As Abortion Case Looms, Biden’s Possible Court-Packing Commission Meets

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.

Dobbs, representing the state of Mississippi, is appealing a December 2019 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mississippi passed a law in 2018 which banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s sole abortion provider, filed a lawsuit claiming this law was unconstitutional.

“Two lower courts agreed, saying an unbroken line of Supreme Court rulings dating back to Roe established that states can regulate—but not outright ban—the procedure in the pre-viability months of pregnancy,” according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, whom The Journal considers an expert on the Supreme Court’s history of abortion rulings, said, “The fact that the justices decided to take the case indicates a willingness of at least five of them to revisit existing precedent. The only reason to hear the case would be to do that.”

Stone added that if the state prevails, “the Supreme Court would be allowing states more room to regulate abortion than at any time since Roe. The court wouldn’t have to explicitly overturn Roe and other precedents, but any ruling for the state would put significant limits on abortion rights.”

The Court will review the case in its next term which begins in October, according to the report. And a decision is expected in the spring.

This news has Republicans feeling optimistic and Democrats worried about the fate of the watershed decision in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which gave women the right to have an abortion.

A statement appearing on the Court’s blog read as follows:

Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana was pleased with this news and in a Twitter post, he wrote: “Every life is precious and must be protected. Since Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, more than 62 million children have been the tragic victims of abortion. It’s long past time for the Supreme Court to right this wrong and I’m glad to see the Court take up this case.”

The ACLU warned liberals that abortion rights are under attack.

California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, finds it alarming that the Supreme Court would agree to review an abortion ban.

Obviously concerned about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being weakened or even overturned, it didn’t take long for President Joe Biden’s “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.” to spring into action. In early April, Biden signed an executive order to form this group of bipartisan legal experts to analyze the pros and cons of Supreme Court reform. The White House website states this would include “an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” i.e. packing the court.

According to the executive order, “the Commission [must] complete its report within 180 days of its first public meeting.

On Monday, after hearing the Supreme Court would review an abortion case, the Commission set up its first meeting for Wednesday. This would mean that their final report would be due in mid-November, around the time the Supreme Court was reviewing Dobbs v. Jackson. Hmmm.

At any rate, a week after Biden set up this Commission, Democratic lawmakers Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021. This legislation would add four justices to the Supreme Court bringing the total number of justices to 13.

At the time this bill was introduced, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “I have no intention to bring it to the floor,” according to Politico. But she didn’t close the door on it either. She told reporters, “I don’t know that that’s a good idea or a bad idea. I think it’s an idea that should be considered. … It’s not out of the question.”

Even if it were to pass the House, it likely wouldn’t go far in the Senate. It’s a radical bill and it would be difficult to find the 60 votes required for passage.

Although there are five conservative justices (I don’t consider Chief Justice John Roberts to be a conservative), it’s a bit premature for Republicans to celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Fox News‘ Tyler Olson writes: “Many experts don’t see a completely definitive overturning of Roe v. Wade in the cards for the court next year. The justices often take a slower approach to turning around major precedents. Some experts see the court’s eventual ruling on the Mississippi law as a possible first step toward overturning Roe – or a bellwether that the Republican justices may not plan to overturn it at all – depending on what exactly the court decides.”

The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, an attorney wrote: “We shouldn’t expect Dobbs to be the case in which Roe falls. More likely, the Court could start cracking open the internal contradictions in its prior abortion jurisprudence, paving the way for more dramatic progress later — much in the way that the Court’s liberals used decisions striking down sodomy laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act to lay the legal groundwork for overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. If Chief Justice John Roberts and some of the other Republican appointees on the Court are not on board with that campaign, we will know from their opinions in Dobbs.”

This article was previously published by The Western Journal.

Desperate Democrats Descend on Arizona to Prevent Full Hand Recount in Maricopa County

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

Over 60 percent, or almost 2.1 million of the ballots cast in the state of Arizona in the November presidential election came from Maricopa County. Due to concerns about the integrity of the county’s vote, particularly regarding absentee ballots, the Arizona state Senate has pushed for a full hand recount. And Democrats have sent in the big guns to try to stop it.

According to a statement released in March by the Republicans in the GOP-controlled chamber, Senate President Karen Fann said they were planning a “preferred forensic audit“ which she indicated would be “broad and detailed.” She said, “The team will include, but is not limited to, testing the machines, scanning the ballots, performing a full hand count and checking for any IT breaches.”

You may recall Fox News called the state for President Joe Biden just before midnight on election night. At the time, Biden was up 9 percentage points over former President Donald Trump. The Associated Press called the state for Biden the next morning, and were immediately followed by NPR which gets its data from the AP. Biden was ahead by 136,000 votes and 80 percent of the vote had been counted.

No additional networks called the state over the next eight days as Biden’s lead steadily dwindled to just over 10,000 votes. Finally on November 12, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN called it for Biden, handing him the state’s 11 electoral votes.

