Biden Fails to Recognize D-Day, Tweets About 1921 Tulsa Massacre Instead

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by jacqueline macou from Pixabay

Sunday, June 6, was the 77th anniversary of D-Day, the most significant date in the history of World War II. The Allied invasion of Normandy was the largest amphibious assault ever carried out. It marked the start of the two month long Battle of Normandy which ultimately liberated France from the German occupation.

Historians have calculated the number of confirmed Allied fatalities on that first day alone to be 4,415, according to the National D-Day Memorial. Total Allied casualties are estimated at nearly 10,000. Codenamed “Operation Overlord,” the D-Day landing involved “over 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes, and over 150,000 service men.”

Allied heads of state have traditionally marked this day of remembrance by honoring the brave men who sacrificed so much on the shores of Normandy so that we may enjoy freedom today.

Two years ago, then-President Donald Trump delivered one of the most powerful speeches of his presidency on the anniversary of D-Day. He even drew praise from critics such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and CNN’s Jim Acosta.

Not so for President Joe Biden, who neglected to acknowledge the momentous occasion at all. Instead, he chose to pay tribute to the survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Massacre.

My intention is not to minimize the atrocity which occurred on May 31, 1921 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is arguably the single most tragic day in the history of racial violence in the U.S. I posted about the National Black Power Convention held last weekend in Tulsa to mark this sad chapter in history here.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this event, in the early 1900s, a large number of African Americans settled in the Greenwood district of Tulsa.

According to History.com, the neighborhood “grew and flourished as a Black economic and cultural mecca—until May 31, 1921. That’s when a white mob began a rampage through some 35 square blocks, decimating the community known proudly as ‘Black Wall Street.’ Armed rioters, many deputized by local police, looted and burned down businesses, homes, schools, churches, a hospital, hotel, public library, newspaper offices and more. While the official death toll of the Tulsa race massacre was 36, historians estimate it may have been as high as 300. As many as 10,000 people were left homeless.”

The events that took place 100 years ago in Tulsa were heinous. No one is denying that.

But Biden had already acknowledged the anniversary. He traveled to Tulsa last Tuesday to commemorate the occasion.

He spoke to survivors. His comments ranged from the ludicrous to the downright dangerous. Please read my post “Biden Managed a Trifecta of Stupid in His Tulsa Massacre Speech” to see for yourself just how disturbing his remarks really were.

The Tulsa Massacre anniversary rated a trip to Oklahoma, but the memory of D-Day, a date that changed the course of world history, didn’t elicit even a mention from the President of the United States.

Biden’s failure to recognize D-Day tells us, and our foreign adversaries, a lot about his and his administration’s priorities.

During his speech last week in Tulsa, Biden said, “According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, white supremacy. That’s not me. That’s the intelligence community.”

On Sunday night, former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, now a Fox News contributor, concluded his new Fox News program by posing a question to those who can’t answer, those who sacrificed their lives on D-Day. A visibly emotionally Gowdy asked: “Was it worth it?”

“Was it worth it to the men and the women who were killed serving, protecting and defending this country?, Gowdy asked. ” … You might frame the question differently, you may ask, ‘Are we worth it?’ Are we now, as a country, what you sacrificed for us to be? Are we worth, as a country, worth what you gave up? … ”

He continued: “I do wonder sometimes what those women and men who died on behalf of this country would say. … When we reflect on the state of our politics, was it worth dying for? When we reflect on what has become of our first amendment, was it worth losing your life over? When we reflect on the divisions in our country, these divisions that seem so intractable at times, was it worth dying for? … ”

“Have we become the country you imagined we would be when you fought and fell for us? Is this the America you dreamed of when you were taking your last breath? … ”

If you were an eighteen-year-old boy traveling aboard a “Higgins boat” headed for Normandy, nauseous from the rough seas, frightened out of your mind because you knew you might lose your life in the next few hours, would it be worth it?

Perhaps five months ago, when we had a patriotic president who loved America, the answer might have been yes. But what if they were shown a clip of Biden or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spewing their stupidity? Desperately trying to take away our liberties for the sake of political power? Or Dr. Anthony Fauci conspiring with his cronies in the world scientific community to turn the lab leak theory into a conspiracy theory? What if they were shown a clip of Rep. Adam Schiff trying to impeach a president over what he knew to be lies? What would they think about H.R. 1, the Democrats’ latest attempt to consolidate power for years to come?

The answer might be no. Because they would see that the most dangerous threat America faces today is our own government.

