Advertisement

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually plans to have a press conference today to talk about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office for mental/physical infirmity. The excuse is that he had the coronavirus (which he appears to already be over) and may be mentally impaired by getting a steroid shot last weekend (I don’t think she knows how medicine works.)

This lunacy has actually been tried before. In fact, she’s resurrecting a bill first introduced by one of her nutcase caucuses just 90 days after Trump was inaugurated. It was so laughable that it went nowhere then, but having impeached him over a phone call, they’ve got nothing left and are so desperate, they’ll now try to declare him mentally incompetent for having a steroid shot.

Considering we’re less than a month away from the election (which their pet media’s polls claim Biden will win in a Hillary-sized landslide), why would Pelosi be floating something so insanely desperate? Off-hand, I can think of four possible reasons:

1. She’s trying to sling some red meat to fire up a Dem base that has as much enthusiasm for the Harris/Biden ticket as I do for kale salad.

2. She doesn’t believe the polls and is terrified Trump will be around for another four years.

3. This really isn’t about Trump but just laying the groundwork for removing Biden to let Harris take over before Valentine's Day.

4. Someone gave her a steroid shot and she’s gone stark raving coo-coo herself.

Michigan Conspiracy

October 10, 2020

The FBI arrested seven members of a militia group on charges of allegedly conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, “put her on trial” for her assaults on Constitutional rights, and kill her.

Naturally, Whitmer couldn’t imagine why anybody would hate her so she blamed the plot on President Trump for allegedly providing a “rallying cry” to rightwing hate groups – like the ones he has publicly denounced on over 20 occasions. Of course, the media also piled on in blaming Trump, as did Joe Biden, by once again tweeting the repeatedly debunked “very fine people” hoax quote from Charlottesville. Ironically, this could be considered an actual example of the incredibly irresponsible use of a racially-charged lie as a “rallying cry” to leftwing hate groups to attack a political leader (Trump.)

And just in case there’s anyone left in the media who bothers to do any research before repeating partisan attacks as if they were news, here is a story about one of the alleged conspirators, complete with one of his social media videos. He doesn't sound much like a Republican or Trump supporter. In his videos, he sat in front of an anarchist flag, raged against both the government and the police, and claimed the Constitution is illegitimate and laws and authority “doesn’t exist, dude.” And he never expressed any support for Trump in any way.

Personally, the anarchist flag, tats, ear hoops, unkempt beard, wool hat and “dude” all scream “leftist hipster radical” to me, but unlike everyone else in the media, I don’t leap to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence.

NBA Ratings Fall

October 10, 2020

One of the weaknesses of the bullying tactics of the left is that they believed that if they seized control of pop culture, sports, entertainment and the news media, they could tell all Americans what to do, say and think, and we would have no choice but to go along with it. They forgot that all those industries are, at bottom, capitalistic, and in such systems, the customers are always right, even if we’re not left. They depend on us to support their lavish lifestyles. When we get sick of being told what racists we are or listening to people insult America, our religious and political beliefs, and our intelligence, we can simply stop patronizing them and find something else to do with our time. As millions of us have.

That message might finally be starting to sink in. With movie revenues tanking and TV ratings plummeting for “woke” shows, pro sports and liberal cable news channels, some of these arrogant leftist celebrities might be starting to imagine themselves preaching their politics from a cardboard box in an alley instead of a mansion in Beverly Hills.

I mention this as a prelude to telling you that viewership for Game Three of the NBA finals took a plunge to 4.08 million from the record-low 4.5 million who watched Game Two, which itself shattered the record low of 7.41 million who watched Game One. At this rate, if there’s a Game Seven, it will be beaten in the ratings by reruns of “Green Acres” on ME-TV.

And just like magic, suddenly the bosses of the NBA seem to have decided that they made their point, the BLM moment in time was this past summer (emphasis on "past") and while America is, of course, still a horrible racist country, maybe next season there should be more basketball and fewer political messages all over the courts and on the players’ jerseys and in the fans' faces.

That would be a very smart business move. Although they might want to do it now while they can still afford new jerseys. And before all their former fans discover that “Green Acres” was a really funny show, and Arnold the pig never called his fans racists.

Did Trump start the revolt that finally frees the people? More than 4,000 epidemiologists, doctors, and public health professionals from around the world and across the political spectrum have signed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” calling on governments to end the lockdowns and concentrate instead on protecting the most vulnerable and achieving herd immunity. Quotes:

“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.

“Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.

“Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

I’m now counting down to Twitter and Facebook deleting all their accounts for spreading “misinformation” because what could over 4,000 epidemiologists, doctors, and public health professionals possibly know about fighting disease?

Accurate History

October 10, 2020

This will come as a shock these days, but a group of academics, historians and college professors has released a statement demanding that American history be taught accurately.

The statement calls on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in ‘The 1619 Project” that claims that America’s founding ideals were false and the American Revolution was really fought to preserve slavery. They say there is zero evidence of that, the Revolution was fought for freedom and to defeat tyranny, and the Times knew it when they published that garbage, which is now being taught in many schools to make kids hate their own nation. One historian who actually worked on fact-checking the original piece pointed out the flaws but the Times editors ignored the suggested corrections.

The statement says that “given the glaring historical fallacy at the heart of its account, and the subsequent breaches of core journalistic ethics by both Hannah-Jones and the Times," they do not deserve the Pulitzer Prize. They write:

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A ‘sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,’ as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish ‘deeply reported’ falsehoods.”

Honestly, that sounds like any issue of the New York Times, but we don’t need to give them prizes for it.

Morning Edition - October 11

October 10, 2020

MORNING EDITION

October 11, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

"HUCKABEE" PREVIEW

Take off your face mask, relax and join me for another great new episode of “Huckabee” tonight on TBN! I’ll talk politics with Sen. Lindsay Graham and capitalism with financial guru Charles Mizrahi. You’ll meet the subjects of a stunning new documentary about a radical Islamist whose life changed when he went to Israel and met a Jewish Holocaust survivor. We’ll also have laughs from comedian Ron Pearson, then round it all up with rodeo world champion Tyson Durfey and his wife, country music star Shea Fisher, who will perform her latest release with Tre Corley and the Music City Connection.

It’s all coming at 9 EST/8 CST, on TBN. To find out where you can watch TBN, from local cable and broadcast channels to streaming, visit https://www.huckabee.tv and click on “Channel Finder” on the top menu. You can stream previous episodes, highlights and online-only “Digital Exclusives,” including extended interviews, “In Case You Missed It” and “Facts of the Matter” segments, and extra performances by our great musical and comedy guests, all at https://www.huckabee.tv. You can also find past shows, highlights and digital exclusives on YouTube and my Facebook page.

EVIDENCE

Problems with mail-in voting? Why, that’s nothing but a hoax, bandied about “without evidence!” Oh, and here are another 50,000 pieces of evidence.

NEW MOVIE WORTH WATCHING

A documentary filmmaker has released a movie online called “The Trump I Know” (http://www.thetrumpiknow.com) that gives a completely different view of Donald Trump than the cartoonish villain depicted by the media. It features interviews with the many women in Trump’s family, businesses and staff, telling their personal stories of how Trump promoted them, gave them tremendous career opportunities, and has shown nothing but respect and support for them, which they return with fierce loyalty to him.

It’s staggering to think how different Trump’s public image and approval rating might be if people actually knew him the way those close to him do, instead of getting their view of him through 24/7 propaganda churned out by a mass media that’s relentlessly negative. I know that’s true because when he started this project, the director didn’t even like Trump. But by the time he’d finished it and talked to all the women who work for Trump, he said he had a “’Wizard of Oz’ moment.” A figurative curtain was lifted and he saw what the media have really been doing to create a scary false image. In that way, he hopes the movie won’t just give viewers insights into the women around Trump and what he’s really like, but also open their eyes to the ways they’re being fed unreliable information.

CRAZY FAR-LEFT

How crazy-far-left is Keith Olbermann? So much so that he quit a good-paying sports network job to go on YouTube, rant insanely and fantasize about being Joseph Stalin.

Note to Keith: I also think you could use some serious reeducation, but fortunately for you, I don’t want to send you to a gulag. All you have to do is read my newsletter. It’s even free to subscribe, which you should like since you get something for free that other people work to produce.

THEY ARE ABORTION EXTREMISTS

One of the key issues that both Biden and Harris keep dodging is their support for abortion rights up to the moment of birth, and horrifically, even beyond. This is the barbaric practice of denying the basic civil right of life-saving medical care to a baby born during a “botched abortion” (the only medical procedure that’s considered a failure if the patient lives.) There used to be a place in the Party for pro-life Democrats, but no longer. The leaders have made it clear that if you don’t embrace abortion up to the point of obvious infanticide, you no longer belong.

To hide the barbarism of this viewpoint, they obscure what’s really happening with fuzzy, meaningless euphemisms, like “the right to choose” or the shockingly dishonest “reproductive justice” (where is the justice in murdering the most innocent human beings on Earth?) In Kamala Harris’ California, authorities even try to prosecute and imprison reporters for exposing what abortionists are actually doing.

As bad as promoting this heartless position is, it’s even more infuriating when they try to accuse the pro-life side of not caring about the mothers, or the children after they’re born. Pro-life organizations offer all sorts of humane alternatives to abortion to help women who feel they can’t keep their children, including providing them with medical care, counseling and adoption services. Believing that human life is expendable and that if a baby is inconvenient, it should be ripped to shreds and killed, displays a stunning lack of compassion.

If you want a heartbreaking personal example of this, click on this must-read story about Amanda Finnefrock, the mother of twins born prematurely who were left to struggle and fight for their lives for up to 2-1/2 hours before they died because the hospital denied them care.

Finnefrock calls President Trump’s executive order insuring that federally-funded facilities comply with federal laws requiring medical care for all newborns “a glimmer of hope.” After reading this, when you watch something like this week’s VP debate and see a defender of late-term and even post-birth abortion try to obscure what that really means and instead accuse Trump of lacking compassion, you will want to throw your shoe at the screen.

ACCURATE HISTORY

This will come as a shock these days, but a group of academics, historians and college professors has released a statement demanding that American history be taught accurately.

The statement calls on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in ‘The 1619 Project” that claims that America’s founding ideals were false and the American Revolution was really fought to preserve slavery. They say there is zero evidence of that, the Revolution was fought for freedom and to defeat tyranny, and the Times knew it when they published that garbage, which is now being taught in many schools to make kids hate their own nation. One historian who actually worked on fact-checking the original piece pointed out the flaws but the Times editors ignored the suggested corrections.

The statement says that “given the glaring historical fallacy at the heart of its account, and the subsequent breaches of core journalistic ethics by both Hannah-Jones and the Times," they do not deserve the Pulitzer Prize. They write:

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A ‘sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,’ as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish ‘deeply reported’ falsehoods.”

Honestly, that sounds like any issue of the New York Times, but we don’t need to give them prizes for it.

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY 

 



We asked for reader comments on the Pence-Harris debate and were deluged. Most of them contrasted Pence’s honest, classy, gentlemanly manner with Harris’s dishonesty, evasiveness, condescension and immaturity. Many also agreed that the moderator was biased in her choice and wording of questions and overly strict handling of Pence’s time. (As we've noted, Kamala’s total speaking time was actually a little longer than Pence’s.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD TAKE NOTE: most of the letters focus sharply on DEMEANOR. This tells me something very important: that the President really should not reject an opportunity to debate again, as his contentious approach during the first debate --- understandable to us--- inadvertently played right into the wrong impression of him so many people have. This was not the Donald Trump we know. Actually, the first Trump-Biden debate was a worthless mess; neither man came off well at all.

The President says he's feeling really great now. The debate commission has picked a biased moderator, for sure --- a Democrat who interned with Joe Biden! --- but Trump has the skills to work around that. On Thursday night's HANNITY show, Trump called the commission "a disgrace" and even challenged Biden on the air to just have a debate on their own, in person, without the commission setting the rules. (Watch Biden hide behind the commission, which has rejected a second in-person debate.)

Anyway, letters are still coming in on Pence-Harris, but here are a few highlights. Notice how many of them concentrate on attitude and demeanor...

From Dee:

Last night we saw two people who very likely could be the leader of the free world USA. VP Pence showed he is knowledgable, articulate, intelligent, and able to stay calm in uncomfortable situations. K Harris showed us she knows how to make faces, deliver preplanned one-liners, and lie...not very well. Biden is not well and she is unequipped to handle the job. I will say I would be happy if President Trump stayed calm in his next encounter and just be prepared with the facts.

From Sue:

Pence killed it. He made great points and great rebuttals. He corrected her when needed and let her speak her nonsense enough to hang herself. Super job. So honored to have such a great VP. Pence 2024

From Karen:

How can I get on the debate committee? My dead cat could pick better debate moderators then the Republicans on the committee.

From Kay:

Fly picked the winner.

Tried to pack too much in too little time. Needed more time to answer questions.

From Gene:

Senator Harris bragged on her record as a D.A. When Pence questioned that record, she responded with "I won't be lectured..." What she's really saying is that she won't allow anyone to hold her accountable. That's not the look of transparency or the attitude of a public servant.

From Helen (excerpt):

Kamala started off with putting down the President. After the first 40 minutes, I had to turn it off. I would rather watch reruns of paint drying on a DIY show than listen to her blatant lies. I live in CA, I know all about her career...

From Claudia:

Watching her debate gave me PTSD. She is a very practiced liar. Thinking that she could possibly be President is the scariest thing I could ever imagine.

From LaDina:

I'm very nervous. Harris is nasty and I want Trump to be presidential at his next debate. Not to get mad or interrupt, and to look at us, not Biden. Pence was very good, but he missed some good openings to make good points.

From Bette:

If Trump can debate like Pence did, then the next debate could be of great value, but if it’s a repeat of the first one, then it shouldn’t go forward. Undecided voters are looking at the trustworthiness of the candidate as individuals, and all the hysteria and frustration get in the way. Please, Mr. President, show us your compassion and your love for Americans and our country in the next debate. People need to learn who you are as a person. We’re praying for our President and our Country’s future!

From Raelene:

Kamala’s laughter and smirking have us a great insight on how she really feels about our most serious issues as a country. I’m proud of how Pence stayed so respectful to everyone and didn’t find the serious matters funny as if they were a joke.

From Gina (excerpt):

The last question tells you all you need to know. A young girl asks about the fighting and Partisanship. Pence gives a story about Ginsberg and Scalia and there friendship. Harris tells the Charlottesville lie and bashes the President...

From Kathy:

I watched it till I couldn’t stand Kamala any more...She gives me that slimy feeling that politicians give off. They don’t really care about you and try to tell you everything you want to hear only to do nothing they said over the next 47 years they are in office.

From Patrice:

Mr. Pence. He can play poker.

From Gregory (excerpt):

He ate her lunch, dinner and tomorrow's breakfast, very gracefully and spectacularly...PENCE 2024.

From TD:

I don’t think it changed any minds. If you want higher taxes, murdered babies, infringements on the Constitution, then by all means vote Biden/Harris. If you want the government out of your business, vote Trump/Pence ticket. Federal government was not created to run your life but for your safety and security.

From Alissa:

Kamala is absolutely terrifying. Period.

From Mary (excerpt):

I am so thankful that Vice President Pence loves Jesus and is bold about it...He presented the facts clear and precise. Did not put up with any lying from Harris. I was greatly encouraged. God bless America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

From Kimberly:

VP Pence rocked it! Though I Iove my President, I hope he took notes. Please tell him to keep quiet and let Biden talk.. He [Biden] will hang himself.

From Chris:

OMGosh, my wife told me it really does no good to yell at the TV. She's right, of course.

And finally, Rhonda makes my point:

Trump needs to do the second debate no matter what (virtual or in person). He needs to tell the American people what his plans are for the next 4 years. Tell us –- we want to hear it with compassion & love for our country!!! He WILL win hands down if he goes that route!!!

Joe Biden is running on a platform that boils down mostly to “Just like Trump, only without Trump!” He’s going to bring back manufacturing jobs, put America first, and all the other things he never did in 47 years in Washington that Trump got elected by promising to do (and doing, to great success.) Joe calls this plagiarized platform “Build Back Better.”

So would you be really shocked to learn that even the phrase “Build Back Better” was apparently plagiarized from another conservative political leader who, like Trump, got elected by promising to do the exact opposite of what his processor did?

There has never in history been a better A-B comparison of Democrat to Republican ideas than the back-to-back records of Obama/Biden and Trump/Pence. We went from the weakest recovery since the Depression to the best economy and lowest unemployment in history…from ISIS growing across the Middle East, bringing murder, slavery and turmoil in its wake, to ISIS crushed and a string of peace deals between Israel and Arab States…from targeting the domestic fuel industry for extinction to America becoming an exporter of energy, undermining the power of Russia and OPEC…from suing impoverished nuns to force them to pay for contraceptives to defending religious freedom rights…and on and on.

