Good afternoon! Here are the top stories from this week that I think you will want to read. Topics include:
- Democrats have no use for Democracy
- Man of the Year
- Russian defense contractor tied to Bidens avoids sanctions
- Bombshell story
- The dumbest and most hysterical reaction to Roe leak
- Durham scores some big pre-trial wins
- And more
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
Democrats have no use for Democracy
This article was published on May 5.
Over the past few years, the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be taken over by a far-left fringe that operates almost entirely on emotions. That’s why their stances on various issues have no intellectual consistency: their principles shift radically, depending on whatever it is they want at the moment. Because of this, they’ve destroyed many of their own arguments. When they bring up some well-worn justification for whatever issue they’re defending, it’s now easy to throw one of their other stances at them that completely negates it.
For instance, all of a sudden, all they care about is the right to abortion. They think this will be a winning issue with women voters, so they’re using the old trope of Republicans waging a “war on women” and wanting to take away a “woman’s right to choose!” But hold on: just last week, weren’t these same people telling us that men could get pregnant? A month ago, their Supreme Court nominee claimed not even to be able to define what a “woman” is. And in an attempt to attract “trans” money (there aren’t that many trans votes), they’ve been waging their own war on women by forcing them to compete in sports against men who “identify” as women and are twice their size.
They can’t chant, “My body, my choice!” anymore and claim to be defending body autonomy after forcing people to wear face masks and inject their bodies with a vaccine they objected to, on threat of losing their jobs and their civil rights. Barack Obama just declared that “there are limits to how much the government can encroach on our personal lives,” apparently forgetting that his Party wants to encroach on everything from our vaccine decisions to our social media posts to our free speech rights to where we’re allowed to pray.
They excoriated anyone who didn’t mouth allegiance to Black Lives Matter and put the BLM logo on their social media pages. But how can they say, “Black lives matter,” when they’re defending legalized abortion? Roe v. Wade ushered in a veritable genocide of black babies, with black victims far out of proportion to their population numbers.
The left’s favorite writer of historical fiction, “1619 Project” creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, predictably tweeted that the pro-life movement started as a pro-segregationist movement, and tried to paint abortion opponents as racist. But I didn’t show my belief that black lives matter by giving money to racially divisive hustlers to blow it on mansions. I defended black lives by opposing the actual destruction of millions of black lives, as well as babies of all other races, because I believe (more heresy!) that all lives matter.
The most laughable of all their unthinking clichés that I’m hearing everywhere now is the claim that overturning Roe v. Wade is an assault on “our democracy.” They keep using that word, but I don’t think they know what it means. The Justices in Roe took the right to decide abortion policy away from the voters. Returning that decision to the voters of the individual states would restore democracy.
If you want a quote from someone who really has no use for democracy, try this: “I’m not prepared to leave that (abortion laws) to the whims of the public at the moment.” – President Joe Biden.
Glenn Greenwald has a great Substack primer for liberals on the history and purpose of the Supreme Court. Spoiler alert: it’s not to ensure that majorities (or people who scream the loudest) get whatever they want. On the contrary, it’s to prevent majorities from passing laws that violate the Constitution.
Greenwald notes that leftwing activist Waleed Shahid tweeted a quote from Lincoln, that “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” He cluelessly failed to realize that that’s the exact argument we on the pro-life side have been making against Roe for half a century.
He also includes a stunningly oblivious quote from Vox.com’s Ian Millhiser, claiming that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it will mean “five unelected aristocrats” acted “undemocratically” to decide the legality of abortion. As Greenwald asks, “Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?” The unelected black-robed aristocrats of the Court in 1973 assaulted democracy. If Roe is overturned, it will be a long-delayed victory for democracy.
Man of the Year
This article was originally published on May 2.
