet a new candidate. Democrats will have prevented the president from filling this vacancy. We’ll have just eight justices for the foreseeable future. And probably until there is another Democratic president. You may have voted for Trump in hope that he would put reasonable people on the Supreme Court. But TOUGH!

In another story, I will explain why the charges against Judge Kavanaugh are questionable at best. However, the above quote shows the end game–block this nomination at any cost.

The Real Answer To The Mueller Investigation

Last night Tucker Carlson stated the following on his television show (posted at The Gateway Pundit):

Tucker Carlson: I just wanted to say this. We spoke to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee a minute ago. Devin Nunes of California is an honorable person… He has read the whole text of the application for the FISA warrant by the government, the Obama administration to spy on Carter Page and the Trump Campaign. He says the parts that have been redacted do not in any way threaten American national security. It is merely butt-covering on the part of the bureaucracy. We ask the obvious question which is why don’t you just tell us what’s in it and let the public decide, let the public judge. In the commercial break I got an interesting text, I’m going to read it on the air from a very informed person in Washington. And I’m quoting, “Dianne Feinstein entered the CIA torture memos into the record of the senate and was protected by the speech and debate clause. Any Republican with access to the FISA warrant could do the same. Complete immunity awaits them. I believe that to be true… I will say one more time, if you know what’s in the redacted portions of that application please send it to us. The public has a right to know.

I believe transparency is the answer to the current corruption in Washington. The best way to deal with the ‘deep state’ is to expose it.

Maybe We Need To Rethink This

A website called Clearancejobs.com includes an article answering the question, “What happens to your security clearance after you’ve been fired, suspended or retired?” The website explains the various procedures based on the circumstances. The website points out that in many cases a clearance may remain in effect or be suspended but easily renewed if necessary. When you consider the politicization of the Justice Department and FBI during the Obama administration, it would seem logical to cancel all of the security clearances of those at the top of those organizations who are no longer employed there. However, as usual with anything involving common sense, this is considered a controversial idea.

Considering the news that surfaced over the weekend about the FISA abuse regarding the spying on Carter Page, anyone who was involved in that escapade should be fired and have their security clearance revoked. Clearly, the government’s ability to spy on American citizens was used for political purposes by the Obama administration. However, the media is not going to let common sense enter into the argument.

Bloomberg posted an article today stirring up the kerfuffle about revoking security clearances.

The article is headlined, “Trump Weighs Revoking Security Clearances for Several Ex-Obama Officials.” It should read, “Some of the people involved in the misuse of intelligence gathering within the United States may face consequences.”

The article states:

The president is “exploring the mechanism” to remove their access to classified information because of criticism the officials have leveled against his conduct of relations with Russia, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Monday.

“They’ve politicized and in some cases monetized their public service and security clearances,” Sanders said. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate.”

Sanders said Trump also was considering stripping security clearances from James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence; Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency; and Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

The article concludes:

The idea of moving to revoke Brennan’s security clearance gained traction recently in conservative media circles. Fox News host Tucker Carlson on July 19 called Brennan an extremist with “a documented history of dishonesty” and said he shouldn’t have a clearance.

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said he urged Trump to revoke Brennan’s security clearance at a meeting with the president Monday. Trump is trying to court Paul to vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh despite reservations the senator has expressed about Kavanaugh’s commitment to privacy rights.

I have my doubts as to whether anyone will face consequences for misusing FISA for political purposes. However, removing a few security clearances might send a message to those holding those clearances to use them judiciously.

 

When Is The Playing Field Actually Level?

Channel 8 in Cleveland reported yesterday that President Trump is planning to rescind the Obama administration policy of considering race in college admissions,

The article reports:

The shift would give schools and universities the federal government’s blessing to take a race-neutral approach to the students they consider for admission.

A formal announcement was expected later Tuesday from the Justice and Education departments, according to the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been disclosed.

The guidance from the Obama administration gave schools a framework for “considering race to further the compelling interests in achieving diversity and avoiding racial isolation.” That approach replaced Bush-era policy from a decade earlier.

The new guidance will not have the force of law, but schools will presumably be able to defend themselves from lawsuits by following administration policy.

Yesterday a video was posted on YouTube of an Indian student Tucker Carlson interviewed who claimed to be black in order to get into medical school. The student explains the problems with acceptance to schools based on race.

Here is the interview:

Making decisions on race is racism, regardless of who benefits. The idea that someone with lower grades or test scoress would be admitted to medical school simply because of their color may be well-intentioned, but it is wrong. The answer to past racial discrimination is not present discrimination, it is treating everyone equally. Until we learn to hire people, admit people to college, and treat all people equally, we will not have racial harmony. More discrimination is not the answer to past wrongs.

Abusing Our Justice System For Political Reasons

The following YouTube video is from the Tucker Carlson Show:

Tucker: Let’s be real. Paul Manafort is jail tonight because prosecutors want him to testify against President Trump.

This is a total perversion of our justice system. Someone needs to rein in this abuse. Where are the judges?

Well, let’s look at the judge who agreed to send Paul Manafort to jail.

In November of last year, Bloomberg posted an article about U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The article reports:

Earlier this year, for instance, she dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of two of the four Americans who died at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, seeking to hold Trump’s election opponent Hillary Clinton responsible.

And four years ago, she sided with the Obama administration request and put on hold a lawsuit by House Republicans demanding papers related to former Attorney General Eric Holder’s botched Fast-and-Furious gun-tracking operation.

…It’s rare for judges to hold white-collar offenders behind bars before a trial or guilty plea — even Bernard Madoff was allowed to remain free on a $10 million bond — but it happens.

Judge Jackson was appointed by President Obama in 2011.