Disconnect: While Trump Is Banned for Questioning Election, Obama Claims GOP Is ‘Rigging the Game’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by chayka1270 from Pixabay

Remember the charismatic, young African-American senator from Illinois who electrified crowds with his rhetoric, who called for a new kind of politics that would heal the United States? Unfortunately, the audacity of hope quickly devolved into the audacity of bitter partisanship and division following his historic victory.

The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States, spoke at an event sponsored by The Economic Club of Chicago on Friday where he sharply condemned the new voting reform laws passed recently in Georgia and Florida and currently under consideration in the state of Texas and elsewhere.

Republicans are “rigging the game,” Obama declared. “That’s the kind of dangerous behavior that we’re going to have to push back on.” (Time stamp: 31:42)

Addressing what he called the Jan. 6 “insurrection,” he said, “And you had one of the major American political parties not only fail to condemn some of that behavior, but embrace a patently false narrative about the election being stolen that is being still perpetuated and now that same major political party being willing to initiate legislative – you know – actions across the country – you know – where they’re saying we’re going to let partisan legislatures decide whether or not to certify an election, uh, and institute voter suppression measures directly targeted at cities in those states, so there’s a different set of rules for how votes are counted in Atlanta versus how they’re counted in the rest of Georgia.” (Time stamp: 30:30)

“I think the corporate community has a responsibility to at least call folks out on that. Because that transcends policy. …  Do the basic rules by which we all have agreed to keep this diverse, multiracial democracy functioning.” (Time stamp: 31:50)

“Are we going to stick to those rules or are we going to start rigging the game in a way that breaks it?,” he asked rhetorically? “And that’s not going to be good for business, not to mention not good for our soul.” (32:10)

 

 

Memo to Obama: What was “not good for our soul” was watching the chaos that ensued last November after Democrats changed the rules. Unprecedented numbers of absentee ballots overwhelmed the system resulting in major chain of custody issues in all of the swing states, providing a gaping opportunity for both voter and electoral fraud.

Regarding the Republicans’ failure to condemn the “behavior” on Jan. 6, my recollection is a bit different. To an almost nauseating degree, every Republication politician and pundit prefaced virtually every comment uttered about the Capitol riot with strong condemnation. It was as if they were required to issue a disclaimer before any discussion could begin.

The former president is gaslighting when he says that asking voters to show an ID is “rigging the game.” He and every other Democrat are well aware that if only legal votes had been counted, former President Donald Trump would have been reelected.

During an interview last week with New York City WABC 770 AM radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “The only reason you don’t want people to have a photo ID is that people can cheat. That’s the only rational answer as to why certain people want no photo ID requirements.”

In a Friday interview with The War Room’s Steve Bannon, Paxton claimed that, had his office not blocked several Texas counties from mailing out absentee ballots to every registered voter as they had planned, Biden would have won Texas in November.

“… [C]ertainly critical to my state and that’s why we fought off these twelve lawsuits. We had them in Houston, we had them in San Antonio, we had them in Austin, we had them in the counties where you’d have the most liberal judges,” Paxton told Bannon.

“And it was a concerted effort, nationally, with lots of money going into it, and just knowing that we had twelve lawsuits that we had to win, and if we lost one of them, like if we lost Harris County (home to Houston). Trump won by 620,000 votes in Texas. Harris County mail-in ballots that they wanted to send out were 2.5 million, those were all illegal and we were able to stop every one of them.”

“Had we not done that,” Paxton explained, “we would have been in the very same situation—we would’ve been on Election Day, I was watching on election night and I knew, when I saw what was happening in these other states, that that would’ve been Texas. We would’ve been in the same boat. We would’ve been one of those battleground states that they were counting votes in Harris County for three days and Donald Trump would’ve lost the election.”

 

 

There were too many “irregularities” in each of the swing states to count. Everyone knows that. Why else would the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to stop the forensic audit currently underway in Maricopa County, Arizona?

Now that what I call “audit fever” is starting to catch on in other swing states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, liberal heads are exploding.

The bigger issue is the epic double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Based on the allegations made in over 1,000 sworn affidavits from poll watchers in all of the swing states, Trump questions the results of November election and so do the majority of Republicans. He is ridiculed by the press and has been banned from social media platforms.

Obama claims that by asking voters to show an ID in order to cast their vote, Republicans are trying to rig the next election. An adoring press agrees with him.

Voters around the world are asked to provide identification. I posted about voting requirements in other parts of the world on Friday here.