Allegations of election fraud have lingered in the Grand Canyon state ever since.

My colleague, Richard Edward Tracy, who resides in Arizona, explained it succinctly in a recent post. He wrote, “The Arizona Senate Republicans recently got into more than just a contretemps with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (who also hold a GOP majority) over the 2020 election audit. Suits filed lawsuits. The Board appeared to want a quick and dirty audit while the state Senate wanted to dig deeper.”

Suffice it to say that the two sides have disagreed intensely and loudly over the Senate Republicans’ claims of irregularities in the election. The county’s Board of Supervisors have tried repeatedly to prevent the detailed audit the Senate is demanding. employing every imaginable tactic they can conjure up.

The Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft has followed this story closely and frequently provides updates on his site. Most recently, he’s reported that the Democrats have sent Washington, D.C. attorney Marc Elias to the state to try to stop the audit.

Elias is a partner at the Perkins, Coie law firm. 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 in 2016. More recently, Elias represented two House Democrats who hoped to overturn their November defeats. Fortunately, both efforts failed.

The first was New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi who lost to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. 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.”

More recently, he represented Democrat Rita Hart in her attempt to steal the seat from Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who was declared the winner in IA-02. Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Elias filed a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results. Elias was trying to get a House Committee with a Democratic majority to overturn the race.

That may have been too much detail, but I wanted to illustrate the type of man the Democrats have tasked with stopping the forensic audit in Arizona.

The stakes are high. In a recent post, Hoft pointed out that those who question the results of the November election all agree “that if just one of these swing states fall, they’ll all fall like a house of cards.”

“So, to prevent ‘this house of cards from falling’ and any election tampering and fraud from being exposed,” Hoft explains, “the Democratic hit team blew into Arizona, a top Democrat-run nonprofit at the helm, with three law firms in tow to shut this thing in Arizona down.”

Hoft details the organizations that are part of Elias’ operation which he describes as “massive, nationwide, well-funded, expertly planned and professionally linked-up, it is made up of a literal ARMY of righteously indignant, justice-seeking, Democrat activists secretly under his thumb.”

“This army could and did stop any attempts at proving the fraud and the steal and securing a fair and honest election,” he notes, “and they’re at it again in Maricopa County, Arizona.”

In a separate post, Hoft reports on an op-ed Elias published on the far-left site, Democracy Docket, on Thursday. In the piece, Elias discredit the Arizona state Senate, the firms they’ve hired to conduct the audit and the fact that they’re accepting outside donations to fund the audit.

Hoft notes that Elias neglects to tell readers the reason the Senate needs additional funding. In their latest attempt to derail the audit, “the corrupt Maricopa County Board of Supervisors won’t allow the Senate to perform their audit in the facility where the ballots are housed.” Therefore, it will be more expensive than they had planned. It didn’t need to be this way.

Elias directs readers to “an April 12 Tuscon.com article by a progressive-leaning reporter, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services.” According to Hoft:

[Fischer] has had a monopoly on progressive media output in this part of AZ for decades. With the honorary title of the ‘dean of the Capitol press corps‘ in Arizona, Fischer has been reporting since 1982, and “At last count, [he] has 24 separate publications, dailies and weeklies, plus provide audio to KJZZ.”

Fischer also regularly provides content to NPR radio stations in Arizona, whose content is “the furthest left” of any media source in the United States today, according to data from the respected investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.

This demonstrates a smooth, seamless connection between attorney Marc Elias and his Democracy Docket and Four Pillars lawfare operation and its related, Democrat-progressive-co-opted nonprofit empire and Howard Fischer, the far-left, progressive media mouthpiece and his empire in Arizona, Capitol Media Services.

Elias controls the strings of not only a mammoth U.S. nonprofit cabal of 400+ NFPs, and a related U.S. progressive attorney network of 40,000+ attorneys, but he also has his finger on the pulse of the network of top progressive reporters which favorably cover Democrat-progressive issues in any states where Elias and/or Perkins Coie have got lawfare action going.

These Democrat-progressive weapons are all being pointed directly at the Arizona Senate and the four firms it has hired to conduct a transparent, accurate, and truthful audit of the 2020 Maricopa County election results.

They need to shut the audit down. What are they hiding?

The audit is scheduled to begin on April 22.

There are Two Reasons Why Democrats Claim ID Requirement for Mail-in Voting Is Racist; Neither is Admirable

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by 愚木混株 Cdd20 from Pixabay

Every politician, journalist and CEO who makes the claim that it’s racist for a state to require an ID from mail-in voters must answer the following question: HOW is it racist?

Affordability is not an option because most, if not all, states provide free photo IDs for any resident who requires one. So, what is the reason?

Do they believe that blacks and other minorities aren’t smart enough to figure out how to obtain an ID?

The position that requiring an ID in order to cast an absentee ballot is too onerous or too complicated for blacks and other minority groups to navigate is itself racist.

Am I wrong? Then please explain why I’m wrong.