I’m just going to put it out there—Elon Musk is my nominee for Man of the Year! The world’s richest man doesn’t even own a home—he just crashes with friends in various places. Hey, Elon, if you need a place to hang out, I’m happy to offer my place for you because I truly appreciate a billionaire who puts his money where his mouth is…or in his case he puts his money where the enemies of free speech are and he stuffs wads of cash in their nasty mouths and buys the very platform that shut out voices of conservatives, Christians, and Trump supporters while keeping Twitter open to the Ayatollah and to medical fraudsters like Tony Fauci who has spent 2 years in an ever-changing chant as to what private citizens must do to fight a virus, even if his advice changed every month. And even if he appears to have lied in a large way about the origin of the Wuhan virus and whether he and other US Taxpayer-funded scientists knew all along about the real origin of the Covid leak and that US dollars helped fund experiments that would have been illegal in the US.
Musk offered to flat out buy Twitter. The left went berserk to the point that you would have thought that Elon Musk wanted to turn off the water in every American city and make us all eat Soylent Green—a reference that only baby-boomers will understand.
Some 20 something year old wearing baggy pajamas, working from a filthy apartment littered with empty Cheetos bags will no longer be able to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t. Elon Musk bought the entire thing for $44 Billion dollars and will restore it to a true forum. Granted, there will be a lot of stuff on Twitter that will be outrageous, wrong, and inflammatory. But that’s how real free speech works. If it’s defamatory, the object of such hate can sue. It’s tough to win, but one thing I hope Musk will do is force people to openly identify who they are when they speak. Too many blathering cowards hide behind silly sophomoric screen names so they can shoot from the dark and run hide behind a wall of secrecy. I hope that stops. If you want to say something, be man enough or woman enough—if you know what those terms even mean—to say it with your real name attached. No more wimpy word wizards who are often not even real humans but electronic bots taking pot shots at people who actually have the guts to stand by their words in their own name.
There will likely be massive waves of voices being released from the stupid and hate-driven Twitter jail where those who dared to speak out about taboo topics like elections, Covid treatments, or Hunter Biden’s revealing laptop got exiled. Twitter twits kept you from knowing how Papa Joe was very much involved in Hunter’s dirty dealing with the Chinese, the Russians, and others for which the easily identified “Big Guy” got a lucrative cut of the deals. Those stories from the NY Post got banned from Twitter, but now even the NY Times and Washington Post admits the laptop is authentic.
The loons on the left really do fear free speech. Old time and sincere liberals always loved it, defended it, and fought for it, and they will also have their voices restored. They deserve to be heard too.
It’s a BRAVE NEW WORLD and Elon Musk is a brave new leader!
Russian defense contractor tied to Bidens avoids sanctions
This article was published on May 5.
As much as the left wants to use the issue of “reproductive rights” to direct the national conversation between now and November, some news outlets, such as the New York Post and the U.K. Daily Mail, are actually continuing to unearth important, jaw-dropping stories that have nothing to do with that.
The same news outlets that screamed from the rooftops the fake story that Trump colluded with Russia will ignore the Daily Mail’s latest report about Biden Family Russian connections. In fact, until this March, when The New York Times and Washington Post finally admitted the laptop was real, one had to go looking to find the reports about it. Google and Facebook certainly weren’t going to bring them to you. As you know, even the newly-appointed head of Biden’s unconstitutional bad joke, the “Disinformation Governance Board,” roundly dismissed it as “a Trump campaign product.”
But in their latest update, the Daily Mail has emails showing that in 2012 and 2013, Hunter Biden courted a Russian oligarch with very close ties to Putin --- Vladimir Yevtushenkov, 73 --- to seal an investment deal, meeting with him in Moscow, at the Ritz-Carlton in New York, and in Washington, DC. Hunter’s now-jailed former business partner Devon Archer wooed him as well, laying the groundwork in 2011 with his own trip to Moscow, staying in luxury hotels and eating bear meat (“yummy”) while talking real estate investment with the oligarch.
Though this man first made his fortune in Russian telecoms and later in oil, he moved into defense, owning a company called Sistema that, according to other reports, supplied Putin’s army with the drones that are now being used to bomb and kill Ukrainians. Until last year, he also owned Russian defense contractor RTI.