Identification is required for everything we do in today’s world. Why should our most sacred right as U.S. citizens be treated differently?

I know, because then Democrats can’t cheat. And if they can’t cheat, they won’t win.

Additionally, contrary to the left’s narrative, the legitimacy of the November 2020 election is not settled. In the same way that Democrats and the media worked feverishly to take the lab leak theory off the table in the early days of the pandemic, they’re trying to kill “The Big Lie” theory. It just may turn out to be “The Big Truth,” as I wrote about last week.

Please spare us your drama, Obama.

 

A previous version of this article was published by The Western Journal.

Washington Post Admits Wuhan Lab Leak Theory Was Dismissed Because it was Supported by Trump

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

At a Jan. 30, 2020 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican told colleagues: “This coronavirus is a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl for China. But actually, it’s probably worse than Chernobyl, which was localized in its effect. The coronavirus could result in a global pandemic. I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Cotton was widely mocked by the liberal media over those remarks and similar ones to follow.

Looking back to the early days of the coronavirus, anyone who mentioned that the virus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Saying the virus may have been created in that lab was even worse.

In recent weeks, however, journalists who once scoffed at such a notion are opening to the possibility.

The Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, who was himself the subject of a fact-check involving remarks about Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, actually admits that the legacy media’s anti-Trump bias may have been behind their rejection of the lab leak theory.

Kessler excuses both himself and his colleagues from performing their due diligence by saying that the lab leak theory “often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon,” which he finds preposterous. (When the truth finally comes out, he may be proven wrong about that as well. But I digress.) Surely any journalist worth his or her salt would be able to separate the two, and investigate both theories. Did the virus escape accidentally from the lab that was tied to the CCP’s military or was it intentionally released?

It was China’s “lack of transparency” and “renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab” that finally opened their eyes to the possibility that the virus may have leaked from the lab, the only lab in China that is known to work with this specific pathogen.

He finally gets around to the real reason: former President Donald Trump. Here too, Kessler tries hard to absolve himself and the rest of the media. He writes: “The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.”

I’m sure by now, nearly a year and a half after the coronavirus reached our shores, U.S. intelligence agencies have more solid information about its origins. But in those early days, all Trump had to go on was vague intelligence.

As for his anti-Chinese rhetoric making it easier to ignore his claims, wouldn’t a serious investigative journalist be able to put the President’s comments aside and look at the facts? Isn’t that a journalist’s job?

Isn’t Kessler essentially saying that the theory was dismissed mostly because of its connection to Trump?

Kessler takes readers through a COVID-19 timeline. Most of the early reactions were based on the lab leak theory and left the door open to the possibility that it could have been intentional.

Later in January, The Daily Mail and The Washington Times published articles making the connection between the virus and the Wuhan lab.

On Feb. 6, “Botao Xiao, a molecular biomechanics researcher at South China University of Technology, posts a paper stating that ‘the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.’ He pointed to the previous safety mishaps and the kind of research undertaken at the lab. He withdrew the paper a few weeks later after Chinese authorities insisted no accident had taken place,” according to The Post.

Did any journalists wonder why Xiao withdrew the paper? That researchers who didn’t acquiesce to the CCP’s version of events had a way of disappearing?

On Feb. 9, Cotton struck back via Twitter against China’s ambassador who had said his remarks were “absolutely crazy.”

Following more criticism from The Washington Post, Cotton responded with the following Twitter thread:

The hypotheses include: “1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market); 2. Good science, bad safety (eg, they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred); 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach); 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in); Again, none of these are ‘theories’ and certainly not ‘conspiracy theories.’ They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence.”

The turning point in the debate over COVID’s origins came on Feb. 19 when a group of public health scientists published a joint statement, which was scolding in its nature, in the elite medical journal Lancet.

It read: “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”

According to The Post, “the statement was drafted and organized by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance,which funded research at WIV with U.S. government grants. (Three of the signers have since said a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration.)”

These so-called “experts” did the world a great disservice by signing on to this statement. They provided China with an excuse to escape blame for the virus. It was this letter that did more than anything else to turn the tide away from the lab leak theory.

The media would point to this letter from the “experts” and ridicule anyone who mentioned the lab leak theory.

So, why now are they changing their tune? Why did PolitiFact retract their earlier fact check (which debunked the lab leak theory) last week? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing. Perhaps they’re privy to something that hasn’t been made public yet. Or maybe it’s because there is growing circumstantial evidence that points to the lab leak theory.

