Richard Edward in the Garden of Politics

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Mabel Amber, who will one day from Pixabay

I am on my second cup of coffee and I still can’t face the day (sorry Mr. Lightfoot). Why? I am scheduled to witness, firsthand, the premier of manual labor, a play I would rather not attend. Since the fourth First Lady’s acquisition of an unusually large garden plot, the task of clean-up and planting preparation has been hanging over my head. I run through my mental checklist before leaving for the plot …

Irrigation? Check. Not designed and installed yet, but those soaker hoses and that timer you bought yesterday should work. At least there is a hose bib with running water.

Planter beds? Check. Not installed yet, but those raised bed kits that you bought yesterday shouldn’t take too much effort to assemble and fill with steer poop.

Crop cage? Check. Framework installed and in relatively good shape, except for all those places where the chicken wire overlaps and needs to be secured.  Those zip ties and wire clips you purchased should come in handy.

Oh well, glance at the watch, it’s not quite yet gotten to be 100° before noon, so it could be worse.

As I run through my checklist, I notice that my cat awakens from her nocturnal slumber, perched upon the counter-height chair, visions of rogue mice beginning to fade from her cat brain. She glances my direction, slow blinks, jumps from her perch and immediately begins her morning routine of cat yoga….assuming her favorite position of downward feline.

Mr. Narrator (interrupts): “Richard Edward, it’s not getting any cooler outside. Quit stalling, get your tools together and get on with the garden site prep.”

Richard Edward: “You’re right Mr. Narrator. I’ve been putting this off. There really is so much work to be done, even before the actual work of planting and harvesting, that the reward of organic vegetables appears diminished. Anyway, I’ll grab the rakes and hoes and meet you and the fourth first at the car.”

As I step into my garage, the lizard portion of my cortex lights up. Rakes and hoes, why does that seem so familiar? Then I realize that the ‘rakes and hoes’ tools that I seek now are in reality, those very political actors that I loathe so much. Now I understand why I don’t want to do this; these tools of the garden are simply representations; its really about the bogeymen of my political awareness — professional politicians.

Mr. Narrator (interrupts again): “Richard Edward, stop! Not all politicians are rakes and hoes. While I do see some similarities with the current administration’s leadership, many of those political actors are not solely consigned to behave like the ‘lower tools’ in life’s garden. Rakes and hoes may be basic tools, but it doesn’t mean that they are base. There are some honest folks in Washington.”

I hate when Mr. Narrator makes word play.

Richard Edward: “Ok, I’ll play your garden word game. You just might be correct. But even so, in the garden that is D.C., there really are tools, rakes, hoes and more than a few weeds that need to be removed.”

“Rakes? I’d nominate Slick Willy, Hunter Biden and yes, even Joey Robinette in his younger days. John Kennedy was also reputed to be something of a rake, no?”

“Hoes? Well, there are far too many to mention in gentlemanly conversation, but how many pols have you seen that will do anything for a (lobbyist) buck? While its not the world’s oldest profession (navigators will tell you that someone first had to lead the customer to find them), it appears that many legislators and those in the administration have decided that selling one’s integrity is a profitable enterprise. I mean, how many folks on the CDC staff are eligible for royalties from drug patents?”

“Tools? The list is long Mr. Narrator. Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Fang Fang Swalwell, ‘Guam” Johnson and that shifty, bug-eyed dude from CA who always has the ‘goods’ on everyone but just never delivers, Mitt Romney and then any Democrat member of any oversight committee. So many tools they could open a big box garden store. C’mon man, name one Democratic legislator who is smarter than a hand trowel?”

“Weeds? Don’t get me started! Toxic, strangling the life out of legitimate political endeavors. … The weeds could be the worst of the bunch in the political garden; spreading poison amongst the legitimate programs that are trying to bear fruit. Weeds compete with good crops for water, soil, sunlight, nourishment and yet they produce nothing. (Looking at you AOC, Bernie Sanders, Auntie Maxine, Ilhan Omar.)”

Mr. Narrator: “Okay, Richard Edward, enough.  You’ve made your point. We obviously need a new master gardener in D.C.”

Richard Edward: “Yes, Mr. Narrator, I knew in my knower that you’d see my point of view. Good gardeners help create life-sustaining environments, tend and care for both seedlings and mature plants, ensure access to water and food, make sure every plant in their garden has its own space and place to grow, and they keep the weeds from choking the good plants.”

