Here are the top stories from this week that I think you will want to read.
And after you read my Sunday Standard, please leave me a comment.
At least one race I got right
This was originally published on 11/14.
My daughter Sarah won in a landslide to become the first ever woman to be Governor of Arkansas and mark the first time ever when a father/daughter both served a state as governor. I’m so very proud of her, and believe that she will satisfy her supporters and surprise those who didn’t vote for her. I thought I was a pretty effective Governor. But I hope she is even better!
But, when I’m wrong, I try to admit it. I WAS wrong about my view that there would be a huge red tsunami in the 2022 elections. It was evident to me that since 70% of the American people thought we are on the wrong track, since most American families have been devastated by the highest inflation rate in 42 years, gasoline costs almost double from when Joe Biden took office, and with the cost of groceries skyrocketing, voters would say “Enough of this!” I also thought that the dramatic increase in violent crimes, illegal border crossings at over 5 million since Biden took office, and the deep decline of the value of people pension funds due to the downward spiral of the stock market, voters would figure it’s time for new and hopefully better ideas. And with the Democrats pushing for wacko science that results in mutilation and chemical castration of children in the name of transgender “care” and pushing abortion of an unborn baby up until the very moment of birth, I truly believed that even long-time Democrats who aren’t crazy would decide that their party had embraced too many policies that were detrimental to their lives and families and would vote accordingly.
Clearly, I was wrong. While Republicans will likely barely control the House, what was expected as a red wave became more of a pink trickle at best.
I’ve realized that most Americans get their news from social media and the mainstream media. They are like a monolithic wall protecting Democrats and the most radical cultural views of our nation. Many voters don’t watch or listen to conservative voices, and they are overwhelmed with the fake news that Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” These are voters who are not aware or don’t care that the bureaucrats of the establishment of government—especially those at the top in the FBI and the Department of Justice are weaponizing their power to intimidate and aggressively and forcefully arrest 87 year old concentration camp survivors who are pro-life but do nothing to punish those who firebomb and vandalize Crisis Pregnancy Centers which provide real medical services and baby supplies to women and their children.
The problem with the less than stellar results of the midterm elections is not that the Democrats opposed our policies. That’s what we can expect them to do. But Republicans were facing a triple threat of the monolithic media, the bully bureaucracy of our own government, and the reliable partnership they had with the national Democrat party. They preached that parents speaking out about the abuse of their children were domestic terrorists, and that parents who raised their children to believe in 2 genders of male or female were racist, fascist, homophone, transphobe or bigots. And for some reason, they convinced voters that people who riot and burn their Democrat run cities are mostly peaceful protestors and we should de-fund the police because they are evil and that there is no real crime threat.
But this is not a time to give up. It’s a time to fire up. No room for a retreat—it’s time for renewal. I would never suggest that we stop voting—I would urge that don’t stop caring and fighting against the evil policies that are destroying America and the hopes we have for our kids and grandkids. Give up? No way! Gear up! Speak up! Sign up, and get up and join the fight for the soul of America.
DISGUSTING: Garland's appointment of a special counsel is "Mueller 2.0"
This was originally published on 11/19.
At this point, we’ve been lied to so much by the Biden administration, they might as well just save their breath when telling us President Biden didn’t know about a step as consequential as the appointment of a special counsel to investigate President Trump for (again) his role in the so-called “insurrection” and his possession of so-called “classified “documents at Mar-A-Lago. As we said just yesterday, even the WASHINGTON POST reports that according to their sources, Trump's possession of those documents was not nefarious, did not include “nuclear secrets,” and really just reflects a difference of opinion regarding who could have them.
In an exclusive interview shortly after Attorney General Merrick Garland's announcement, Trump told FOX NEWS Digital that this is “the worst politicization of justice in our country.”
“For six years I have been going through this,” he said, “and I am not going to go through it any more. And I hope the Republicans have the courage to fight this.”
“I have been proven innocent for six years on everything,” he said, “from fake impeachments to [special counsel Robert] Mueller, who found no collusion, and now I have to do it more? It is not acceptable. It is so unfair. It is so political.”
Rep. Andy Biggs tweeted a response to this story that has since been made “unavailable” by Twitter (but was saved for our reading pleasure by J. D. Rucker at LIBERTY DAILY): “The corrupt DOJ appoints a special counsel to investigate President Trump the same week he announces a 2024 run. Has there ever been a more politicized and weaponized DOJ in American history.”
Considering this is just about the same thing we said in yesterday’s Evening Edition, I’d hope it would have been restored on Twitter by now. Elon Musk, where are you on this?