Whatever the reason, Kessler’s article was a feeble attempt to explain why the vast majority of journalists, once again, failed to do their jobs.

A version of this article was posted in The Western Journal.

Huge ‘Trump Won – Save America’ Flag Displayed at Yankee Stadium … Briefly

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by StudioLabs from Pixabay

Two men displayed an oversize flag from the second deck at New York’s Yankee Stadium which said, “Trump Won – Save America” on Thursday night.

A pretty audacious thing to do, I would say!

Unfortunately, the shining moment didn’t last long. According to a report in The New York Post, many in the crowd reacted with boos and security guards were seen escorting the men out of the stadium, one of them in handcuffs.

I wonder if, just as those who dared to mention the Wuhan lab leak “theory” were labeled as conspiracy theorists until about a week ago, those who talk about the “Big Lie” will be vindicated one day. It’s looking more possible by the day.

 

In the Facebook video below, the crowd is shown cheering as the men were escorted out of the stadium.

CNN Viewership Has Tumbled Since Trump Left Office; Hardest Hit? Don Lemon and Brian Stelter

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

CNN has lost a whopping 67 percent of their viewers since former President Donald Trump left office – just as he once predicted.

CNN star anchors Don Lemon and Brian Stelter have been among the hardest hit.

You may recall that Lemon “rebranded” his show a couple of weeks ago to stir up a little excitement. He concluded his long time show by telling viewers, “It’s been really, really great. This is the last night that will be ‘CNN Tonight with Don Lemon.’ So, I appreciate all the years of ‘CNN Tonight with Don Lemon.’ But changes are coming. And I will fill you in.”

His strange message created quite a stir on social media. But his fans worried needlessly. Because the next morning, he posted the following message on Twitter: “Didn’t mean to set the internet on fire. What I said last night was true, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon is no more. I’ll be back on Monday with my newly named show Don Lemon Tonight.”

NewsBusters’ Nicholas Fondacaro called it a “bland rebrand.” He wrote: “So, CNN and Lemon tried to pull off a ridiculous media stunt to get people to tune into his show again. … What a joke. This is CNN.”

It was hardly worth the trouble. According to Fox News:

Lemon’s viewership has seen a steep decline since the beginning of the year, when his show averaged 3.48 million viewers during the week of the Capitol Hill riot that took place back on Jan. 6, marking a whopping 77% decline.

“Don Lemon Tonight” averaged a measly 816,000 viewers in his 10 pm ET timeslot from May 17-21, which is an 11% decrease from Lemon’s final week of “CNN Tonight,” which averaged 898,000 viewers from May 10-14, according to Nielsen data.

Lemon can commiserate with his colleague Brian Stelter. Fox reports:

CNN’s left-wing media pundit Brian Stelter managed to set a yearly low yet again as viewers continue to ignore “Reliable Sources.” Stelter has delivered eight-straight telecasts that failed to draw one million viewers and the May 23 edition hit rock bottom when it averaged only 763,000 viewers for a 2021 low.

Stelter has found it difficult to attract viewers during the Biden era. The liberal pundit claims to “examine the story behind the story” but perhaps he should probe what happened to his audience as he hemorrhages viewers at an alarming rate. Fox News’ “MediaBuzz,” which is Stelter’s direct timeslot competition, beat the CNN media show by a whopping 52 percent.

Over the same period, Fox News’ viewership has fallen by 12 percent and MSNBC’s by 49 percent.

To be fair, there was a lot going on in early January. We had the Georgia special election and the Capitol riot. People were following the news more closely. We also had cold and inclement weather across major parts of the country which kept people indoors. These factors may explain the 12 percent drop in Fox viewership, but the 67 and 49 percent nosedives sustained by CNN and MSNBC, respectively, are a different story.

The absence of President Trump accounts for a good portion of those drops. Fox News’ media analyst Joe Concha put it best. “To CNN, he was their Tony Soprano, and when you take Tony off The Sopranos, there isn’t much reason to watch the network.”

But putting that aside, maybe Americans are simply tired of being lied to every day. I sometimes tune into CNN or MSNBC to hear what the other side has to say and I come away angry. Their anchors and contributors have long ago abandoned the practice of real journalism. It’s like being stuck inside a giant liberal echo chamber.

CNN and MSNBC both spent well over two years hawking the Russian collusion story only to see their whole narrative fall apart. They ran through the same exercise with Stormy Daniels, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president and a host of other stories only to see them all end with a great thud.