“Good legislators do kind of the same things for their constituents. They help create lawful and peaceful environments, promote legislation and administrative programs that benefit the young and the old, help their constituents stay employed, stay in school and ensure that they have access to programs that are designed to promote personal and/or professional growth. As always, the good ones try to keep the weeds from showing up in their districts.

If you think about who represents you, maybe its time to pull a few weeds and if you have to, hire a new gardener.”

“If you think that good gardeners might make good legislators, please let Richard Edward and Mr. Narrator know why you think so. … And if you have one, happy gardening!

— Richard Edward Tracy

Revenge of the ‘Very Liberal’ Artx Majors

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by F. Muhammad from Pixabay

If you have a degree in sociology, psychology or gender studies, it’s not my fault. This isn’t a knock on your choice. I know how it feels to waste my own money, personally carrying around a degree in philosophy. I told myself I would continue on to law school, but the new ‘lottery’ (apologies to Shirley Jackson) draft system and my amazingly low draft number altered my plans.

Imagine my surprise when reading the news today and stumbling across an article that details just exactly how I, specifically as a white person, am supposed to behave in public when visiting the newly erected shrine dedicated to George Floyd; a drug addict and thug who had a violent criminal history. I am so glad that some woke social studies major got that figured out. I just hate not knowing how to act.

What would I do if I found myself in George Floyd Square, previously known as the intersection of 38th Street and Chicago, and didn’t conform to dictated expected behaviors?

Now I can go and visit that hallowed ground and do exactly what the rioters, BLM racists and socially woke, useful idiots want me to do.

Mr. Narrator (interrupts):  “Richard Edward, stop!  You are being disrespectful to the memory of George Floyd. People are trying to build a shrine to the memory of a hero, a man who sacrificed his life on the altar of justice. Crazy Nancy said so just a couple of days ago and you know you can’t tell her she is wrong.”

Richard Edward: “What? (don’t you just hate being surprised all of the time?)  Shrine to? Social justice warrior?  I read in an article by my colleague Elizabeth Vaughn that he was high on fentanyl at the time of his arrest. He told the officers “I can’t breathe” and repeated “put me on the ground” several times before he was placed on the ground during his apprehension. You sure we’re talking about the same dude?”

Mr. Narrator: “Yes, Richard Edward. That was George Floyd in life. In death, he has been given an entirely different biography. In life, he was just another drug-addled thug in Minneapolis who resisted arrest for his latest suspected crime; but in death, he has become a civil rights icon, more than worthy of your obsequious genuflecting. The woke graduate sociology majors have declared it so.”

Wow, is there anything a liberal arts degree can’t do? Rewrite history? Dictate your behavior in public places, especially according to your race? Tell millions of your neighbors how to think and feel about current events? I never understood that the possession of a degree in social studies, sociology or any other of the ‘Liberal Artx’ would hold the answer to all of the world’s conundrums.

Mr. Narrator: “Don’t be snarky, Richard Edward. These folks are serious. White people need to be told how to act in a place of worship. Here, let me show you what is required of you if you visit.  Newsmax captured the woke folk’s instructions in a nifty little list:

White guests need to “decenter” and “come to listen, learn, mourn, and witness.”

“Remember you are here to support, not to be supported,” the sign instructs.

White people are then asked to “contribute to the energy of the space, rather than drain it.”

Any “processing” must be brought to “other white folks” so that “BIPOC” (an acronym for “Black and Indigenous people of color”) are not harmed….

Richard Edward:  “Well, that does it. I am going to plan my trip to George Floyd Square right away. But before I go, I’ll first need to decipher the social justice warriors’ instructions to ensure my behavior will be acceptable to their hall-monitors, whom I am sure will be on duty, cell phone cameras at the ready.  These instructions are so wonderfully today’s pop psychology, I am positive they were written by recent graduates from any woke, ivy league school.”

“Mr. Narrator, do you know where I can go to find out how to ‘decenter’? This is important to me. My balance isn’t as good as it used to be, so any ‘decentering’ might have significantly adverse effects on my health and ability to stand upright. If I can’t stand up right, how can I follow the rest of their instructions?”

“Support?  I love being a support. That’s something I can get right without any homework. I’ve raised and supported a family, been married four times and thus clearly understand the true meaning of support. Heck, I once single-handedly held up a section of fence until the last post was installed. I can easily go to the location of the Great Fentanyl Incident and hand-out money, along with my deepest personally sympathy, to the race grifters who will inevitably inhabit the sidewalks of said intersection.”

“Be a contributor? You bet. Didn’t I already say I’ve been married four times?”

