Advertisement

Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee. Here’s a pretty dispassionate recounting of who said what.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/merrick-garland-house-judiciary-committee-hearing-doj-testimony

And here are a few more conservative-oriented assessments:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/10/22/garland-fails-to-explain-why-leftists-get-away-with-attacking-federal-buildings-n2597836

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lincolnbrown/2021/10/22/garland-gets-grilled-on-the-hill-n1525951

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/10/21/garland-once-again-proves-he-is-the-sleaziest-of-the-sleazy-on-team-biden-n460540

The major points we learned from this are that Garland denies ever referring to angry parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” (to be a stickler for accuracy, that’s just how someone else described it, based on the way he proposes treating them.) He claimed only to have learned from the media about that letter from the National School Board Association that was the alleged catalyst for him calling for federal action against parents.

If so, then he’s not very well-connected at the White House, since they apparently knew about it before it was even sent.

https://freebeacon.com/campus/white-house-knew-about-letter-that-compared-parents-to-domestic-terrorists/

I noticed something interesting about the questions: Republicans focused on current issues and things Garland might do in the future, like the school board memo and parental rights, Garland’s potential conflict of interest with his son-in-law making millions selling Critical Race Theory materials to schools (he insists there is no conflict of interest, so that’s that), and whether there will be an investigation of Hunter Biden’s art sales.

Democrats’ questions were mostly attempts to keep past issues on life support, like whether Trump will be indicted for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels (Google it.) One actually complained that the DOJ was going too easy on Trump supporters arrested back on January 6th. You know, those people who were held for months, some in solitary, or under abusive conditions such as delayed medical care, before they were even charged. If that’s “going easy,” what do you call letting people go free after they loot cities, attack police and try to burn down a federal courthouse with people inside it?

And if the January 6th arrestees are ever charged with anything, what will it be? One thing we learned yesterday is that it probably won’t be “insurrection.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/10/21/merrick-garland-debunks-democrat-insurrection-claims-about-capitol-riot-n1525820

Fighting back works

October 22, 2021

The good news is that Congressional Democrats have caved before the tsunami of outrage over their plans to have the IRS track every financial transaction or bank balance over $600 and have raised the limit to $10,000. The bad news is that they’re still trying to have the IRS track every transaction or bank balance over $10,000.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/10/20/democrats-now-say-they-will-only-snoop-on-bank-transactions-over-10000-n1525471

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said, “Today’s new proposal reflects the Administration’s strong belief that we should zero in on those at the top of the income scale who don’t pay the taxes they owe, while protecting American workers by setting the bank account threshold at $10,000 and providing an exemption for wage earners like teachers and firefighters.”

Republicans pointed out that this would still intrude on the privacy of every small business owner and many individuals who might have balances or transactions over $10,000, for everything from depositing daily restaurant earnings to saving for a car to making a down payment on a house.

We’ve heard this “It'll only trap rich crooks” claim before, when law enforcement was given civil asset forfeiture powers. It wasn’t long before they were happily abusing that power to seize cash, houses and other assets from innocent Americans who were lucky if they could ever get their rightful property back. Here are just 10 particularly egregious examples out of many:

https://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

Do you really think that if the IRS gets this snooping power, that agency or the politicians overseeing it won’t abuse it?

Besides, if the real target is very rich tax evaders, why is the threshold set at $10,000? People in that tax bracket spend that much on a watch or a designer gown to wear to a gala with AOC. Would they really risk audits and jail time over what they would consider sofa cushion change? $10,000 may sound like big bucks to you, but it’s nothing to the people the Democrats claim are the target. Setting it that low means you are the target.

Thursday, President Biden took questions in a CNN “townhall.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10118843/Biden-says-cops-emergency-responders-fired-not-getting-vaccine.html

I use the quotation marks because CNN always seems to find a “town” that’s at least 90% Democrats. In this case, of the 12 people allowed to ask questions, only two were Republicans, and the first one didn’t get to speak until 20 minutes before it ended. Even one of the questioners identified as an “Independent” attacked Republicans and “rogue moderates” and asked why Biden didn’t just force through the Democrat agenda. Sounds like that person is an “Independent” like “Democratic socialists” are “Democrats.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-biden-town-hall

The biggest news points to come out of the evening were:

* Biden admitted he didn’t have the votes to pass his $3.5 trillion spending bill if it retained his hike in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.