A similar comparison can be drawn between blue states that people are fleeing from and the red states they’re fleeing to. In California, the “Golden State” that used to represent the American dream, the more power the leftwing Democrats get, the further back in time it regresses. San Francisco already regressed to the Middle Ages, with wealthy lords living in walled castles while the peasants huddle in whatever shelter they can find, surrounded by filth. Now, much of the state is back to caveman days, huddling in the dark, afraid to leave their dens for fear of dangerous marauders, disease and FIRE!! Fire bad!!

And they not only keep voting for more of this, they think the entire nation needs to be run like California. Are they clinically insane?

Trump could easily make the case that if you want America to be strong, free and prosperous, it's easy: just look at what Obama/Biden did and do the exact opposite.

Felony Charges Handed Down

October 8, 2020

A grand jury in St. Louis has handed down felony charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who brandished weapons to make protesters move on who were trespassing on their property and threatening their home, their lives and their dog.

They’re charged with unlawful use of a weapon (even though they were obviously acting in self-defense, Missouri has a Castle Doctrine law that protects that right, and the firearms were apparently unloaded and one wasn’t functional) and tampering with evidence (even though it was apparently the DA’s office that tampered with the evidence.) The protesters who threatened them were not charged with anything.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt already filed a motion to intervene in the case and block the prosecution, and Gov. Mike Parson said that if they’re convicted of a crime, he’ll pardon them. But both Schmitt and Parson are up for reelection. If they’re replaced by Democrats like those in the St. Louis D.A.’s office who think that Constitutional rights apply only to protesters, rioters and trespassers, the McCloskey’s could be looking at serious legal liability for nothing but exercising their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

Mark this down as just the latest of the many, many, many reasons why I say the 2020 election could determine not only the future of America, but whether you still retain your Constitutional rights at all.

Last night was the one and only Vice Presidential debate, and I think it’s safe to say that Mike Pence did to Kamala Harris what Tulsi Gabbard did to her in the primary debates. But before I get into any details, here’s a link to watch the whole debate.

Here’s a write-up of the highpoints.

And for background, fact-checking and just fun, here are the live blogs of the debate from PJ Media, Townhall and Redstate, all worth scrolling through.

There was plenty of post-debate commentary, but rather than point you to partisan analyses, here’s one that hits on what I thought was the major takeaway of the night: the vitally important questions that Kamala Harris simply refused to answer.

Like her silence on whether they would try to pack the Supreme Court and her denial that Biden will ban fracking (see them both promise to do that very thing at this link)…

…Or her denial that Biden will raise people’s taxes “on day one” (he claims he won’t raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000, but he’s also vowed to reverse the Trump tax cuts, which he misrepresents as a “tax cut for the rich” – which Democrats call all tax cuts – when most of the benefits actually went to the middle class.)

At least somebody finally asked the Democrat these long-overdue questions, even though it often fell to Pence to ask them, since the moderator certainly wasn’t going to do it.

Both sides are claiming that their candidate obviously won, but flash polls showed viewers thought Pence was the winner by as much as 2-1. It was pretty clear to the undecided voters in Frank Luntz’s focus group that Pence won decisively. And these were actual undecided voters, not the kind in NBC’s recent Joe Biden townhall who were only undecided about whether to get their “Biden 2020” tattoos on their arms or their faces.

Those viewers appreciated that the debate was more cordial than the last one (a low bar indeed!), but didn’t like when questions were dodged. Their impression of Pence was that he seemed tired but presidential, while Harris seemed abrasive and condescending. That’s probably because of the smirking, eye-rolling and inappropriate laughter during Pence’s comments. I know some are claiming that’s sexist, and that women are held to impossible standards of presentation, but I refer you to the Bush-Gore debate where Gore rolled his eyes and sighed dramatically and everyone agreed that he came across as an arrogant jackass.

The best thing about this debate for me was that Pence got a chance to calmly explain what the Trump Administration has really accomplished on a variety of fronts, cut through the Democrat/media narrative that they’ve botched or failed at everything, and compare it to Biden’s dismal record, from the coronavirus to the economy to trade deals to China and the Middle East.

For instance, he finally got to remind viewers that while it’s tragic that over 200,000 Americans have died of the coronavirus, the world was blindsided with a new and deadly disease from CHINA (really glad to hear someone say that), and there was a tremendous public-private effort to study the disease while ensuring there were adequate supplies of ventilators, masks, hospital beds, etc., so that the predicted shortages and 2.2 million deaths never occurred. And he destroyed Biden’s claim that he would handle pandemics better by pointing out that Biden’s own health advisor admitted that if H1N1 (swine flu) had been as lethal as COVID-19, millions of Americans would have died under Obama/Biden’s feckless response.

As for Harris’ claim that Biden “has a plan” (they “have a plan” for everything, but don’t seem to want to share some of them), Pence noted that his plan is all things that the Trump Administration is already doing (I loved the dig about Joe's familiarity with plagiarism.) This is what I meant after the last debate when I said that Trump missed opportunities to correct a lot of false narratives. Pence grabbed those opportunities over and over and gutted the falsehoods like a trout.

Another highpoint came when Pence refuted the nonsensical rumors about Trump not accepting the results of the election by pointing out all the damage done by Democrats for 3-1/2 years because they still don’t accept the results of the 2016 election.

Harris followed Biden’s lead in repeating a number of debunked “fake news” stories and questionable partisan claims as if they were fact. To list just a few off the top of my head:

* That Trump called our soldiers “suckers” and “losers” (from an anonymously-sourced hit piece refuted by over 20 people who were actually there, including my daughter)…

* That Trump derided soldiers in Arlington Cemetery, saying, “’What’s in it for them?’ Because of course, he only thinks about what’s in it for him.” (Ripped wildly out of context; Trump was praising them for their selflessness and sacrifice.)

* That Trump “called Mexicans rapists and criminals” (he was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members, who are rapists and criminals.)

* That Trump refuses to denounce white supremacists (he’s done it over 20 times; here’s a video of 17 of them).

* That Trump said there were “fine people” among the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville (he said there were fine people on both sides of the debate about removing Confederate monuments but that the neo-Nazis should be “condemned totally.”) This has been debunked repeatedly, even by liberal outlets; and the only excuse for repeating it now is that you’re either an idiot, a cynical liar or senile. I don’t believe Biden and Harris are idiots or that Sen. Harris is senile.

It was like a greatest hits list of debunked anti-Trumper stories. Judging from those statements, Harris and Biden believe everything they read on Alyssa Milano’s Twitter feed, which isn’t comforting when you think of them having access to the nuclear button.

A real debate moderator would’ve thrown a red flag on statements that are not spin or opinion but verified lies and fake news. I’m thinking of forwarding this list to the next moderators so they have no excuse for not doing their jobs when they inevitably come up again.

Speaking of bald-faced lies, Harris tried to dodge the Court-packing question by claiming that Abraham Lincoln declined to nominate a Justice until after the election. She said, “Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next President of the United States and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land.'”

That’s patently false. That Court opening occurred in October, 1864, while the Senate was out of session, and back then, it didn’t reconvene until after the election, on December 5. Lincoln nominated Salmon Chase and he was confirmed, all on day one of the next Senate term.

I don’t think anyone will be nicknaming her “Honest Kamala” anytime soon.

Finally, here are the questions I would have asked Sen. Harris: You recently traveled to Wisconsin to sit by the bedside of a man accused of sexual assault who was shot while resisting arrest and tell him you were proud of him. You’ve previously said that women who make rape accusations should be believed (you even said it of Biden’s accuser before becoming his running mate), so should we not believe his accuser? And secondly, when two police officers in your home state of California were shot at point-blank range by a cop-hating criminal, did you fly to their bedsides to tell them you were proud of them?

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is threatening to close Orthodox Jewish synagogues if they don’t obey his limits on public gatherings, and Mayor Bill DeBlasio is threatening to arrest Orthodox Jews if they dare gather to worship. But they give their blessings to huge mass gatherings of violent, black-clad protesters who behave like fascists. Now, let me think, who else did that?...

The Orthodox Jewish community responded angrily to the threats and restrictions last night, with hundreds of people rallying in Brooklyn and even lighting a fire in protest. Local Jewish lawmakers slammed Cuomo for his “scientifically and constitutionally questionable shutdown of our communities,” and city councilman Kalman Yeger told the crowd, “We are not going to be deprived of the right that we have in America, like everybody else in America, the right to observe our religion.”

Sadly, that right is also under assault all across America, but I’m heartened to see many churches and synagogues fighting back and winning in the courts. Also by doing what they did in Brooklyn: staging a mass protest, which the politicians threatening them can't object to because they've already declared that mass protests don’t spread the virus, particularly when there’s fire involved.

Now that President Trump has moved to completely declassify ALL material related to the Russia hoax (that covers a lot of ground) and the “Mid-Year Exam” into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department business, it will be interesting to see how fast the un-redacted documents pour out. If the process works as Trump surely intends, it should be like water out of a fire hose.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Wednesday that he’d sent nearly 1,000 pages to the Justice Department to aid in U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Chuck Ross at THE DAILY CALLER filed a report on this.

We don’t yet know what documents these were or how they contribute to Durham’s investigation. So we’ll have to wait, but in the meantime, there’s still quite a bit to process.

Paul Sperry, one of our go-to reporters for breaking “Spygate” news, is reporting that Joe Biden is under federal criminal investigation for his role in the 2016 phony “Russia” probe and also Ukraine. Thursday afternoon, he tweeted: “BREAKING: Joe Biden is the subject of an active federal criminal investigation into his role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, incl the former vice president’s activities in Ukraine. Ukrainian witnesses are cooperating.”

Sperry is not naming his sources, and at this writing, Attorney General Barr has had nothing to say. Typically I wouldn’t pass along an anonymously-sourced story –- after all, I’m not THE NEW YORK TIMES –- but Sperry has proved himself dependable and would not likely tweet this without high confidence. Keep in mind that neither Barr nor anyone speaking for the DOJ would officially confirm an investigation of Biden, especially this close to the election.

Also, Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media has a great piece summarizing what we know to date. The really interesting part is where he speculates about how Russian intelligence might have found out what Hillary was doing to implicate Trump in Russian “collusion.” He goes back to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

A lot happened during June and July of 2016.

We’ve known for a long time that Veselnitskaya was working with Fusion GPS (!) and met with Glenn Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting (!!). Sure smells like a set-up, and this may be what Russian intel sniffed out. As O’Neil says, “It is possible that the Trump Tower was a Clinton set-up, a honeypot operation designed to bolster Clinton’s claim that Trump was in bed with Russia.”

It’s interesting to go back in time and see what was said about this in 2017, especially as it might have related to Hillary and the Rosatom uranium deal. This story is little talked about now, but it will re-emerge in light of new declassified material.

O’Neil explains: “If this was the case, it seems likely that news of this [Veselnitskya] operation could have reached Russian intelligence operatives, and their reports ended up in Brennan’s hands.” In other words, it wasn’t Russian DIS-information about Hillary. It was part of Hillary’s own plan --- what the Russians found she was actually doing.

We can go back even earlier, to this piece from 2016, THE DAY AFTER CLINTON BLAMED RUSSIA FOR THE SO-CALLED HACK OF THE DNC. If you have time for a little trip down memory lane, it’s easy to see why Hillary needed a “distraction” from her own messy dealings with Russia.

And now we know that’s just what she came up with, a plan to tie TRUMP to the Russians. At the same time, there's still no evidence that Russia hacked he DNC, and for all we know it was an inside job. We may never know, but it makes a lot of sense to me that someone at the DNC, maybe a Bernie supporter who chafed under Hillary’s control of the party, would have done this, not Russia. Perhaps Hillary was quite aware that the Russians didn’t do it. Julian Assange has always maintained that they didn't. Whether they did or not, how conveeeeenient it was for her to say the release of DNC emails on Wikileaks was because Russia hacked them --- to help Trump win!

Yes, when it comes to corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary. Sean Davis of THE FEDERALIST spared no words on Tucker Carlson’s Tuesday show when it came to the seriousness of what was done and the need for people to go to prison.

"This wasn’t just some silly game that had no real consequences or implications,” he said. “These people used this to cast doubt on our election. They talk about the integrity of our democracy...After Trump was inaugurated, they went and hijacked the presidency, they tried to cripple it. They put in this completely bogus special counsel based on false pretenses to cripple the administration heading right into the 2018 elections.”

Tucker brought up the most lasting consequence if nobody goes to jail for this: “You want to live in a place where the CIA operates...against the favored party’s political enemies? I can’t imagine anything more third-world.”

That is exactly the world Hillary, Obama and John Brennan gave us, and what we’d surely continue to have under a Biden-Harris presidency.

Finally, J. Peder Zane has a great new piece at RealClearInvestigations that concludes multiple smoking guns “have established beyond any doubt that the vast powers of our government were weaponized and politicized to destroy a candidate and then a President.” But he sounds like many of my frustrated readers when he predicts they’ll get away with their crimes.

Word went out while President Trump was in the hospital that he’d had enough of the Intelligence Community’s hiding of “Russia” documents and that he'd be using his time there to work on declassifying it all. Not surprisingly, he was true to his word.

He has DONE IT.

As he tweeted on Tuesday, “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

Hallelujah.

Though we’ve heard from reputable sources that CIA Director Gina Haspel was holding on with her teeth to all remaining materials that might embarrass the Agency, rest assured that it's all coming out. Failure to produce these documents --- well, Director Haspel, I think that’s called “obstruction of justice.” Hand everything over now. Anyone who tries to slow the process can clean out his or her desk immediately and be escorted out, and they’d better hire themselves a good lawyer. As Devin Nunes said on Sunday, “THIS IS OVER.”

Last week, documents were declassified showing that then-CIA Director John Brennan personally briefed President Obama and other national security officials about information that Russian intel had learned Hillary Clinton was going after Trump with a made-up Russia scandal, tying Trump with Putin and the so-called hacking of DNC emails to detract from her own (real) email scandal. When former FBI Director James Comey was asked last Wednesday under oath about the investigatory lead the FBI got after this briefing, he laughably said “that doesn’t ring any bells with me.”

But now, in the first of what is sure to be a cascade of many document releases, we have Brennan’s own handwritten notes made after the briefing that Comey can’t seem to remember. They were first released by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe with heavy redactions on Tuesday; one may assume from Trump’s tweet that the un-redacted versions will be available right away pursuant to his order.

Investigative reporter Sara Carter has a good analysis of what was going on with Brennan and why he might have supplied those notes. Remember, a smart intel guy is going to think in terms of “CYA.”

Most of the Brennan notes as seen here are still almost totally redacted. This is obviously the way Haspel intends members of Congress (and us) to see them. Trump is saying that will change.

Brooke Singman at FOX News also reported this on Tuesday.

Brennan’s notes reinforce what Ratcliffe included in his letter last week to Sen. Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ratcliffe also declassified a CIA memo showing that officials referred the matter to James Comey and Peter Strzok at the FBI for potential investigation. This really should "ring a bell" with Comey.

Right now, we’re still having to deal with redactions, as in Brennan’s largely blacked-out note that says, “We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED], CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Won’t it be nice to know who [REDACTED] is?

One other part of Brennan’s notes that isn’t redacted consists of cryptic notes in the margins: “JC,” “Denis” and “Susan.” Easy guesses are that he was talking about James Comey, Denis McDonough (Obama’s chief of staff) and Susan Rice.

Importantly, since one way Brennan can "C" his "A" is to say that the "dossier" was Russian disinformation, numerous sources have characterized Hillary’s plot as NOT being Russian disinformation. One observation that makes particularly good sense: “This is not Russian disinformation. Even Brennan knew, or he wouldn’t be briefing the President of the United States on it.” Another source said, “...this information has been sought by hundreds of congressional requests for legitimate oversight purposes and was withheld for political spite --- and the belief that they’d never get caught.”

Ratcliffe himself said in a statement to FOX News, “To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”

As reported at NOQ (“News. Opinion. Quotes”) Report, “The President has promised to [eliminate the redactions] and offer complete transparency just in time for the November elections.” Mr. President, please make this happen IMMEDIATELY, as millions of people have already voted early. As I’ve long said, early voting is a bad idea, because voters need and deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots. Holding information until after an election is in itself a political decision with potentially huge political consequences. We have only 27 days before voting (at least non-fraudulent voting) ends.

Paul Sperry, a longtime source of ours, tweeted, “When all the documents are finally declassified, and all the redactions removed from reports, the nation will see that the FBI and CIA not only knew that the Russia “collusion” allegations against Trump were a political dirty trick, but that they were in on the trick.”

Finally, Sean Hannity, on his TV show Tuesday night, did a segment on this breaking news featuring Gregg Jarrett, Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, who was Trump’s 2016 deputy campaign manager.

