Thirty House Republicans signed a letter to top military leaders, demanding the release of Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, who was thrown in the brig for publicly calling on the top brass to accept accountability for the tragic botching of the Afghanistan withdrawal. I just want to know why it’s only 30.

Also, Rep. Louie Gohmert visited with Scheller and had some encouraging news to relate afterwards.

As if to hammer home that the only people the DC liberal establishment think deserve jail are those who disagree with their politics, an investigation has been launched into Lance Cpl. Hunter Clark. He’s the Marine who was seen in a viral video saving a baby by pulling it over a barbed wire-topped wall at the Kabul Airport during the botched Afghanistan evacuation. His alleged crime: he accepted an invitation to speak at a rally from former President Trump.

Note that he was not in uniform and made no political statements. He was invited up by Trump as part of a public show of support for US troops, and he thanked the crowd for their support and said it means a lot and he’s glad to be home. For that, he’s now under a command investigation to see if he violated any Department of Defense policies.

So to recap so far: Ask for accountability from failed leaders, go to jail. Get thanked in public by a former President for saving a baby, go under investigation. Preside over the worst strategic disaster in modern military history, keep your job and get praised by CNN.

Idiocy: National School Board Association president sends a letter to Biden asking him to use federal law enforcement to investigate parents

By Mike Huckabee

Keeping up the theme that the only crime Democrats care about is the thought crime of disagreeing with them, the president of the National School Board Association sent a hysterical letter to President Biden, urging him to use federal law enforcement to deal with the “imminent threat” of angry parents who are showing up at school board meetings to protest their kids being forced into draconian mask mandates and indoctrinated with racist “Critical Race Theory.”

She wants these parents investigated and their angry complaints at school board meetings treated as threats and intimidation that are “equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” That's right: if you complain about how your kid is being mistreated or indoctrinated at school, then you just might be a terrorist.

Sounds as if she’d be a supporter of Terry McAuliffe’s bid to become Governor of Virginia again. At a recent debate, he said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

As noted at the link, Virginia law on parents’ rights reads, “A parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child.”

But teachers’ unions might want to think twice before they start treating parents like terrorists. They believe Democrats will protect them out of gratitude for everything they do to get them elected, from campaign donations to misleading a generation of children into embracing socialism.

But when a group of New York teachers appealed for the same “regular testing” exemption from Democrat Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s vaccine-or-else mandate that other city workers get, liberal SCOTUS Justice Sonya Sotomayor rejected their appeal with no comment. Well, these are the people their unions wanted in office, and they got ‘em. Unfortunately, so did the rest of us.

That ruling means any New York public school teachers who weren’t vaccinated by 5 p.m. Friday (even if they have natural immunity from prior infection) will be put on unpaid leave for at least a year (so much for “My body, my choice.”) And that could spell a loss of up to 7,000 teachers from the New York school system.

Combine this with the potential loss of thousands of desperately-needed healthcare workers for the same reason, and you can see why I say that in all cases, Democrat cures are worse than the disease.

Since I’ve been spending so much time, over many months, following various deep-state scandals and their impact on the 2020 election, I decided this weekend to take a break from all that, sit back, and watch some TV.

Little did I know that a Netflix series called EL CHAPO would pull me right back into the world of election fraud. And the plot of Season 2, Episode 6, released in October, 2017, bears a fascinating resemblance to suspicions about our own 2020 election.

EL CHAPO is a Mexican production, a serialized docudrama “inspired by...newsworthy events concerning one of the most notorious criminals of our time, Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, a matter of utmost public interest and concern.” While some supporting players are composites of real people, some names have been changed, and some elements of the timeline have been altered for dramatic purposes, this show is said to be based on real events. And there’s a presidential election in it –- an election that was apparently stolen.

In this episode, El Chapo orders henchman “Don Sol” to keep candidate Andres Labrador from becoming president of Mexico in 2006, as he sees Labrador as a threat to his drug trafficking. The rest of the show deals with how that order is carried out. Spoiler alert: Labrador is defeated and a new president, Felipe Alarcon, wins through election fraud.