* He said he was considering doing away with the Senate filibuster to pass the Democrats “voting rights” (i.e., “legalize vote fraud”) bill, but not for all bills, because that would lose him three votes for his $3.5 trillion spending bill. (Note: I don’t think “doing away with the filibuster” works that way. You’d think that someone who spent 370 years in the Senate would know that.)

* He said he was considering sending in the National Guard to ease the supply chain crisis. I guess that’s easier than reversing the liberal policies that are causing it, like the AB-5 law in California that banned independent contractor truckers. A national version of that is in his $3.5 trillion bill, if you want to know how serious he really is about fixing the supply chain crisis.

By the way, over 100 House Republicans signed a letter explaining why Biden’s $3.5 trillion porkulus bill would be a death blow to the supply chain.

https://www.westernjournal.com/100-gop-reps-bidens-3-5-trillion-bill-death-blow-americas-supply-chain/

* He said the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked it. China seemed really intimidated by that threat.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-taiwan-china-defend

And why should they be, since they now seem to be outstripping us in military weapons development?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10116479/China-tested-SECOND-hypersonic-orbital-nuke.html

* And the quote that made the biggest news: Biden doubled down on threatening police officers and other emergency workers and first responders, saying that if they refuse to comply with his COVID vaccine mandate, they should stay home or be fired (the fact that this received “thunderous applause” from the audience should tell you the kind of audiences CNN assembles for these dog-and-pony shows.) He then ridiculed the very idea of Americans having the freedom of autonomy over their own bodies, mocking them by saying, “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. Come on.” (Still unanswered: the question of how unvaccinated people endanger vaccinated people if the vaccines work.) This also overlooks the fact that many of those people worked through the pandemic at great personal risk, and were likely already exposed to and recovered from COVID so they have natural immunity.

I have a feeling that Biden dismissing cops and first responders and mocking freedom will be a recurring theme in many 2022 campaign ads.

I couldn’t help wondering what people might be thinking who actually voted for Biden because he was sold to them as a moderate centrist who would return compromise and respect for other people’s views to the White House. Also, he hailed first responders as the heroes of the pandemic, vowed not to impose a government vaccine mandate, and even expressed reluctance himself to take any vaccine that was rushed to market under Donald Trump. Now, those first responder bums' lives can just be ruined if they’re skeptical of vaccines he sowed distrust in, and they resist the mandate he promised never to impose.

I’m leaving out the biggest news of the night: he got through it without dissolving into gibberish or wandering off stage. But it might have been better if he’d done either one of those things rather than say what he did about first responders. He might want to consider that if he plans to brutally enforce a vaccine mandate, it might be good not to alienate the police. The Democrats have done enough of that already by defunding police departments and legalizing crime.

For more on that, check out this story about how an iconic Target store is the latest to close in San Francisco because the same people come back every day and rob them blind, and the liberal leaders who refuse to make them pay any consequences for theft are denying that’s the real reason. This account comes directly from some fed-up cops speaking anonymously, so you can imagine how much loyalty they still have to liberal Democrats.

https://californiaglobe.com/local/san-francisco/exclusive-iconic-target-store-in-mission-district-to-close-amid-a-shoplifting-tidal-wave/

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has a good op-ed on police pushback against vaccine mandates, and how forcing officers to quit will result in them becoming private security so the wealthy will be safe while poor and minority neighborhoods will suffer (thanks again, Democrats!) One silver lining: the Democrats seem to want to impose a police state, but that’s going to be hard if the police are so furious they’d rather quit than obey Democrat policies.

Finally, it wasn’t as if the Biden Townhall didn’t have a healthy scoop of false claims and incoherence, which Nick Arama at Redstate.com chronicled:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/10/21/bid

One thing that’s been clear since Hillary’s Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann was indicted by Special Counsel John Durham for lying to the FBI is that he is a pivotal character in the Russia Hoax. From Durham’s “speaking indictment” it’s easy to see that this man surely must be the Mother Lode of information about the whole scheme and virtually everyone involved, whether in the “Justice” Department and FBI, the media, the DNC, the Hillary campaign (same thing), or, with partner-in-slime Marc Elias, the fabricators of the “dossier.”

