Advertisement

"Peaceful Protestors"

September 28, 2020

I don’t want to let this weekend without calling attention to this outrageous and under-reported story. I’m amazed it came from the New York Times, so credit is due.

So-called “peaceful protesters” invaded a quiet residential neighborhood in Portland, Oregon, and threatened a homeowner, demanding, “How dare you fly the American flag?” on his own property and ordering him to take it down. When he refused, they wouldn’t leave and threatened to come back and burn his house down. How "peaceful" of them.

That’s when some of the man’s neighbors stepped up, blocked the thugs and told them to leave. One of those neighbors is Terrance Moses, a black veteran who runs a non-profit that helps fellow veterans. He told the Times, “We don’t go around terrorizing folks to try and force them to do something they don’t want to do. I’m a veteran. I’m for these liberties.”

Those who defend the protesters always point to the First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful assembly. But there’s nothing “peaceful” about threatening to burn someone’s house down for flying an American flag (if the SCOTUS can rule that burning a flag is free speech, then flying one certainly is.)

Once upon a time, when parents taught kids traditional values, they learned that their right to swing their fists ended at the other person’s nose. This is what you get when you combine liberal parenting, liberal schools and liberal government: a crop of young people who think they have a right to punch people in the face for exercising the First Amendment rights that they abuse for themselves.

Madness

September 28, 2020

On his Fox News show Thursday, Tucker Carlson shined a spotlight on how out of control the power-mad enforcers of arbitrary coronavirus “safety” measures have become. It’s obvious that in some jurisdictions, exerting power over certain groups far outweighs any objective standards of safety or any consideration for the Bill of Rights.

At that link is the segment from Carlson’s show, featuring absolutely shocking (in the first case, literally shocking) footage that as he rightly says, makes you question whether we are still living in America.

The first part is a video of a mom in Logan, Ohio, who was watching her son in a sports event when a large cop and a couple of other people, presumably from the school, came over to tell her she was in violation of the state mandate to wear a face mask. She said she has asthma and can’t wear a mask. Besides, the event was outdoors, and she was sitting well away from anyone else in the sparsely-filled bleachers, and the mandate applies only indoors and in places where social-distancing is impossible.

Nevertheless, when she refused to put on a mask or leave, the cop grappled with her, handcuffed her, TASED her (the jolt also shocked a nearby child on the metal bleachers) then forcibly hauled her away under arrest. I don’t know what’s more shocking: the taser, the behavior of the cop and officials, or the fact that so many other Americans just sat there quietly watching this outrage.

Here is more about the story, with a link to the police department’s response. They claim she was not arrested for nor wearing a mask but for criminal trespass, because she refused to leave (note: because she refused to leave a public event where the mask mandate did not apply. Try again.)

I’m normally not a big fan of lawsuits, but I hope she has a real shark lawyer. The same goes for the church in Moscow (as Tucker points out: Idaho, not Russia) where worshippers were handcuffed and arrested for singing hymns at an OUTDOOR worship service.

In what I hope and pray is the start of a new trend that will inspire churches like the one in Idaho, the Capitol Hill Baptist Church has filed a lawsuit against the DC government, arguing that its never-ending ban on gatherings of over 100 people (even outdoors with masks and social distancing) places an impossible burden on the fundamental First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression. The lawsuit points out that DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, who refuses to let churches hold services, has given her approval to mass anti-police protests and even appeared among a crowd of tens of thousands of protesters on June 6 and called the event “a wonderful thing.”

The DC church is being represented by the Texas-based First Liberty Institute, which defends religious freedom rights. Click the link if you’d like to learn more and maybe contribute to the legal expenses.

I’m glad to see Americans finally standing up and saying “no more” to this partisan tyranny hiding behind the name of “public safety.” If you can safely attend a protest rally, you can safely attend a worship service. Those who defend the protesters by claiming it’s their First Amendment right might want to read a little further in that Amendment.

This also drives home how vitally important it is that President Trump appoint a Supreme Court Justice who cares about protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that the Senate confirm that person with all possible speed.

Calling A "Lid For The Day"

September 28, 2020

I warned you that you’d better learn the media term “called a lid for the day” (meaning a candidate will have no further comments or events for the rest of the day) because we were hearing it a lot from the Biden campaign. But just to be clear how little time Joe is putting into campaigning, his people have put a lid on the day before noon nine times so far this month, and some of those lids dropped before 9 a.m. I’d say that Trump does more before 9 a.m. than Biden does all day, but for Biden, 9 a.m. IS “all day.”

Now, with major news exploding all around us, Biden has nothing scheduled except a trip to Washington to mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg from now until Tuesday, when the first debate takes place.