Sources close to him say he’s the brother-in-law of Russian billionaire Elena Baturina, whose name will be familiar because a Senate investigation determined she had wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, one of the companies connected to Hunter. Yevtushenkov denies he’s related to her, but it does appear that she’s the one who introduced him to Hunter.
The deadly consequences of this man’s business are coming home to roost now, with Ukraine being turned to rubble and countries such as the U.K. and Australia adding Yevtushenkov to their sanctions list. Last week, a leaked audio recording allegedly captured him talking with a Georgian oligarch about how to circumvent international sanctions arising from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. But so far, he has been untroubled by any such sanction from the United States. Somehow, this man remains untouched, one of the handful of oligarchs who haven't been sanctioned by the Biden administration. This could be coincidence, I suppose, but it’s extremely unfortunate that we’re put into the position of having to speculate. That’s why conflicts of interest need to be revealed BEFORE elections, not censored by social media and hidden from voters.
As the Daily Mail reports, “Hunter’s multiple meetings and apparent business deals with him are the latest in a troubling web of his connections to Putin-linked mega-rich individuals which has emerged from his abandoned laptop." Their story sorts out the meetings that took place around the globe and that certainly give the impression of a tight business relationship with the Ruskies.
One of the businessmen in this circle, Kazakhstan banker and “fixer” Marc Holtzman --- also very closely tied with “Vladimir” --- was at the now-infamous secret meeting at Cafe Milano in 2015 that was organized by Hunter and attended by then-Vice President Joe Biden. Recall that the White House first denied that Joe Biden had been there but had to own up after photos emerged. The President has lied repeatedly about not having anything to do with, or even any knowledge, of his son’s business ventures.
This is the murky water the Bidens were swimming in. As we’ve said before, it was common for influential people in Washington to have a dip in it –- and sometimes total immersion –- as dealmakers and lobbyists for shady foreigners. Paul Manafort did business in that world, and Trump’s political enemies tried their hardest to tar Trump and HIS offspring with that, when there turned out to be nothing of concern. But those same adversaries of Trump continue to turn a blind eye to the Biden Family’s blatant influence-peddling and very real business ties to rich, powerful Russians, even as one of them appears to be avoiding sanctions from the United States.
This article was published on May 3.
Before I say anything about last night’s big bombshell story about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, let me get a few caveats out of the way:
The initial draft of a majority opinion allegedly written by Justice Alito appears genuine, but that doesn’t mean it is. Also, initial drafts are just that: drafts. They can change over time as the Justices continue to debate. They can even change their votes. And this decision was not set to be released for a couple of months yet. Also, while it seems that the most likely culprit to have leaked it would be a liberal law clerk hoping to gin up public pressure on the Justices to change their votes, we don’t know for sure who leaked it. Now, on to the story:
Politico released what it claims is a leaked initial draft of a majority opinion of the SCOTUS, overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion (and isn’t it bizarre that the media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story on the excuse they don’t publish hacked evidence – which that wasn’t – but they ran to get this out, when it could have been stolen by hackers.)
As you’d expect, the legal reasoning of the alleged Alito-written opinion is rock solid, and nothing new to anyone who’s paid attention over the past five decades. Roe was a ruling with zero basis in the Constitution; a political statement disguised as a judicial ruling. The draft opinion points out that there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to abortion, and the long history of laws banning abortion shows that the Founders never intended to include such a right. The Constitution also does not prohibit citizens of the states from banning or regulating abortion. This was clearly a profound moral question that the Founders left up to elected representatives in each state. It says that with the Roe v. Wade ruling, the SCOTUS arrogated that authority, which the Court now returns “to the people and their elected representatives.”
The Facts, For Those Who Care…
Not that they matter to the hopped-up radicals currently screaming all over TV and social media, but here are some facts:
If it is true that the SCOTUS has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, it will not be unprecedented. There have been bad rulings before, and some have been overturned by the Court while others were killed by subsequent laws.