Over the last few weeks, viewers are seeing these networks completely reverse themselves on the Wuhan lab leak theory. For over a year, they’ve been calling anyone open to the idea that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theorist.

At a certain point, even former network “stars” lose their credibility.

Friend of Liz Cheney Claims the Lawmaker Orchestrated High-Profile Attack on Trump in His Final Days

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by heblo from Pixabay

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney is all but gone from her lofty position as the House Republican Conference Chair.

In an article that is worthy of Pravda, the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser unwittingly provides Republicans with an additional reason to give her the old heave ho.

Glasser spoke to Eric Edelman, a friend of Cheney’s, who served as a national security advisor to her father, Dick Cheney, during his time as Vice President.

She writes, “Edelman revealed that Cheney herself secretly orchestrated an unprecedented op-ed in the Washington Post by all ten living former Defense Secretaries, including her father, warning against Trump’s efforts to politicize the military. The congresswoman not only recruited her father but personally asked others, including Trump’s first Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, to participate.”

“She was the one who generated it, because she was so worried about what Trump might do,” Edelman told Glasser. “It speaks to the degree that she was concerned about the threat to our democracy that Trump represented.”

Some readers may recall this piece which was published on Jan. 3, just three days before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. It was entitled, “Opinion: All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory.”

First, a quick scan of the signers’ names, which included Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld, showed ten men who despised former President Donald Trump. These men would likely sign anything if it meant hurting Trump.

The Jan. 3 editorial was no different than the October 2020 letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story was actually Russian disinformation, which was signed by more than 50 former senior US intelligence officials. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe’s prompt, strong public denial of their premise, that there was no intelligence to support the arguments made by the 50 former officials, did not reverse the damage done by the letter. In fact, Biden used the letter as “evidence” during a debate when Trump raised the issue of his son’s laptop.

Both were intended to undermine then-President Trump.

The Jan. 3 letter which Cheney’s friend claims she “secretly orchestrated,” was based on conspiracy theories that were being advanced by Democrats in the weeks following the November election.

These theories were rooted in various ideas about how best to deal with the destructive riots spreading throughout the U.S. last summer in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. There were calls among Republicans for the President to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell the violence and the looting.

In an interview with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro which aired on Sep 12, Trump was asked about “reports of left-wing demonstrations being planned across American should be win reelection.” He told Pirro that “we’ll put them down very quickly if they do that. We have the right to do that. We have the power to do that if we want. Look, it’s called insurrection. We just send in and we, we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that, because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes.”

Clearly, he was talking about ending the riots which were widely expected across the country if he won, but Democrats put those remarks together with messages from far-right groups on social media to set a new narrative as they have done since his candidacy in 2015.

On Election Night, Trump was prevailing in many, if not all of the swing states, when suddenly counting stopped. When counting resumed in the early hours of the next morning, Biden inexplicably had taken the lead. Although the many irregularities that occurred on and after Election Day is beyond the scope of this article, the odd patterns were the reason Trump’s legal team hoped to gain access to the voting machines for forensic analysis.

At the same time, posts from individuals falsely claiming to be Trump began circulating on social media suggesting he planned to invoke the Insurrection Act to remain in office. (Below, I present a Reuters fact check which debunks those posts.)

There were also legitimate calls on the right for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to gain access to the voting machines.

On December 14, the editorial board of The Epoch Times wrote: “Trump should use those [presidential] powers as president to safeguard the future of our republic and arrest those who have conspired to deprive people of their rights through election fraud. The Insurrection Act enables Trump to use the military to seize the key electoral evidence in contested states and deliver a transparent, accurate accounting of the vote. Our system is in crisis. Trump should act to restore the rule of law. Through opening the books, honesty can defeat fraud. The wishes of the majority of the people will be realized and communism defeated. Our system is in crisis. Trump should act to restore the rule of law.”

Several days after this editorial was published, Politico highlighted it in a widely read article entitled “MAGA leaders call for the troops to keep Trump in office.”

And suddenly the new false narrative that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act to remain in office began to gain traction.

In January, Reuters published a fact check: “Donald Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act to hold on to power.”

Please click here to finish article

No, Actually the 2020 Election Has NOT Been Resolved

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by heblo from Pixabay

While reading an article about Liz Cheney in The Spectator earlier, I came across the following:

“Liz Cheney erred neither in condemning the riot nor in castigating Trump’s Ahab-like obsession over his loss but in remaining stuck in January 6 as the calendar moved on for the rest of us. Cheney’s position that Joe Biden legitimately beat Donald Trump, as readers of this column and the Spectator A.M. newsletter know, found endorsement here back in November. Trump lost by 74 electoral votes, after all, not seven. But that argument took place in the media, in courts, and in Congress more than four months ago. Cheney, perhaps more so than Trump, needs to get over this as a resolved question.”