Of course, Jarrett has reported at length about Hillary and the Russia hoax, not to mention Obama’s cover-up. “He [Obama] sat there silently,” Jarrett said Tuesday night, “as our government was thrown into turmoil for the last four years over what he knew, based on the intelligence presented to him by John Brennan, which was phony information conjured up by Hillary Clinton...”

Lewandowski was more focused on the two-tier justice system and who is going to pay for this CRIME, the greatest hoax in political history. He said Trump told him in 2018 (!) that, yes, Obama, Biden, Brennan, Clapper and Comey DID KNOW it was all a hoax. They attempted to depose a duly-elected President, yet “not one person has been put in jail for this yet.”

The time has come. As David Bossie said Tuesday night, “You don’t have to be Columbo to figure this one out.”

September Jobs Report

October 6, 2020

The Labor Department reports that 661,000 new jobs were created in September. That’s lower than the 800,000 expected, but it was good enough to drop the unemployment rate from 8.4% to 7.9%. Black unemployment dropped from 13 to 12.1%, and Asian-American unemployment fell from 10.7 to 8.9%. The biggest drag on Americans getting back to work was the government, thanks to schools remaining closed. Also, of course, thanks to some state governments that are keeping businesses closed indefinitely (remember the good ol’ days of “Two weeks to flatten the curve?” How did that turn into “Hide in your basement from here to eternity”?)

Those draconian policies are what’s responsible for the increase of 345,000 in permanent job losses, due to employers being forced to give up and go into bankruptcy because of the endless shutdowns.

But as Rick Moran notes at the link, overall, it’s a positive jobs report, and it’s the last one that will be released before the election. He also notes that Joe Biden has stopped promoting his “Build Back Better” slogan, likely because it’s becoming obvious that we don’t need massive government intervention to rebuild the entire economy. We just need to get Democrats out of the way so people can get back to work. Say, that would be a great slogan, but probably not one that Joe would want to use.

In Arizona, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is in a heated race against challenger Mark Kelly, who’s ahead in the polls because he's running more to the right than most Democrats these days. Kelly relies heavily on his resume as an astronaut while staying quiet about his positions on controversial issues. But he may be forced into talking issues thanks to two unique “October surprises.”

The first was an endorsement of McSally by three of Kelly’s fellow former astronauts. They say that being an astronaut doesn’t mean you’d be a good Senator, and they accuse Kelly of hiding a liberal agenda of high taxes, gun control and other leftwing positions behind his NASA resume.

And another moon boot just dropped with the release of an undercover tape of a Democratic field organizer admitting that Kelly isn’t talking about gun control because he has to get the Independents to vote for him. She says, “He’s trying to be elected and then he’ll implement the measures. You always can’t trust politicians.”

This story illustrates one of the key differences between the parties in the modern age. Democrats are afraid that if Republicans get elected, they’ll do exactly what they promised the voters they would do. And Republicans are afraid that if Democrats get elected, they’ll do exactly what they deny they plan to do. There's now plenty of evidence that both are correct.

TDS Is A Sad Disease

October 6, 2020

One of the downsides for the media during Trump’s quarantine is that it’s so hard for some of them to practice basic human decency. Even if they can restrain themselves from celebrating that someone they disagree with politically has a potentially lethal disease, they still can’t stop themselves from hurling groundless accusations, spinning ridiculous conspiracy theaters and making up fake news. It’s hard to break a habit when you’ve been doing it every day for nearly four years, and besides, fake news is a multi-billion-dollar industry now.

So over the past few days, with Trump briefly out of commission, they had to struggle, but they came through. There were accusations that Trump wasn’t really sick and is just faking this to get out of debating Biden again (you know, the guy Trump keeps trying to talk into more debates.) But there are also accusations that Trump is much sicker than we’ve been told because the White House says he’s doing well and they’re “LYING LIARS WHO LIE!!!”

One “journalist” tried to prove that Trump isn’t really working by tweeting a photo of Trump signing a document that he claims is blank, as if you could actually tell that from a fuzzy vidcap taken from 15 feet away. I’m still trying to figure out the point. Even if he did just sign a paper for that photo, he’s still sitting up and signing things, not on a respirator. Oh, well, TDS is a sad disease itself.

The press’ desperation to spin everything Trump does as evil even extended to blasting him for putting on a mask and driving in a closed car past the crowds of well-wishers outside to wave thank-you to them. He’s putting police at deadly risk! (Wait, I thought masks worked to prevent the spread of the virus? If not, why are we all still wearing them?) Some even accused him of committing attempted murder and demanded he face criminal charges and be removed from office. Then, they do that every time he puts ketchup on a steak, so I think we can just wave and drive on by them.

Great News Out Of DC

October 6, 2020

The Justice Department has sided with Capitol Hill Baptist Church in its lawsuit against the DC government and Mayor Muriel Bowser. The church argues that DC’s ban on outdoor church services is a clear violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The church’s attorneys from First Liberty Institute say the government is under a high burden of proof that any intrusion on First Amendment rights must be to advance a compelling government interest, such as public safety. But by banning outdoor church services while allowing, and even endorsing and participating in, much larger protest gatherings, the Mayor and DC officials are clearly discriminating against people of faith while allowing exceptions for those they agree with. That’s not how the First Amendment works, and the DOJ agrees.

In announcing the DOJ’s stance on the case, the head of the Civil Rights Division said this:

“The right to free exercise of religion and the right to protest are both enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. We are a nation dedicated to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The District of Columbia has, unfortunately, neglected these rights. The Justice Department is committed to defending both of these fundamental freedoms and in supporting all Americans’ rights to worship as they choose.”

There are more good quotes at the link, so read the whole thing. This is such an open-and-shut case of unconstitutional and illegal targeting by government officials, with even the Justice Department siding with the target, that I assume the only hope of DC prevailing in court would be if it lands in front of Judge Emmet Sullivan.

Former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was set to testify in person this Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee --- which is finally doing more than just talk about getting to the bottom of “Crossfire Hurricane” --- but he's now backed out because, he says, he’s scared of contracting the coronavirus.

It helps his case a little that the hearing has already been postponed after two members of the committee, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, tested positive for the virus.

But Carter Page, the subject of the FISA warrant that was used in “Crossfire Hurricane” as a window to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, isn’t buying McCabe’s excuse. He thinks McCabe should go ahead and testify –- just do it remotely, as former FBI Director James Comey did last Wednesday.

As far as we know, this virus, contagious as it is, does NOT spread over the internet (it's not that kind of virus). I’ve already made the argument that if Comey could disgrace himself via Zoom, so could McCabe.

Page doesn’t think it should be so easy for McCabe to get out of this. He told Carrie Sheffield at JUST THE NEWS, “Hopefully a subpoena is issued today. It’s now Monday morning, and I hope that is resolved so that he can show up and be held to account and answer for these terrible problems that were created.”

I think McCabe’s real problem is that Comey so thoroughly botched his own testimony last Wednesday that McCabe can’t figure out how to protect himself. Comey obviously lied about not being able to remember former CIA Director John Brennan’s briefing concerning Hillary’s “Russia” story. (“It doesn’t ring a bell with me.”) Last week, we had the release, in the form of Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe’s letter to Sen. Lindsay Graham, of information concerning the real origins of the “Trump/Russia” story, including that briefing. The actual events surrounding the opening of "Crossfire Hurricane" are a mess that McCabe surely hadn’t expected to get into.

So now McCabe’s attorney says he's afraid to testify in person but doesn’t think it’s fair for him to have to testify remotely. I might not be a sneaky lawyer, but I have a suspicion he set up this testimony to be in person just to give McCabe an “out.” The argument that this subject is too complex and contentious to be handled any other way but in person does not fly. Today we have the miracle of technology, which sometimes even works. If Joe Biden can run for President from his basement, Andrew McCabe can testify from his. Sens. Lee and Tillis can listen remotely, as well.

Page can certainly see through McCabe’s feeble excuse, and that’s not surprising given what he’s experienced over the past four years. “I think it’s another example of the complete double standards,” he said. “So many Trump supporters, including myself, were dragged in front of not only the U.S. Senate, which is what’s in question here, but the House.”

Remember what Trump said Monday about not letting the virus hold you back. The Senate might try gently humoring McCabe's "fears" by repeating Trump’s words, softly and reassuringly, “Don’t let it dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it.”

If that doesn’t get him into the witness chair, subpoena the son of a bee.

In case you’d like a review of the allegations in Ratcliffe’s letter to Sen. Graham, Andrew C. McCarthy has an excellent column on the subject.

This column appeared the day before Comey’s testimony last week; little did McCarthy know the extent to which Comey would lie and prevaricate. Still, it’s an extremely informative, easy-to-understand outline of what happened in the summer of 2016. Of course, if you've wearied of those details, you can just think of it as the Summer of Hillary Clinton --- that tells you just about all you need to know.

In related news, recall that CIA Director Gina Haspel is suspected of personally blocking the release of documents that might put the CIA “in the spotlight.” Sean Davis at THE FEDERALIST has an update, saying “multiple senior U.S. officials” have said she’s stalling in the hope that Trump will lose the election so that she doesn’t have to turn the documents over. “The frustration with Haspel is reaching nuclear levels,” one official is quoted as saying.

As we've reported, Haspel was John Brennan’s hand-picked CIA station chief in London during 2016-17 and is concerned about the release of documents revealing what the CIA was doing at that time. According to Davis, one senior official said that “Haspel and [FBI Director Christopher] Wray both want Trump to lose, because it’s the only chance they have of keeping their jobs. They’re banking on Biden winning and keeping where they are.”

How did they get these jobs in the first place? I want to know who recommended them to President Trump.

These skunks just want to protect themselves and their fiefdoms. This sounds like the same rationale the intel community had during the 2016 campaign --- why they desperately wanted Hillary to win, not Trump.

Another senior intel official said, “It’s far more important for Haspel to block any embarrassment of herself or her agency than to have full transparency and accountability. She’s just hoping she can get past the election so the documents will never come out.” Haspel has also been accused of ferociously lying about the declassification process and providing baseless excuses for her failure to produce certain documents, sounding pretty much to me on the same level as “My dog ate it.”

This is why the investigation is taking so long and why Durham needs to at least release an interim report NOW. I believe Trump will win, but with all the forces set against him, and the intensity of their determination, Durham’s got to do this JUST IN CASE. If he wants the results of his hard work to ever see the light of day, he should consider this report his legacy and his sworn duty.

We all know: If the Democrats get back in, all investigation of The Swamp will be shut down faster than you can say Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Antifa Insurgency

October 6, 2020

A trans-woman Trump supporter went undercover and joined Antifa in Portland, and in a fascinating piece for Reuters, she exposes what she learned about their intentions, their tactics and their organizational methods. The mole describes Antifa as a very efficient, “open-source networked insurgency.” Their attacks are organized in much the same way as the intifada terrorist attacks against Israel.

This link is to a piece that summarizes the story with key quotes, and it includes a link to the full original story. This is a must-read for all police and security professionals, and for anyone who wants to know what we’re really dealing with. It should shake the blinders off of anyone who still believes that Anitfa is just “an idea” and not a terrorist organization, if you can imagine someone that self-delusional.

First, some breaking news: Andrew McCabe, who was set to testify, apparently in person, before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, won’t be appearing because he says he’s afraid of catching COVID. What?? Oh, for crying out loud, Mr. McCabe, just testify online. That's how your colleague Jim Comey disgraced himself, so why can't you do the same?

I know the virus is highly contagious, but if it spreads via Zoom, we’re all in big trouble. On the other hand, I guess that would give Biden an excuse to get back to his knitting and not make any more appearances during the campaign

Anyway, over the weekend, Maria Bartiromo on FOX NEWS SUNDAY reviewed what we’ve learned in recent days about Hillary Clinton and, yes, President Obama concerning their involvement in the Russia hoax. Of course, my readers already knew about this, but Maria’s guests had additional details.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy noted what a colossal waste of time the “Russia” investigation has been, focusing on a fake story when we've been trying for so long to get the real story. He said that when the letter from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to Sen. Lindsay Graham was released, leaders of Congress wanted to have a meeting about it right away, because in all this time no one in either the House or Senate had seen this information. “This should drive every member of Congress,” he said, “to go get the underlying information that John Ratcliffe has just made transparent to the world.”

Looking back now, the timeline of events is just tragic. In July of 2016, key people are briefed on a story that Russian intelligence have picked up that Hillary’s campaign was creating a false narrative about Trump “colluding” with Russia to take attention off her own scandal, which involved the use of a personal email server for all her official State Department business. Then-CIA Director John Brennan personally briefs President Obama and others of this on July 26. “Crossfire Hurricane” is conveniently (for Hillary) opened just a few days later, on July 31. When former FBI Director James Comey is asked about this briefing last Wednesday, he says it "DOESN’T RING A BELL.”

We know this is a lie. Investigating a major presidential candidate for being an agent of Russia is a huge deal, the details of which are not something that would simply escape one’s memory, unless perhaps we’re talking about Joe Biden’s memory.

McCarthy calls this “the biggest news that didn’t get reported.” True, last week was a big week for news, but there was plenty of time before the report that Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 to get it out there.

So, how was this information hidden from Congress (and the rest of us) for so long? Why did we appoint a special counsel when it was known even by Obama the previous year that the “Trump/Russia” story was part of Hillary’s election strategy?

Maria brought up another story we reported last week about CIA Director Gina Haspel still blocking the declassification of certain documents. Her own sources, Maria said, had told her Ratcliffe wants to see much more material declassified but that Haspel “does not want the spotlight on the CIA.” Well, that's just too bad, CIA.

McCarthy was followed by Devin Nunes, who made a great point: When Republicans in the legislative branch tried to find out where the “Russia” story came from, Comey and his colleagues didn’t seem to know. But now we have evidence that they absolutely knew, four years ago! And there's quite a lot more evidence that Congress still hasn’t seen.

"Here you have the media,” he said, “which is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party...ignoring all of this for the last four years...so here they’ve been blaming Republicans having something to do with Russia when the whole damn time, THEY had something to do with Russia." In other words, it was the Democrats who were hiring Russian spies, not the Republicans.

Here is where Nunes spoke for all of us, by saying, “Every Republican, senator and member of Congress, should be saying, “THIS IS OVER. WE WANT EVERY DAMN BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HAS, OR IT’S MAYBE TIME TO SHUT THOSE AGENCIES DOWN. BECAUSE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, OUR LIBERTIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THEY HAVE BEEN STAMPEDED OVER BY THESE DIRTY COPS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE MEDIA WHO FAILS TO REPORT ON IT.”

Finally, former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell also appeared with Maria, saying, “We’ve had a scandal developing...largely because politicians have allowed individuals to hide information to create a false narrative by one side.” He characterized what Comey said in testimony this week as “really shocking,” because Comey is blaming mid-level career FBI people for what really came from the top down. There were voices who, early on, characterized this story as Russian propaganda, but the leadership “decided to hide those warnings,” and now Comey (protected by Democrat vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Mark Warner of Virginia, Grenell alleged) is blaming those same people.

"This is what happens,” Grenell said, “when the insiders maintain control over all the information, and this is why I believe that President Trump as the outsider is being viciously attacked, because he’s getting close to really changing the way that Washington works and they do not want the rules changed...” He added that this is why the insiders support Joe Biden. They know he’ll play by their rules.

As Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas lectured Comey on Wednesday, what he did "has done severe damage to the professionals and the honorable men and women at the FBI, because law enforcement should not be used as a political weapon. And that is the legacy you’ve left.”

“They Don’t Hear Very Well, Do They?” The media continue to press President Trump to denounce white supremacist groups and claim he refuses to do it. I recently shared a video showing him doing that exact thing on seven different occasions. Now, someone has compiled a longer video showing him doing it on 17 different occasions. You can watch it at this link, along with some more examples the video left out, which brings the total number of public condemnations of white supremacists to over 20.

All of this is a straw man. There is no giant surge in the number of white supremacist hate groups, or the SPLC wouldn't have to keep slandering benign Christian conservative groups as "hate groups" to gin up donations. We also know that the ludicrous claim that the rioters destroying blue cities are rightwing extremists in disguise is a lie because if they really were rightwingers, instead of being immediately released to do it again, they'd actually be arrested, jailed and have the book thrown at them, like anyone in those cities who uses his Second Amendment rights to defend his life, property or family.

The idea that Trump's supporters are all racists and white supremacists is a feeble excuse the Democrats cooked up to explain why he beat them in 2016. It saved them having to do any serious self-reflection about why they were really rejected, like the fact that eight years of Obama had proven that their policies are a disaster, and that they had nominated the most arrogant, entitled, dishonest and unlikable candidate in history.

Incidentally, the one candidate in the 2020 Presidential race who actually has been endorsed by a genuine, prominent white supremacist (Richard Spencer) is Joe Biden.