The second, and far more likely reason, is that an ID requirement makes it more difficult to commit voter fraud. Each eligible voter receives one vote. Ineligible voters receive zero votes.

The provision of a state issued number on a ballot limits that voter to one vote, rather than two or more votes.

Many of us recall a video recorded late on Election Night at State Farm Arena in Fulton County, Georgia. After most of the poll workers had been dismissed for the night, a small group of workers are seen pulling cases of ballots out from under a table (with a floor-length tablecloth). This video went viral in early December.

Attempts by Democrats to debunk this video failed, but unfortunately, the issue faded from the news before it was ever resolved.

“At that time, Georgia State Republican Chairman David Shafer and President Donald Trump had filed a criminal complaint in state court regarding tens of thousands of votes that they say were fraudulent.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway published a list of those problematic votes:

Trump and Shafer allege, for example, that votes came from:

  • 2,560 felons,
  • 66,247 underage registrants,
  • 2,423 people who were not on the state’s voter rolls,
  • 4,926 voters who had registered in another state after they registered in Georgia, making them ineligible,
  • 395 people who cast votes in another state for the same election,
  • 15,700 voters who had filed national change of address forms without re-registering,
  • 40,279 people who had moved counties without re-registering,
  • 1,043 people who claimed the physical impossibility of a P.O. Box as their address,
  • 98 people who registered after the deadline, and, among others,
  • 10,315 people who were deceased on election day (8,718 of whom had been registered as dead before their votes were accepted).”

Biden won the state of Georgia by just under 12,000 votes. It’s not crazy to think that, had voter ID laws been in place and/or not broken, that President Trump may have prevailed.

Issues over who was eligible to vote, and more importantly, who was not, arose in all of the swing states after the election.

Did these issues affect the final outcome of the National election? Very possibly.

For as long as the debate over voter-ID has persisted, Democrats have labeled those of us who believe every voter must show an ID as racists.

This week, the CEO of Delta Airlines offered his opinion on this issue. On Friday afternoon, American Airlines weighed in. Can we expect to hear from the CEO of United later today?

These men seem to think their opinion matters. If they feel the need to involve themselves in this debate, they too, should be asked to explain.

It’s not enough to declare that voter-ID laws are racist. The question is how are they racist?

And the answer boils down to one of two possibilities. Either they doubt the intelligence or the initiative of minority voters or because voter ID laws limit fraud. I am strongly convinced it’s the latter.

About Those Sex Trafficking Allegations Swirling Around Rep. Matt Gaetz, We Would Be Wise to Reserve Judgment

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by jorgophotography from Pixabay

An otherwise quiet Tuesday night news cycle was rocked when The New York Times broke the bombshell story that Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican, is under investigation by the DOJ for the possible violation of federal sex trafficking laws. They are looking into whether he may have engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him. It is illegal, the Times informed its readers, “to induce someone under 18 to travel over state lines to engage in sex in exchange for money or something of value.” The encounters are said to have occurred about two years ago.

The Times also wrote that Gaetz is a subject, rather than the target, of the investigation. Their sources are identified as “three people briefed on the matter.”

So, what’s behind the MOAB the Times dropped on Matt Gaetz?

As it turns out, the DOJ is investigating the congressman. But, we’ve been around the block a time or two and know that Democrats have made a sport out of opening bogus investigations into Republicans for political expediency. Considering the fact that Gaetz has fiercely, openly and repeatedly defended former President Donald Trump against the treasure trove of false allegations Democrats leveled at him, we would be wise to reserve judgment.

The target of the investigation is a Gaetz associate named Joel Greenberg. According to the Times, Greenberg “was indicted last summer on an array of charges, including sex trafficking of a child and financially supporting people in exchange for sex, at least one of whom was an underage girl.” Prior to Greenberg’s indictment, he served as the Seminole County tax collector.

Anyway, after the story broke last night, Gaetz in his inimitable style, came out swinging. He appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s show to vehemently deny the allegations which were swirling around him. Gaetz claimed that a former DOJ official, David McGee, is attempting to extort $25 million from he and his family to make this story “go away.” A video of the segment is provided below, along with a transcript.

He demanded that the “DOJ and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction” which he said will prove his innocence.

One has to admit that a guilty person might hesitate before turning to the FBI if they were being extorted for a crime they did commit.

He told Carlson:

What is happening is an extortion of me and my family involving a former Department of Justice official. On March 16th, my father got a text message demanding a meeting, wherein a person demanded $25 million in exchange for making horrible sex trafficking allegations against me go away. Our family was so troubled by that we went to the local FBI. And the FBI and the Department of Justice were so concerned about this attempted extortion of a member of Congress that they asked my dad to wear a wire, which he did with the former Department of Justice official. Tonight I am demanding that the Department of Justice and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction, which will prove my innocence.