It is not a resolved question. In fact, it’s far from a resolved question. The argument took place in the media and for about five minutes in Congress, but former President Donald Trump was never given his day in court.

The anomalies in the days following the election quickly multiplied. Over 1,000 election observers signed affidavits stating they had witnessed wrongdoing. Judges refused to hear their cases. No court would hear Trump’s cases. Not even the Supreme Court.

Immediately, the media set the narrative that the election was settled. When over 90 percent of the media unites around the same narrative, a phenomenon we witnessed repeatedly during the Trump years, the power is overwhelming.

Before too long, anyone who questioned Biden’s legitimacy was labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Then it simply became taboo to mention it.

But it still wasn’t settled.

In reporting a February Quinnipiac poll which revealed that 76 percent of Republicans believed widespread fraud had occurred in the election, CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote “three quarters of Republicans believe a lie about the 2020 election.”

Stealing the presidency is a pretty audacious thing to do.

But, after watching the Democrats orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax, a bogus impeachment, then a second impeachment against Trump, and turn Gen. Michael Flynn’s life into a living hell for four years to further their political goals, it’s not crazy to believe they would steal a presidential election.

In November 2020, over 2.1 million people voted in Arizona’s Maricopa County. These votes represent over 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state. The Republican-controlled state Senate is currently conducting a thorough forensic audit of all ballots cast in the County which has put the election back into the national headlines.

Almost eclipsing the story of the intensive audit that’s been underway for two weeks is the Democrats’ fury over it. (I posted about those efforts here.)

One of the first to cover the topic again was Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, host of “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Bartiromo spoke to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton about the issue. “Let me switch gears and ask you about election integrity. This is a subject that has become taboo. We’re not allowed to question the 2020 election. We’re not allowed to question what is going on in Arizona or in Georgia. What do you say to what is going on in Georgia and how Texas is similar to that situation around election 2020?”

“Yeah, so if you look at election results from four years ago, Georgia and Texas were very similar,” the Republican responded. “We fought off 12 lawsuits. We were sued 12 times over mail-in ballots. It was Harris County, it was Travis County, these big urban counties that wanted to mail out all of these mail-in ballots in violation of state law. Clearly what was not allowed by the state legislature. And so, we fought these off.

“They didn’t want signature verification. We were told by a federal judge that was unconstitutional. So we had state lawsuits, different counties, federal lawsuits, we had 12 of them. We won every single one of them.

“Had we not won every single one of those lawsuits, I’m convinced that those ballots would have gone out and we would have been just like Georgia, who decided to capitulate and sign consent decrees and say, ‘It’s OK. We’re going to let these mail-in ballots go out. We’re going to allow no signature verification. We’re going to allow drop boxes.’

All of those things had an impact, and instead of Georgia and Texas having similar results this time because we defended those lawsuits, Trump won. We’re able to have a Republican legislature here, and in Georgia, it was completely turned.”

“So, are you saying that, because of what we saw in mail-in ballots in Georgia, you’re questioning the results?” Bartiromo asked.

“I absolutely am questioning,” Paxton replied. “I know what would have happened here. They would have stopped counting, just like they did in those states, and they would have been counting mail-in ballots until they get the right number of votes and suddenly Trump loses and we lose the state House here. We lose some of our Supreme Court justices. And it wouldn’t have been a legitimate count because we wouldn’t have followed state law.”

“So are you questioning what happened in the 2020 election?” she said.

“Absolutely,” he said. “They didn’t follow state law in these states. It’s clear. Whether you think there was fraud or not … we do know they didn’t follow state law.”

(The clip can be viewed here.)

Rep. Jim Jordan: ‘For Sure, The Votes Are There’ to Launch Cheney

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) had some good news for those of us who would like to see Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) removed from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair.

Jordan appeared on Fox News’ “Primetime” on Wednesday night. After a lively discussion with host Pete Hegseth and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich about why Cheney must go, he was asked, “Exit question, real quick, Representative Jordan, do you have the votes? Will it happen?”

“Yeah, I think that for sure, the votes are there,” Jordan replied. “And I think it will happen most likely next Wednesday.”