Matt Vespa at Townhall.com suggests that this is because they’re panicked that he’ll go off the rails if asked about the blockbuster Senate report on his son Hunter’s financial shenanigans, but seriously, what are the odds that any media outlet he’d talk to would ask him about that? The big liberal news outlets that even mentioned that report presented it not as an in-depth expose of Hunter’s shady influence peddling but as a partisan attack on Biden “without evidence” (Trademark registered.)

The official excuses for Biden spending less time campaigning than Hillary Clinton (and I mean less time than she’s spending NOW) are that he’s “modeling good coronavirus behavior” by not appearing in front of crowds like Trump (I thought the virus didn’t spread in crowds of Democrats who hate Trump) and that he’s “preparing for the debate.”

This was dutifully echoed by his media peanut gallery. But the debate was over five days away when his campaign put a lid on that day, the next day, the weekend and the first two days of next week. Trump is preparing for the debate while dealing with many major issues and campaigning all over the US. In other words, working all day long, like a President has to. Plus, we know what the debate topics will be and that Chris Wallace will ask both candidates to describe their visions for America under their leadership.

If, after 47 years in Washington, 8 years as Vice President and three Presidential runs, Joe Biden can’t tell us off the top of his head what he would do if he became President, then there’s nothing on the top of his head other than hair plugs.

From our “Voter Fraud Is A Rightwing Myth” File: Authorities investigating election issues in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, found nine mail-in military ballots that had been discarded. All nine were votes for Trump.

Skeptics may scoff that it’s “only nine ballots,” but those would be nine US military members who would’ve been disenfranchised from selecting the commander-in-chief who has the power to send them into endess, pointless wars or not, just as every fake vote cast disenfranchises a real voter. Also, we don’t know at this point how many ballots were discarded, only that nine were recovered.

As the linked story notes, this follows a report of three trays of mail, including absentee ballots, being found in a ditch in Wisconsin.

For those who dismiss the Pennsylvania story because it’s “only nine ballots,” we have news that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed 134 felony charges, including election fraud, mail-in ballot fraud and tampering with a government record, against four people in an alleged scheme to steal a Democratic primary election in Gregg County in 2018. In that race, incumbent County Commissioner Shannon Brown was losing to his primary challenger by a handful of votes until mail-in ballots put him five votes ahead, and he went on to be reelected.

Brown is now facing 23 charges with the others filed against three associates. Paxton says the accused engaged in a scheme to swing the election by targeting young, able-bodied voters to cast ballots by mail by fraudulently claiming the voters were “disabled,” in most cases without the voters’ knowledge or consent. 239 of those ballots bore the signatures of just five people supposedly helping the voters fill them out. The investigation came after the challenger smelled a rat and sued, noting that over a third of the ballots cast were by mail and 29% claimed to be disabled, which must make Gregg the most disabled county in Texas.

It’s interesting that as the Democrats are denying mail-in vote fraud exists, we keep getting evidence that it does and is largely used by Democrats (ahem…New Jersey!) In this case, it was (allegedly) used by a Democrat to cheat another Democrat out of an election win! You’d think that would at last raise their concerns about voter fraud.

But then it appears Democrats might be getting concerned about their big “everyone vote by mail” push blowing up in their faces, since they’re changing their position faster than Joe Biden has on…well, name any issue. They’ve been pushing hard for universal voting by mail (not requesting an absentee ballot, but just mailing out blank ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, which would flood the nation with easily-falsified ballots (again, see “New Jersey.”) But now, they’re urging their voters to vote in person.

Previously, the cover story fed to the media for why Democrats had to vote by mail was that while the coronavirus doesn’t spread at leftist protests and riots, it’s wildly contagious among people in masks standing six feet apart in orderly polling station lines. But now, there’s a new cover story: if Trump loses to mail-in voters, he might refuse to leave office and institute “fascism,” something he’s never threatened and that is laughable coming from the people who’ve given us masked thugs threatening people with violence if they don’t vow allegiance to the thugs’ political views and vote the way they’re told.

Stacey Lennox at PJ Media suggests a more believable reason for the sudden flip-flop: while Republicans are listening to Trump (and me, I hope!) and planning to vote in person, far more Democrats say they plan to vote by mail. And while that does make voter fraud easier, they suddenly realized that mail-in ballots are far more likely to be disqualified because voters on their own are more likely to fill in the ballots incorrectly.

Naturally, the Biden campaign denies that they’ve never encouraged anyone to vote by any particular method. So the advice to Democrats remains what it has always been: Vote early and vote often.