His campaign denounced the endorsement, but Biden himself never has personally. So how come the media aren’t demanding that he denounce Spencer’s endorsement? Oh, right: they don’t really believe this is an issue. It’s just a way to smear Trump with the same false accusation. Over and over and over. I think Candace Owens described the diminishing effects of this tactic perfectly in one word: “Boring.”

Say, here’s a way to put a fresh spin on it and make it more interesting: how about if the media start demanding that the Democrats apologize for their long, long history of supporting white supremacists?

For those who don’t follow sports, Jason Whitlock is a highly-regarded sportswriter with over 25 years’ experience, including ESPN, Fox Sports, AOL Sports, the Sporting News and other major outlets. He is also African-American. And he’s just taken a brave stand against the prevailing PC orthodoxy in professional sports with a must-read column at Outkick.com called “USA or NBA: That Is An Easy Choice For Me.”

The gist is that as a lifelong basketball fan, he “just can’t take it anymore.” He’s had enough of "the kneeling. Black Lives Matter splashed across the court. The finger-wagging, self-righteous commercials. The ‘Vote’ T-shirts. The silly slogans on the back of the jerseys.” And for the first time ever, he turned off game one of the NBA Finals when only one brave player defied the groupthink and stood during the National Anthem.

Whitlock describes how the NBA, with players like Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan, used to represent the best of America. But now, all the league, players and Nike care about is pleasing China and selling to the Chinese market. Whitlock writes:

“(LeBron) James, Nike and China have dragged the NBA into a racial propaganda war with the United States as the opposition. I feel like I’m being forced to choose between love of country and love of basketball. That’s not a hard choice for me. I choose America. I can survive without the NBA. The NBA apparently can’t survive without pleasing communist-run China.” And they’re doing it by treating people like Jacob Blake as if they were Medgar Evers or Rosa Parks and genuflecting before Black Lives Matter, “a Marxist, anti-religion organization.”

He writes, “Black Lives Matter and Antifa are burning down a country I love. I’m not going to support a group of pampered millionaires who support the anarchists destroying the country that made them rich.”

Those are just the highlights so please click through and read the entire thing. I’m sure he’ll get grief over it from the media and the league, so show your support in the comments. FYI: when I read it, there were already 69 comments, and every last one was in complete agreement.

Maybe that would explain the catastrophic ratings drop for the finals opener between the Miami Heat and the Lakers with LeBron James. Even with millions of Americans stuck at home on lockdown, viewership plummeted 45% from last year to just 7.41 million, the smallest audience for the NBA Finals since 1994.

As they say, "Get woke, go broke." Or to put it in terms Nike would understand: “Swoosh! There went all your fans and customers!”

Because of Tuesday’s presidential debate, the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday didn’t get the attention it deserved at the time. But now, after a few days to unwind from that excruciating night, let’s take a look at what happened during the Comey hearing.

Comey was there at the prodding of Sen. Lindsay Graham, chairman of the committee, which is looking into Crossfire Hurricane and FBI corruption related to that case. If there was ever any doubt that James Comey is the slipperiest, slimiest snake in the swamp, he certainly put it to rest on Wednesday. Comey showed a selective lack of “recall” that was even more pronounced than Hillary Clinton’s, if that is possible. He just couldn’t remember with specificity much of anything he did that had to do with the “dossier” or FISA.

Any more mental lapses and he would’ve been qualified to run for President as a Democrat. Except in Comey’s case, it was an act.

Someone as smooth as Comey has to be pinned down quite forcefully to show how much he has to hide and how hard he’s trying to hide it. On Wednesday, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley did exactly that. He skillfully filleted Comey like a fish. Hawley must be pleased to know that Megan Fox at PJ Media described his style as that of “a young Perry Mason with better hair.”

I\If Sen. Hawley was having a good hair day, he was also having a good questioning day. Comey could only go into his “Duh, I dunno” routine and at one point, after being hopelessly caught in an inconsistency, smirk and shrug idiotically. But Comey is not an idiot; his line of defense at the hearing was obviously to protect himself legally by “knowing” or “remembering” as little as possible, present himself as ethically pure, and give the impression that, hey, the FBI is ALWAYS this incompetent.

Comey tried to distance himself from the grossly misleading and error-ridden FISA application and weasel out of his own responsibility, even as Hawley pressed him on the fact that he had personally signed off on it. (Examples of Comey’s distancing: He said “what the FBI Director does in connection to a FISA is actually very narrow.” He said he doesn’t regret his “role” in this matter; he regrets that “it happened.”) If Comey’s not responsible for the verified accuracy and truthfulness of the content, then what does his signature to that effect even mean?

Comey claimed he didn’t have “personal knowledge that would have led me to understand that we weren’t supplying complete information.” But Hawley challenged him on the true extent of his personal knowledge, asking him if at the time he certified the first FISA application against Carter Page, he knew that Christopher Steele was working for the DNC.

"I don’t know if I knew [it was] the Democratic Party,” Comey prevaricated. “I knew that he was working for political opponents of President Trump.” (We know now that by the time of the FISA application, Comey and all those top-tier people knew Steele was working for Hillary.)

Hawley zeroed in: “Now surely you recognized at the time that relying so heavily on a biased source would undermine public confidence in the FBI’s activities, didn’t you?”

"No, I did not,” Comey answered tersely. NO, HE DID NOT??

Hawley went on, using Comey’s self-serving comments from other testimony against him. (Example: “You...said, ‘A reasonable appearance of bias can corrupt the American people’s faith in your work as much as actual bias can.’ Do you stand by those remarks?”) It was masterful.

He brought up Stuart Evans, a lawyer in the national security division of the DOJ under Obama, “reminding” Comey that before the first FISA, Evans raised “serious concerns about the ostensibly partisan nature of the information provided by Mr. Steele, did he not?”

Comey, again very tersely: “I don’t know.”

Hawley then cited Evans’ concerns as they appear in the IG report. This was a total take-down of Comey, who went on to claim not to have known who Steele’s sub-source was or anything about him. (Of course, we now know that the FBI had previously investigated this person over several years on suspicion that he was a Russian agent.) Hawley again read from the IG report: “‘Comey told us that the application seemed factually and legally sufficient when he read it. He had no questions or concerns before he signed it.’”

Comey stared into the camera like a diminished human being.

The former FBI Director actually said that the referral from the IC (intelligence community) to the FBI of Hillary’s plan to smear Trump with a story about “collusion” with Russia (the one referred to by DNI John Ratcliffe in a letter to Sen. Lindsay Graham) “doesn’t ring any bells with me.” If that is true, Joe Biden’s not the only one who could benefit from memory-enhancing drugs.

More details at the link, including the spectacular must-watch video of Sen. Hawley expertly nailing Comey to the wall.

It should now be obvious to all that James Comey and Hillary Clinton were cut from the same cloth. And the cloth is that slippery kind that slides around and won’t stay put.

Keep in mind, Comey was FBI Director, supposedly at the helm of an enormously significant and politically-charged case. Imagine: investigating a major-party presidential candidate for possibly being an agent of Russia and colluding with Vladimir Putin to win the election! That would be treason. Comey would have demanded to know every detail –- just as Obama and Brennan would have.

And yet, today, Comey is vague on the details. How was he able to write a book?

Reaching the end of his time to question Comey, Hawley asked the former FBI director, “How are the American people supposed to trust the FBI following abuses like this?” Comey responded just the way you’d expect: he focused on his own integrity.

Comey will go down in history all right, not for his integrity but for his stupendous lack of it. Thanks to Sen. Hawley for giving the world a clearer look at the FBI, from the top down, in 2016.

Yesterday, we learned –- soon after Sen. Lindsay Graham did, in a letter from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe –- that Hillary green-lighted the plan to smear Trump as “colluding” with Vladimir Putin to win in 2016, in an effort to draw attention away from her own email scandal, and that this was known by THE highest-level government officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan (who briefed the others), President Obama, some of Obama’s national security advisers, and the FBI. They were more than happy to take the Steele “dossier,” which they knew was paid for by Hillary as part of her plan, and use it not to look into what she was doing but to investigate Trump.

Democrats have reacted predictably to this news, claiming that one reference in the Ratcliffe letter to lack of verification nullifies the whole story. No, it doesn’t, as the allegations against Hillary are consistent with what investigative reporters have turned up on their own. This is just more confirmation. We know she’s behind it, her campaign paid millions to set it up, and now we have the evidence that Brennan briefed officials at the highest level.

Yesterday, we quoted former acting DNI Ric Grenell about running out of patience with the intel community for withholding documents. If Grenell was aware of who is doing this, he wasn’t naming names. But Sean Davis at THE FEDERALIST reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification of documents relating to the 2016 election.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he didn’t even remember the referral made to the FBI about Hillary’s plan. This is laughable –- Brennan himself gave the briefing, and such a stunning piece of information had to have been etched in the minds of everyone –- but what did you expect from such a slippery eel?

Davis appeared with Tucker Carlson Wednesday night and put it just the way we have, saying that it wasn’t Trump who “colluded” with Russia, but Hillary Clinton. It really was a “coup” plotted against Donald Trump at the highest levels.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was on with Tucker Tuesday night (before Comey’s testimony) to talk about how extraordinary this news was. He is stunned by the failure of characters such as Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein to take any responsibility and wondered if Comey would be any different. Of course he wasn't!

"Heads need to roll,” he said, “and there needs to be top-to-bottom reform at the FBI.”

While Comey was testifying Wednesday, Brennan tweeted: “Unsurprisingly, Lindsay Graham is willfully, brazenly & cravenly misrepresenting the facts in today’s Senate Judiciary hearing with Jim Comey. I am so looking forward to the day when Graham, Trump & the rest of their ilk are no longer associated with the U.S. government.” Personally, just from what we already know, I look forward to the day when Brennan and his ilk ARE associated with the U.S. prison system.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was one of those who questioned Comey, and he pointed out to Shannon Bream on FOX News Wednesday night that “John Brennan is one of the most partisan leftists to ever serve in the intelligence services, and John Brennan and James Comey were part of, really, some of the worst legacy of the Obama-Biden presidency, which was the politicization of the FBI, the Department of Justice, the CIA.” He accused Comey of giving the “Sgt. Schultz defense,” as in, “I see nothing, I know nothing” about the persecution of Trump and also Michael Flynn. And, of course, all roads lead back to Hillary, doing her bidding with “a political persecution not based on facts.” Comey is “in CYA mode,” Sen. Cruz said, and that’s the reason for the wild accusations he throws around, even when no evidence has ever been found for them.

Cruz questioned Comey about Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI official who has pleaded guilty to altering an official document used to deceive the FISA court about Carter Page. Comey feigned ignorance even of this. Yes, it’s disgusting, snakey behavior, but it’s exactly what we know to expect from Comey.

They’re hiding what they know at the CIA, too, according to Sean Davis, and he’s been told the order comes from the top. When you look at Gina Haspel’s ties within the CIA, this doesn’t seem surprising. Between 2014 and early 2017 –- which would include the 2016 presidential campaign –- she was the London CIA station chief under then-CIA Director John Brennan, hand-picked by him for that post. She was the main link between Washington and London. Maybe it’s just coincidence that Christopher Steele was doing his work on the “dossier” at that time in London. Maybe not. I just hope we find out.

Davis speculates that the people blocking the release of these documents are likely implicated in them. “You have these career bureaucrats whose careers may be destroyed by the facts within them,” he said.

What he’d like to see is President Trump just declassifying everything, period. Trump certainly has the power to do that. “I think at this point,” he said, “we need the President, Donald Trump, to step in and say, ‘No more obstruction. No more blocking.’ We need transparency and the American people need to know the truth.”

Agreed, with one caveat. If U.S. Attorney John Durham is pursuing criminal charges and there's some particular piece of evidence that he needs to keep close to the vest, Trump might need to keep a lid on a certain very few documents for now. Otherwise, it’s time to open Pandora’s Box.

We’re sad to report the deaths of two major music stars of the 1970s on Tuesday, both at age 78. No cause of death was announced for pop singer Helen Reddy, but she suffered from Addison’s disease and was diagnosed with dementia in 2015.

During her heyday, Reddy had her own variety show, appeared on countless other TV shows, acted in movies such as Disney’s “Pete’s Dragon” and on Broadway and London’s West End, and 15 top 40 Billboard singles, including six top 10’s and three #1 hits. They include “I Don’t Know How to Love Him,” “Delta Dawn,” “You and Me Against the World,” “Ain’t No Way to Treat a Lady” and “Angie Baby.”

Her biggest hit, though, and the one that cemented her forever as a feminist icon, was 1972’s “I Am Woman,” for which she wrote the lyrics and Ray Burton wrote the music. It went to #1 and won her the Grammy for Best Female Pop Vocal. She said it was inspired by the strong women in her family who survived the Depression, world wars and abusive, alcoholic husbands, and by the sexism she’d had to battle in show business. (Ironically, some feminists were upset over the line, “But I’m still an embryo,” since they didn’t want to associate the women’s lib movement with a pregnancy – or maybe they didn’t want to associate an embryo with a human being.)

Ironically, the massive success of “I Am Woman” helped end Reddy’s career. When she learned it was mentioned in a friend’s daughter’s history book, she decided she’d made her mark and could never outdo it, so she retired in 2002 to her native Australia. Aside from a few occasional live performances, she mostly devoted herself to her family and a new career as a clinical hypnotherapist. Ironically, just this month, a new movie about her life debuted. It’s called “I Am Woman.”

Also on Tuesday, pop/country singer/songwriter/actor Mac Davis passed away in Nashville after heart surgery. Davis recorded a number of hits, including “Stop and Smell the Roses,” “Baby, Don’t Get Hooked on Me” and “It’s Hard to Be Humble.” He also wrote many hits for other artists, including Kenny Rogers’ “Something’s Burning,” Gallery’s “I Believe In Music,” the Elvis classics “In The Ghetto,” “Memories” and “A Little Less Conversation,” and even co-wrote the recent Bruno Mars hit, “Young Girls.”

Like Reddy, Davis also hosted his own NBC variety series and acted in movies (“North Dallas Forty,” “The Sting II”) and on stage (“The Will Rogers Follies.”) He was so versatile, he is both a member of the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

* * * *

A personal post-debate note…

Last night, to cure my post-debate headache, I put on Amazon Prime to watch “The Andy Griffith Show.” By sheer dumb luck (the same force that kept my wife Laura from dying when she caught swine flu under Obama/Biden), the next episode up in my rotation was “Politics Begins at Home” (Season 7, Ep. 8.)

In it, Aunt Bea decides to run for city council, not knowing that Andy has already endorsed county clerk Howard Sprague for the seat. She accuses Andy of being a sexist and doesn’t believe his pleas that he just thinks Howard is better qualified for the position. After making his life miserable for a while, she goes to a debate with Howard. When people ask about issues of local importance, like whether to build a new bridge or sewer system, she has the same answer:

If the people want a bridge (or sewer system or whatever), then they shall have a bridge! The people’s will shall always be supreme and lead us through the dark night of politics (or something like that.) Naturally, it gets a lot of applause.

Then Howard keeps explaining, with facts and figures, why those projects would be wastes of taxpayer money and how the same thing could be accomplished much cheaper.

Eventually, Aunt Bea stands up and urges everyone to vote for Howard because he’s obviously the most qualified and she doesn’t know why anyone would vote for her.

If only last night’s debate had gone like that, with Uncle Joe in the role of Aunt Bea.

An extremely important discovery might be lost in the after-debate autopsy: some partially-declassified notes cited by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe in a letter to Sen. Lindsay Graham concerning a briefing in September, 2016, about Russian intel finding Hillary Clinton was trying to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia to distract from her own email scandal. Democrats are dismissing this action by Ratcliffe as pure politics, but a very dependable source, Catherine Herridge, says CBS News (she works there now) was told that investigator John Durham turned up the notes and that they “opened a new track in his probe.”

This may be what Sen. Graham was referring to a few days ago on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES when asked about upcoming revelations.

Of course, this lends even more credence to what we’ve long said, that when it comes to corruption, ALL ROADS LEAD TO HILLARY CLINTON. This thing just keeps getting deeper, and that’s why the investigation never seems to end. But it will end eventually, and Americans deserve to know as much as possible NOW.

Again, two words: INTERIM REPORT.

Ratcliffe declassified three pieces of information for Graham. The first was that in the summer of 2016, the CIA asked the FBI to investigate Hillary's plan to “stir up” a scandal against Trump when he was running against her for President. In late July --- recall that the opening of Crossfire Hurricane was on July 31 --- U.S. intel “obtained insight” into this plan, which was to tie Trump to Putin and the so-called hacking of the DNC emails. One key statement here: “The IC [intelligence community] does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Hard to tell, but I think this is referring to the accuracy of the Russian-hacking story, which has, after all, never been proved.

