Voting problems in Michigan

February 14, 2020

The Washington Free Beacon reports that liberal groups and New York attorneys are rushing to Detroit to help the city fight a lawsuit that seeks to force Detroit to clean up its voter roll irregularities.

A recent study found that Detroit has 479,267 individuals eligible to vote and 511,786 registered voters. Those include about 500 duplicate registrations and 2500 dead people. The leftist groups are fighting the effort to purge dead, fake and ineligible voter registrations. As the article notes:

“Democrats have built a massive network of nonprofit groups, funded by George Soros and other liberal donors, to oppose Republican-backed voting initiatives such as voter identification laws. Michigan is a significant target for such efforts given its 'swing state' status; Trump won the state by just 10,000 votes in the 2016 election.”

Far be it from me to deny dead people representation, but I get tired of hearing the claim that every attempt to stop voter fraud or clean up registration rolls is an attempt to “disenfranchise” Democratic voters. The reason this so angers me is because, in fact, every fraudulent vote cast is a real case of disenfranchising a voter.

The right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights. Whenever anyone who has no legal right to vote does so anyway (or a vote is cast in someone else’s name, or someone votes more than once), that vote cancels out a legitimate vote. Some American citizen was deprived of their sacred right to have a say in their own government.

I will start believing the people fighting attempts to clean up voter rolls really care about disenfranchising voters when I see them express equal outrage over citizens’ legitimate votes being rendered nil by fraudulent ballots.

The fight AGAINST Life

February 14, 2020

If you’re wondering why Democrats are trying to resurrect the ERA (“Equal Rights Amendment”), a 1970s relic that’s as unlamented as the polyester leisure suit, it’s not nostalgia or the “progressive” urge to revive all the terrible ideas of the past, like segregation and socialism. There is a stealth reason why three blue states (Nevada, Illinois and Virginia) have voted to ratify it even though the deadline expired 40 years ago, and why House Democrats are pushing a resolution to overturn the deadline, despite a DOJ ruling that that’s unconstitutional (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that any ratification would have to start from scratch.)

As Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler and Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser write at this link…

…the attempt to resuscitate the corpse of the ERA is backed by radical pro-abortion groups who see it as a backdoor way to guarantee taxpayer-paid abortion on demand. For instance, New Mexico passed a state-level version of the ERA, and its state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it means the state government (i.e., the taxpayers, including pro-life taxpayers) is required to fund abortion services.

As the writers note, this is a perversion of the original intent of the ERA, whose author, feminist Alice Paul, was pro-life, and who complained that ratification was made harder by supporters who advocated abortion, saying, “As far as I can see, ERA has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.”

Most Americans also can’t see that it has anything connection with abortion, which is why radical abortion advocates have seized on it as the perfect Trojan horse to use to sneak an agenda past the public that the vast majority of Americans would find abhorrent. But now, you have been warned: the return of the ERA isn’t a harmless anachronism, like “Disco Night.” It’s not an attempt to revive the past, it’s an attempt to erase a lot of unborn children’s futures at your expense.

News from South Dakota

February 14, 2020

There seems to be widespread agreement in liberal circles that 18-year-olds are too immature to be trusted with anything dangerous. They want 21 to be the legal age to smoke cigarettes, vape, drunk alcohol or buy a gun.

Yet they will fight to the death to make sure children 16 and younger can decide for themselves whether to have doctors shoot them full of puberty-blocking drugs with unknown potential side-effects on their bodies, if they believe they’re transgender. We can’t test cosmetics on animals, but we can use our children as guinea pigs for testing unproven puberty blocking chemicals.

In South Dakota, there was an attempt to change the law to stop what would, in previous years, have been immediately recognized as dangerous quackery and child abuse. And despite the fact that the South Dakota government is entirely run by Republicans, with staggering majorities in both Houses, the attempt failed when the House passed it but the Senate did not.

And here’s an article from last week, before the bill was defeated, that includes more background about how giving dangerous chemicals to children has become a trendy political crusade, and what it can do to their bodies. Also, what the advocates for this don’t want you to know. Like how Jazz Jennings has been touted as the public face of a healthy transgender child for years, but we’re only now learning that she suffered severe complications and went through four painful surgeries because years of hormone blockers while still growing caused her sexual organs to develop in ways that the surgeons weren’t sure how to deal with.