It also will not mean that abortion will be banned. As I’ve been saying for years, it would return the question to the states. We already have blue states that are passing abortion bills so radical, they’ve virtually legalized infanticide. And there are red states like my home state of Arkansas that have recognized the sanctity of life from the moment of conception and passed laws limiting abortion to before a detectible heartbeat, or other early points of development.
As legal scholar Mark Levin explained, the Founders intended the federalist system to respect the individual cultures of the states, while allowing free travel between them for those who disagreed. There would be nothing stopping someone who wanted an abortion from going to a state that allowed them. While I would hope that the pro-abortion side would change their hearts (and open their minds to rapidly evolving science on what’s happening in the womb), for the foreseeable future, there would still be states that allowed abortion. Those who argue that poor women couldn’t afford to travel could just give them money for a bus ticket instead of showering millions on Planned Parenthood.
The Secondary Bombshell
What is unprecedented is the leaking of this SCOTUS draft, which was described by law professor Jonathan Turley as “unspeakably unethical” and by the SCOTUS Blog as “the gravest, most unforgivable sin,” an “earthquake” in terms of the destruction of trust among Justices and staff. The Justices need to be able to freely debate cases without concerns about their private thoughts leaking and being politicized, and that’s exactly what happened the second Politico released this.
The “scream-at-the-sky” crazy leftwing went predictably berserk, forcing authorities to put security and barricades outside the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts reportedly wants an FBI investigation to identify who leaked this. There’s some question as to whether it’s a federal offense, but Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, who clerked at the SCOTUS, said clerks are told on day one that if they ever leak any private material, they are done at the Court and their law careers will be over. She called it “a line that could never be crossed.”
I assume that if a liberal clerk did this, he/she/xe doesn’t care and assumes the perfidy will result in a fat book contract, a CNN commentator gig and the other perks that typically support loyal leftists whose lack of ethics has left them otherwise unemployable.
And The Dems Are Off To The Races (the November Races)…
Naturally, some Congressional Democrats immediately seized on the news, since they’re desperate for any emotional issue to fire up their voters before the coming elections and make them forget just how terrible they are at governing.
The very first reaction of leftists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders was to call for either trying to stack the Court or circumventing the ruling by passing a national abortion legalization bill already passed on party lines by the House – and if they don’t have enough votes, then kill the Senate filibuster to shove it down Americans’ throats with 51 votes. That’s their typical “my way or the highway,” "cheating is justified when we do it" attitude. Lots of yak-yak about “diversity,” but zero tolerance for diversity of thought. And does Bernie really think Joe Manchin would vote to go along with that?
It’s so on-brand of today’s Democrats that after spending over a year accusing Republicans of launching an assault on the sacred institutions of democracy, they turn on a dime and rush to destroy the sacred institutions of democracy to get their way. It’s also very predictable that the bill they want to pass to legalize abortion bears the wildly misleading title, the “Women’s Health Protection Act.” If they truly believed that aborting babies was morally and ethically justifiable, then why do they struggle so hard to come up with fuzzy euphemisms to hide what they’re really doing, like “women’s health” or “reproductive justice”?
Or as President Biden put it as he tried to turn it into a winning election issue, “A woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” Two questions: To choose WHAT, Joe? Also, could you please define “woman”?
Many legal experts are warning that if the intent of the leak was to gin up the mob to threaten the Justices into changing their votes, that’s likely to backfire. The Justices take very seriously their duty to rule based on the cases and the Constitution, not heated political considerations. In fact, the conservative most likely to compromise or vote with the liberals, Chief Justice Roberts, is also known for being very concerned about maintaining the integrity and image of the SCOTUS, and appearing to bow before a mob would undermine it even worse than this leak.
Again, this is an alleged leaked draft, and the Court has NOT yet ruled on this case. Mature adults know that you wait until the decision is released and then deal with it like rational people who respect the Constitution and the diversity of opinion among the various states (look at me, having to defend diversity from angry leftists!)