And that will show that these allegations aren’t true. They’re merely intended to try to bleed my family out of money. And this former Department of Justice official tomorrow was supposed to be contacted by my father, so that specific instructions could be given regarding the wiring of $4.5 million as a down payment on this bribe. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that tonight, somehow the New York Times is leaking this information, smearing me and ruining the investigation that would likely result in one of the former colleagues of the current DOJ being brought to justice for trying to extort me and my family.

And he identified the official:

His name is David McGee. He was a top official in the leadership in the Northern district of Florida as a prosecutor. He currently works at the Beggs & Lane law firm. As a matter of fact, one of the recordings that was made at the FBI and Department of Justice request occurred at that law firm and the money that was supposed to be paid today, that would have shown even more evidence of David McGee’s work in this extortion scheme. That was foiled by the New York Times story and I believe that’s why this horrible information and these terrible allegations have been used this evening.

Gaetz won his seat in Congress in 2016 at the age of 33. He is an extremely ambitious young man, a lawyer and in my opinion, he appears to be quite savvy. Although he was new to Washington, he comes from a political family. He had also served three terms as a representative in the Florida State Legislature.

Due to his firebrand personality and outspokenness, it didn’t take long for Gaetz to become one of the most recognizable members of Congress. Add to that his bachelor status at the time, and it’s inconceivable that he did not have more than his share of female attention.

He was well aware that, as part of Trump’s preferred circle of trusted House Republicans, he would be under close scrutiny by Democrats.

Considering all of these factors, I just cannot imagine that he would take a chance on cratering his future by associating with an underage woman.

These types of bombshells also tend to take place when the Democrats want to deflect attention from their own vulnerabilities.

The reason Hillary Clinton conjured up the Trump dossier was to distract voters from focusing on her email scandal.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has come under intense fire after nine women have accused him of sexual harassment. Wouldn’t now be an opportune time to break a story about sex trafficking allegations against a prominent Republican?

I might be very wrong about Matt Gaetz. However, before he is convicted by the media, why don’t we let him defend himself.

 

Here is a transcript of the interview (via Rev.com)

Tucker Carlson:
Just a couple of hours ago, late this afternoon, the New York Times ran a story saying that Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is under federal investigation for playing some role in sex trafficking and potentially having a relationship with a 17 year old girl. There are very few details in major news outlets tonight about this story. We have no background on at all and not even any very informed questions. Instead, we’ve invited Congressman Gaetz on the show to respond to these stories and give us his view of them. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate it. So, this is obviously a serious allegation. Tell us what the truth is from your perspective.

Matt Gaetz:
It is a horrible allegation and it is a lie. The New York Times is running a story that I have traveled with a 17 year old woman and that is verifiably false. People can look at my travel records and see that that is not the case. What is happening is an extortion of me and my family involving a former Department of Justice official. On March 16th my father got a text message demanding a meeting, wherein a person demanded $25 million in exchange for making horrible sex trafficking allegations against me go away. Our family was so troubled by that we went to the local FBI and the FBI and the Department of Justice were so concerned about this attempted extortion of a member of Congress that they asked my dad to wear a wire, which he did with the former Department of Justice official. Tonight I am demanding that the Department of Justice and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction, which will prove my innocence.

And that will show that these allegations aren’t true. They’re merely intended to try to bleed my family out of money. And this former Department of Justice official tomorrow was supposed to be contacted by my father, so that specific instructions could be given regarding the wiring of $4.5 million as a down payment on this bribe. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that tonight, somehow the New York Times is leaking this information, smearing me and ruining the investigation that would likely result in one of the former colleagues of the current DOJ being brought to justice for trying to extort me and my family.

Tucker Carlson:
So, a couple of obvious questions that come to mind. And again, just to restate this just happened. Don’t have any other information beyond what we’ve already said and you have said. First of all, who is this Department of Justice former employee who’s trying to extort the money from you, you say?

Matt Gaetz:
His name is David McGee. He was a top official in the leadership in the Northern district of Florida as a prosecutor. He currently works at the Beggs & Lane law firm. As a matter of fact, one of the recordings that was made at the FBI and Department of Justice request occurred at that law firm and the money that was supposed to be paid today, that would have shown even more evidence of David McGee’s work in this extortion scheme. That was foiled by the New York Times story and I believe that’s why this horrible information and these terrible allegations have been used this evening.

Tucker Carlson:
So, I’ll get the investigation in a sec, but you’re saying that David McGee was motivated by greed. He was trying to extort money from your family. That’s his motivation you’re saying.

Matt Gaetz:
I know that there was a demand for money in exchange for a commitment that he could make this investigation go away along with his co-conspirators. They even claim to have specific connections inside the Biden white house. Now, I don’t know if that’s true. They were promising that Joe Biden would pardon me. Obviously I don’t need a pardon. I’m not seeking a pardon. I’ve not done anything improper or wrong, but what I am troubled by is the real motivation for all of this. Just tonight Ted Lieu, a Democrat, is calling on me to be removed from the house judiciary committee. And I believe we are in an era of our politics now Tucker, where people are smeared to try to take them out of the conversation.