“Keep my processing to myself or folks of my own race? (So much for reaching out to others.) I guess I can support and contribute to those in the George Floyd matrix without letting it upset me to the point where I become triggered and need to run off, screaming for my safe space. Processing? Well, I used to work in the tech industry and can understand a little about processing, so I guess I’ll be alright with that one, too.”

“I can do this trip, Mr. Narrator. I can make the hajj to George Floyd Square and prostrate myself before the alter of wokeness, asking for forgiveness for being a white, law-abiding citizen; one whose expectations used to be only to ‘treat others as I would like to be treated.’ That life approach is so passé.”

Mr. Narrator:  “Richard Edward, I knew you would get it. There is hope for you to fit somewhere towards the bottom of the new woke, world order. We are so lucky that the sociology majors of the world have shown you your path to redemption.”

If you think that having a Liberal Artx degree and a holier than thou attitude does/doesn’t give one the right to dictate other’s behavior, please make a comment and let Richard Edward and Mr. Narrator know your thoughts.

—-  Richard Edward Tracy

Nancy Pelosi Tells a Whopper About Who’s Responsible for the Border Crisis

Advertisements
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

We’ve come to expect hearing lies when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth. But even for Pelosi, her latest assessment of conditions at our southwest border was a whopper.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Pelosi had this to say about the largest influx of illegal immigrants flooding into the country in over 20 years. “I’m glad you asked that question in a larger sense instead of quoting the ridiculousness of the Republicans in the Congress. The fact is – is that we’re on a good path at the border under the leadership of President Biden. … It’s about restructuring how we do what is happening there because we were in a very bad situation under the Trump Administration. It’s about a refugee plan. …”

The fact is, Nancy Pelosi, that you are lying through your teeth. And it says everything about the press in America today that not one reporter had the courage to stand up and tell her so.

Even Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted against President Trump in the second impeachment trial, told Fox News’ Chris Wallace last month that “You can’t help but notice that the administration changes and there is a surge.”

According to The Washington Post, “U.S. agents took more than 171,000 migrants into custody” in March.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson noted that’s a 418 percent increase from March 2020.

A guest on Carlson’s program pointed out that if U.S. agents took 171,000 illegals into custody, the true figure of individuals coming into the country is even higher. This data doesn’t account for the “gotaways,” those who are not detected by U.S. officials.

No one knows the true number of illegals who are currently living in America. For years, we’ve been told it’s 11 million. Funny how that figure hasn’t changed in 20 years, isn’t it?

I’ve heard estimates of 22 million and even 29 million. And 2 million more will likely be added in 2021.

Carlson addressed this issue in his opening monolog on Tuesday: “How high is the actual figure? It’s high enough to change this country forever in every conceivable way. It’s high enough to devalue your political power as a voter. It’s high enough to subvert democracy itself. It’s high enough to make this country a different place. But again, we don’t know the number. We absolutely have the right to know. We should demand to know.”

The Washington Post reports:

Last month, CBP took in more than 18,800 unaccompanied minors, a 99 percent increase from February and a figure far above the previous one-month high of 11,861 in May 2019. The jump in the number of migrants arriving as part of family groups was even steeper last month, soaring to more than 53,000, up from 19,246 in February and 7,294 in January, the preliminary figures show.

Suffice it to say, Pelosi’s claims to reporters were undeniably false.

But the lying didn’t end there. In the clip below, she tells a second lie to the same group about the Trump Administration’s handling of COVID. This is fodder for a later post.

America truly is in crisis.

The View From Down Under: Australian News Anchor Delivers a Second Brutal Review of the Biden Administration [Update]

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Please Don’t sell My Artwork AS IS from Pixabay

Update: Another Sky News Australia anchor torches Biden. Scroll down for Alan Jones’ monolog.

It’s time for the Biden Administration and the U.S. establishment media to understand that they aren’t fooling the rest of the world with the farce they work so hard, day in and day out, to perpetuate. The world knows that President Joe Biden has dementia and that the media is working hard to cover up for him.

In February, Sky News anchor (and former member of parliament from South Australia) Cory Bernardi took aim at Biden for the first time. He began his monolog by telling viewers, “Never before has the leader of the free world been so cognitively compromised. It’s clear to me at the least that US President Joe Biden is struggling with dementia and is clearly not up to the task he’s been sworn in to do.” (Australian TV Host Delivers Brutally Honest Report on Biden’s Dementia: Calls Out US Media for ‘Biden Protection Racket’)

Two weeks later, another Sky News anchor, also from Australia, went off on Biden. (Second Australian Anchor Smokes the U.S. Media’s ‘Errant Hypocrisy’ Regarding Biden; Biden Just ‘Blunders On’)

Shortly after that, a Brit hopped on the bandwagon. (Two Honest Aussies, and Now a Brit, Report What Our Own Media Will Not.)