(Correction: our editor wishes to apologize for pulling a "Joe Biden" with Agent BARNETT's name in this piece when it ran originally, adding that 3AM might have been the time for performance-enhancing drugs. Also, Amy Coney Barrett had been in the news all day. We promise never to refer to her as Amy Comey Barrett. Please enjoy the corrected version in its entirety.)

I don’t know if Maria Bartiromo had something in her eye during this weekend's edition of SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, but it sure looked like a small tear running down her cheek as she reported that, according to her sources, John Durham’s report on the “Trump/Russia” investigation would not be out until after the election.

Durham’s office reportedly had concerns that delivering his conclusions this close to the election would be considered too politicizing, but I strongly disagree. I’m with Sen. Ron Johnson, who appeared on her show later in the hour. We’ve long been saying that it’s the withholding of information until after the election that should be seen as politicizing, not the releasing, as voters deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots. Sen. Johnson said essentially the same thing on Sunday.

One of Bartiromo’s guests, Sen. Lindsay Graham, did have encouraging news: the Senate Judiciary Committee intends to call William Barnett, the FBI agent who opened the Michael Flynn case –- after being personally selected by Joe Pientka, who supervised “Crossfire Hurricane” –- and learned over time that it was all about “getting Trump.” Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway have a new report on the interview with Barnett conducted just under two weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the special counsel’s handling of the Michael Flynn case.

One thing that stood out to me in reading this was that Barnett said special counsel agents would actually joke about it being a game of “Collusion ‘CLUE.’” In this game, he said, investigators choose any character, in any location, conducting any activity, and pair this person with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion. Hilarious.

Barnett is essentially a whistleblower now –- not the kind Democrats like –- and the transcript of his interview with Jensen, or at least the summary, was obtained by Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and filed with Judge Emmet Sullivan. (If Durham isn’t going to release any report before the election, we’re dependent on this sort of process to get the facts out.)

Barnett said in his interview that there was never any basis for the Trump/Russia “collusion” theory. He told DOJ investigators that “the handling of the probes [Flynn and Paul Manafort] troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another."

In 2016, when Barnett was first assigned to the case, he thought that reading through the evidence would give him a better understanding of why the investigation into Trump’s “collusion” with Russia was launched. But after about six weeks, he still couldn’t figure it out. He characterized their theory as “groping.”

Barnett is the agent who moved to close the Flynn case due to lack of evidence. He’s the one who was told by Peter Strzok that the “7th Floor” wanted to keep it open and that Flynn should be investigated for a Logan Act violation. (Recall that then-Vice President Joe Biden was present at the January 5 Oval Office meeting during which this was discussed and, according to Sally Yates, was the one to bring up the Logan Act.) Barnett was not familiar with the Logan Act –- who was? –- but after researching it, knew that it didn’t apply to Flynn, who was not a private citizen but the incoming national security adviser.

Read the Davis/Hemingway piece for details of how Barnett was cut out of Strzok and Pientka’s “ambush” interview with Flynn. Apparently, Barnett was left out of other meetings as well, as the Flynn probe was directed “from the top down,” meaning all the direction was coming from senior officials. (My speculation is that by then, they would've liked to have him off the case but were worried about what he might say publicly.)

By February, 2017, Barnett had had his fill and asked to be removed from the case. In his interview, he said that the Flynn investigation “was problematic and could result in an IG investigation.” (He didn’t need a crystal ball for that one!)

Ironically, it was the supervision by top officials that had made him think it must be legal, as uncomfortable as it made him. Barnett added that one analyst who was “very skeptical of the Flynn collusion investigation” ---name not provided, but it wasn’t Barnett --- was indeed removed from the Flynn investigation. (Surely Jensen has interviewed that person.)

When the Flynn investigation was made part of Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe in May, 2017, Barnett told team member Jeannie Rhee that there was “no evidence of a crime” committed by Flynn. She dismissed his concerns. He said he didn’t want to be involved in the special counsel, but Peter Strzok urged him to move over there. Davis and Hemingway report that Barnett “decided to work at the special counsel office in the hope his perspective would keep them from ‘group think.’”

Once Barnett was working with the special counsel, he could see the “group think” in action --- what he characterized as “GET TRUMP.” The investigation was run in the opposite way of how an FBI investigation would be. He said, “There was always someone at SCO (special counsel’s office) who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove the collusion, only to have the information be a dead end.” It happened over and over.

Incidentally, Barnett never wiped his phone, though he testified that other members of the special counsel would joke about wiping theirs.

The notes from Barnett’s interview ended with this: “Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”

It seems there might be much more behind Durham’s delay than we even imagined. RedState.com has some interesting observations on that.