Matt Gaetz:
I’m not the only person on screen right now who has been falsely accused of a terrible sex act. You were accused of something that you did not do. And so, you know what this feels like, the pain that can bring to your family and you know how it just puts people on defense when you’re accused of something, so salacious and awful. But it did not happen. It is not true. And the fact that it is the basis of this attempt to extort my family, tells a lot. And if the FBI and Department of Justice will release the tapes that they are in possession of, the American people will see what is really going on.

Tucker Carlson:
You just referred to a mentally ill viewer who accused me of a sex crime 20 years ago. And of course it was not true, I’d never met the person. But I do agree with you that being accused falsely is one of the worst things that can happen. And you do see it a lot. Let’s go back to the investigation. You say that it was or is underway, there was an investigation. What is the basis of that investigation? What is the allegation? That really not very clear from these news stories?

Matt Gaetz:
Yeah. Again I only know what I’ve read in the New York Times. I can say that actually you and I went to dinner about two years ago, your wife was there and I brought a friend of mine. You’ll remember her. And she was actually threatened by the FBI, told that if she wouldn’t cop to the fact that somehow I was involved in some pay for play scheme, that she could face trouble. And so, I do believe that there are people at the Department of Justice who are trying to smear me. Providing for flights and hotel rooms for people that you’re dating who are of legal age is not a crime. And I’m just troubled that the lack of any sort of legitimate investigation into me would then permute would then convert into this extortion attempt.

Tucker Carlson:
I don’t remember the woman you’re speaking of or the context at all, honestly, but I would like to know who… So, they’re saying there is a 17 year old girl who you had a relationship with. Is that true? And who is this girl? What are they talking about the New York Times?

Matt Gaetz:
The person doesn’t exist. I have not had a relationship with a 17 year old. That is totally false. The allegation I read in the New York Times is that I’ve traveled with some 17 year old in some relationship. That is false and records will bear that out to be false.

Tucker Carlson:
How long has this investigation been going on? Do you know?

Matt Gaetz:
I don’t know.

Tucker Carlson:
When were you first informed of it?

Matt Gaetz:
Again, I really saw this as a deeply troubling challenge for my family on March 16th when people were talking about a minor and that there were pictures of me with child prostitutes. That’s obviously false. There will be no such pictures because no such thing happened. But really on March 16th was when this got going from the extortion standpoint.

Tucker Carlson:
So, what happens next? I mean you can see there is this investigation, I guess a criminal investigation. I’m not quite sure what the sex trafficking part comes in. I don’t again for the fifth time, I don’t really understand this story very well. But where does it go from here? I mean you’ve made an allegation against someone by name on the air and accused him of trying to extort millions of dollars from your family. What what happens tomorrow?

Matt Gaetz:
Well what was supposed to happen was the transfer of this money that would have implicated the former colleague of these current DOJ officials. But that’s obviously not going to happen tomorrow because the New York Times story was leaked in order to quell that investigative effort. So, here’s what needs to happen next. The FBI and the Department of Justice must release the tapes that are in their possession, that were done at their direction. Those tapes will show that I am innocent and that the whole concept of sex charges against me was really just a way to try to bleed my family out of money and probably smear my name because I am a well-known outspoken, conservative, and I guess that’s out of style in a lot of parts of the country right now.

Tucker Carlson:
Matt Gaetz, I appreciate your coming on tonight.

Matt Gaetz:
Thanks for giving me the chance to tell the truth. I appreciate it.

Tucker Carlson:
It’s a more interesting and complicated story than that I knew from reading about it. Thank you very much. Matt Gaetz interview, that was one of the weirdest interviews I’ve ever conducted. That story just appeared in the news a couple of hours ago and on the certainty that there’s always more than you read in the newspaper we immediately called Matt Gaetz and asked him to come on and tell us more, which is you saw he did. I don’t think that clarified much but it certainly showed this as a deeply interesting story and we’ll be following it. Don’t quite understand it but we’ll bring you more when we find out.

VA High School Teacher Rebukes Student Who Refused to See Race in a Photo; Doesn’t End Well for the Teacher

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Hatice EROL from Pixabay

A high school teacher held up a photograph of two girls standing back to back, one of whom was white and the other black. The caption on the photo asks, “What is race?”

He asks his students what they see in the picture. The exchange that follows took place in an advanced English classroom in the very affluent town of Ashburn, Virginia.  It was caught on video and published by Fox News.

One boy replies, “Just two people chillin’.”

“Right, just two people,” the teacher says. “Nothing more to that picture?”

“Nah, not really. Just two people chillin’.”

“I don’t believe that you believe that. I don’t believe that you look at this as just two people,” the teacher tells him.

“It truly is just two people though, is it not?”

“I think you’re being intentionally coy about what this is a picture of,” the teacher replies.

This continues and finally the student says, “I’m confused on what you would like me to speak on…”

I don’t think you are, I don’t know why you do this…You act as if there’s noting noticeable about this apart from the fact there are two people.”