A couple of days ago, Bernardi was back with a progress report. Suffice it to say that neither Biden, nor his inner circle, fared any better this time around.

In the video below, Bernardi offers his second scathing assessment of the Biden Administration which he calls a true to life mockumentary.

He unmercifully critiques everyone from “Cackling Kamala” to “Crazy Nancy” and does not hesitate to point out the oddities and hypocrisies that the U.S. media refuses to touch. Watch the video below and you’ll wish Bernardi worked for CNN.

(Spoiler: Biden has not improved the United States’ standing in the eyes of the world.)

Lo and behold, as I was clicking around for news, I came across an update from Alan Jones, the other Australian anchor to torch Biden last month. Jones said that the “Leader of the Free World is incoherent, having to be propped up physically and intellectually … After the stumble, the websites of MSNBC, CBS News, the Washington Post, Lost Angeles Times and the New York Times all had no mention of Biden’s stumbling incident.”

Jones continued: “To prove the Trump point, when it came to airtime on television, CNN devoted 15 seconds to the incident. … But when Trump walked slowly down a ramp after he delivered a graduation address last June, CNN devoted 22 minutes to Trump’s walk, the media pushing the line that Trump – 74 – was facing serious health question.”

The U.S. media and the current occupant of the White House are international laughing stocks.

Democrat Trying to Steal Iowa House Seat Withdraws Bid, Cites Republicans’ ‘Toxic Campaign of Political Disinformation’

Advertisements
Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

I’ve written endlessly about the race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District which was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times as uncounted ballots were discovered and other issues were resolved. Ultimately, a statewide recount was conducted and the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30. Miller-Meeks was sworn into Congress in January.

Lo and behold, the Hart campaign found 22 uncounted ballots, which she claimed would put her ahead of Miller-Meeks by nine votes. Rather than going through the traditional channels which would have meant an appeal through the Iowa court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee.

You may recall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making headlines last week for insisting she had the right to seat or unseat any member of Congress.

Republicans were surprised that Pelosi would support Hart’s attempt to overturn a certified election result after the Democrats’ acrimonious shaming and blaming of President Trump for doing the same. Even some Democrats saw the irony in the situation.

Hart should have taken her dispute to the Iowa courts. She chose not to, likely because she knew her case was weak.

Republicans found the whole idea of a House committee overturning a certified state election result to be despicable.

Over the last three months, the conservative media has pulled out all the stops to expose the irony and the indecency of what Hart, with the full support of Pelosi, was trying to do. I wrote four or five posts about this race myself.

On Wednesday afternoon, Hart surprisingly announced her decision to withdraw her “contest.” She cited “the toxic campaign of political disinformation to attack this constitutional review of the closest congressional contest in 100 years has effectively silenced the voices of Iowans. It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility.”

If you take away her rancor, she blames the Republicans’ “toxic campaign of political disinformation” for her withdrawal. I call it a concerted effort to point out the truth of this despicable and dishonest attempt to steal an election.

This is a rare win for the conservative media. Instead of writing about it once or twice and simply watching the Democrats roll over us again, we went all out and it worked. We need to remember our winning formula here. We need to keep pounding and pounding and pounding the Democrats as they do to Republicans.

Next project, the border crisis.

Hart’s full statement can be viewed in the tweet below.

Pelosi Weighs Decision to Steal Iowa House Seat: It’s My Right to Seat or Unseat Any Member of Congress

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by David Mark from Pixabay

The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times in a statewide recount until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30.

“Hart’s team alleges that there are 22 ballots that should have been counted in the election and that if they had, she would have won by nine votes. Hart’s campaign has cited examples including five absentee ballots cast in her favor that were not counted because they were not properly sealed,” according to NPR.

Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results.

The House committee voted along party lines to review Hart’s challenge and “attorneys for the two candidates submitted initial legal briefs … on Monday. In a terse 23-page brief, Miller-Meeks’ counsel broadly denied Hart’s claims and said the burden was on Hart to prove that a state-certified election should be overturned,” NPR reported.

Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn in in January.

Asked about this case at a press conference, Pelosi replied, “If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa, because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, ‘You’re not seated,’ and that would have been my right as Speaker to do.”