This report came in after Maria Bartiromo’s show, and I hope she’s had a chance to read it. This writer doesn’t think that Jensen and Barr were prepared for what has been revealed by Barnett about the political calculations involved in the Russia Hoax investigation. There is speculation that Barr is extremely upset that Mueller, now aging and perhaps fading a bit mentally, was being used as cover by Andrew Weissmann and others to overstep wildly in their desire to “get Trump.”

Something had to trigger Barr’s decision to have Barnett interviewed by Jensen. It’s possible that this has to do with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s (mis)handling of the Michael Flynn case, as it shows the case to be even more obviously politically motivated than we knew. The message to Sullivan: “Sure, you idiot, go ahead and keep this case open. The longer you keep it open, the more we’ll reveal.”

And apparently there is more. What we’ve seen has to do with “Crossfire Razor,” the investigation into Flynn. The rest is known only to investigators. It seems that the information that Jensen got from Agent Barnett may indeed be a game-changer. Even so, it’s wrong to keep it under wraps, for whatever reason, until after the election. Two words: interim report.

When I write negative commentary about Democrats, I hope my readers know that I’m using that as a shorthand term to refer to certain current party leaders and office holders whom I believe are taking the country and their party in a very dangerous and radical direction. I’m not referring to working class Americans who have traditionally voted Democrat, many of whom are alarmed at the direction their party is heading. I’m also not referring to all Democrat politicians.

For instance, while Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and I might disagree on a number of issues, I find her to be a rare example of an open-minded liberal who’s willing to reach out and find common ground, as you can see in this interview with her from last weekend’s episode of “Huckabee” on TBN.

Of course, that refusal to treat anyone who disagrees with her as a monster and a pariah could be why she was the only presidential candidate who won delegates and still wasn’t asked to speak at the Democratic Convention.

Another rare Democrat is West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who scolded his fellow Democrats for attacking Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic religious faith just because she’s rumored to be a potential Trump SCOTUS nominee.

On Fox News, Manchin gave them a much-needed lesson about something fundamental to the American system:

“I’m Catholic, OK. And religion should not enter into it. It sure doesn’t with me…The freedom of religion is one of the basic rights we all have as an American citizen. Whether you’re Catholic, whether you’re Protestant, whether you’re Jewish, evangelical, whatever it may be, God bless you. You worship who you want and you worship how you want. You worship the same God. All of us do.”

That actually sounds like something you’d read here!

So in case you think I’m just being a political partisan when I criticize Democrats, remember that I’ve always said I think it’s good for America to have a robust two-party system. But that requires both sides to respect the free exchange of ideas and everyone’s right to hold their own views, even if you disagree with them. I might even be saying many more nice things about Democratic leaders if they’d have the guts to stand up and strongly denounce mob rule, character assassination and the attempt to influence elections by making threats.

A Very Hollywood Story

September 25, 2020

Actress Alyssa Milano, a Twitter leftwing activist and proponent of defunding the police, made embarrassing headlines after she reportedly called 911 about an “armed gunman” in black clothing on her property (she later claimed a neighbor called 911, but admitted her husband made a follow-up call to police.) She lives in an 8,000-square-foot, $2.5 million home in a gated community in an upscale area north of L.A.

The call elicited a massive police response, including a K-9 unit and a helicopter. They determined that the “armed gunman” was a teenager shooting at squirrels with an air rifle.

Milano praised the police, but blamed “rightwing trolls” for “targeting” her with ridicule, which you must admit would be extremely hard to resist doing.

Let it be known, though, that I am not singling her out for mockery. She did the right thing in calling the police. I think that by now, we should have all learned that if you see a young person in black clothing carrying what appears to be a rifle, the police should definitely be called in to deal with the situation in whatever numbers are needed. If that had happened in Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc., a lot of black neighborhoods and businesses might not be smoking ruins today.

I also don’t think it’s fair to single her out for hypocrisy for denouncing the police while expecting them to pull out all the stops to protect her. In that regard, she’s simply like virtually every liberal celebrity in Hollywood, like the ones who want to defund the police and ban you from owning a gun to protect your family while they’re protected by armed bodyguards and battalions of cops at awards shows.

And it’s not even a new story. Back on June 2nd, I wrote about a certain former NBA and ESPN star who was tweeting “Burn it all down” about the Minneapolis riots, and just one day later, frantically tweeting about some “animals” trying to get into his gated community, then expressing relief when the cops showed up and repelled them.

But I will ask this: what’s with all these liberal celebrities living in “gated communities”? I thought walls were useless for providing security.