White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre is always good for a laugh, and she provided a big knee-slapper on Friday when she said, “Look, I will say this, and I’ve said it many times before, we do not politicize the Department of Justice...” LOOK, I will say this, Karine, The DOJ is assigning a special counsel to investigate President Biden’s top political foe and likely opponent in 2024. It’s the task of the special counsel to determine whether or not to charge this opponent criminally. No, no, that’s not politicization in the slightest. (Of course, this sham is why they have to maintain, ludicrously, that Biden knew nothing about it, just as he knew nothing about the Mar-A-Lago raid, haha.)
Garland, in a startling twist of logic, actually cited Trump’s announcement to run and Biden’s “stated intention” to run as reasons FOR appointing a special counsel. He concluded that it was “in the public interest.” (Just a thought: perhaps this is why Biden still insists he's planning to run.)
So, did Garland think it was in the public interest to raid Trump’s home, Third World-style, over what is essentially a document dispute? Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley would tell him it wasn’t, and said in August that Garland “must resign or be impeached.” Hawley said, “The raid by Joe Biden’s FBI on the home of a former President who is also Biden’s chief political opponent is an unprecedented assault on democratic norms and the rule of law, Biden has taken our republic into dangerous waters.” Hawley also called at that time for the search warrant to be published, the firing of FBI Director Chris Wray, and the total overhaul of the FBI.
We promised more information about newly-appointed special counsel Jack Smith --- aside from his working in the Public Integrity Unit of the DOJ for five years under (yes) President Obama. As reported in THE EPOCH TIMES, his most recent assignment was at The Hague, where he was chief prosecutor for the special court responsible for investigating and adjudicating war crimes in Kosovo. Before that, he was vice president of litigation for HCA Healthcare, one of the largest healthcare providers in the U.S.
He’s a 1994 graduate of Harvard Law and reportedly a Democrat. A more detailed career bio is at the ET story. As I see it, Smith will have to earn the designation of “nonpartisan,” as our ‘Justice’ Department has already earned the title of Most Partisan DOJ in History.
Legal professor Jonathan Turley appeared on Jesse Watters’ FOX NEWS show Friday evening and made an interesting point, that “Attorney General Garland, in making a case for a special counsel, made the case against himself for the failure to appoint a special counsel on Hunter Biden.” Exactly! He went on to explain...
“He said, ‘Look, we’ve got someone running for President; we really can’t investigate this as a member of the current President’s administration.’ Well, you also have an investigation of the current President’s family, an investigation where the President could be implicated, in a multimillion-dollar influence-peddling scheme, an investigation that has references to President Biden, using code names, like ‘the Big Guy’...to hide the fact that they were talking about Joe Biden. And he has steadfastly refused to appoint a special counsel, and it’s simply baffling.”
Gosh, it’s not baffling at all if you assume the totally partisan nature of the Biden DOJ. Garland used completely different standards for the two cases.
Speaking of the Hunter laptop story, the U.K. DAILY MAIL has a good update. Leave it to the British press (and the NEW YORK POST, of course) to cover this when most of the American press cops out. If anyone you know says, “That Hunter Biden story the Republicans talk about is no big deal,” send them this...
As for Garland’s focus on January 6, Turley said, “I don’t get it. The January 6 committee did not significantly move the ball on establishing a crime by President Trump.” He found the Mar-A-Lago aspect more concerning for President Trump, because “the attorney general mentioned obstruction a couple of times.” The FBI, he said, “often starts with low-lying fruit.” The obstruction claims involve “other people, lawyers, staff, etc.,” and Turley thinks the special counsel will start with them, just as the Mueller team did.
There’s a two-syllable word for what this is, and I’ll refrain from using it, as I know we’re all thinking it, anyway.
Prof. Glenn Reynolds would agree. He’s got a great piece in the NEW YORK POST, saying that Merrick Garland has not only proven himself unfit for his current job as attorney general but also for the job he really wanted, that of Supreme Court justice. As bad as the ‘Justice’ Department is under his tenure, he at least HAS a tenure and will be replaced. If he’d been on the Court, this political hack might have served for life.
Areas of concern cited by Reynolds include Garland’s targeting of parents speaking out at school board meetings in response to the National School Boards Association (which had reportedly already spoken to the White House), calling this “political thuggery at its worst.”
Garland has adopted the current definition of “domestic terrorism,” which simply means “opposition to our policies.” Reynolds’ conclusion about AG Garland: “He should go.”