Actually, the Speaker’s job is to seat the lawmakers whom the states have certified as the winners.

This woman seems to lack any sense of right and wrong.

Reportedly, even many House Democrats are balking at the thought  of overturning a state-certified election.

From The Wall Street Journal:

More House Democrats are expressing concern over potentially having to vote later this year on whether to overturn a Republican congresswoman’s razor-thin victory in Iowa.

The House Administration Committee opted on party lines earlier this month to review a challenge from Democratic candidate Rita Hart disputing her loss by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified Ms. Miller-Meeks’s narrow win following a recount of the full district. But the legal team of Ms. Hart, who is challenging the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act, said there are 22 valid ballots that were never counted, which could reverse the outcome.

Some House Democrats have recently shared their concerns with Democratic leaders over having to potentially vote to overturn a state-certified election in Iowa and conveyed to them that they might not have enough votes to prevail, according to lawmakers and aides. Democrats currently hold a narrow 219-211 majority and can lose no more than three votes on measures opposed by all Republicans.

[…]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday it was Ms. Hart’s right to contest her narrow loss.

“If you had lost a race by six votes, wouldn’t you like to say ‘there must be some way that we can count this?’” she said to reporters. “We are obligated under federal law to follow the process and the facts.”

Last month, Politico reported that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”

Hart’s lead attorney is Marc Elias of the Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it was Elias who laundered funds from Hillary Clinton and the DNC through his firm to pay Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm owned by Glenn Simpson, to produce the infamous Steele dossier.

Elias also represented New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi’s recent (and fortunately unsuccessful) effort to overturn his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. Brindisi conceded to Tenney last month.

Ironically, Elias argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi. … In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”

Then why was it ridiculous when Trump’s attorneys made the same argument? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question. We know why.

In addition, according to The Washington Times, Elias “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts.”

“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” Politico reported. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey.”

“A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”

It looks like the House might be headed for yet another acrimonious affair.

National Guard General Wants to Bring His Soldiers Home, Biden Administration Refuses Request

Advertisements

The Pentagon announced on Tuesday that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III approved a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for 2,300 National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through May 23, 2021. There are currently 5,200 troops deployed to the Capitol.

On Thursday, the Fox News Channel obtained a copy of a memo written by Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, in which he explained why the National Guard “cannot and should not fulfill the Capitol Police’s troop request at this time.”

Hokanson argued that “the National Guard is already over-stretched due to coronavirus constraints, civil disturbances and wildfires. Efforts to date have not secured enough volunteers among supporting states to meet the USCP request of 2,280 soldiers, nor Option B of 1000 soldiers.”

“I am concerned that the continued indefinite nature of this requirement may also impede our ability to man future missions as both adjutants general and guardsmen alike may be skeptical about committing to future endeavors,” he added.

According to Fox, Hokanson’s memo circulated within the White House National Security Council over the past week.

The memo revealed Hokanson’s choice was overruled by Austin, who decided to maintain a presence of 2,280 troops to “continue the support mission” at the Capitol.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby spoke to reporters on Wednesday.

“[Y]es, the Department of Defense will be funding this as we’ve funded the previous mission, which ends at the end of the week,” he said. “But that’s not how anybody’s looking at this or foisting that on the Capitol Police, that they’re looking at this as free labor.”

Kirby claimed “they have a legitimate need for some capacity assistance in a time which is fairly uncertain right now … [I]t’s not just about the threat environment in a highly polarized, hyper-charged environment that we’re in right now. It is very much about a capacity assistance to the Capitol Police as they begin to flesh out and develop what they’re going to need long term to deal with a new reality on Capitol Hill.”

The price tag for the National Guard troops from January through March is $410 million, and the extension from March through May will cost an additional $111 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

According to The Hill, Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and committee ranking member Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama issued a joint statement on Thursday which said they were “deeply troubled” that “the seat of our nation’s democracy remains heavily protected by guardsmen and surrounded by a perimeter fence.”

“As the U.S. Capitol Police continues to build its personnel capacity, there is no doubt that some level of support from the National Guard should remain in the National Capital Region to respond to credible threats against the Capitol,” the statement said.

“However, the present security posture is not warranted at this time. … We appreciate our guardsmen answering the call to protect the Capitol, but it’s time for us to review what level of security is required, so they can return home to their families and communities.”

Following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted upon an overwhelming, unprecedented and unnecessary level of security. Ahead of the Jan. 20 inauguration, there were over 25,000 National Guard troops protecting the Capitol.