Yes, “fabricators.” George Stephanopoulos’s transparent and laughable attempts to redeem Christopher Steele via TV interview fell flat, as there’s still no verification of that stupid, mistake-riddled dossier.

Anyway, Aaron Mate at REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS has a great piece on Sussmann and then-legal partner Marc Elias (who again made a name for himself in 2020 by dismantling election security measures in battleground states nationwide). Mate outlines how these two Democrat operatives were central to the Russia Hoax. “The emerging picture,” he says, “shows Sussmann and his Perkins Coie colleague Marc Elias, the chief counsel for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, proceeding on parallel, coordinated tracks to solicit and spread disinformation tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/10/19/coming_into_focus_hillarys_secretive_russiagate-flogging_pair_of_super-lawyers_799168.html

Sussmann was indicted for concealing the fact that he was working on behalf of Hillary’s campaign when he went to the FBI in September 2016 with a fake story about computer servers at Trump Tower “pinging” with those at Alfa Bank, a financial institution allegedly linked to Vladimir Putin, suggesting “collusion.” Fortunately, Alfa Bank sued Christopher Steele and others involved in this fabrication, and court documents apparently provided Durham’s investigators with a lot of pertinent details.

What we like about Mate’s piece is its look at the activities of Hillary’s “dynamic duo,” Sussman and Elias, as they fulfilled their mission to get the “Russia” narrative going. It’s also got some interesting details on Sussmann and CrowdStrike, the tech company that ended up with the DNC servers after the DNC claimed in April 2016 that their emails had been hacked. It was Sussmann who immediately hired CrowdStrike. And it was CrowdStrike who quickly made the claim –- still unproven –- that Russia had hacked the DNC servers to obtain the emails that were made public by WikiLeaks.

In moves that “smell” coordinated, just days before Sussmann hired CrowdStrike and pressed them to implicate the Kremlin, Elias retained opposition research company Fusion GPS to, as Mate puts it, “dig up dirt on Trump and the Kremlin.” CrowdStrike alleged the Russia “hack” and Christopher Steele produced his first “dossier” report within six days of each other. Mate’s report is the first we’ve seen of this part of the timeline.

In later congressional testimony, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson called the overlap of the two lawyers’ activities “an extraordinary coincidence.”

But together, these two Democrat Party lawyers played a central role in defining the fake Trump-Russia narrative. In Mate’s words, their “odd relationship” with the FBI gave them “unprecedented influence over a high-stakes national security scandal that upended U.S. politics and ensnared their political opponents.” We’ve all heard plenty about Marc Elias, Fusion GPS and the “dossier,” so for now let’s focus on the emerging story of Sussmann’s involvement with CrowdStrike.

When another Perkins Coie colleague, Graham Wilson, told Sussmann in April 2016 that a DNC server had been breached, Sussmann immediately called CrowdStrike. (He later testified to the House Intel Committee that CrowdStrike had been hired on his “recommendation.”) And here’s something dodgy: CrowdStrike’s contract to examine the DNC servers was NOT with the DNC but with Sussmann and Perkins Coie. The contract states: “CrowdStrike shall cooperate with Firm in protecting the Parties’ communications and work product from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable privileges or protections.”

Pretty slick, huh? But Elias/Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS had the same arrangement, to protect THEIR communications, too. And apparently, both attorneys hid the fact that it was the DNC and Hillary’s campaign who were footing the bill for the Russia Hoax. Everybody in this whole scheme was set up to have privileged communications!

Still, though I’m not a lawyer, I seem to recall that such privilege is not applicable if it’s a cover for breaking the law.

Apparently, it was Sussmann who controlled what the FBI was allowed to see. It was reported by THE NEW YORK TIMES that within a day, CrowdStrike “confirmed that the intrusion had originated in Russia.” In June 2016, Sussmann and DNC executives met with the FBI and encouraged the Bureau to go public with the “Russia” story and even say specifically that it was espionage. Sussmann pushed hard for this but offered the FBI no evidence in the form of forensic images or an unredacted report from CrowdStrike.