After the impeachment trial fizzled, Democrats needed something else right away to go after President Trump for. Fortunately for them, they’re gifted with being able to turn on a dime and quickly “find” something else to turn into a federal case (literally). They will stop at nothing. Between now and the election –- and afterwards –- they'll keep him in their sights, demanding investigation after investigation. So, what is it this time?

It’s his tweets about the Roger Stone sentencing.

President Trump tweets about everything. Sick of the media distorting everything he says and does, he takes it directly to his audience. But the media work overtime to use the tweets against him, too. The folks at MSNBC and CNN have lost their minds once again, over the Stone case and also his suggestion that the Pentagon might look into Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman; they’re likening Trump to the “dictator” of a “banana republic.” On the contrary, it’s in a banana republic that we see egregious prosecutorial abuse, people getting prison sentences way out of proportion to their crimes simply for getting caught up in a fight for political power.

Devin Nunes and some other House Republicans suspect that the Mueller prosecutors set up Stone and some others, to be able to “put the squeeze” on them to get damaging information on Trump. “We believe that this is not gonna be the only example,” Nunes said on FBC’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “We think there’s other examples of things that they did during the Mueller investigation that...the American people will be very interested to learn in the coming weeks, as we start to [peel] the onion of what the Mueller team was really doing.”

I told you yesterday about the reaction from Sen. Chuck Schumer and Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler to the President’s tweets about the outrageous sentence recommended by prosecutors for Stone, who had the misfortune to be caught up in the effort to “get” the President. Their investigation tried unsuccessfully to tie him to WikiLeaks and an attempt to use Russian-hacked (so they said) emails to hurt the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, but they got him on a process crime. Now Democrats accuse Trump of trying to interfere with a criminal prosecution. With tweets.

No doubt Trump feels bad for Stone, as he does for his original national security adviser Michael Flynn and others who are collateral damage in the Democrats’ strategy to oust him. Former Trump campaign director Paul Manafort, 70, spent long months in solitary confinement and is now serving a sentence that could keep him behind bars for life. Now prosecutors are recommending a sentence for the 67-year-old Stone of seven to nine years –- also a possible life sentence –- on charges of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

Trump has said he didn’t talk to anyone in the DOJ about Stone’s case but that it would’ve been all right to do so. Contacts within the bureaucracy who know how things are done say this sentencing controversy must have been going on for weeks, certainly before Trump tweeted anything about it. Doesn’t matter. Ha, don’t be surprised if an anonymous “whistleblower” (or two or three) come forward to claim they overheard Trump say to the AG that he expects the prosecution to go easy on Roger Stone, or else the DOJ’s funding will be withheld. To add even more drama, perhaps Schiff could go on the floor of Congress to recite for the record a “parody” of what he alleges Trump said to Barr behind closed doors.

Already they’re calling for Barr to...(yes) resign as attorney general. And some of them are threatening Trump with Impeachment 2.0. California Rep. Eric Swallwell let this one rip on Wednesday with Jake Tapper on CNN: “...We’re not going to just let him torch this democracy because he thinks that he’s been let off once and we’re not going to do something about it.” I think we know who’s been trying to torch the democracy for the past few several years, and it ain’t Trump.

Former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy defended Barr for deciding to review the harsh sentence recommended for Stone. “There are child pornographers who don’t get nine years,” he said. “There are people who rob banks who don’t get nine years. So let the judge decide. I think two or three years is about right.” Gowdy said it would have been inappropriate for Trump to weigh in before the decision was made, but he contended that Barr was aware of the recommendation long before “Trump ever tweeted a single syllable.”

The DOJ didn’t need Trump to call their attention to this extraordinarily punitive sentence. According to Chuck Ross at the DAILY CALLER, “Justice Department officials were reportedly ‘shocked’ by federal prosecutors’ recommendation that longtime Trump associate Roger Stone serve up to nine years in prison...”

So, if Trump had nothing to do with Barr’s involvement in the case...well, then he must have been trying to bully this judge with his tweets. Yeah, that’s the ticket. It could be argued, though, that the judge might be even harder on Stone now, just to show she isn’t intimidated by the President. The judge determines the sentence, and after what Stone has already been through, it would be sad if he were now caught in the crossfire between her and the President. The latest news at this writing is that the judge has denied Stone’s attorneys’ request for a new trial.