The second piece of information was that then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama and “other senior national security officials” on this intelligence, including “the alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal by one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

The third piece was an investigative referral, dated September 7, 2016, sent to then-FBI Director Jim Comey and then-FBI deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Note the wording: it doesn’t actually say the plan was a made-up scandal; one could read this and think Trump really was involved with Russian hackers, even though there was no evidence of this.

Ratcliffe writes Graham, “Additional declassification and public disclosure of related intelligence remains under consideration; however the IC welcomes the opportunity to provide a classified briefing with further detail at your convenience."

LegalInsurrection.com has a good write-up on this story, and some of the comments are quite astute as well.

We'll have an update soon. I assume Graham has received or will soon receive that briefing. One big question I hope he’ll be able to answer: whatever happened to that referral?? At the time, Peter Strzok was just wrapping up the “Mid-Year Exam,” a cursory look at Hillary’s CRIMINAL use of a personal email server for all her State Department work, and he must have laughed at the idea of opening another investigation on her. They were going to be much too busy investigating Trump.

For now, I guess the answer to that question is still classified.

But we know Hillary did precisely what these documents are talking about. She and the DNC were the ones who, through intermediary law firm Perkins Coie, hired Christopher Steele to come up with the Trump/Russia “dossier.” Apparently, the CIA, Obama, "other senior national security officials" and the FBI were aware of Hillary’s scheme in late July of 2016. They should have been investigating THAT. Instead, they used her phony "dossier" as evidence...against Trump.

It also occurs to me that this is just one more piece of information the FBI had concerning the “dossier” that they hid from the FISA court. They knew all about the political motivations --- not only on the part of Steele but also Hillary --- and STILL went after Trump. They should have been looking at Hillary, and they knew it.

The one part of this that really raises my eyebrows is the briefing Brennan gave Obama. Knowing what we know about Brennan, I can’t help but think they were meeting to see how they could keep the intel about “Hillary’s plan” under wraps while actually helping to further it, particularly as it concerned the DNC “hacking.” Again, we still have no actual evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, try as the Democrats might to blame them. Julian Assange still has not revealed his source, but he has been adamant that it was not the Russian state. There's also reason to suspect it was an inside job --- not a hacking, but a leaking. Being open to that possibility when we don’t know what happened does not make me a conspiracy theorist.

On the slowness of the declassification, Ric Grenell, who was the acting DNI before Ratcliffe was confirmed, has a message for whoever it is within the intel community refusing to release documents.

He says there’s still a LOT to see about the origins of “Trump/Russia” –- “the very early days of how this investigation was developed.” And he’s “getting really impatient with those individual agencies that know exactly what I’m talking about...that know exactly what they need to release...they’re playing games.”

"The many warning signs [about the “dossier”] were ignored,” he told Liz MacDonald on FOX Business News, “...If we had been able to see the full package of the information instead of having it, really, edited down and pushed into a direction that the head of the FBI clearly wanted it to go in, I think most people would have come to the same conclusion, that Russia propaganda, from the beginning, had infiltrated into the Steele ‘dossier.’

"We’ve gotta make sure that government isn’t weaponized,” he added, going on to cite the release of President Trump’s tax information just the previous day as an example of the bureaucracy being weaponized “against people they don’t like.” If one of your enemies goes to work inside the government, they can use those tools against you, “and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said.

That's exactly what happened to Trump, and even today there must be millions of low-information Americans who still believe he conspired in some way with Russians to become President. No one knows how to use and abuse the tools inside the government like Hillary. She lost the election, but her twisted, fictional "narrative" endures.

Note to Chris Wallace

September 30, 2020

Chris Wallace is taking a lot of flak over his “moderation” (odd to use that word in this context) of Tuesday’s Presidential debate, but one moment in particular rankled many conservatives. It was when he couched President Trump’s ban of “critical race theory” seminars in government offices as banning “racial sensitivity training.”

“Critical race theory” is almost the opposite of racial sensitivity. It’s born out of a Marxist movement to use race to sow division and resentment. It’s fundamentally racist itself, as it singles out white people for public shaming, making them admit to being evil racists even if they’re not. It not only destroys Dr. King’s vision of a colorblind society, it actually promotes racism by insisting that people be judged not by their individual character but by the color of their skin. If it hadn’t been promoted and protected by the left, I would imagine it would have resulted in a lot of lawsuits by now for blatantly violating federal anti-racist workplace laws.

If you want to know more about what “critical race theory” is, where it slithered out of, and the damage it’s doing, Timothy Daughtry has an excellent review of it at Townhall.com. I also recommend that Chris Wallace read it.

Hotheads In Cleveland

September 30, 2020

Hotheads In Cleveland: I always dread having to talk about who “won” a presidential debate because that concept is meaningless. These things aren’t even debates in any classical sense, and both sides will always argue that their “candidate” won. Last night was particularly frustrating to call a winner on because, frankly, it was difficult even to listen to. With both candidates and the moderator constantly yelling over one another, the only real winner was the maker of Excedrin. I know you don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight, but both of these guys brought bazookas.

If you’re a masochist, here’s the entire debate on YouTube.

Here are five “highlights”

And for more entertaining background and commentary, the live blogs by PJ Media and Townhall.com

As for which candidate helped himself the most (and this is totally divorced from issues like honesty, accuracy for vision for America, which barely came up), I hate to say it, but it’s probably Biden, by a hair. Both candidates have already nailed down their bases. Trump voters will vote for Trump, and Democrats would vote for a lampshade as long it wasn’t Trump. This debate needed to sway whoever those unicorns are who remain undecided.

For that, Biden had the lowest bar to clear (proving he could be awake and lucid for 90 minutes in the P.M. hours), and he cleared it, although he got wobbly at times. Trump needed to strike a more controlled “presidential” tone and prove he wasn’t the Twitter bully he’s depicted as, but his combativeness only played into that image.

I know him personally, I’ve campaigned with him, and I’ve interviewed him multiple times. I know that he's very intelligent and he can be charming, thoughtful, gracious and diplomatic. That was the Trump I wish had been at the debate last night. Unfortunately, he brought his WWE persona (perhaps that’s why Chris Wallace was as effective as a WWE referee.) Maybe he intended to throw Biden off-kilter (which did happen at several points), but overall, I think it hurt more than helped.

All the constant loud crosstalk also caused him to miss several big opportunities and distracted from the moments where he did score on Biden. It would’ve been more effective just to let Joe talk and then correct his multiple whoppers clearly. One commentator said Biden came across as old and weak, and Trump seemed to be heckling him. It wasn’t a good image for either of them.

In fact, the worst damage Biden suffered came not from attacks by Trump but things he said (or questions he dodged) himself, and all the hubbub made it easy to miss those. But I’m sure they’ll be excerpted for commercials. I also hope nobody was playing a drinking game every time Biden said the word “plan,” or you’re probably in the morgue now.

Trump inexplicably missed his chance to correct some of Biden’s repetition of blatant lies about him (like the “very fine people” among the white nationalists fake news) and should have focused more on how his economy really is better for all Americans than the Obama/Biden era. It was good that he mentioned they had the slowest recovery since the Depression, but it would’ve been nice to mention that he presided over the first rising wages in many years. He also missed an opening by not laying into Biden’s claim that he would repeal the Trump tax cut (which Dems always claim was “for the rich,” as they do for every tax cut, but repealing it would actually put a big tax hike on the middle class) and raise the capital gains tax by 7 points, both of which would slam the economy. And his vow to create thousands of good-paying “green jobs” by spending trillions of tax dollars should’ve given everyone a chilling sense of déjà vu.

Trump also should’ve been stronger in denouncing rightwing extremists. His comment about the Proud Boys is already giving the media their anti-Trump talking point. It’s ridiculous that he should constantly be asked to do this, but he could’ve pointed out that he’s already done it repeatedly, including when he “totally condemned” the ones in Charlottesville in the fake quote Biden keeps repeating. He could have asked how many times he has to condemn rightwing radicals before Biden finally condemns violent leftist radicals like Antifa who actually are destroying our cities.

Speaking of that, one of Biden’s worst moments came when he claimed that Antifa is not an organization, it’s “an idea.” So good news, Americans: your cities aren’t being burned, your businesses looted and your cops killed by an organized group of far-left radicals. That’s just being done by an amorphous concept!

Biden also might have hurt himself with the far left in his base by distancing himself from the Green New Deal (which he denied his “plan” was, then immediately called it that) and the pact with Bernie. When he was asked why, if he is the Democratic Party as he claimed, he didn’t call blue state mayors and governors and tell them to call up the National Guard and stop the rioting, his excuse that he’s just an out-of-office private citizen was astonishingly weak.

And his silence spoke volumes, both when pressed on whether he would pack the SCOTUS and to name one police organization that has endorsed him. Biden also didn’t come across as having a particularly presidential temperament. He allowed himself to get angry and lash out, calling Trump a “liar,” “racist” and “clown,” and telling him to “shut up,” which doesn’t show much respect for the office. And his claim that the allegations of shady financial deals by his son Hunter have been “debunked” was laughable. “Debunked” is another term I don’t think Democrats understand. They keep applying it to topics they don’t want to talk about without first going through the pesky step of actually debunking them.

Of course, nobody came out of this one unscathed. Chris Wallace is also taking heat from both sides for allowing it to become an uncontrolled shoutfest, although it’s not clear how he could’ve stopped it.

One Trump-supporting pundit who has more fortitude than I do watched it again and claims to have counted over 35 interruptions of Trump by Wallace but none of Biden.

In a way, it’s a sad reflection of where America is in 2020. Not even the two Presidential candidates can talk for 90 minutes without yelling and calling each other names. I think Ari Fleisher got it right when he said, “We’re not electing gladiators and this shouldn’t be a food fight. I think this was a train wreck tonight. Both candidates – too much interruption, too much back-and-forth. And that’s just not good for the country...I just think when you come to a debate you should air the differences, occasionally interrupt, get the extra point in, poke your opponent, but this was way over the top tonight, by both candidates.”

If there is another debate (and Dems are already pushing for Biden to refuse to do any more), let’s hope it’s a Zoom conference. With a mute button.

Morning Edition - September 30

September 30, 2020

MORNING EDITION

September 30, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

VIEW IN BROWSER

HOTHEADS IN CLEVELAND

Hotheads In Cleveland: I always dread having to talk about who “won” a presidential debate because that concept is meaningless. These things aren’t even debates in any classical sense, and both sides will always argue that their “candidate” won. Last night was particularly frustrating to call a winner on because, frankly, it was difficult even to listen to. With both candidates and the moderator constantly yelling over one another, the only real winner was the maker of Excedrin. I know you don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight, but both of these guys brought bazookas.

If you’re a masochist, here’s the entire debate on YouTube.

Here are five “highlights”

And for more entertaining background and commentary, the live blogs by PJ Media and Townhall.com

As for which candidate helped himself the most (and this is totally divorced from issues like honesty, accuracy for vision for America, which barely came up), I hate to say it, but it’s probably Biden, by a hair. Both candidates have already nailed down their bases. Trump voters will vote for Trump, and Democrats would vote for a lampshade as long it wasn’t Trump. This debate needed to sway whoever those unicorns are who remain undecided.

For that, Biden had the lowest bar to clear (proving he could be awake and lucid for 90 minutes in the P.M. hours), and he cleared it, although he got wobbly at times. Trump needed to strike a more controlled “presidential” tone and prove he wasn’t the Twitter bully he’s depicted as, but his combativeness only played into that image.

I know him personally, I’ve campaigned with him, and I’ve interviewed him multiple times. I know that he's very intelligent and he can be charming, thoughtful, gracious and diplomatic. That was the Trump I wish had been at the debate last night. Unfortunately, he brought his WWE persona (perhaps that’s why Chris Wallace was as effective as a WWE referee.) Maybe he intended to throw Biden off-kilter (which did happen at several points), but overall, I think it hurt more than helped.

All the constant loud crosstalk also caused him to miss several big opportunities and distracted from the moments where he did score on Biden. It would’ve been more effective just to let Joe talk and then correct his multiple whoppers clearly. One commentator said Biden came across as old and weak, and Trump seemed to be heckling him. It wasn’t a good image for either of them.

In fact, the worst damage Biden suffered came not from attacks by Trump but things he said (or questions he dodged) himself, and all the hubbub made it easy to miss those. But I’m sure they’ll be excerpted for commercials. I also hope nobody was playing a drinking game every time Biden said the word “plan,” or you’re probably in the morgue now.

Trump inexplicably missed his chance to correct some of Biden’s repetition of blatant lies about him (like the “very fine people” among the white nationalists fake news) and should have focused more on how his economy really is better for all Americans than the Obama/Biden era. It was good that he mentioned they had the slowest recovery since the Depression, but it would’ve been nice to mention that he presided over the first rising wages in many years. He also missed an opening by not laying into Biden’s claim that he would repeal the Trump tax cut (which Dems always claim was “for the rich,” as they do for every tax cut, but repealing it would actually put a big tax hike on the middle class) and raise the capital gains tax by 7 points, both of which would slam the economy. And his vow to create thousands of good-paying “green jobs” by spending trillions of tax dollars should’ve given everyone a chilling sense of déjà vu.

Trump also should’ve been stronger in denouncing rightwing extremists. His comment about the Proud Boys is already giving the media their anti-Trump talking point. It’s ridiculous that he should constantly be asked to do this, but he could’ve pointed out that he’s already done it repeatedly, including when he “totally condemned” the ones in Charlottesville in the fake quote Biden keeps repeating. He could have asked how many times he has to condemn rightwing radicals before Biden finally condemns violent leftist radicals like Antifa who actually are destroying our cities.

Speaking of that, one of Biden’s worst moments came when he claimed that Antifa is not an organization, it’s “an idea.” So good news, Americans: your cities aren’t being burned, your businesses looted and your cops killed by an organized group of far-left radicals. That’s just being done by an amorphous concept!

Biden also might have hurt himself with the far left in his base by distancing himself from the Green New Deal (which he denied his “plan” was, then immediately called it that) and the pact with Bernie. When he was asked why, if he is the Democratic Party as he claimed, he didn’t call blue state mayors and governors and tell them to call up the National Guard and stop the rioting, his excuse that he’s just an out-of-office private citizen was astonishingly weak.

And his silence spoke volumes, both when pressed on whether he would pack the SCOTUS and to name one police organization that has endorsed him. Biden also didn’t come across as having a particularly presidential temperament. He allowed himself to get angry and lash out, calling Trump a “liar,” “racist” and “clown,” and telling him to “shut up,” which doesn’t show much respect for the office. And his claim that the allegations of shady financial deals by his son Hunter have been “debunked” was laughable. “Debunked” is another term I don’t think Democrats understand. They keep applying it to topics they don’t want to talk about without first going through the pesky step of actually debunking them.

Of course, nobody came out of this one unscathed. Chris Wallace is also taking heat from both sides for allowing it to become an uncontrolled shoutfest, although it’s not clear how he could’ve stopped it.

One Trump-supporting pundit who has more fortitude than I do watched it again and claims to have counted over 35 interruptions of Trump by Wallace but none of Biden.

In a way, it’s a sad reflection of where America is in 2020. Not even the two Presidential candidates can talk for 90 minutes without yelling and calling each other names. I think Ari Fleisher got it right when he said, “We’re not electing gladiators and this shouldn’t be a food fight. I think this was a train wreck tonight. Both candidates – too much interruption, too much back-and-forth. And that’s just not good for the country...I just think when you come to a debate you should air the differences, occasionally interrupt, get the extra point in, poke your opponent, but this was way over the top tonight, by both candidates.”

If there is another debate (and Dems are already pushing for Biden to refuse to do any more), let’s hope it’s a Zoom conference. With a mute button.

TO LEAVE ME A COMMENT, GO TO MY WEBSITE HERE>>>

Learn more about RevenueStripe...
 

REMEMBER SWINE FLU

Here’s why Biden wants to talk about COVID-19 but not swine flu, which happened under his and Obama’s watch, and which his own campaign health advisor said could’ve killed millions of Americans thanks to their lax response, if it had happened to be more contagious. Well, a lot of people did catch it (including my writer Laura Ainsworth, who’s still suffering from scarred lungs years later) and some people did die of it…including 13 times more children than have died of COVID-19.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

With liberal politicians such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom using their magic pens to declare that all cars will be electric by 2035, it’s time for someone to remind them that they claim to believe in “Science!” and not the power of wishes. This article points out that with the rapid advances in fuel efficiency and emissions reduction – and the seldom-discussed massive costs, pollution and environmental damage from building a whole new power generating infrastructure to charge hundreds of millions of battery-powered cars – it’s likely that by 2035, gas-powered cars could be more efficient and less polluting than EVs. And they would cost far less, meaning people wouldn’t need government subsidies to buy one.