So the FBI wasn’t ready to proclaim this, but that didn’t stop the DNC from going public on its own. Sussmann and CrowdStrike CEO Shawn Henry were named as sources for a story that ran in the WASHINGTON POST.

Much later, after his testimony before the House Intel Committee was finally declassified in May 2020, we learned that Shawn Henry had no actual indication that the DNC servers had even been hacked, let alone by Russia. “There’s circumstantial evidence,” he said, “but no evidence that they were actually infiltrated.” U.S. intel officials were using weasel-words such as “likely” and “appears to” in their own documents –- including Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report –- to cover up the lack of proof.

On big question is why the FBI would rely on CrowdStrike’s word on the “hacking” of the DNC servers. The FBI has said the DNC denied them access to the servers, while the DNC said the equivalent of, “Well, they never asked.” When Sussmann and Shawn Henry testified before the House Intel Committee in December 2017, they said the FBI “did not try” to conduct an independent investigation. Sussmann testified that he said he offered access to “everything CrowdStrike was developing,” but to his knowledge they never sought access. It’s hard to know what is true, especially since Sussmann has been INDICTED FOR LYING. Another tip-off: he’s a lawyer for the DNC.

But former FBI Director James Comey testified that the FBI had made “multiple requests at different levels” to access the servers and had been denied. Gosh, it’s hard to know what to believe when known liars are contradicting each other.

James Trainor, who was then assistant director for the FBI Cyber Division, told the Senate Intel Committee that Sussmann had “scrubbed” the CrowdStrike report before it was given to the FBI, resulting in a “stripped-down version” that was “not optimal.” So the FBI was left with no investigation of its own, only CrowdStrike’s report that Sussmann had finessed and redacted. CrowdStrike’s original, unredacted report remains unreleased to this day.

So, no one has seen evidence of a Russia “hack.” But someone got the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange still won’t say, but he has said it wasn’t Russia or any state. There’s no indication –- so far –- that Durham is looking into that. CrowdStrike told REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS that the special counsel hasn’t been in touch.

But maybe he'll find out from Michael Sussmann.

I know that most Americans don’t care to read about the problems of nations on the other side of the world. But I urge you to read this story from the Epoch Times about the ongoing genocide of Christians in Nigeria (70,000 so far) at the hands of Muslim extremists.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epoch-times-journalists-praised-for-coverage-of-nigerias-genocide_4051465.html

It’s shocking that so many American media outlets trumpet their belief that “black lives matter,” yet give no coverage to the genocide of black Christians in Nigeria. But Lara Logan of Fox Nation has produced a documentary on it called “21st Century Terrorism Revealed.”

One thing it reveals is that if you think, “It’s a terrible tragedy, but it has nothing to do with us,” you couldn’t be more wrong. Bad American policy under Obama had a direct impact on causing this genocide. Obama and John Kerry worked to undermine the Christian President of Nigeria because he passed a ban on gay marriage, and helped elect a Muslim President who’s turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Christians – and who also kept the ban on gay marriage.

Nor is the danger likely to stay isolated to Nigeria. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom told the Epoch Times, this is “not simply a human rights and humanitarian crisis of genocidal proportions, it is also an American security concern. Today, Mahanga is a terrorist base camp; tomorrow, half of Nigeria, Africa’s most populous and economically prosperous country, could be one. The U.S. government must recognize the gains being made by Islamist extremists in this region under the approving eye of its President - an apologist President who continues to generously aid their efforts. Nigeria is rapidly becoming a global catastrophe.”

It may be too much to hope that the same President who just handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban and left our people behind will do anything about saving Christians in Nigeria or preventing that nation from becoming a new haven for global terrorism. But if enough Americans learn what’s going on and how it could come back to bite us, maybe our next President will.