In addition, a seven-foot tall, three-mile long security fence with razor wire wrapped along the top was installed. Pelosi, trying to create the impression that supporters of President Donald Trump were a serious threat to lawmakers’ safety, even had magnetometers set up at the entrances to the House chamber.

In January, Ken Cuccinelli, who served as acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the Capitol incursion, made an alarming revelation during an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on her show, “The Story.”

The two had been discussing the massive presence of National Guard troops deployed to Washington, D.C., and MacCallum pointed out that 25,000 was several times the troop levels currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Agreeing with MacCallum, Cuccinelli replied that 25,000 troops was the equivalent of an entire division. He then disclosed that Pelosi had requested the “last up of the final troops” and had asked for crew-manned machine guns.

“A division. You have a division,” he told the host. “The last up of thousands of these troops was requested by the speaker through the Capitol Police. She even wanted crew-manned machine guns in Washington. That was rejected because there’s simply no use for that in a security arrangement for a civilian undertaking. Just — so some of this has gone beyond any legitimate security need.”

It’s pretty astounding that Pelosi thought this was a reasonable request. Crew-manned machine guns are the types of weapons you see deployed against citizens in places like North Korea, Russia and nearly every African dictatorship.

These aren’t rifles or pistols, but crew-served weapons. They can dish out the hurt in ways a standard-issue carbine cannot. Fully automatic and made to confront armed enemy combatants, these should never be used against civilians.

So, the question remains, why did the Biden Administration overrule the chief of the National Guard Bureau’s decision? He made it clear his branch is stretched way too thin and their current position is untenable.

These troops have been forced to be away from family and friends only to serve as props for the speaker of the House, and the total cost to U.S. taxpayers will top $500 million.

As I wrote in a previous post, I can think of two reasons for the troop presence.

First, it allows the Democrats to maintain the fiction that they need protection from the unhinged “domestic terrorists” who support former President Trump.

The other possibility is, well aware of their unprecedented and un-American power grab and their transformation of a once-great nation, Democrats may fear reprisal from the people.

If I had done everything the Democrats have to undermine our democratic republic, it wouldn’t be crazy for me to think I might need some protection too.

Here’s Why the Democrats Might Want the National Guard Troops to Remain at Capitol

Advertisements

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III had approved a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for 2,300 National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through May 23, 2021 to “continue the support mission.” There are currently 5,200 troops deployed to the Capitol.

I can think of two reasons for the troop presence.

First, it allows the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to maintain the fiction that they need protection from the unhinged “domestic terrorists” who support former President Donald Trump.

Just as the installation of a seven-foot tall, three-mile long security fence (complete with barbed wire) and magnetometers at each entrance to the House chamber telegraph the message that lawmakers are in harm’s way, the presence of several thousand National Guard troops serves to intensify the effect.

Ever since the troops arrived in Washington, I’ve believed this. However, I’m now starting to see it differently. Democrats may actually believe they need protection.

Because Democratic leaders, and Pelosi most of all, are well aware of the extent of their corruption, they may truly fear that “the people” will deliver the backlash they deserve.

Although CNN and The New York Times tell us the November election was free and fair and that the matter is settled, 75 million Americans still have their doubts. A read of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent following the Court’s decision not to review Trump’s lawsuits against the state of Pennsylvania speaks volumes. He says the decision, invites the “erosion of voter confidence.” And he is correct.

Consider the Democratic “power grab” that began the very day President Joe Biden took office.

There are too many corrupt acts to count, but here are a few.

  • Reversed key Trump Administration immigration policies (that were working) such as catch and release. Biden’s actions have created a new crisis at the border, although no administration officials have acknowledged it.
  • Canceled the Keystone Pipeline, instantly ending thousands of high-paying union jobs. They also “paused” new drilling leases on federal lands. They declared war on the fossil fuel industry. These policies have already led to higher gasoline prices.
  • The passage of a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, 10% of which actually goes to coronavirus related items. As I posted here, it includes an $86 billion bailout for failing pensions which even The New York Times admits has nothing to do with COVID. It will also bailout states and cities which have been mismanaged their finances for decades. The city of San Francisco alone will receive $600 million to erase the bulk of their debt, most of which accrued prior to the pandemic.
  • Beholden to the powerful teacher’s unions, the administration has refused to order teachers back to work. The extended period of virtual learning has taken a toll on student’s mental health. Rates of depression, anxiety and even suicide have climbed dramatically. Still, Biden does not act.
  • Although his handler’s Middle East strategy isn’t clear yet, Biden has temporarily frozen and is re-examining arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It took him four weeks to finally call Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, our closest ally in the region.
  • Offered to restart nuclear talks with Iran; Withdrew Trump’s restoration of U.N. sanctions on Iran.
  • Rejoined the corrupt World Health Organization.
  • Rejoined the Paris Climate Accord.