The problem: all those scientific advances hinge on manufacturers knowing that there will be a market for their cars so they will continue research and development. But why would they put all that R&D money into improving a product that politicians have already declared will be banned by 2035? In that regard, liberals enacting their fantasy about magically-charged electric cars into law may actually kill the development of a superior and less expensive technology.

This is why it’s better to let markets make decisions than politicians who know as much about automotive technology as they do about ethics.

MODERN DAY MIRACLE

Check out this amazing story about a Columbian woman who escaped from a viciously abusive partner, was missing for two years, and was recently found alive, floating in the ocean over a mile off the coast. She had been adrift for eight hours and was suffering from exhaustion and hypothermia, but she was alive. She told her rescuers, “I was born again. God did not want me to die.”

Learn more about RevenueStripe...
 

CORRECTION: REVEALED: SPECIAL COUNSEL PLAYED GAME OF "COLLUSION 'CLUE'"

(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.

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)

 



You Might Like
 
 
 
Learn more about RevenueStripe...


To ensure delivery, please add [email protected] to your address book.

The message you have just received was delivered by Mike Huckabee and includes advertising powered by PowerInbox.  These ads help bring this newsletter to you free of charge. 

 


LIKE THIS EMAIL?
Forward it to your friends, and let them know they can sign up here.


SECTIONS

News | Video| Newsletters | TV Show |


You received this message because you signed up for Mike Huckabee's morning newsletter.

Low Blow

September 29, 2020

It’s become depressingly common for politicians to tar their opponents as Nazis, fascists or “literally Hitler.” This is not only slanderous, it’s reprehensible because it “normalizes” such characterizations and dilutes the meaning and horror of what actually happened in the Holocaust, comparing the death of six million Jews to a petty political disagreement.

Sadly, Joe Biden tried to put a new spin on this low blow by comparing President Trump to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, and his claim that if you tell a big lie often enough, the people will believe it.

This is the latest and ugliest manifestation of the canard that Trump lies all the time (you know, about the FBI being out to get him, about not actually colluding with Russia, etc.) What makes it even more jaw-dropping is that it's being used as a reason for why we need to elect Honest Joe Biden, who aside from his family’s shady financial dealings has repeatedly changed positions, denied he knew about the anti-Trump plot that we know was discussed at a meeting he attended, and who has seen his presidential aspirations repeatedly sunk by incidents of plagiarism and lying about his own background, including his academic background. The latest example is one for which nobody’s been able to find any evidence, and I’m hardly surprised.

Delaware State just confirmed that they can find no proof of Biden’s 2019 claim that he attended that school. He was the commencement speaker twice and got an honorary degree, but no, he didn’t attend a historically black college.

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate, where I wonder if Joe will channel Steve Martin and tell the audience, “I started out as a poor black child…”

About a month ago, I offered my suggestion for what President Trump should say as an opening statement in a “debate” with Democrat candidate Joe Biden. At that time, I thought Biden would weasel out somehow and be a no-show, so my idea involved setting up an empty chair or podium next to Trump's and letting Trump go on with whatever he wanted to say.

Maybe Biden actually will be there after all, though I agree with Trump that they both should be tested for performance-enhancing drugs. If Biden drops out at the last minute and the debate doesn’t happen, I still hope Trump will use the statement below, or something very similar, in a paid TV ad and online.

The words seem even timelier now. A few things have happened, most notably the death of Justice Ginsburg, but opinions about Trump tend not to change much. Biden clearly intends to avoid specifics on issues, as he can’t keep them straight anyway, and just attack Trump to motivate “swing” voters to vote AGAINST TRUMP. Most Biden supporters really don’t know much about their own candidate –- his fading mind, his serious scandals, his lying and plagiarizing, his creepiness with women and girls, his singular lack of accomplishment, his malleability by the far-left and much more –- or even their radicalized party; they just know they don’t like Trump. And for that reason, they’re ready to put into power the worst group of people imaginable.

The “Trump” they hate is a fictional monster created by the left. (This is also being done right now to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.) So I wanted the President to address the way voters feel about him, and, most of all, to show how dreadful for our country the alternative would be.

So here it is, President Trump’s opening statement.

"My fellow Americans, I love my country –- I love America, with all my heart. I always have. And I feel really bad right now, because millions of Americans, just because they don’t like ME –- don’t like my style, don’t like my tweets, don’t like things they think I’ve said (most of which are twisted-up versions that convey something I never intended) –- are ready to vote for anybody but me. Anybody. I mean……..ANYBODY. That’s what “never-Trumper” means, after all; I know that. And THAT means, right now, this country is in big trouble.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans might unwittingly put into power a radical political machine that will decimate their most basic freedoms, with ruthless, violent tactics and a long list of demands that will change America into something unrecognizable, probably forever. (Some of this has been a long time coming, but because the virus hit, they’re jumping on the crisis as a way to take control quickly.)

"Because they don’t like ME, some Americans might unwittingly offer inroads to groups that literally want to destroy American cities --- that are ALREADY destroying American cities, GREAT American cities.

“Because they don’t like ME, some in our government abused our own justice system to try to bring me down, and if they get away with what they did, mark my word, they’ll do it again to the next leader they don’t like. They went so far as to accuse me, with no evidence at all except for what was falsified, of working as an agent of Russia. It was crazy –- 2020 will go down in history as “the year America went crazy.” Who needs Russia to interfere in our elections when we’ve got our own bureaucracy to do it, as well as various outside influences with virtually limitless resources, pouring money into radical leftist anti-American groups?

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans ignore all that I did --- before the virus arrived from China to at least temporarily undo much of it --- to bring the economy back like gangbusters after years of weak semi-recovery. They ignore the incredible benefit that came out of that to hard-working Americans, men and women, of all races, in all walks of life.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans even ignore the legitimate work of some doctors and researchers because they think it’s more important to believe I’m wrong. And they forget that I was the one to stop incoming travel from China and Europe, which likely saved thousands of American lives, when my opponents ridiculed that.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans paint me as someone I don’t even know. Really, I don’t even recognize myself from what they say. If I met that person, I wouldn’t like him, either! They’ve said I only care about myself, when that is such a lie. I know, I know, it’s just politics. Say whatever you need to, right? (Like Kamala, she knows all about that.) But those of you who don’t like me need to understand: the object of your hatred is a phantom, something made up. My own style –- which can be misinterpreted, I know –- may have helped fixate that in your mind, as I’m obviously not a slick politician, but it’s still false.

“I don’t care a whole lot about that part of it, because I knew when I got into politics that it would be rough. I got into it anyway because I love my country and had a beautiful vision of what we could do. I kind of expected the lies from the politicians, but the media –- you have a lot to answer for. Because YOU don’t like me, you have become a shameful propaganda machine for my opponents. You are to journalism what potted meat is to chateaubriand. And it doesn’t seem to matter to you how this might damage our country in the long run. You just wanted Americans to hate me.

“And now, because you did your job and some of them DO hate me, they may be on the verge of putting into power a group of people, those on the far left, who don’t know what in hell they are doing. I mean, they don’t. We can all see they don’t, unless pure anarchy really is what they want. They’ve shown they can’t run cities. They can’t run states. They won’t enforce the law. They’ll gladly take away your police AND your means to defend yourself.

And everywhere they look, they see racism that in most cases isn’t even there, except in their own minds. They don’t understand that in our country, in just the past several decades, most hearts and minds have changed drastically about race, which is fantastic. And it was only going to get better. It’s as if for some reason they weren’t comfortable with that and wanted to do something, quite deliberately, to make it worse again. I wonder why that is?

These people don’t care about law and order. They don’t care about your personal freedom. They don’t care about learning from history; they want to rewrite it to fit their own agenda, which is to tear down the results of hundreds of years of hard work and incredible advancement.

“Now, simply because some Americans don’t like ME, America is in jeopardy of losing everything that makes it...America. I want you to be aware of this when you cast your vote. PLEASE don’t put our beloved country into the hands of people who are set on destroying its very foundation, and I am not exaggerating, not one bit. I love this country. I’ve showed you the kinds of things I can do for this country, to make it better for all. We’ll get through this virus, and you know I’m the one who needs to be in charge of the vibrant recovery we’ll need afterwards.

So I’m asking for your vote. Remember, it has to be a landslide vote that can be counted right away because so many people will be mailing in their ballots –- vote in person! –-and it has be decisive to save this country from even more chaos. More is at stake now than almost ever before in the history of our country, and I know you realize that. Thank you with all my heart, and God bless America.

Voter-Fraud In Minnesota

September 29, 2020

Project Veritas just released a new undercover video expose of alleged voter fraud tied to Rep. Ilhan Omar. It involves accusations of vote buying and ballot harvesting to keep Omar and other members of the DFL (Democratic-Farmers-Labor Party) in power in Minnesota. This is a must-read, and more details are at the link.

Just a few lowlights: alleged ballot harvester Liban Mohamed is on video showing piles of ballots in his car and bragging about harvesting 300 that day for his brother, Minneapolis City Council member Jamal Osman (state law bars anyone from acting as a “designated agent” for more than three absentee voters.)

An anonymous whistleblower also claims that before the August primary, Omar’s ballot harvesters went to the Charles Horn Towers public housing complex and took every ballot from seniors there. She said, “They have perfected this system…They will tell you we are applying for your ballot. They take a picture of your Social Security and your driver’s license. They have a database. When the ballot comes, they track it. Sometimes, they make fake emails. They track the ballot. Then they come and pick up the ballot, unopened…They don’t give a (bleep) about any Somali…The DFL wants to win this state at all costs…and the victims is the Somali people.”

She also claims that young people and women were paid for their votes in the primary and that campaign operatives “were carrying bags of money…When you vote and they mark you off, then you get in the van, they give you the cash.”

Read the whole thing and get justifiably and non-partisanly furious. These tactics not only put corrupt politicians in power over all of us, they also cancel out legitimate votes and disenfranchise real voters. I have little faith in Minneapolis officials to investigate this (they’re too busy defunding their police department), but maybe it will finally convince FBI Director Christopher Wray that vote fraud really is a problem worth dealing with.

Nominated

September 29, 2020

Saturday, President Trump made it official, nominating Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.

As you can see in the linked article, Democratic leaders are already resorting to their standard playbook: foaming and fulminating, citing the Constitution incorrectly and accusing the nominee of wanting to take health care away from American families (as the mother of seven kids, including a special needs child, obviously would.) And of course, we’re already hearing from some Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (whose previous government experience for the Senate was one term in the House) that Barrett is “clearly unfit for the Supreme Court.”

So in advance of the hearings, which Republicans hope to wrap up by October 26, I thought you might like to know a bit about her resume. She got a magna cum laude BA in English lit from Rhodes College and was inducted into the honors fraternity Phi Beta Kappa. She went on to study law at Notre Dame on a full scholarship, was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and graduated summa cum laude and first in her class. She spent two years as a law clerk, including for SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, and three years in private law practice, including doing research for the historic Bush v. Gore case.

She became a law professor, teaching first at George Washington University and then Notre Dame, where she received the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” award three times. Here’s an article by three former students of varying political views who all agree that she’s the embodiment of integrity and virtue, she “treats every person with whom she interacts with the utmost respect, kindness, and warmth” and “the nation could not ask for a more qualified candidate":

And here is a Notre Dame law school colleague who disagrees with her political views but says her “intellect and heart are unrivaled,” and that she is brilliant, humble, loving, kind, a principled and careful judge and “one of the most generous people I have ever met,” as well as “a leading constitutional law scholar and one of our best, and most challenging, teachers.”

She’s continued teaching law, even while serving as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and raising seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome. She also personally went to bat for a blind student who was having problems and mentored her for three years. She recently completed service as the first blind Supreme Court law clerk in US history.

If that’s what Democrats consider “unqualified for office,” what would they call AOC?

Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family are already receiving scurrilous personal attacks. We’ve seen a New York Times writer promote anti-Catholic bigotry against her

And a CBS contributor and self-styled “anti-racist” and “anti-capitalist” scraped a little slime off the bottom of the barrel by suggesting she’s trying to hide her racism by adopting two black children from Haiti, comparing her family to “white colonizers” who “’civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of white people.”

Disgusting. So he’s fighting racism by condemning multi-racial families, in the way that college radicals are doing it by re-segregating campuses. What’s next on the agenda for “progressives,” bringing back bans on miscegenation? (FYI: If I were a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t bring up the subject of white Americans exploiting Haitians.)

And of course, we’re seeing this incredibly brilliant and accomplished woman smeared as a nut because of her religion by people who know jack squat about any religion. They actually think her Catholic church, People of Praise, which used to refer to women leaders as “handmaids,” inspired their favorite fear-fiction, “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which was specifically refuted by the author. They apparently don’t know that the term is not a reference to subjugating women. It refers to Jesus’ mother Mary, who told the Angel Gabriel, "I am the handmaiden (servant) of the Lord; let it be to me according to your Word" (Luke 1:38.)

But this type of slander is so desperate and so transparent, I have faith in the American people to see through it easily and reject it thoroughly.

In contrast to this cartoonish garbage, take a look at these heartwarming photos of Judge Barrett and her beautiful, loving family at the nomination announcement. A closeup crop of her youngest daughter looking up at her with awe and admiration not only became an Internet sensation, it should become an iconic image for feminists who want young girls to be inspired to greatness. Unfortunately, they only mean greatness as they define it.

Many commentators pointed out that Barrett is a living rejection of the clichés of modern feminism: she’s reached the highest levels of academia and her profession while raising seven children and enjoying a happy marriage to a man whom she thanked and credited at the nomination, saying he asks her every day what he can do to help her, even though he has a busy career of his own.

Liberal feminists spent generations fighting for women to be allowed to think, say or be whatever they wanted, and now, they want to dictate what it is that women are allowed to think, say or be. Sounds like they’re the ones who inspired “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Kudos Where They're Due

September 29, 2020

I don’t have much in common politically with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, but on ABC’s “This Week,” he made some comments that deserve to be taken seriously by his fellow Democrats.

Other Democrats are throwing ridiculous allegations at Judge Amy Coney Barrett (including claiming she’s totally unqualified and suggesting she’s a racist for…adopting two black children?), and threatening to try to disrupt and delay her confirmation hearing with procedural tactics and general tantrum-throwing. But Durbin admitted that Democrats have no power to stop her confirmation, that "we can slow it down perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most. But we can't stop the outcome."

Instead, he said, "I've met with every Supreme Court nominee since I've been in the Senate. I will extend that courtesy, if she requests it, for at least a socially distanced, safe meeting, perhaps over the phone. I want to be respectful. We disagree on some things. And in terms of participating in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I'll be there to do my job."

Even more stunning, Durbin publicly refuted Hillary Clinton’s plea to Joe Biden not to concede the election under any circumstance (like she’s apparently never conceded that she lost in 2016, and this is what that kind of denial of reality does to your mind.) Durbin said, "I respect her, I like her. But I think she's just flat-out wrong. The election itself is going to be announced, the winner will be announced at some point. If we are going to maintain a democracy, peaceful transition through an election is the only way to do it. Whoever the winner is, if it is clear and legal, that should be announced and the other party should concede." (This is assuming that Hillary was not talking about dragging out the results while enough new ballots could be “found” to win.)

Durbin’s words are a refreshing throwback to a time when political differences took a backseat to the good of the nation, and when all Americans observed the great traditions that have made America such an exceptional nation, like accepting losses, respecting other people’s right to hold different views, working across the aisle and observing a peaceful transfer of power after elections. One of the silliest stories of the past month has been the accusation that if Trump lost, he might not accept the outcome and that would be a “constitutional crisis.” Would it be worse than all the Democrats who still haven’t accepted that they lost four years ago, and are willing to burn the Constitution over it, from blowing up the Electoral College to packing the Supreme Court? They’re like children who scream that no race is “fair” unless they win it.

These days, too many people not only ignore those traditions, they deny that America even has great traditions or is an exceptional nation at all. Yet the things they would replace our traditions with would reduce us to the level of “world’s biggest banana republic.”

May Dick Durbin’s wise words (and courage to speak them aloud) sink into his fellow Democrats’ craniums and inspire some long-overdue soul-searching. At long last, there’s an adult in the room. (Or at least there was until he started endorsing some of the proposed changes Democrats would make if they win back the White House and Senate, but we can all save him from himself by voting to prevent that.)

MIA Candidates

September 28, 2020

Many people are talking about Joe Biden’s “home in bed by 9 a.m.” campaign, but there are also questions about why his running mate Kamala Harris is equally MIA. She hasn’t held a press conference since Biden picked her 45 days ago. Does she really need two months to “prepare for the debate” with Mike Pence?

But Harris did finally speak out in public this week. Americans' support of BLM is plummeting and polls show people are sick of violent rioters and bullying thugs masquerading as “peaceful protesters” and want more police to restore law and order. Even Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi finally felt forced to speak out against the lawlessness.