Finally, here’s a must-read piece that looks at the lawfare behind this special counsel appointment as expressed in the legal filings. Note that regarding January 6, the special counsel won’t just be looking at Trump but also at GOP members of Congress and anyone associated with Trump.
Also, do you recall my speculation that the deputy AG, former Obama attorney Lisa Monaco, is likely responsible for what the AG’s office is doing? As Sundance writes, “DAG Lisa Monaco has written, and AG Garland has appointed Jack Smith to target Donald Trump with the same special counsel process previously used by Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.” In other words, Turley was right to bring up pursuit of obstruction of justice charges, because that was Weissmann's strategy.
“This is Robert Mueller 2.0,” Sundance writes, “using Special Counsel Jack Smith.” All the same investigators will transfer over. In other words, it’s just as Trump said yesterday, that the same sleazy people are involved again. And according to Sundance, they’re “structurally targeting” Republicans. By appointing a special counsel, they can go after the new Republican Congress without having that pesky separation of powers issue. “Primary goal: create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any Republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.” Bonus: if they can “pick off any Republican House members under charges of ‘supporting an insurrection,’” the Democrats regain control of Congress.
There’s much more at the link. This is an ABSOLUTE MUST-READ if you want to comprehend what Biden’s underhanded ‘Justice’ Department is up to. It’s easy to see why they chose to do this immediately upon the GOP taking control of the House.
ADDITIONAL NOTE on appointment of this special counsel
by Laura Ainsworth, staff writer/researcher
Bob Hoge at REDSTATE had an interesting take on Garland’s appointment of a special counsel to continue investigating President Trump. He thinks it might backfire, and says, “Voters, especially Trump’s base, could find renewed energy as they witness yet another overzealous prosecution of Orange Man Bad, and after watching so many failed efforts, they could (correctly) conclude that the Justice Department is simply an untrustworthy, politicized, partisan Democrat operation.”
But now that Merrick Garland has done this, the Trump flag is going back up.
That’s not even to say Trump will be my final choice for the nomination in 2024, though he might very well turn out to be. It’s just that I want to show solidarity with Trump after what has been done to him by an administration that currently bears little resemblance to the America I used to know and pledge my allegiance to. In other words, I’ve concluded that the ‘Justice’ Department is simply an untrustworthy, politicized, partisan Democrat operation. Heck, I already knew that, but now they’ve given me a clearer idea of just how far they’re willing to take it.
Na-na-na-na...hey, hey, hey...GOODBYE!
This was originally published on 11/18.
It’s quite telling about what politician’s promises are worth that Nancy Pelosi ran for Speaker last time around on a solemn pledge that it would be her final term as the Democrats’ House leader…and now, her announcement that she’s actually stepping down is being treated as shocking news.
There were rumors that she might resign entirely, but like a boss who quits but can’t stop hanging around the office and getting in the way, she plans to play a behind-the-scenes “emeritus” role as a de-facto custodian of Democratic power in the chamber. If you’d like to see a good play about how well it works out when a ruler gives up power but still tries to run things, I suggest “King Lear.”
Devoid of self-awareness to the end, Pelosi said, “House Democrats will continue to play a leading role in supporting President Biden’s agenda — with strong leverage over a scant Republican majority,” oblivious to the way she ran roughshod over Republicans with a partisan iron fist despite having an equally scant majority.
On the positive side, though, I admit it was gratifying to hear her say that it’s time for her to make way for a “new generation to lead.” Speaking on behalf of my fellow 60-somethings, I’d like to thank her for finally giving us kids a shot.
AINSWORTH: Michelle Obama acting like presidential candidate
By Laura Ainsworth, staff writer/researcher
This article was originally published on 11/15.
Today marks the release of Michelle Obama’s new book, THE LIGHT WE CARRY, subtitled “Overcoming In Uncertain Times,” and if you don’t think she’s positioning for the 2024 Democrat nomination, I just don’t know what to tell you.
To tie into the release of the book, she’ll be doing an interview for National Public Radio today as well. (All her interviews and public appearances have been carefully planned for months to roll out the way it’s intended for us to see them.) She’s booked into large venues holding up to 7,000 people.
She’s just now starting on a six-city tour, starting in Washington DC and ending in Los Angeles.
In the audio version, she lays it on thick about how Trump’s win in 2016 “still hurts.” Not surprisingly, she makes the nation’s choice of who is going to be in the White House largely about race.