“You can’t have a Republican conference chair reciting Democrat talking points,” Jordan said. “You can’t have a Republican conference chair taking a position that 90 percent of the party disagrees with, and you can’t have a Republican party chair consistently speaking out against the individual who 74 million Americans voted for.”

“You can’t be the conference chair when you consistently speak out against the leader of our party and you consistently speak out against the positions that the vast, vast, vast majority of our party and our country, I think, holds.”

Gingrich said that Cheney “had every right to vote her conscience [for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment]. She had no right to use the chairmanship of the conference to exploit her position when, in fact, the conference  by about 200 to 10 – that’s 20 to 1 – was on the other side. That’s why I think from an internal legislative standpoint, she simply can’t be chairman of a conference that she refuses to listen to.”

Hegseth played a clip of President Joe Biden weighing in on the push to oust Cheney earlier on Wednesday. Responding ever so slowly, he responded, “It seems as though the Republican Party is trying to identify what it stands for. And they’re in the midst of, a, significant, uh, sort of a mini-revolution going on in the Republican Party.”

Republications held a secret ballot vote to oust Cheney in February which she obviously survived. The result was 145 to 61. At that time, she had the support of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

According to The Wall Street Journal, following the vote, “McCarthy gave a rousing speech supporting her as a party leader.”

However, “their relationship has gone downhill ever since.”

On Tuesday, Axios obtained a recording of McCarthy (R-CA) on a hot mic telling Fox & Friends’ co-host Steve Doocy that he’s “lost confidence” in Cheney.

On the tape, McCarthy can be heard saying, “I think she’s got real problems. I’ve had it with … I’ve had it with her. You know, I’ve lost confidence. … Well, someone just has to bring a motion, but I assume that will probably take place.” I posted about this here.

Who will replace Cheney if, as now expected, she is removed from her position. On Wednesday, House GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) publicly endorsed Rep.  Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Stefanik is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. She was especially strong in her defense of then-President Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for Scalise, issued a statement which said, “House Republicans need to be solely focused on taking back the House in 2022 and fighting against Speaker Pelosi and President Biden’s radical socialist agenda, and Elise Stefanik is strongly committed to doing that.”

Biden Says He ‘Inherited One God-Awful Mess at the Border’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

During a Friday interview on NBC News’ “Today Show” with co-host Craig Melvin, President Joe Biden said his administration “inherited one God-awful mess at the border.” He blames it on “the failure to have a real transition — cooperation from the last administration, like every other administration has done.” I think even most Democrats realize the stunning dishonesty of these remarks.

“The two departments that didn’t give us access to virtually anything [during the transition] were the immigration and the Defense Department,” Biden told Melvin. “So we didn’t find out they had fired a whole lot of people, that they were understaffed considerably.”

Melvin pointed out that in April, 170,000 people had been apprehended at the border and that 22,000 unaccompanied minors are currently in the U.S. “That’s a record. That sounds to most folks like a crisis.”

“Well look, it’s way down now. We’ve now gotten control,” declared Biden. “For example, they didn’t plan for – it comes every year – this flow …  they didn’t have the beds that were available. They didn’t plan for the overflow. They didn’t plan for the Department of Health and Human Services to have places to take the kids …”

Not even Melvin appeared to be buying it.

Here’s the reason why tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have flocked to our southern border, Mr. President. You invited them. In fact, this was a central issue in your campaign. Your formal invitation can be found on your campaign website and it’s called “The Biden Plan for Securing our Values as a Nation of Immigrants.”

One of the Biden Administration’s first moves was to end former President Donald Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy and to resurrect the Obama era policy of “catch and release.” Knowing that asylum seekers would be released into the U.S. after they’d been processed at the border to await their court dates was akin to putting up a large flashing neon invitation. “Come on over!”

No matter how hard the President tries to spin it, Americans know that Trump had this situation under control by the end of his term. All Biden had to do was maintain those policies.

Over the last several days, three Democratic senators have criticized Biden over the border crisis.

Following Biden’s State of the Union address, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly said, “While I share President Biden’s urgency in fixing our broken immigration system, what I didn’t hear tonight was a plan to address the immediate crisis at the border, and I will continue holding this administration accountable to deliver the resources and staffing necessary for a humane, orderly process as we work to improve border security, support local economies, and fix our immigration system.”

In a statement to Fox News, Kelly’s colleague from Arizona, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s office wrote, “Sen. Sinema has been clear that she – along with Sen. Kelly – wants to see more action from the administration to address the border crisis and support Arizona border communities. She’s spoken directly with administration officials on this.”