However, during an appearance at the NAACP’s national convention Thursday, Harris was effusive in her praise of Black Lives Matter and the ongoing protests. Harris praised the “brilliance” and “impact” of BLM, adding, "I actually believe that Black Lives Matter has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system." She also hailed the protests as “an essential component of evolution in our country," declaring, “the people's voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly -- and obviously peacefully." I'm sure the DNC was relieved that she tacked on that last part as an afterthought.

Maybe this will give a clue as to why the Democrats have been keeping her hidden and would rather have nobody speak for their ticket than her. She gives away what the real governing philosophy will be if they can just get enough voters to take in the Joe Biden Trojan Horse.

"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.

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.

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.

PRAYER MARCH 2020

Saturday, tens of thousands of people came to Washington, DC (on their own dime, not bused in by any deep pockets activists) to join the Rev. Franklin Graham for Prayer March 2020.

Some in the mainstream media mischaracterized it as a rally of Trump supporters, but aside from some MAGA caps (which actually stood for "Make America Godly Again"), it was not. In fact, the organizers requested that there be no political signs. And even though (whether by coincidence or Divine design) President Trump was nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the SCOTUS on the same day very close by, this was a nonpartisan event for anyone who was concerned about the direction our country is heading. As Rev. Graham said, "Let's exalt the name of Jesus Christ. Let's call upon the name of Almighty God. Repent of our sins and ask God to heal our land. And that He would work in the hearts of our politicians.”

If you weren’t able to attend, you can read more, see photos and watch the replay of the live stream on video (hosted by Cissie Graham Lynch and myself) at this link.

And here is more information on Prayer March 2020 and quotes from the speeches.

MUST-READ MINNESOTA VOTER FRAUD

Project Veritas just released a new undercover video expose of alleged voter fraud tied to Rep. Ilhan Omar. It involves accusations of vote buying and ballot harvesting to keep Omar and other members of the DFL (Democratic-Farmers-Labor Party) in power in Minnesota. This is a must-read, and more details are at the link.

Just a few lowlights: alleged ballot harvester Liban Mohamed is on video showing piles of ballots in his car and bragging about harvesting 300 that day for his brother, Minneapolis City Council member Jamal Osman (state law bars anyone from acting as a “designated agent” for more than three absentee voters.)

An anonymous whistleblower also claims that before the August primary, Omar’s ballot harvesters went to the Charles Horn Towers public housing complex and took every ballot from seniors there. She said, “They have perfected this system…They will tell you we are applying for your ballot. They take a picture of your Social Security and your driver’s license. They have a database. When the ballot comes, they track it. Sometimes, they make fake emails. They track the ballot. Then they come and pick up the ballot, unopened…They don’t give a (bleep) about any Somali…The DFL wants to win this state at all costs…and the victims is the Somali people.”

She also claims that young people and women were paid for their votes in the primary and that campaign operatives “were carrying bags of money…When you vote and they mark you off, then you get in the van, they give you the cash.”

Read the whole thing and get justifiably and non-partisanly furious. These tactics not only put corrupt politicians in power over all of us, they also cancel out legitimate votes and disenfranchise real voters. I have little faith in Minneapolis officials to investigate this (they’re too busy defunding their police department), but maybe it will finally convince FBI Director Christopher Wray that vote fraud really is a problem worth dealing with.

HYPOCRISY ALERT

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is under assault for having religious beliefs that leftists think will color her decisions. She already answered this attack brilliantly last year at Hillsdale College. Click this link and must-read her entire response:

In a nutshell, she pointed out that even people with no religious beliefs have personal moral convictions, and setting them aside is “a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.” But it’s the job of a judge to set aside personal convictions and follow the law and the Constitution. She said it’s “a dangerous road to go down to say that only religious people would not be able to separate out moral convictions from their duty.”

In this one response, she not only shot down the loudest leftist objection to her (religious bigotry), but if they continue to press it, then they’ll be admitting that they want judges who don’t make rulings based on their personal beliefs. That would be both a tacit endorsement of non-activist judges and a rejection of all the reasons for which they are currently deifying Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

KUDOS WHERE THEY'RE DUE:

I don’t have much in common politically with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, but on ABC’s “This Week,” he made some comments that deserve to be taken seriously by his fellow Democrats.

Other Democrats are throwing ridiculous allegations at Judge Amy Coney Barrett (including claiming she’s totally unqualified and suggesting she’s a racist for…adopting two black children?), and threatening to try to disrupt and delay her confirmation hearing with procedural tactics and general tantrum-throwing. But Durbin admitted that Democrats have no power to stop her confirmation, that "we can slow it down perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most. But we can't stop the outcome."

Instead, he said, "I've met with every Supreme Court nominee since I've been in the Senate. I will extend that courtesy, if she requests it, for at least a socially distanced, safe meeting, perhaps over the phone. I want to be respectful. We disagree on some things. And in terms of participating in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I'll be there to do my job."

Even more stunning, Durbin publicly refuted Hillary Clinton’s plea to Joe Biden not to concede the election under any circumstance (like she’s apparently never conceded that she lost in 2016, and this is what that kind of denial of reality does to your mind.) Durbin said, "I respect her, I like her. But I think she's just flat-out wrong. The election itself is going to be announced, the winner will be announced at some point. If we are going to maintain a democracy, peaceful transition through an election is the only way to do it. Whoever the winner is, if it is clear and legal, that should be announced and the other party should concede." (This is assuming that Hillary was not talking about dragging out the results while enough new ballots could be “found” to win.)

Durbin’s words are a refreshing throwback to a time when political differences took a backseat to the good of the nation, and when all Americans observed the great traditions that have made America such an exceptional nation, like accepting losses, respecting other people’s right to hold different views, working across the aisle and observing a peaceful transfer of power after elections. One of the silliest stories of the past month has been the accusation that if Trump lost, he might not accept the outcome and that would be a “constitutional crisis.” Would it be worse than all the Democrats who still haven’t accepted that they lost four years ago, and are willing to burn the Constitution over it, from blowing up the Electoral College to packing the Supreme Court? They’re like children who scream that no race is “fair” unless they win it.

These days, too many people not only ignore those traditions, they deny that America even has great traditions or is an exceptional nation at all. Yet the things they would replace our traditions with would reduce us to the level of “world’s biggest banana republic.”

May Dick Durbin’s wise words (and courage to speak them aloud) sink into his fellow Democrats’ craniums and inspire some long-overdue soul-searching. At long last, there’s an adult in the room. (Or at least there was until he started endorsing some of the proposed changes Democrats would make if they win back the White House and Senate, but we can all save him from himself by voting to prevent that.)

FOOLS AND THEIR MONEY DEPT:

The founder of Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta, Sir Maejor Page (not a typo), was arrested by the FBI on fraud and money-laundering charges for allegedly misappropriating $200,000 in donations. He’d pledged to use those donations “for George Floyd.” The FBI says he used them for food, dining, entertainment, clothing, furniture, a home security system, tailored suits and accessories and a $112,000 house (all for himself, not for George Floyd.)

PJ Media points out that, to be fair, the local branch of BLM had already branded him a con man, a camera hog and a “dangerous person with violent tendencies.” While those sound like job qualifications for many of today’s “community organizers,” they’d already thrown his group out of the Atlanta BLM branch.

That story also points out that in just three months this spring and summer, Page’s Facebook page raked in $466,000 in donations, and as PJ Media points out, it’s unclear if any of it went to any charitable endeavor at all. You might think, “Well, at least it improved one black man’s life,” but check out the Fox News link. I know nothing about his family background, but judging from his mugshot, he looks whiter than I am.

"THE MORE YOU KNOW..."

There are a lot of terms that today’s leftists toss around that they don’t seem to grasp the meaning of, like “Nazi,” “fascist,” “gender,” “impeachable offense,” “illegitimate” and “literally.” We’ll have to add “unprecedented” to the list. Every time Trump does something that many other Presidents have done, they thunder that it’s “unprecedented!”

The latest example is for him to nominate a SCOTUS Justice in an election year. As an example, I’ll cite one of the left's most prominent thinkers, actress Alyssa Milano, who tweeted, “Never before in our nation’s history has a Supreme Court Justice been nominated and installed while an election is already underway. It defied every precedent and every expectation of a nation where the people are sovereign and the rule of law reigns.”

Georgia GOP Chairman David Shaffer responded, “Except when Woodrow Wilson replaced the Chief Justice who resigned to run against him in 1916 or when Dwight Eisenhower appointed William Brennan three weeks before the 1956 election or when it happened a half dozen other times during a Presidential election year.”

The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin dug even deeper into the history. He writes, "There have been 29 such (election year) vacancies, and Presidents made nominations for all of them, in most cases promptly…In 19 cases, the President’s party held the Senate; 17 of the 19 vacancies were filled, the exceptions being the bipartisan filibuster against Lyndon Johnson’s nominees in 1968 and George Washington’s withdrawal and resubmission in the next Congress of a nominee who was ineligible to be confirmed (he’d voted to create the Court, and the Constitution made him wait until there was a new Congress seated). Nine of those 17 were confirmed before the election, and eight after. Three were confirmed in lame duck post-election sessions even though the President had just lost reelection.

If the Democrats would like some help in understanding what “unprecedented” actually means, I’ll use it in a sentence: “It would be unprecedented if one of today’s leftist celebrities did any research before tweeting.”

TWEET OF THE DAY!

From Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich.

“Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe admits on Fox News Sunday that there is nothing unconstitutional about President Trump nominating Barrett and Senate moving forward and then says, ‘But there are a lot of things in the constitution that are stupid.’ Sums up the left’s view well.”

POTENTIAL GREAT NEWS

Potential Great News: doctors in Florida think they might have found a combination of drugs that cures the COVID-19 (Chinese) coronavirus with nearly 100% effectiveness. The big question: will this finally entice Joe Biden to come out of his basement?

LOW BLOW

It’s become depressingly common for politicians to tar their opponents as Nazis, fascists or “literally Hitler.” This is not only slanderous, it’s reprehensible because it “normalizes” such characterizations and dilutes the meaning and horror of what actually happened in the Holocaust, comparing the death of six million Jews to a petty political disagreement.

Sadly, Joe Biden tried to put a new spin on this low blow by comparing President Trump to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, and his claim that if you tell a big lie often enough, the people will believe it.

This is the latest and ugliest manifestation of the canard that Trump lies all the time (you know, about the FBI being out to get him, about not actually colluding with Russia, etc.) What makes it even more jaw-dropping is that it's being used as a reason for why we need to elect Honest Joe Biden, who aside from his family’s shady financial dealings has repeatedly changed positions, denied he knew about the anti-Trump plot that we know was discussed at a meeting he attended, and who has seen his presidential aspirations repeatedly sunk by incidents of plagiarism and lying about his own background, including his academic background. The latest example is one for which nobody’s been able to find any evidence, and I’m hardly surprised.

Delaware State just confirmed that they can find no proof of Biden’s 2019 claim that he attended that school. He was the commencement speaker twice and got an honorary degree, but no, he didn’t attend a historically black college.

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate, where I wonder if Joe will channel Steve Martin and tell the audience, “I started out as a poor black child…”

DAILY BIBLE VERSE

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.

(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.

I’ve said for a long time that even though the “7th Floor” at the FBI was thoroughly partisan and out to get Trump, the rank-and-file agents and administrators were generally good people just trying to follow the rules and do their jobs. As it turns out, this observation was right. FBI text messages and internal notes finally obtained by Michael Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and included in her latest federal court filing show agents’ enormous concern with what was going on.

Sure, we’ve read plenty of anti-Trump messages from those involved in “Crossfire Hurricane,” but these newly declassified communications are arguably worse, in that they show a (to use a word currently in vogue) SYSTEMIC problem at the FBI that was so serious and so obvious, other agents –- their names still redacted –- were worried about the potential fallout.

Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway reported this on Thursday in THE FEDERALIST, under the headline “’Trump was right’: Explosive new FBI texts detail internal furor over handling of ‘Crossfire Hurricane” Investigation.”

Here’s something new: The same day that CNN leaked that President-elect Trump had been briefed by then-FBI Director James Comey about a (bogus) story in the Steele “dossier,” one agent texted another, “We all went out and purchased professional liability insurance.”

“Holy crap,” another agent texted back. “All the analysts, too?”

"Yep,” the first one texted. “All the folks at the Agency as well.” He went on to say, “...I think the concern...was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece.”

Earlier, in August of 2016, one FBI analyst remarked, “doing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a Clinton presidency.”

No kidding.

Another text from October of 2016 said, “[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories.”

And here’s a particularly prescient text: “I’m [telling you], man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked.”

Indeed.

We'd thought that the order to close down the Flynn investigation came on January 4, 2017, the day before the infamous Oval Office meeting with Comey, Brennan, Biden, Yates, Rice and, of course, President Obama. It turns out that the original order to close the case may have come as early as November 6, 2016, Election Day. (NOTE: I’m curious to know if this came very late in the day, after they realized to their horror that Trump had won.) One agent texted, “We have some loose ends to tie up, and we all need to meet to discuss what to do with each case - he said shut down Razor.” (“Razor” is code for the Flynn case, which was part of "Crossfire Hurricane.")

"So glad they’re closing Razor,” another agent responded.

Another shocking revelation in these texts: To spy on Flynn’s finances, the FBI used not regular subpoenas, but what they call national security letters (NSL), which receive NO JUDICIAL REVIEW. They were doing this weeks after the initial order to shut the case down. Agents who knew better were talking amongst themselves about this…

"The decision to NSL finances bought him time,” one agent says. (We don’t know who “him” is.)

"What do we expect to get from an NSL [?],” was the reply. “We put out traces, tripwire to the community and nothing.”

"Bingo, another agent replied. “”So what’s an NSL going to do[?] No content.”

"Haha this is a nightmare,” another agent said. The conversation goes on similarly.

In one series of texts sent the same day as the big Oval Office meeting, one agent says that “Trump was right” when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his transition briefings on so-called “Russian hacking” so they could cook up evidence against him. (Was he ever.)

Here are more of the agents’ texts from the red-letter day of January 5 (some punctuation fixed):

"So razor is going to stay open?”

"Yep. Crimes report being drafted.”

"F.”

"What’s the word on how Obama’s briefing went?”

"Don’t know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and it’s a madhouse.”

"Jesus. Trump was right. Still not put together...why do we do this to ourselves? What is wrong with these people??”

The texts even reveal that agents suspected the leaks about Flynn’s calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak were leaked by the White House…

"FYI – someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ [Wall Street Journal].”

"I’m sorry to hear that.” (Sarcasm alert.) I’ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify that.”

"Published this morning by Ignatius.” (That’s a reference to WASHINGTON POST writer David Ignatius.)

"It’s got to be someone on the staff. PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] staff. Or WH seniors.”

If you’re not up to date on the Flynn case, Hemingway and Davis review that as well, including the bizarre efforts of Judge Sullivan to keep it going despite Barr’s decision not to prosecute. But the real news here is the texting FBI agents were doing that shows they knew exactly what this was –- a political hit job --- and they were concerned enough to take out liability policies! We don’t get to see those names, but John Durham does, and let’s hope he’s talked with every one of them --- especially the one who wrote about "scrambling for info to support certain things."

......

As if this weren’t enough, we’ve also learned that Steele's sub-source for the Steele “dossier” had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 for suspected contact with Russian intel officers. In other words, they thought he might be a RUSSIAN SPY. This is something else they should’ve disclosed to the FISA court but didn’t.

We know this now because the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into it, and Sen. Lindsay Graham, who chairs the committee, wrote to AG Barr to request expedited information about the reliability of Christopher Steele as a source. Barr responded by directing the FBI to (at last) declassify this material.

Barr said he’d consulted with Durham and determined that revealing this information would not compromise the ongoing investigation. So it's logical to assume that Durham has already looked into it.

Again, the bitter irony: Democrats have accused Trump for years of “colluding” with Russians, when it’s the Hillary campaign that did that very thing.

Sen. Graham appeared Thursday night on HANNITY to summarize the findings. He said he hopes this is a “game-changer,” but given the slant of the media, I doubt it will change much of anything until we see some indictments, whenever that might be.

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats unveiled proposed legislation called the “Protecting Our Democracy Act,” which would severely curtail Presidential powers. Of course, they made no secret of the fact that it’s aimed specifically at President Trump, because long-term thinking is not their strong suit.

Boy, where to begin? First, the USA isn’t a democracy, it’s a representative republic, so they don’t even know what kind of government they’re a part of running. And I’ve always assumed they don’t know what the Constitution is, but it provides for three co-equal branches of the government. Congress doesn't have the power to limit the President’s powers, and if they try, he’ll either ignore them or take them to the Supreme Court, and guess how that will work out, especially a couple of months from now.