Here’s something the White House was so eager for you to see, they released it with great media fanfare on...late Friday afternoon.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Climate-Finance-Report.pdf

Ah, we’re just having a little fun with sarcasm. As everyone who’s not an idiot knows, late in the day on Friday is when the government dumps documents it hopes will receive minimal media attention and stay under the radar. This time, it darned near worked, too; we’d like to thank Glenn Beck for calling attention to this report, dated October 14: A ROADMAP TO BUILD A CLIMATE-RESILIENT ECONOMY --- U.S. Climate-Related Financial Risk, Executive Order #14030.

Never mind all the climate-related predictions that have not come to pass. This report assumes the absolute worst, blaming climate change for all extreme weather such as wildfires and hurricanes, in a way that allows it to say that one out of every three Americans has been affected by the “climate crisis.” Our ability to deal with the financial fallout from this “climate crisis” is lacking, the report warns: “In short, the current suite of data, tools, disclosures and mitigation strategies fail to help investors, policymakers and the public understand and make decisions grounded in the economic realities of the climate crisis.” So, hooray, the government is here to fix that. This is our lucky day.

Biden’s Executive Order #14030, signed May 20, 2021, calls for the federal government to lead financial institutions by example by “appropriately prioritizing Federal investments.” And it’s far- reaching; “This report lays out a roadmap for measuring, disclosing, managing, and mitigating climate-related financial risk across the economy, including to the Federal Government, while also catalyzing public and private investment to seize the opportunity of a net-zero, clean energy future.”

This will require radical change and control---I mean nurturing guidance, but without this, we would really miss out. As the report says, “By sustaining the status quo, we not only face the mounting repercussions of climate change, but also...of missing out on on an historic chance for job creation, shared prosperity, and a more resilient future. THE UNITED STATES MUST INTEGRATE CLIMATE RISKS THROUGHOUT ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL SYSTEM. [Emphasis mine.] And, in doing so, it must meet the moral and economic imperative to rectify decades of disproportionate environmental damage imposed on historically disadvantaged neighborhoods.”

This “broader economic strategy...leverages the full talent and creativity of all Americans by elevating equity [NOTE: “equity” means an engineered equality of outcome; see Critical Theory] as a top priority in all decision-making, and restores the United States’ relationship with key allies internationally, finding common ground to meet the global goals of the Paris Accord.”

Recall that newly-inaugurated President Biden rejoined the Paris Accord his first day in office. It’s described in this government press release at the time as “an unprecedented framework for global action.” And that’s exactly what it is.

https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-agreement/

Criticism of this new "roadmap" is bound to be interpreted as “climate skepticism,” which is now verboten on YouTube, a subsidiary of Google. So, wasn’t that timed well?

Glenn Beck warned in March that this was coming, as banks were starting to implement “environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores” on their own. These were an outgrowth of the Paris Accords –- which Trump had wisely pulled out of before Biden brought us back in –- and simultaneous meetings of the world’s largest financial institutions. The World Bank and the U.N. brought together 230 banks and insurance companies to outline what became known as “The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI),” which drafts a methodology for, as Beck put it, “to bend the private sector to the will of the government by using banks as a pressure or a choke point.” We went hunting and found their “Principles of Responsible Banking.”

https://www.unepfi.org/banking/bankingprinciples/

Consistent with these, Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Accords states: “This Agreement...aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development AND EFFORTS TO ERADICATE POVERTY [emphasis mine], including by making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse emissions and climate-resilient development.”

This is the way government gets to follow all the money---I mean, “finance flows.” (I would add that this is very much in the spirit of the recent call for U.S. banks to report every transaction over $600.) It might also determine whether a bank will loan money to you and what you have to do in order to get it. This is, well, serfdom.

The one thing that was lacking till now was full U.S. government support, which is what the "roadmap" released on Friday apparently gave. It essentially means that financial incentives will be used to make the public conform to whatever the government deems of value in controlling and dealing with climate change. They argue that this will make us more competitive with nations such as China –- which makes no sense, as China won’t be bound by any of this. (And why should they, when they already HAVE total government control?)