The administration is desperate to pass S.1 (the Senate’s version of H.R. 1), the “For the People Act.” This legislation proposes to make permanent all of the changes such as the explosion of mail-in voting and early voting, that arguably made victory possible for Biden. If this bill becomes law, it will nearly guarantee one party rule in the U.S. for years to come.

Fortunately, it faces a higher bar in the Senate than the COVID-19 bill which only required a simple majority vote. S.1 would require 60 votes in the Senate for passage unless, of course, Democrats can find a way to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Anyway, well aware of their unprecedented and un-American power grab and their transformation of a once-great nation, Democrats may fear reprisal from the people.

If I had done all that the Democrats have done to undermine our democratic republic, it wouldn’t be crazy for me to think I might need some protection too.

New Poll Shows Major Shift in Number of U.S. Adults Who Believe George Floyd was Murdered

Advertisements

Jury selection has begun in the (second degree) murder trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the May 25 death of George Floyd which sparked riots throughout the nation and around the world last summer.

Chauvin, as you may recall, is on video pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes, as Floyd repeats “I can’t breathe.” Americans of all races had been horrified after seeing that recording.

A new USA Today/Ipsos poll has been released which shows only 36 percent of U.S. adults currently believe that Floyd was murdered, down from 60 percent in June 2020. That’s a significant shift in opinion.

It may be that people have since learned of the mitigating circumstances surrounding Floyd’s death which I will address.

Another notable difference was in the number of people who don’t know the reason for his death. Last summer, only 4 percent were unsure. That figure has quadrupled over the last nine months to 17 percent.

In June 2020, 28 percent presumed Floyd’s death was caused by negligence on the part of the police officer. That figure has increased only slightly to 30 percent.

Three percent assumed it had been an accident compared to eight percent today.

Two percent believed the police officer did nothing wrong last June while six percent think so today.

The poll also found a major difference between the number of blacks (64 percent) and the number of whites (28 percent) who view Floyd’s death as murder.

Similarly, 33 percent of whites believe it was Chauvin’s negligence that killed Floyd compared to only 16 percent of blacks.

“Americans who have heard at least something about Chauvin’s trial, say 4 to 1, or 60 percent – 15 percent, that they hope Chauvin is convicted. That included 54% of white Americans and 76% of Black Americans.”

In the hours and days following Floyd’s death, it’s not an exaggeration to say he achieved martyrdom status. In the photo of the mural of Floyd above, he is given wings and a halo.

The Spectator’s Roger Kimball asks, “How would you like to be a juror at that trial? How easy will it be to find impartial jurors in Minneapolis, where the city council, in the wake of Floyd’s death, actually voted to abolish its police department? If you were a juror, would you dare to return a ‘not guilty’ verdict?”

He cites former federal and state prosecutor George Parry who wrote, ‘there is no conceivable possibility that Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Hennepin County, simply because it will be impossible to seat an unintimidated jury free from the threat of mob violence. Conducting a trial under these circumstances will serve only to put a thin veneer of pretend due process on what in reality will be a legalized lynching based on a verdict rendered by a properly and quite understandably terrorized jury.’

“In other words,” Kimball explains, “the trial of Derek Chauvin, which would be difficult to conduct fairly any place in the country, will be little more than left-wing theater in Minneapolis. It ought to be moved far away. Even then, should he be acquitted, look for an explosion of violence in Minneapolis and possibly around the country. What the mob wants is not justice but ‘social justice,’ which in this case means racial redress. Derek Chauvin, alas, is likely to be the scapegoat in this despicable farce.”

 

Kimball looks at the reality of the man v. the myth as jury selection begins. Rather than being St. George, Floyd was a “drug addict, a woman abuser and a career criminal.” He tells the real story of what happened to Floyd on that fateful day.

First, the video clip that horrified the world was heavily edited. We see Floyd, pinned to the ground by Chauvin, piteously crying ‘I can’t breathe.’ Conclusion? That he can’t breathe because Chauvin is pressing on his windpipe. But a look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.

By the way, I say that FBI report ‘revealed’ this extenuating evidence, but it was evidence that the prosecution withheld from public scrutiny until the end of October 2020, by which time Minneapolis and many other cities across the country had been torched by Black Lives Matter rioters demanding ‘justice’ for George Floyd.