But the Democrats are reacting like hyperactive children, throwing a tantrum and threatening to burn down the house if they don’t get what they want. If they really think this is going to convince people to keep them in power, I can understand why they’re dumb enough to believe that Roe v. Wade was such a solid Constitutional ruling that it could never be overturned.
I was on Newsmax last night, talking about this issue, to emphasize that the Democrats’ version of “The Big Lie” is claiming that overturning Roe v. Wade would ban abortion. Also, that this leak is the Democrats’ version of “Insurrection” in attempting to undermine, damage and even destroy the institution of the Supreme Court.
PS: To correct a live TV slip of the tongue, I meant that 62 MILLION babies have been sacrificed on the altar of this terrible ruling since 1973.
The dumbest and most hysterical reaction to Roe leak
This article was originally published on May 5.
It’s always hard to choose the dumbest, most hysterical reaction from the left to any news story that doesn’t go their way, but it’s a safe bet that the best place to start is with Rep. Eric Swalwell. Although to be fair, he’s not the only one to make the jaw-droppingly stupid claim that “the Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.”
That’s about the most succinct example I’ve seen that the Democrats intend to demagogue the SCOTUS’ Roe ruling to the hilt in a cynical attempt to get people to vote for more of the misery that having them in power inflicts on us all. I would never insult anyone by assuming they’re dumb enough to actually swallow (or Swalowell) this tripe, but for the record:
The Alito draft decision makes it crystal clear that this decision applies solely to the uniquely incorrectly-decided Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion and not to any other ruling or right.
One of the conservative Justices concurring in the opinion is Clarence Thomas, who is in an interracial marriage. He would probably agree with the outrage expressed by a number of other black Republicans at the idea that they want to outlaw their own interracial marriages.
Also worth noting: polls show that 94% of Americans approve of interracial marriages while 71% want abortion banned or restricted. Why are the Democrats attacking our democracy?
America The Beautiful
God's creation is all around us. To learn more about Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve, visit its website here.
Durham scores some big pre-trial wins
This article was published on May 5.
Between now and the May 16 start of the Michael Sussmann trial, there will no doubt be a flurry of motions and decisions, and we’ll keep you up to date.
On Wednesday, Durham won the big battle we recently outlined, in which the attorneys for Hillary For America and the DNC were trying to exclude evidence on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Their argument was ridiculous on its face, as Sussmann has been charged with lying because he told the FBI he WASN’T working as their attorney. Lawyers wanted it both ways: to say he wasn’t their attorney, but also that he was. So now that Durham’s motion to have the so-called “privileged” materials submitted to the court for an in camera review has been granted, he’s virtually assured to get them.
In the words of Bonchie at RedState, “Pretty soon, we’ll know all about who was paid what and exactly how coordinated the effort to frame Donald Trump and weaponize the FBI was.”
For once, he’s optimistic that at least “a sliver of justice” will be done.
Durham had started the week by alerting the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, about fines levied by the Federal Election Commission on Hillary For America and the DNC for violating election laws when they hid the true purpose of payments to law firm Perkins Coie. As you know, they were really paying “oppo” research company Fusion GPS for the creation of the salacious (and fake) Trump-Russia “dossier.” So now the fact that they broke election law is part of the record for this case.
The Epoch Times report is by subscription only, but we also found details here.
In another major victory for Durham, Judge Cooper granted his motion to compel Fusion GPS “tech maven” Laura Seago to testify. Durham had argued that she has “unique insight” into how her company, the Clinton campaign and law firm Perkins Coie orchestrated the “opposition research” into the Trump campaign that sparked the FBI’s “Russiagate” investigation. Here’s an excellent summary of both the Durham wins, from Just the News.
Seago’s lawyer informed the court that, absent immunity from prosecution, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. In response, the judge has ruled that “no testimony or other information compelled under this Order…may be used against Laura Seago in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order.” In effect, that’s a grant of immunity --- as long as she tells the truth. Maybe, at long last, we're going to hear some.
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading the Sunday Standard.