“Well, I’m confused. Are you trying to get me to say that there are two different races in this picture?” the student asks.

“Yes, I am asking you to say that,” the teacher says.

“Well, at the end of the day, wouldn’t that just be feeding into the problem of looking at race instead of just acknowledging them as two normal people?”

“No, it’s not because you can’t look at the people and not acknowledge that there are racial differences, right?

“But, if we’re looking for equality within all this, then why would we need to point out things such as that?

“Because those differences are real things.”

 

My parent’s generation was very cognizant of race. But as each new generation followed, race gradually began to recede into the background.

When my own children were going through school in the 2000s and beyond, I can honestly say it wasn’t an issue, at least from our perspective.

America had made great strides toward equality and I can’t think of a country in the world that offered greater opportunities to blacks and other minority groups than the U.S. If I’m wrong, please enlighten me.

It was when Democrats decided to use race as a political weapon against former President Donald Trump, and ultimately against anyone who supported him, that it exploded as an issue.

And now everything is racist – from the books we read to our children to the pancake syrup we use.

The teacher in this video is the problem. ‘How can this boy not see what I see? He must be lying.’

‘One girl is white and one is black, see, see!’

Sorry $#&^$%#, he doesn’t see.

The racial divide in America was closing up until liberals took a chisel and pried it open again.

This is on them.

Daily Beast Writer Wants You to Know that America Is No Longer #1 – By Any Metric

Advertisements

The Daily Beast’s David Rothkopf has written an illuminating article in which he delivers the bad news to his readers that the U.S.A., a country which was once great by every measure, is no longer #1 – in any category. Although I’ve been around long enough to know one can make statistics say anything one wants them to say, I’ll take Rothkopf at his word.

The problem with Rothkopf’s piece is that he appears to be pleased that America has fallen from her perch.

This will give you the gist of it:

This past week has seen two new studies that have got to cut flag-waving Uncle-Sam-has-abs-of-steel boosters to their jingoistic quick. In the latest World Happiness Report, America ranked 19th. In the most recent Freedom House World Democracy Rankings, the US plummeted to a position right behind Argentina and Mongolia and on a par with Panama, Romania and Croatia…

Now look, there’s no shame in being in the top 10 percent of countries. But that’s not how we have been selling ourselves for the past century. “We’re number 19,” just doesn’t have the same ring, does it? It’s going to be darned hard for Toby Keith to turn that into a song lyric, isn’t it? Gonna be hard to thump our chests about the legacy of the Founders when we now have a system of government on a par with places like Mongolia and Romania, countries that began their marches to democracy barely two decades ago.

Right now we may reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are now something like a jumbo-sized Luxembourg—doing fine but hoping that some day we may be Norway (which does very very well on a lot of these lists, as does much of Scandinavia). Or we can ignore the data and what actually works on this planet and settle for being the Jared Kushner of nations, arrogant and clueless about what we have inherited, or we can get to work maintaining and building upon it.

This man is taunting us. Like a bully on a playground might. He’s even cut us to our jingoistic quick.

At first, I wonder why any American would find joy or even satisfaction from this data. Maybe he’s not American. He is.

But I’ll risk ruffling his feathers to explain the reason why.

When a military decides to invade a country, they first try to soften the target through a series of airstrikes. The invader’s preliminary objective is to hit as many military targets, known weapons storage facilities, runways or other critical parts of the country’s infrastructure as possible to weaken its defenses. This preparation is invaluable, for it makes the final phase of the invasion faster and easier.

This is precisely what Democrats have been doing for years now. Well aware that their goal of one-party rule was just a pipe dream even ten years ago, they have worked systematically to soften the U.S.

Rather than airstrikes, their weapons have been propaganda and the fraud that was made possible through propaganda. The unholy alliance of the Democratic Party, Big Tech and the establishment media has weakened us, exposed our vulnerabilities.

Now that Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress, they are preparing for the final invasion which they expect will be fast and easy due to the years they’ve spent softening the target.

In fact, the only obstacle that stands between Democrats and the realization of their ultimate goal is the legislative filibuster.

The Democrats have become more and more brazen in the last five years. They no longer even try to hide their agenda, no matter how ridiculous they look.

As the truth about their coordinated effort to frame then-President Donald Trump for colluding with the Russians to win the election began to trickle out, we learned that Democrats deliberately tried to sabotage a U.S. president through a fraudulent scheme and that they were all in on it.

Former President Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan and so many more all knew that Hillary Clinton had hired an opposition research firm to create a fraudulent dossier about then-candidate Donald Trump to hurt his campaign and to distract voters from her growing email scandal. When you delete 33,000 emails that were under subpoena, you’ve got to do something drastic.

Even President Joe Biden was in on it. He was the one who recommended charging Gen. Michael Flynn for violating the Logan Act, a law under which no one has ever been convicted.

Evidence surfaced of a meeting during which top FBI officials brainstormed about the best way to set a perjury trap for Flynn.