Labrador is a political outsider who says the two established parties are “two sides of the same coin.” He promises to be tough on criminals, even those who are wealthy elites. And he’s rising in the polls. So “El Sol” gets to work for El Chapo, meeting with Labrador’s campaign coordinator in an empty parking garage to set up a meeting with Labrador. But he is rebuffed. Labrador won’t negotiate with drug lords, the campaign coordinator says.

Later, when El Chapo calls Don Sol to ask how things are going, Don Sol simply assures him, “Don’t worry about Labrador. He won’t get elected.”

Labrador’s opponent, Alarcon, receives a visit from Don Sol (the man turns up everywhere, kind of like Michael Sussmann), who tells him, “I can help you expose a side of Labrador that nobody knows.” He says he can find all of Labrador’s secrets. In exchange, Don Sol wants an appointment in Alarcon’s new administration as the director of national security. They make a deal.

Next, Don Sol visits his team of computer spies. (Is this sounding familiar yet?) “What did you find out about Labrador?” he asks. They tell him they’ve found nothing useful. He doesn’t believe it. “Nobody gets that high up without getting their hands dirty,” he says. “You just have to find the closet that holds the skeletons.” But they insist they’ve gone back even to his boyhood and there is nothing to exploit. (As another scene makes clear, Labrador really is clean; he doesn’t want to make dirty deals or owe people favors, which frustrates his own campaign aides who are looking for cash.)

So Don Sol asks his spies, “What about his collaborators?” It’s time to start spying on Labrador’s campaign and business associates. (Does this remind you of anything?)

One of them, a businessman named Almada is recorded taking a big suitcaseful of cash (it’s staged –- fake news!), and the video is revealed in what looks like an ambush interview on national TV. Though Labrador has done nothing, he starts falling in the polls. The businessman gets a passport and a way to “disappear” into Cuba while the bribery accusations are dealt with. The idea is for him to be richly rewarded later for playing his part in the scheme to tar Labrador.

A hoax smear campaign is created against Labrador. They even use computer images to place him in pictures with Communist symbols and banners and linking him in news reports to “his friend, Hugo Chavez.” Fake news! (They come up with everything but computer servers “pinging” back and forth.) Labrador continues falling in the polls.

The businessman from the phony video ends up not being protected by Castro and comes forward to say the handoff of money was a fake, designed to hurt Labrador in the election. Labrador says this is evidence of a conspiracy against him, but the hoax continues.

With the election nearing, those computer spies discover that teachers’ unions have tried to make a deal to “deliver votes” to Labrador that he turned down. So Don Sol quickly calls El Chapo –- who now more than ever wants Labrador defeated –- to get some big-time cash with which to incentivize (bribe) the unions to surreptitiously stuff ballot boxes and control tabulation on Election Night.

In meetings with business figures, Don Sol trashes Labrador as “an opportunist who seeks to divide the people and weaken our economy.” They’re hesitant to actively work against Labrador because he might win but are warned of the “imminent danger he represents to this country.”

There is NO “imminent danger.” This is all made up out of nothing. NOW does it sound familiar?

On Election Night, early polls show Labrador with a slight advantage, with Alarcon three points behind. El Chapo’s people, charged with getting Alarcon elected, look glum, as they know that if Labrador wins, their boss will be very, very angry, and nobody wants that! They know that if El Chapo says heads will roll, he means literally.

But Don Sol has things well in hand. He made sure the unions are running the ballot boxes. Watchers are ejected and the counting process is blocked from view –- I guess in Mexico, they use something besides pizza boxes in the windows –- to the extent that some experts are already crying foul. By 10PM, Labrador’s lead has been cut to under one percentage point.

“The Union is going to steal this election from me,” Labrador tells an aide.

Felipe Alarcon “wins” the election with a razor-thin 0.56 percent lead. Labrador’s people sit in stunned silence, as they believe the election was stolen, and they know this outcome means more criminality in Mexico. There are protests. Labrador publicly accuses his opponent of stealing the election, but nothing is done.

True to the agreement Don Sol made with the winner’s campaign coordinator, he becomes the new president’s director of national security, so El Chapo is now inside the new administration. Don Sol immediately advises finding ways to make the fraudulent new government seem more legitimate. The new president decides he’s going to be known as “the president who controlled drug trafficking in his country,” when that is a joke –- it’s actually the opposite of that.