If you missed what Tucker Carlson had to say about this Tuesday night, he noted the same thing I have about the comparative harshness of this sentence and gave some specific examples. The average sentence for a rapist is four years. The average sentence for an armed robber is three-and-a-half years. For violent assault, it’s a year and a half. He calls for Trump to pardon Stone rather than let him die in prison as CNN would like. Here’s the link to his must-see rant.

Predictably, Democrats are pulling out all the stops to silence Barr and those who offer evidence that supports the President and reveals their own wrongdoing. They have a big problem with him getting information on Ukraine from Rudy Giuliani, since Giuliani is Trump's attorney. (My answer: If it’s true, so what?) Watch what Democrats do now to try to damage both of them, for sniffing too close to the corruption.

Barr has agreed to go before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31 –- wish it were sooner.

As for Trump, he will not be silenced. He’s been on a justifiable tweet-rant on the two-tier justice system. And on Wednesday, the day before her Senate hearing, he withdrew U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu’s nomination as undersecretary in the Treasury Department. Until her nomination, she’d overseen the prosecutions of both Stone and Flynn. For a lively read on the newly emboldened post-impeachment President, here’s Kurt Schlichter…

And here’s a hot-and-fresh one, specific to the Stone case…

Trump Charges the Liberal Hacks’ Latest Ambush

Pete Buttigieg is no "moderate"

All Dem presidential candidates embrace radical policies

February 13, 2020

Only in today’s Democratic Party could someone like former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg be considered a "moderate."

The prevailing narrative of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination has been shaped by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his unrepentant socialism, which has bifurcated the party between outspoken extremists and radicals masquerading as moderates.

On the one hand, there is Bernie himself and the similarly extremist candidacy of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. On the other hand are the candidates who have been assigned the misleading appellation “moderates” simply because they stop short of preaching outright revolution.

The alternatives to Sanders are handed the moderate label more as a matter of convenience than because their policies actually conform to the American mainstream.

Until recently, the standard-bearer for this group was former Vice President Joe Biden. But Biden’s spectacular demise – a fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses and a truly embarrassing failure to even hit the 10 percent mark in the New Hampshire primary – has sent the Democratic establishment scrambling for someone to fill the role of the putative “moderate” in the race.

Many are gravitating toward Buttigieg, whose seldom-examined policy agenda is, in fact, so far to the left that it would have been unimaginable in the Democratic Party of President Barack Obama, let alone that of President Bill Clinton.

Clinton, for instance, won the White House in 1992 while calling for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” – a strategy that also worked for Obama 16 years later. That constitutes a moderate position, at least within the Democratic Party.

So-called “moderate” Pete Buttigieg, however, has taken a much more aggressively pro-abortion approach, opposing restrictions on abortion right up to the moment of birth. If that makes Mayor Pete a “moderate” then let’s call Col. Sanders a vegan!

A 2018 Gallup poll found that only a truly tiny minority of Americans – 13 percent – believe abortion should generally be legal in the third trimester. Even among Democrats, only 18 percent think abortion should generally be legal in the third trimester, making Mayor Pete’s position truly extreme.

Buttigieg is even more radical when it comes to criminal justice reform, pledging to “Ensure more people are free by significantly reducing the number of people incarcerated in the United States at both the federal and state level by 50%.”

Between jails and prisons, that would mean about 1.1 million convicted criminals released into American communities. They wouldn’t all be “non-violent drug offenders,” either – though Buttigieg is saying that as president he would decriminalize possession of all drugs, including meth and heroin.

President Trump has gotten behind historic federal sentencing reform, too, but he took a much more responsible approach. Recognizing the excesses of the so-called “War on Drugs” and its devastating impact on some poor and minority communities, he signed the First Step Act into law.

The First Step Act offers certain nonviolent offenders opportunities to reduce their sentences by participating in programs designed to help them become productive members of society. That is a moderate position, and the broad bipartisan support for the First Step Act is proof.

Casually releasing more than 1 million criminals onto the streets is decidedly not a moderate position.

Supporting open borders is also a far cry from what any reasonable person would call “moderate” – so it should come as no surprise that Mayor Pete not only embraces unfettered illegal immigration, but actually wants to encourage more of it.