The "roadmap" mentions French legislation called “France’s Energy Transition Law” that uses the principle of “comply or explain.” In France, every bank and every company needs to provide a full accounting to the government “disclosing all of their ESG measures.” Beck cites the most recent report from Coca-Cola in Europe that runs to 98 pages of “explanation” to justify their license to do business. But you don’t have to read 98 pages; note the two paragraphs titled “Global Relevance” on the PRI (Principles of Responsible Investment) website at the link and see that “comply or explain” is indeed a real thing.

https://www.unpri.org/climate-change/french-energy-transition-law-global-investor-briefing-on-article-173/295.article

The White House is directing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to begin a similar initiative under the Financial Stability Oversight Council, using the justification that climate change is a national security threat. Knowing Janet Yellen, we’re sure she can’t wait to implement this.

We haven’t read the entire report yet, only the introductory parts, but according to Beck it will require Americans’ compliance in order to, say, continue having insurance or maintain a savings account. It does this under the auspices of protecting Americans’ savings and pensions.

Obviously, all businesses having contracts with the federal government will be particularly vulnerable to this control.

They're even “addressing climate risk in the VA lending programs.” That’s the amazing thing about “climate risk” –- it affects everything! VA lending is mentioned in the glowing press briefing from Friday, at the link.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/15/fact-sheet-biden-administration-roadmap-to-build-an-economy-resilient-to-climate-change-impacts/

Essentially, the government is using the perceived "climate crisis" as a pretext to run everything, to take control of what was left of the free market and everything we do or own. It’s not a crazy conspiracy theory –- it’s there in the report, and we really don’t even have to read between the lines very much to see how this works. By bringing the report out very quietly late on a Friday, they obviously were trying to keep any discussion of it as low-key as possible. Let’s see what we can do to foil that plan.

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/glenn-beck-did-you-hear-biden-s-great-reset-warning-shot-to-banks

Reeder: RIP Betty Lynn

October 21, 2021

I’m sad to report that on Saturday, actress Betty Lynn died at 95. She passed away peacefully in her sleep. Beloved as Barney Fife’s girlfriend Thelma Lou on “The Andy Griffith Show,” her death leaves Ron Howard as the last surviving major cast member of that classic show.

While she was most famous as Thelma Lou, she had a long acting career, stretching from movie roles as a teenager alongside such stars as Bette Davis and Maureen O’Hara to many TV roles (do you remember her as Andy Griffith’s secretary in the first season of “Matlock”?)

TV writer/blogger Mark Evanier was very close to Betty, having grown up next door to her. He wrote, “You never met a sweeter, kinder human being than Betty Lynn.” She was like an aunt to him, so his blog has many posts about her life and his memories of her. This is a great example from his childhood of just how nice and caring she was:

https://www.newsfromme.com/2021/10/12/a-story-youll-like-2-2/

Here’s his link to what he thinks is the best obituary, put out by the Andy Griffith Museum in his hometown of Mt. Airy, North Carolina:

https://www.newsfromme.com/2021/10/17/all-about-betty/

She loved Mayberry fans and was known for attending fan fests and conventions. Fans would line up around the block for a photo and autograph, and she often remembered their names and asked about their family members by name, even if she’d only met them once, years before. Her love of Mayberry and what it stood for led her to retire to the closest thing to the TV town, Mt. Airy, where she became a beloved local celebrity and appeared regularly at the Andy Griffith Museum to greet fans and pose for photos.

I know you depend on me to tell you things that most obituaries won’t mention. So here's one from Mark Evanier: “She was deeply religious and apart from acting, the only profession she had ever contemplated was to become a nun.”

Also, Don Knotts left the show after five seasons, and so did she, since she believed Thelma Lou and Barney belonged together. But Knotts returned for a later episode about a reunion dance where Barney is distraught when Thelma Lou arrives with her new husband. Betty was so upset at the writers when she saw the script that she said the only way she could get through it was by telling herself that Thelma Lou was only pretending that a platonic male friend was her husband to save face. Personally, I tell myself that, too, when I watch it.

Fortunately, that misstep was rectified in the 1986 made-for-TV movie “Return to Mayberry,” where Barney and Thelma Lou finally got married. As God intended!

Rest in peace to a fine actress and a wonderful lady who will continue winning new generations of fans far into the future, especially with so many of us looking at the sorry state of the modern world and wishing we could “return to Mayberry.”