Here’s something else. Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway — Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had — and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.

Many people are afraid to speak frankly about this man. Some have. Tucker Carlson has. And so has Candace Owens. After one reads the autopsy reports and watches the police bodycam footage, suddenly a murder charge against Chauvin seems extraordinarily excessive.

Democrats Just Used Your Tax Money to Bail Out Their Failing Cronies

Advertisements

In October, actress Jane Fonda made headlines when she said the coronavirus was “God’s gift to the left.” That statement has proven true on many levels. Some, including myself, believe that, had the pandemic never materialized, former President Donald Trump would have easily won reelection.

Anyway, the economic devastation caused by the lockdowns has forced the government to pass several enormous COVID-19 relief bills into which the Democrats have been able to tuck away a myriad of wish-list items, the most recent $1.9 trillion aid package being perhaps the most egregious.

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that the bill passed by the Senate last weekend includes an $86 billion bailout for failing pensions. The article’s subtitle informs readers that “Democrats pushed through a big aid measure for multiemployer pensions whose problems predate the pandemic.”

Actually, I’m surprised the Times reported this.

The Times tells us the $86 billion aid package “has nothing to do with the pandemic” and represents “a taxpayer bailout for about 185 union pension plans that are so close to collapse that without the rescue, more than a million retired truck drivers, retail clerks, builders and others could be forced to forgo retirement income.”

Specifically, “the bailout targets multiemployer pension plans, which bring groups of companies together with a union to provide guaranteed benefits. All told, about 1,400 of the plans cover about 10.7 million active and retired workers, often in fields like construction or entertainment where the workers move from job to job. As the work force ages, an alarming number of the plans are running out of money. The trend predated the pandemic and is a result of fading unions, serial bankruptcies and the misplaced hope that investment income would foot most of the bill so that employers and workers wouldn’t have to.”

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, said last week, “It goes back to the fact that these workers didn’t do anything wrong. They have earned these pensions.”

Two things, Senator. First, the countless owners of small businesses who were forced to shut their doors because of the lockdowns, didn’t do anything wrong either.

Secondly, the precarious condition of these union pension plans is the result of years of poor management. The state of these pensions was dire long before the pandemic reached our shores.

Republicans have called this provision “a union handout masquerading as pandemic relief.” They do have a point.

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Republican, said last week, “Just to show you how bad this bill is, there’s more money in this to bail out union pension funds than all the money combined for vaccine distribution and testing.”

According to the Times, “Using taxpayer dollars to bail out pension plans is almost unheard of. … The federal government does provide a backstop for certain failing pension plans through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which acts like an insurer and makes companies pay premiums, but does not get taxpayer dollars. Currently, the pension agency has separate insurance programs for single-employer and multiemployer pensions. The single-employer program is in good shape, but the multiemployer program is fragile.”

Several conservatives react to the pension bailout in the following tweets.

Frankly, there are far more contemptible provisions in the relief package that have received almost no media coverage. Nor is it a coincidence that they benefit the home city of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the home state of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Republicans argue that due to years of fiscal mismanagement in blue states and cities combined with their longer and more drastic lockdowns during the pandemic, this provision will “disproportionately benefit blue states.”

The stimulus package includes $350 billion to bail out state, local and tribal governments, a provision that has Republicans outraged.

“They want to send wheelbarrows of cash to state and local bureaucrats to bail out mismanagement from before the pandemic,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told colleagues last week, according to USA Today. “They’re changing the previous bipartisan funding formula in ways that will especially bias the money toward big blue states.”

The article quotes Kentucky Rep. James Comer, a Republican, echoing McConnell’s sentiments. He said, “The bill contains a $350 billion bailout for locked-down, poorly managed states with no strings attached. The sneaky formula used by Democrats ensures that most of the money goes to liberals in California and New York rather than to rural communities.”

It’s not surprising that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer disagrees. USA Today reports that Schumer sees this provision as “an American wish list” instead of a “liberal wish list.” He said, “Funding to keep teachers, firefighters, transit workers, first responders in red states and blue on the job. So many of the people affected by this bill are not liberals or Democrats. They may be Republicans, they may be independents, they may be conservatives. But they’re Americans who want some help to get out of this morass.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Tuesday that funding from this bill “will erase the majority of San Francisco’s projected $650 million budget deficit over the next two years, saving City Hall from having to make painful service cuts and layoffs — for now.”

Conservatives will be so relieved to hear that.