So, we have a candidate who’s an outsider, a tough negotiator who won’t be cowed by powerful forces but who is defeated in part by a hoax linking him to a corrupt Communist foreign leader. His campaign officials and business associates are spied on. He's smeared as an "imminent danger." His enemies control ballot boxes and prevent watchers from seeing the vote count. When he loses, supporters protest a “stolen” election, but that’s it.

Gee, does this plot remind you of any other election? It looks to me as if all we’re missing is a “dossier.”

On Friday, October 1, Guy B. wrote in response to “Who edited the final Maricopa County final audit report?” Here’s what he said:

Please check the Gateway Pundit ( article where the head contractor of Cyber Ninjas, Doug Logan says the draft you quoted is a fake, and that the paragraph with the total numbers, etc., was never part of the report. I expect to see a correction from you.

Thanks for writing, Guy, but I really don’t think a correction is warranted here. Certainly an update and a rationale for what we said, but not a correction. And we also still have questions.

In fact, that’s how our commentary in the September 28 morning edition started out, with questions. As we later responded to another reader, Howard A., who said we’d been “trolled” by a fake report, we had not just swallowed this story as some conservative sites had. Since we didn’t know how much credibility to give it, we used obvious qualifiers such as “IF this is true...” and “It has been reported...”

We specifically said, “NO ACCUSATIONS [emphasis added here], just questions.” So there is nothing to issue a correction for. All we were doing was asking questions and, in this age of fake news, trying to find out if it was true. As we told reader Howard A., “If just calling for answers is going to be criticized, there is little hope for enlightening discourse in this country.”

Even the headline, “Who edited the Maricopa County final audit report?”, was phrased as a question and worded so as not to accuse anyone of altering the report. Whoever was in charge of the final edit either did or not leave something out. We were in no position to say, but we wanted to know who was in charge of that final edit as we continued our questioning of the process.

The one reason we were inclined later on to give the report some credibility is that we’d gone to Patrick Byrne’s own website and found it there. According to reports, Byrne is THE biggest financial contributor to the Cyber Ninjas for the forensic audit, having raised $3.5 million for that effort. You’d think he, of all people, would have seen that word “decertification,” known the auditors hadn’t called for that, and recognized a fake audit report. But no, he put it on his “Deep Capture” website and also on As of this writing, it is still there.

We tend to think of Byrne not taking down that report as Sherlock Holmes might think of the dogs not barking. In itself, it’s not evidence of anything, but it’s something we still want to look into. The Arizona Senate is saying the document is not real –- that there was never a draft that talked about decertification –- yet the major financier for Cyber Ninjas apparently still maintains it’s real. That seems odd, so, naturally, we have questions –- the biggest one being, if that earlier version of the report is indeed fake, who gave it to Byrne? (It looks as though he’s the one who provided it to THE GATEWAY PUNDIT.) And why has BYRNE not issued a correction or removed the post?

THE GATEWAY PUNDIT did indeed made accusations, starting with the headline “Arizona Audit Final Audit Report Was Watered Down.” So in that case, if the earlier draft is a fake, a correction on their part is appropriate. We quoted from the draft but allowed from the beginning that the document might not be real.

Here’s the story in the WASHINGTON EXAMINER about the Senate’s announcement that the document was not real. Rather than decertifying the vote in Arizona, what the Senate has actually done is turn the audit over to the state attorney general’s office for further investigation. State Attorney General Mark Brnovich says he will take all actions he has the authority to do if the evidence warrants it.

Rod Thomson, a spokesperson for Cyber Ninjas, said that “the exact origin of the false report is unknown” and that no such version was ever sent to the Arizona Senate for review. So, again, the mystery to us is how that “false” version ended up being posted by Patrick Byrne.

The Executive Summary of the audit by Cyber Ninjas –- the REAL one, as far as we can tell –- does not call for outright decertification but does say that the County failed to cooperate and even actively interfered with their audit research, to the point where “full audit results validating the 2020 General Election are necessarily inconclusive.” The auditors recommend that “several specific findings of our audit be reviewed by the Arizona attorney general for a possible investigation.”

So, what do you know? Both the fake report and the real report say the auditors can’t validate the election results. Conveniently, the story about a fake report and conservatives getting “trolled” is a great way to pull attention away from the seriousness of the real report.