Even Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was forced to admit that Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden has tasked with leading the White House response to the “migration challenge,” needs to do more.

During an interview on PBS News’ “Firing Line,” host Margaret Hoover asked Hirono (whom she said was a “trailblazing lawmaker”), if she would urge Harris to visit the border.

“Of course,” Hirono replied.

Hoover asked why Harris hasn’t done so yet.

“I don’t know. Maybe — We have a few other things to deal with, like the pandemic and everything else, so I’m not going to point fingers at her in the sense of — I hope that she will go down to the border,” answered Hirono. “I hope that we can have a comprehensive, ‘whole of government’ approach to what we need to do to have a humane immigration system.”

“According to an ABC News poll, the majority of Americans actually disapprove of President Biden’s handling of the border,” noted Hoover. “Senator, why is it so difficult for some to call the situation at the border a crisis?”

“I think the President calls it a crisis. I would call it a crisis. We can call it a challenge. But we know what the factors are. We know what is happening. So whatever you call it, we’re going to need to deal with it. We’re going to need to address it in a humane way.”

So why will no one in the Biden Administration take action to end the border crisis? Conservative commentator Candace Owens provided the best answer I’ve ever heard during a March appearance on Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin.” I posted about this interview here.

Owens begins with an explanation of how the Democratic Party, which claims to help blacks through all of their social programs, has actually suppressed them. While it may appear on the surface that Democrats have supported blacks by providing for them financially and rhetorically, their “largesse” has actually been a mechanism designed to hold them back, preventing them from taking the reins and succeeding, from breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Most blacks see only that Democrats are more generous than Republicans and have loyally supported them at the polls for decades. Many of us have known this for a long time.

Owens larger point, however, is that the black population has not grown fast enough for the Democrats. So, they are now “importing” a new class of voters. Democrats will ensure these people receive health care and that they are housed, fed and even educated. The party will see to it that the illegals now flooding into the U.S. from Central and South America in record numbers will become completely dependent on them for their survival.

Just as the majority of blacks continue to vote Democratic, so too will the Hispanics. The cycle of poverty will repeat itself.

“Everyone keeps calling this a border crisis Mark. This isn’t a border crisis, this is a border plan,” Owens tells Levin.

“They are trying to import a new class of voters. They are trying to say to the Mexican-Americans, to the South-Americans … ‘we will help you, we’ll give you free stuff like we gave black Americans free stuff after Jim Crow ended. We’re gonna welfare-ize you. We’re gonna give you handouts, we’re gonna marry you to the government like we married black Americans to the government.’ It’s pure evil.”

So, in response to Biden’s feeble attempt to blame the Trump Administration for the border crisis: Everyone knows the Biden Administration caused the border crisis. The policy changes were made to encourage large numbers of illegals to enter the U.S. All of this was intentional. And everything seems to be going according to plan.

Biden Issues India Travel Ban Despite Assuring Us This Was a Racist and Xenophobic Response Last Year

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by PIRO4D from Pixabay

During the Friday White House briefing, Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced that, starting at midnight on Tuesday, May 4, the U.S. will begin restricting travel from India.

“The policy will be implemented in light of extraordinarily high COVID-19 caseloads and multiple variants circulating in India.” Psaki told reporters.

She added that the administration was acting “on the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

CNN reports:

The administration will issue a 212(f) order restricting entry into the US for foreign nationals who have been in India within the previous 14 days, a source familiar with the move said. Airlines have been told of the decision, a source said.

The policy will not apply to American citizens, lawful permanent residents or other people with exemptions. As with all international travelers, individuals who fit that criteria traveling from India must still test negative prior to leaving the country, quarantine if they have not been vaccinated and test negative again upon reentering the US from India. The restrictions also do not apply to humanitarian workers.

According to data website Worldometers, on March 31, India had recorded a total of 12,220,669 cases. The total through Thursday, April 29, stands at 18,754,984. The country has added 6,534,315 cases, a 53.5 percent increase during the month of April.

The Biden Administration’s decision to restrict travel from India as COVID-19 cases spike is perfectly understandable.

But we would be remiss if we didn’t point out what then-United States government official Joe Biden had to say last year after former President Donald Trump enacted travel restrictions from China and Europe.

In the Feb. 1, 2020, tweet below, Biden wrote: “We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.”

A month later, he wrote: “A wall will not stop the coronavirus. Banning all travel from Europe – or any other part of the world – will not stop it.”

So, Joe, were you right then or are you right now? It can’t be both.