Corruption, right?

But, after the whole fraud was exposed, only one low-level FBI attorney was convicted of a crime and even he didn’t serve a day in jail.

That’s when it became clear the Democrats controlled Washington. They tried to set up the President of the United States of America and no one paid a price.

No one was held responsible for the biggest political hoax in America’s history.

Democrats learned they could get away with anything. They didn’t even have to worry about creating an elaborate scheme. Consider the ease with which House Democrats were able to impeach President Trump – twice. They knew the media would have their backs.

Next, they used the pandemic to force states to adopt mail-in voting and other practices which swayed the election to a man whose campaign had been on life support, who came in fifth in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, who needs to be propped up by his handlers before he can appear in public.

Rothkopf is correct. America has declined. If Democrats find a way to abolish the filibuster, America will be in freefall which will make us a soft target indeed.

The country is facing an existential crisis. And it’s every bit as serious as our fight against Nazi Germany and radical extremism.

This time, however, the enemy comes from within. And currently this enemy has the power to set policy, tax us, spend our money and take away our civil liberties.

If Republicans fail to act, America’s time as a democratic republic will be over.

That would please Mr. Rothkopf. It’s what he’s hoped for all along, isn’t it?

Dem Campaign to Change Manchin’s Mind on Filibuster Starts With Nomination of His Wife to Key Position

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Democrats have no shame. Not even a little bit.

Two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, currently stand in the way of their goal to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Naturally, Democrats are launching a major pressure campaign to get one or both to change their minds.

In a Friday press release, the White House announced that Gayle Manchin, Sen. Manchin’s wife, has been nominated to serve as the federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. On its website, the organization describes itself as an economic development partnership agency of the federal government and 13 state governments which works to “strengthen economic growth in Appalachia.”

Manchin is eminently qualified for this position. As per the White House announcement:

An educator from West Virginia, Gayle Manchin worked in Marion County Schools, served on the faculty of Fairmont State University, and was the Director of the university’s first Community Service Learning Program. She directed the AmeriCorps Promise Fellows in WV and implemented a statewide initiative, WV Partnerships to Assure Student Success. Manchin previously served as West Virginia’s First Lady and was appointed to serve as a member of the State Board of Education, serving her last two years as President. She is the Chair of the Board for Reconnecting McDowell, Inc., an AFT initiative serving rural WV, is a past president of the Vandalia Rotary Club of Charleston, and as an Emeritus Member of The Education Alliance. She also served as Cabinet Secretary for the West Virginia Office of Education and the Arts.

Gayle Conelly Manchin attended West Virginia University, attaining her Bachelor of Arts in Language Arts and Education and a Master of Arts in Reading, and a second master’s specialization in Educational Technology Leadership from Salem International University.

Still, most would agree the optics of her nomination coming at this time aren’t good.

Democratic leaders aren’t the only ones trying to influence Sens. Manchin and Sinema.

Politico reported this week that black civil rights leaders plan to lobby hard to persuade them to reconsider. Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.” I posted about this story here.

As I wrote, Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders came to their states and called them racists. The application of such overt pressure could backfire spectacularly on them, particularly in a bright red state like West Virginia.

Nor do I think offering his wife the co-chair position at ARC would cause Manchin to flip. He is well aware of how that would appear.

Expect the pressure on Sens. Manchin and Sinema from party leaders, colleagues, civil rights leaders and a portion of their voters to accelerate in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to watch the Democrats beclown themselves.

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.

Black Lives Matter Group Marches to Rochester Store Shouting ‘We’re shutting s— down,’ Traps 100 Customers Inside

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Bruce Emmerling from Pixabay

On March 23, 2020, police in Rochester, NY, received a report that a naked man under the influence of PCP was running through town, shouting that he had the coronavirus. When police tried to subdue him, he spit on them which caused them to place a mesh hood, otherwise known as a “spit sock” over his head. The man, Daniel Prude, was placed on the pavement and subdued for two minutes by police.

Prude, who had a history of mental illness, was black.

After Prude became unresponsive, he was resuscitated and brought to a hospital where he died one week later.

“The Monroe County Office of the Medical Examiner ruled Mr. Prude’s death a homicide. The autopsy report concluded he died of asphyxiation ‘in the setting of physical restraint’ and acute intoxication with the hallucinogenic drug PCP,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

In February, a New York grand jury voted against indictment of any of the police officers involved in the case.

Tuesday marked the one year anniversary of this incident, and a group of approximately 200 members of Black Lives Matter gathered for a protest. As they marched toward Wegmans, a popular Rochester grocery store, they shouted, “We have a long walk today. We’re shutting s— down.”

The Washington Examiner reported that, as the group approached the store, the owner locked it down, trapping around 100 customers inside.

The group banged on the glass doors and repeatedly chanted, “Black Lives Matter.”

