Our prayers and deepest condolences today for the family of Mollie Tibbetts
Our prayers and deepest condolences today for the family of Mollie Tibbetts, the University of Iowa student who disappeared last month. Police arrested Cristhian Rivera, 24, who led them to her body hidden in a corn field. The sickening details are at the link. Rivera is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had been doing farm labor in the US for several years. His employer claims that they check workers’ legal status and that Rivera passed the government’s E-Verify system.
This story has once again thrown the consequences of lax immigration enforcement back into the news. But don’t let the media take the focus away from where it belongs. By the time the Kate Steinle case had played out, the innocent young murder victim was practically forgotten while her accused killer had been rebranded as the victim of unfair immigration policies. Now, yet again, an innocent young woman with her whole life ahead of her is dead, killed by someone who never should have been in the US if the government had been doing its job of enforcing the law.
I don’t want to hear a lot of sob stories about the poor, misunderstood guy who brutally murdered her. To keep faith with the real victim and her grieving family, let’s stay focused where we should be: on dealing with the killer, finding out how he was able to be here so long without detection or removal, and how to insure nothing like this ever happens again.
Or like this…
Duncan Hunter Jr.
Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and his wife Margaret have been indicted on charges of using campaign funds for personal expenses and attempting to cover it up. Their attorney claims the charges are politically motivated because he was an early Trump supporter, but the detailed indictment lists $250,000 in questionable expenses over seven years.
Rep. Hunter has been a solid congressman, and he has an impressive military record in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Marines and the Marine Corps Reserve. With that background, I expect him to be a man of integrity, and I certainly hope he can answer and refute these charges. If not, then as the US Attorney said, “No man is above the law.” I have noticed, however, that certain Republicans are being rigorously prosecuted, while certain Democrats have been allowed to use campaign finance laws as their personal roll of Charmin.
If we’re going to start enforcing campaign finance laws, then let’s put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start doing it across the political spectrum. I have a feeling that might remove more entrenched Congress members than term limits would.
CNN reporter/abuse shouter April Ryan thinks that because her own rude, biased, attention mongering at White House press briefings has sparked hate mail and death threats (which, FYI, nobody should send to anyone!), my daughter should have to pay for her security.
Considering the liberal media’s constant nasty attacks on my daughter have caused her to be the first Press Secretary to need Secret Service protection, I am playing the world’s tiniest violin in sympathy with Ms Ryan’s problems. Knowing my daughter, she will pay for Ms Ryan’s security when CNN covers Sarah’s optometrist bills for all the eyestrain she's suffered from rolling her eyes in disbelief at their reporters’ childish antics and staggering lack of professionalism.
It would be great if we could eliminate the need for bodyguards on both sides. But that would require hotheads on the left and right to start showing respect for people of different views; for partisans to offer up intellectual arguments instead of threats, violence and censorship; and for the media to go back to doing its traditional job as a watchdog for the people’s right to know rather than an attack dog for the left. For all the complaining journalists do about feeling threatened by Trump voters who are angry over their openly biased coverage, they still haven’t figured out that their own worst enemy is themselves.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld a lower court judge who threw out a lawsuit by three University of Texas professors, seeking to block a law allowing college students with concealed carry permits to have weapons on campus. Just like many current college professors, they put forward three creative-but-factually-dubious arguments that the court panel blew away one-by-one (check out the link for their intriguing arguments and the responses from the court.) They could appeal to the full court, then to the Supreme Court, but the outcome is likely to be the same at every level. Unlike college students, judges don’t have to sit quietly, nod their heads and pretend that liberal professors are making sense.
It’s worth mentioning that the University of Texas was the site of one of the first and most notorious mass shootings, the 1966 attack by “Texas Tower Sniper” Charles Whitman, who killed 17 people and injured 31 before the police shot him down. Maybe that legendary incident serves as a constant reminder to UT students of the need to be prepared.
As the midterm election approach, it’s becoming clear that the Silicon Valley social media giants intend to make a massive illegal in-kind contribution to the Democrats by doing everything in their power to stifle conservative speech. And if you think that the more far-out works of Alex Jones were the extent of the silencing effort, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The growing move toward partisan censorship has become so obvious that even the ACLU emerged briefly from the PC cocoon it's spun around itself and actually lived up to its original mission by speaking out in defense of free speech.
Check this out
If you want to know what I think about this, and what kind of fire the self-appointed tech demigods are playing with, check out this link.
Bill Nelson's Fake News
Did you hear the recent claim by Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson that Russian hackers had already penetrated some Florida voter registration systems and were “free to move about”? It caused quite a kerfuffle in the media, considering Nelson is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you’d assume he knew such things.
But according to the FBI, the DHS and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there’s no such thing. It's "fake news." Russia may certainly have the intention of meddling with our elections, but the heads of the FBI and DHS said they “have not seen new or ongoing compromises of state or local election infrastructure in Florida.” Even the Washington Post fact-checker awarded Nelson “Four Pinocchios” for claiming Russians had hacked into the Florida voter computer system with no evidence.