“It shook me profoundly to hear the man who’d replace my husband as President openly and unapologetically using ethnic slurs, making selfishness and hate somehow acceptable,” she says in the book. “It felt like something much uglier than a political defeat.” Isn’t it fascinating how people on the left are oblivious to the visceral hate and racism emanating from their OWN side?
And there's this: “Stuck in my house over the frightening early months of 2020, I saw no logic to any of it. What I saw was a President whose lack of integrity was reflected in an escalating national death count and whose poll numbers were still decent.” Wait a minute –- is she associating President Trump’s perceived personal failings with the early death count from covid? Admittedly, I’m not seeing the context of her comment –- the book’s just out today –- but one might certainly get the idea from this excerpt that she’s trying somehow to blame President Trump for deaths that came to us courtesy of the Chinese. She’s dismayed that his poll numbers didn’t even go down. Now that’s some serious Trump-bashing.
A review appearing on Monday in THE GUARDIAN says that “she makes no secret of how hurt she was by the dismissal that followed her even into the White House: the caricature of her as an angry Black woman, and the way anything she said to mitigate it was used to prove the prejudice all over again.”
You know, I really don’t want to hear Michelle complain about being “dismissed” as First Lady after seeing how shamefully Melania Trump was treated while serving in that role. Michelle most certainly was not dismissed; she was worshipped, especially by those on the Obama side of the political aisle, and she continues to be worshipped.
Those who might have given Michelle grief when she was in the White House did so not because of her skin color but because of her politics. Does she think disapproval happens only to First Ladies of color? Michelle was ridiculed by Republicans for her school lunches that kids threw in the garbage; Nancy Reagan was criticized by Democrats for “Just Say No.”
Jesse Watters, on his Monday PRIMETIME show, ran a clip from Michelle’s interview with Robin Roberts that ran Sunday on ABC --- yes all the networks will be lining up to kiss her shoes –-- in which she hesitated to endorse President Biden for another term. When asked, “Do you hope that President Biden will run again in 2024,” she said, “You know...I...(pause)...I... (longer pause)…………...I will have to see.”
Michelle was on Stephen Colbert’s late-night show Monday night.
Monica Crowley, appearing on Watters’ show, said, “Look, I think after the midterm election results, there are a lot of Democrats who came out publicly, like Mrs. Pelosi, and said, ‘Oh, sure, Joe’s gonna run again in 2024! We’re all behind him!’ They are placating him. Okay? The only person who thinks Joe Biden is gonna run for re-election is Joe Biden, okay? Because he’s not all there.”
She went on to call Michelle Obama “the dog that hasn’t barked” among potential 2024 Democrat candidates, pointing out that she’s got this new book and is, “like, everywhere.”
My thinking, for what it's worth: she’s running. I said in 2016 that she’d be the Democrat nominee, as a late replacement for Hillary Clinton when it appeared the email scandal –- criminal mishandling of classified material and obstructing justice by destroying evidence –- would be too much for Madame Secretary to overcome. Who knew then that the FBI would be so corrupt that James Comey would let her off the hook in his infamous July 5 speech?
Anyway, that makes 2024 the year to run Michelle and keep the Obama machine running smoothly. Others are being mentioned, such as Gavin Newsom (too white, too male), but I think he’s in the mix to throw us off the track. This is all speculative; just consider it a warning about what to watch out for in the coming year or so. See if the chess pieces don’t start moving into place on the board.
The Democrats wouldn’t have wanted to make any move in this direction until after the midterms were over.
Biden to extend COVID "health emergency"
This article was originally published on 11/14.
Say, remember the COVID “health emergency”? It seems to pop up and then disappear again more often than Waldo. President Biden claimed it was over so he could remove restrictions on illegal immigrants pouring into the US. Then suddenly, it was back, so he could inappropriately claim forgiving student loan debt as a health emergency power. He said himself that it was over – and most of the public agrees, if you look at how few masks you see at crowded restaurants, sporting events and other places.
But wait! It’s back again! Biden now plans to extend his COVID health emergency power through April of 2023.
Even the Biden court jesters at “Saturday Night Live” are mocking the idea of COVID still being a health emergency.
The far more dangerous sickness now is the government’s addiction to unconstitutional powers. When do we get a vaccine for that?
Speaking of COVID, the last thing we need is more veiled attempts at exercising power thinly veiled as a “health emergency.”
A survey in the UK by the University of Portsmouth found that because of the self-serving actions, misinformation and lies of government health authorities, nearly one in four respondents across all demographics now have less confidence in vaccines in general. That includes people who supported other vaccine campaigns in the past.
Thanks, Dr. “Science!”
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading the Sunday Standard.