In a tweet, Rochester journalist and radio host Bob Lonsberry wrote, “Hundreds of people trapped in the East Avenue #ROC Wegmans by this mob, The Rochester Police Department is just watching and letting it happen. I guess fire codes and trespassing aren’t things in Rochester anymore. What an embarrassing day for the city and the PD.”

He continued in a second tweet. “Allowing the mob to shut down the East Ave [Wegmans], trapping at least a hundred people, is an immoral failing by the mayor at @CityRochesterNY and the @RochesterNYPD. To kiss the a– of the mob, the rights of others are trodden, and the city dies even more.”

Rochester based journalist Justin Murphy spoke to one of the BLM protestors who said, “We’re more than just taxpayers in their capitalist system; we’re human beings, and we demand to be treated as such.”

They’re taxpayers? I’ll bet most of them pay little or no taxes. They’re human beings, and they demand to be treated as such? Need I even respond to the irony in that remark?

In the tweet below, Monroe County legislator Rachel Barnhart makes an equally stupid comment. “Reasonable people can debate tactics and messaging. It’s normal to be annoyed or inconvenienced if the grocery store is blocked off by protesters. But I care more about Black lives than Wegmans. The protest will end. The store will reopen. The injustice will go on.”

Barnhart’s comment is even more egregious than Carson’s, if possible. One would expect such an inane remark from a member of BLM. I am not a lawyer, but here’s a county legislator who overlooks the obvious crimes being committed, entrapment and threatening, for starters.

And she views the shoppers trapped inside as being “annoyed or inconvenienced” rather than frightened. BLM has a long history of violence. Any reasonable person in that situation would feel some degree of fear.

America defeated Nazi Germany and Japan’s Imperial Army. How do we fight the enemy from within? Especially now that they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. The Democratic Party is fast becoming the greatest foe this nation has ever faced.

The Democrats are trying to destroy America. It’s as if they’re in command of our ship and they’re aiming it right for an iceberg at flank speed.

Tell me again how Jan. 6 was the most shameful day in America’s history..

Minnesota Judge Reinstates Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin in George Floyd Case

Advertisements

Jury selection began on Tuesday in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Chauvin had been charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

On Thursday morning, however, a Hennepin County, Minnesota judge reinstated a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, according to a CNN report.

The report said that “Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill dismissed the [third-degree murder] count in October, saying it did not apply to this case.” CNN explains how that charge came to be reinstated.

An appeals court ruling in February in the case against former Minneapolis Police officer Mohamed Noor opened the door to reinstating the charge against Chauvin, and the state subsequently filed an appeal of Cahill’s ruling.

In court on Thursday, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that Noor’s case was factually and procedurally different than Chauvin’s interactions with Floyd, in which he knelt on Floyd’s head and neck area for an extended period. However, prosecutors argued that the judge was bound to follow the appeals court’s precedent in Noor.

Judge Cahill ruled Thursday morning that he accepted the appeals court’s ruling that the opinion in Noor’s case immediately set a precedent, and he ruled to reinstate the charge.

He added that the third-degree murder charge only applied to Chauvin and that the potential to reinstate the charge for the three other officers charged in Floyd’s death will be addressed at a later date.

“This charge has not come out of left field,” Cahill said Thursday. “It was originally charged. I think the defense has been aware that the state will take every opportunity to try and add it back.”

If convicted, Chauvin could face up to 40 years in prison for second-degree murder, up to 25 years for third-degree murder, and up to 10 years for second-degree manslaughter.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered Cahill to reconsider the motion to reinstate the charge last week. On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused a request by Chauvin’s attorney to block the appellate court’s decision, clearing the way for Cahill to reinstate the charge.

Chauvin has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement (on Thursday) which read: “The charge of 3rd-degree murder, in addition to manslaughter and felony murder, reflects the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Chauvin. We look forward to presenting all three charges to the jury.”

Hmmm.

In light of the underreported developments that many of us just learned about this week, one has to wonder if the reason the third-degree murder charge has been reinstated is because prosecutors are worried that second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges might be too difficult to prove.

It’s clear that Ellison and many others desperately want to convict Chauvin for something in this case.

Days after the video of Chauvin pressing his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes went viral last May, Chauvin was charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. I posted about this here.

On Wednesday, I presented excerpts from an article written by The Spectator’s Roger Kimball. It turned out that at the time of Floyd’s death, he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.

Kimball noted that rather than being St. George, Floyd was a “drug addict, a woman abuser and a career criminal.” He wrote:

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.

It just may be that Ellison and his colleagues, who are far more familiar with the details of this case than anyone else, are acutely aware of its vulnerabilities.

Although I am not a lawyer, CNN’s explanation for the reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge doesn’t make sense to me.

I recall vividly that many people were deeply disappointed by the third-degree charge and exerted tremendous pressure upon the powers that be to upgrade the charge to second-degree murder. And on June 3, prosecutors announced the elevated charge.

With the highly partisan Ellison in charge of the case, it remains to be seen if Chauvin will get a fair trial.