Considering polls show Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who’s challenging Nelson for his Senate seat, is opening up a widening lead (now at 6 points according to a new Florida Atlantic University poll), maybe Nelson is just laying the groundwork for blaming his loss on Russian hackers. I call that, “The Hillary Excuse.” One of them, anyway.
“Democratic” Socialist Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be performing a valuable educational service. All parents have to do is let their kids listen to whatever she says, then explain what the reality is, and it could steer them safely away from leftism for life.
Her latest “teachable moment” came when she tweeted her sorrow at the closing of an iconic coffee house in her district where she used to work. She said this is why she’s running, for the future of working people like herself. She apparently didn’t know that one of the main reasons the coffee shop shut down is because it couldn’t afford the new higher minimum wage that she supports. In other words, the coffee house whose closing she’s mourning is closing because of the "progressive" policies she wants more of.
It’s not surprising that she wasn’t aware of that, since she was asked before about a high minimum wage killing jobs for unskilled workers, and she pointed to Seattle as proof that it doesn’t. Except it does, especially in Seattle, where the hike in the minimum wage resulted in a 9% reduction in low-wage jobs and cost the average worker $125 a month.
So teach your children the “George Costanza Rule”: Listen to everything she says and do the opposite.
Manafort and Cohen: what does it mean?
On Tuesday afternoon, on the heels of a jury verdict --- well, partial verdict --- in the Paul Manafort trial that could send Manafort to prison for the rest of his life even though it had nothing to do with Donald Trump or Russian collusion, it was revealed that Michael Cohen had accepted a plea deal in a case that had been moved by the special counsel to the Southern District of New York. That prompted President Trump’s personal lawyer, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, to issue this statement: “There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen. It is clear that, as the prosecutor noted, Mr. Cohen’s actions reflect a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time.”
Back in March, Cohen said in a Vanity Fair interview that Trump didn’t know he’d paid Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) $130,000 out of his own pocket. He had said the same thing to the New York Times a month earlier. Significantly, Cohen’s plea deal departs from what he’d previously claimed and from what Giuliani has said about no campaign laws being broken, because it specifies that he broke the law to influence the 2016 election at the direction of “a candidate.” But Cohen’s statements, as legal expert Andrew C. McCarthy noted on Sean Hannity’s Tuesday show, have been “all over the map.” He theorized that the Cohen case had ended up in the Southern District of New York because Mueller didn’t think it would advance his “Russia” investigation. Cohen hasn’t entered into a cooperation agreement, he explained, but rather a straight-up guilty plea. If Cohen were regarded as a valuable witness or cooperator, he said, we’d be seeing “a very different kind of plea agreement.” I’m assuming he means one that doesn’t call for any jail time.
McCarthy told him, “Sean, I don’t think anybody objective could look at the way that the Clinton email investigation was handled and the way the Trump campaign has been pursued and say that there’s a single standard of justice. I just don’t see how that could be.” At the same time, he doesn’t want Mueller taking the reins on that when the U.S. attorney general in Utah is already looking into it. “I’d rather see them do it than see Mueller do it,” he says. “I think Mueller should stay focused on what he’s doing and bring it to an end.”
It can’t be said enough: As far as we’ve come in this investigation, with people being sent to prison to perhaps rot there, nothing ties President Trump with any attempt by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. On the other hand, plenty of evidence ties Hillary Clinton with Russians who contributed to the fictional “dossier” compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele for the purpose of interfering in the 2016 election. As I said yesterday, if you’re looking for evidence of a two-tiered justice system, Hillary is “Exhibit A.” But I agree with McCarthy that Mueller shouldn’t take over the Hillary case –- I don’t TRUST him to take over that case.
Speaking of Hillary, Mark Levin, on his Tuesday radio show, pointed out that longtime Clinton general counsel Lanny Davis (who just HAPPENS by COMPLETE COINCIDENCE to be representing Michael Cohen) had Cohen plead guilty to two campaign finance violations that don’t actually exist. Besides that, such a plea bargain is a deal made with “a criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison” (in other words, not very believable) and applies only to his specific case. Since it hasn’t be adjudicated, it can’t be cited as precedent to use against Trump.
He explained that according to campaign law, if someone spends his own money, or even corporate money, on something that occurs not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure, even if it might affect the outcome of the election. For example, maybe a candidate wants to pay off a lot of debt, get a new wardrobe or have extensive dental work and reimburses the payment with his own money. Those are not campaign expenditures, even if they might help win the candidate some votes. According to Levin, even if Trump directed Cohen to make payments to Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement, it’s legal for him to do so.
Alan Dershowitz had a slightly different take: if the payment is originally made by someone else, a case might be made that it's technically an unreported campaign contribution (which he likened to "jaywalking"), even if it's reimbursed later.
Of course, either way, it doesn’t matter to those who hate Trump, including those on the special counsel team. They’ll just go with what they’ve got and use it any way they can.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!