At least it’s a relief to know that for all the public gasbagging they did about this, they’re not actually dumb enough to vote on it and send it to the Senate, which they know would stomp it like a cockroach. Like virtually everything else the Democrats have done since taking over the House in 2018, it’s an empty piece of political theater designed solely to smear President Trump. Wouldn’t it have been nice if they’d taken the time and energy they wasted on this political mudball and instead put it into working with Trump and the Senate to pass another coronavirus relief bill? This is what Americans who are hurting from the shutdowns get for Halloween instead: a trick instead of a treat.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that sales of gas-powered cars will be banned in the state by 2035. Why didn’t he cut out the middleman and just order the climate to stop changing?

Put aside the fact that by 2035, Newsom will have been out of office for at least eight and hopefully 12 years. For those of us who are so old we remember when Jimmy Kimmel was funny, this grandiose order elicits an amusing sense of déjà vu.

For decades now, California’s liberal politicians have been belching out laws and policies, orders and incentives, all to try to force all the state’s residents into electric cars. Their utter cluelessness about how markets work have doomed all these efforts to humiliating failure. They’ve mandated that a certain percentage of cars sold had to be electric by a certain time, and forgot that first, consumers had to want to buy them. They’ve mandated that a certain number of EVs had to be on every car lot, which forced makers and dealers to waste space with cars that gathered dust as consumers purchased SUVs. They’ve offered rebates, carpool lanes and other incentives to try to bribe people to buy them.

They previously used their imagined godlike powers to declare that there would be 5 million EVs on the road in California by the end of the last decade. They reached 11% of that goal.

The fact is, Californians didn’t want electric cars. They do a LOT of driving, and they get stuck in loooooong traffic jams on overcrowded freeways (another reason to thank their liberal politicians), and they don’t want to be in a car that might die if they turn on the A/C and then have to find an outlet to charge it for hours just to get home.

As technology improved, electric cars became a bit more popular among a certain small subset of the market (in some circles, “EV” stands for “Electric Virtue-Signaler”), but they’re still impractical for the majority of drivers.

Newsom claims that by 2035, EVs will be superior to gas-powered cars. Maybe, maybe not. But will California’s politicians be superior to today’s, who can’t even provide enough juice to keep people from having to swelter in their homes with no lights or air conditioning? If not, what are they going to plug all those electric cars into?

James Taylor, president of the Heartland Foundation, called Newsom’s order a “classic example of politicians seeking short-term political gain by imposing impossible requirements on future residents and politicians.” He said they’d actually create an ecological catastrophe: to generate enough “green power” (which the state’s leftist leaders also are mandating), thousands of square miles of land would have to be clear-cut to install windmills and solar panels. Taylor added, “On the other hand, it will leave fewer forests for Newsom to mismanage and turn into overgrown fire hazards.”

Personally, my theory is that this is a plot by California liberals to stick every resident with an electric car and no electricity to charge it with, making it impossible for them to flee to Texas.

Low Energy Joe

September 24, 2020

There’s an inside term in political journalism that everyone needs to learn: “Put a lid on the day.”

No, that doesn’t refer to thinking “Oh, put a lid on it” every time Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth. It’s what a campaign team tells the media to let them know that there will be no more comments, appearances or events involving the candidate for the rest of the day. And the media are hearing it a lot these days from the Biden campaign, and very early in the day, which worries them since they are the unofficial PR arm of the campaign.

For instance, Tuesday morning before 9 a.m., Biden’s aides told the media they were “putting a lid on the day.” So 42 days away from the election, while President Trump is jetting around the country, giving 90-minute campaign speeches and addressing the UN in between dealing with major policy issues, Biden is declaring the day over before most people even get to work.

In the linked article from David Marcus of the Federalist, he goes to some lengths to say he has tried hard not to accept rumors or assumptions about Biden’s mental or physical health. I’ve also tried not to get into that kind of personal speculation. Maybe it is some brilliant "lay-low strategy" they're following. But when the candidate not only seems incapable of remaining coherent even with a Teleprompter in front of him, and his campaign day ends at 9 a.m., you have to start wondering if Biden is capable of handling the most demanding job in the world.

It’s obvious that his supporters in the media are starting to panic. I hate giving the leftist magazine the Nation any clicks, but just to prove I’m not making this up, one of their writers just published a screed insisting that there’s nothing to be learned from presidential debates so we should cancel them all, “permanently.”

Translation: I’m saying “permanently” because I don’t want to admit that I’m scared out of my wits about this particular candidate in these particular debates, but I’ll write another screed arguing the opposite in four years.

If Biden is capable of being President, then he should at least be capable of working past the end of the “Today” show. If he’s not, and the Democrats know it, then they are attempting to pull a shameful scam on the American people, and one that’s cruelly unfair to Biden as well. As for all the claims that there should be no debates because Joe Biden is just too honest and pure to lower himself to debate Trump, my response to that is “Put a lid on it.”

Good Economic News

September 24, 2020

How about a little good news that you probably won’t hear in the media? After the big economic downturn due to the coronavirus shutdowns, the economy has already rebounded enough that Americans’ household wealth recently hit its highest level ever.

The shutdown and stock market plunge in April dropped Americans’ total household wealth to $111.3 trillion, but the Federal Reserve reported Monday that in the April-June quarter, it rose nearly 7% to a record $119 trillion. For the quarter ending in June, the value of homes grew $500 billion while stock portfolios leaped by $5.7 trillion. The amount of money in checking accounts rose 33% to $1.8 trillion, while savings accounts rose 6.1% to $11.2 trillion.

It was partly due, of course, to the relief checks and expanded unemployment payments, but it also shows that the economy wasn’t destroyed, it just had the wind knocked out of it by China, and it's already getting back on its feet. I look forward to hearing the numbers for July-September, which I assume will be even better. I hope they arrive before the election so that voters aren’t misled into taking a U-turn back to the economic tar pit of the Obama-Biden years.

I don’t want to be accused of being a “climate denier” (I do believe there is a climate) or of being so anti-science that I disagree with Nancy Pelosi when she warns us, “Mother Earth is angry.” But if we’re ever going to get the terrible wildfires in California under control, it’s necessary to look at real facts and not simply accept overheated claims that “manmade climate change” is entirely to blame for the fires – something that even Gov. Gavin Newsom recently admitted wasn’t true.

Toward that end, I thought I’d point you to a couple of recent reports that look at real statistics and history of both wildfires and weather trends to see if the environmental left’s claims about droughts, temperature and forest fires (pardon the expression) hold water.

First, check out this report from the Foundation for Economic Education.

It asks the provocative question, if global climate changes are to blame for California’s fires, why aren’t other places with forests on fire? Texas, for instance, has more forest acreage than California and a hotter climate, but it’s not burning down. California's winds get blamed, but those have been blowing for millennia. Maybe, as the article points out, it’s because 95% of Texas’ land is privately owned by people who practice wise management policies like controlled burns to remove dead vegetation that turns into kindling, something that California’s environmentalists won’t allow.

"Well, then, how do you explain why the number of wildfires and the acreage on fire are both at record levels?"

Answer: they aren’t. 2020 is on track to be a very bad year, but not as bad as 2017.

“Still, that was the all-time record year for forest fires!” Only because the records being cited start in 1960. In 1930, about five times more acreage burned as in 2017, and the annual average from 1926-‘52 was several times higher. Forest fires have been with us since before there even were humans in North America, but in recent decades, we learned how to control them. Only California has made those methods illegal.

Ironically, one thing that’s also illegal in California is arson, but that hasn’t seemed to stop anyone from doing it.

Of course, pointing all this out doesn’t mean that there is no climate change going on. But the climate is always changing. The big questions are, is it due to humans and is it catastrophic? It’s now conventional wisdom that the answer to both is a big “YES!” and if you disagree, you’re a science-denying lunkhead.

So to check that out, a researcher for the Global Warming Policy Foundation examined data mostly from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “to analyse trends in temperature, precipitation, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea-level rise and wildfires. In particular, it takes account of the widely varying regional climates.” The goal was to determine the state of the climate in 2019.

Here’s what the data shows, quoted directly from the report’s summary:

• “Average temperatures have risen by 0.15°F/decade since 1895, with the increase most marked in winter.

• There has been little or no rise in temperatures since the mid 1990s.

• Summers were hotter in the 1930s than in any recent years.

• Heatwaves were considerably more intense in decades up to 1960 than anything seen since.

• Cold spells are much less severe than they used to be.

• Central and Eastern regions have become wetter, with a consequent drastic reduction in drought. In the west, there has been little long-term change.

• While the climate has become wetter in much of the country, evidence shows that floods are not getting worse.

• Hurricanes are not becoming either more frequent or powerful.

• Tornadoes are now less common than they used to be, particularly the stronger ones.

• Sea-level rise is currently no higher than around the mid-20th century.

• Wildfires now burn only a fraction of the acreage they did prior to the Second World War.

In short, the US climate is in most ways less extreme than it used to be. Temperatures are less extreme at both ends of the scale, storms less severe and droughts far less damaging. While it is now slightly warmer, this appears to have been largely beneficial.”

I’m sure many people will attack the report, the writer and the foundation that funded it. But I’ll be waiting to see if they produce any evidence that he or NOAA got their weather data wrong.

Proving once again that you can’t cure “stupid,” the Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to override Mayor Jenny Durkan’s veto of their plan to defund the local police department by about $3 million (they claim this is a “down payment” on their plan to cut police funding by 50% by next year.) Think about it: they're actually worse at their jobs than the Mayor of Seattle!

In a city torn by radical rioting and lawlessness, Council President Lorena Gonzalez declared that it’s vital to cut the police budget and spend the money on social programs instead because “Everyone deserves to feel safe…” Safe from the police, she means. Because that's the big worry in Seattle: being assaulted, robbed and set on fire by the police.

I’m sure that just like the poor people suffering under the brain dead city council of Minneapolis, they’ll end up feeling very safe from having the police intrude on the criminals who are going to be targeting them daily. Seattle voters who start asking, as people in Minneapolis now are, “Where are the police?!” should mark it down now so they can remember it: the police are gone because you voted leftist morons into power. And believe me, I don’t use that term as a pejorative but because it’s the most accurate term I can think of, based on the evidence.

Breaking News on the SCOTUS Nomination: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the Republicans who was originally said to be opposed to confirming a Trump nominee before the election, now says she won’t rule that out if the Judiciary Committee passes one. Also, it depends on who it is.

Considering those two conditions would apply to any SCOTUS nominee, this shouldn’t even be news (“Bulletin: Senator Does Constitutional Duty!!!”) But the big news here is that with Murkowski and Mitt Romney both rejecting the Democrats’ threats and demands to refuse to do their jobs, at least one side of the Senate is still functioning according to the Constitution, not politics. The equally good news is that threats, ultimatums, name-calling and temper tantrums may have finally ceased to be effective tools of political persuasion.

It might have helped if everything the Democrats are threatening to do (harass and assault Republicans at their homes and in public, riot, burn things down, pack the Court, etc.) they hadn’t already been doing for months/years or already threatened to do anyway if they got into power.

Wrong Hill

September 24, 2020

Speaking of being on the wrong side of history (and common sense), a new USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans believe protesters and counter-protesters are overwhelming America’s cities. Interestingly, only 48% of Democrats agree that cities are under siege.

Fifty percent of Americans say they believe theft and vandalism have gotten worse in their own communities, 68% think vandalism has gotten worse nationwide (only 68%?), 63% think assaults on police have gotten worse nationwide, and more people believe assaults on police have gotten worse over the past six months than assaults by police.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans think people should own firearms to protect themselves from violent protesters, and 56% agree that when necessary, federal law enforcement officers should be sent in to restore law and order. Democrats were much less likely to agree with both of those positions.

I don’t claim to know everything about politics, but I can tell you that when heading into a major election, telling over half of Americans that they’re wrong on the most important personal safety issue of the age is not the hill I’d want to be standing on.

Bring It On

September 24, 2020

The Democrats’ hyperactive threats to burn down the country over a judicial nomination aren’t generating the fear and intimidation they might have hoped. The reactions mostly range from “Yawn!” to “Bring it on!” After four years of threatening us for daring to voice any opinion they disagree with, followed by months of rioting, arson, assaults and looting in their own cities, many Americans have had it with their bullying and demands to give them what they want or else. We’ve been there, done that, and have the videos on Facebook to remember it by.

Their rhetoric has become so overheated that even CNN anchors are starting to roll their eyes at fellow CNN anchors.

In fact, they’ve done so much of this that we’ve now reached the point where threats really become ineffective: Americans are starting to laugh in their faces, aided by the conservative satire site, The Babylon Bee, which summed up their tiresome tantrum threats with a couple of hilarious stories.

And since there’s not enough laughter in the world (if you tune in the late night "comedy" shows, you’d think there was none), here’s one more Babylon Bee story on a related topic.

Return to Impeachment

September 23, 2020

I mentioned elsewhere that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was pressed on whether she would use impeachment to try to block President Trump from appointing a replacement for Justice Ginsburg. She replied that the Constitution requires that Congress “use every arrow in our quiver.” (Actually, it doesn’t. Also, her claim that Trump and his “henchmen” have threatened not to accept the results of the election applies much more accurately to her and her “henchpersons.”)

You can always tell that Pelosi is lying when she starts citing the Constitution, a piece of paper for which she has as much regard as a roll of Charmin. I guess she’s forgotten this bit of recent history, so let me remind her:

The House ALREADY impeached Trump on ridiculous, unconstitutional grounds. The Senate threw it out. Even if (God forbid) the Dems win the Senate, there’s no way they’re winning two-thirds of it, which would be required for removing Trump. And if (again, God forbid) Biden is elected, Trump would be gone anyway.

So the threat of impeachment is pure hot gas. It’s already proven so ineffective that Democrats were too embarrassed even to bring it up at their convention. As a weapon against Trump, it would be the equivalent of those people in movies who fire revolvers at Godzilla.

(Incidentally, did anyone else notice how Speaker Pelosi inexplicably wished “Good morning” to George Stephanopolous, 6-1/2 minutes into their interview? Joe Biden had better keep wearing that mask because whatever he has must be contagious. Yes, this is real.)

If you wonder why I reference George Orwell so often, it’s because 1984 might not have been the way he predicted, but it turned out he was just off by about 36 years. Remember how Winston Smith, the main character in “1984,” had a job in the deliberately misnamed “Ministry of Truth” rewriting old news stories and removing (“canceling?”) “unpersons” from photos to make history conform to the party line? Today, instead of working for Big Brother, he could work for Black Lives Matter.

I’ve previously written about how this organization, like the “Ministry of Truth,” uses the indisputable truth that “black lives matter” as a name to cover for the fact that it’s actually a radical anti-American organization run by self-proclaimed “trained Marxists,” and that their website proudly proclaimed that their goals include dismantling the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” and fostering “a queer-affirming network” by “freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

Unfortunately for them, a lot of people have started looking and listening more closely to their radical rhetoric and violent behavior and realizing that they are more concerned with tearing down America than lifting up black people. So guess what? Abra-cadabra! The “What we believe” page of their website where they admitted what they really are has suddenly disappeared! Try to click on it and you get a message reading, “Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist.” Big Brother would be proud.

Well, sorry, but one thing Orwell didn’t predict is that the Internet is forever. That page may no longer exist on their site, but it’s been archived in plenty of places where it can’t be thrown down the memory hole so that they can rewrite history. And after four months of rioting, we’ve all figured out what BLM really stands for. We no longer need their web page to tell us.

Campaign Update

September 23, 2020

Monday, President Trump held one of his open-air “protest rallies” (he calls them that because according to Democrats, the coronavirus spreads at Trump rallies, but not protest rallies.) He spoke for slightly over an hour. Here’s a link to the entire speech.

The Secret Service arrested two people near the rally who were carrying a backpack with a gun and ammo in it. No details yet on what their intentions might have been, but here’s what we know at press time.

Whatever they intended, it’s a good reminder to anyone dumb enough to listen to AOC’s calls to become more “radicalized” that when you start threatening federal officials like the President and Senators, you don’t get put in pretend jail for an hour by a liberal DA who then releases you to go do it again. You get arrested by federal agents, hit with federal charges and sent to a federal prison, where sticking your middle finger in people’s faces and calling them filthy names is a very effective way to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side on Monday, Joe Biden spoke at an aluminum plant in Wisconsin, where he once again attacked Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, declaring, “He panicked. The virus was too big for him.” (Actually, viruses are so small that it’s impossible to keep them from coming across the border, although one good way to slow it down was to stop travel from China, which Trump did and which Biden called hysterical and xenophobic.)

I guess he thinks Trump should have kept his cool and done pretty much nothing, the way Obama and Biden did about the H1N1 virus.

However, the most memorable thing said by Biden went largely unreported by the sycophantic media, but I think you should hear it. It’s his novel version of the Pledge of Allegiance. Here’s what he said:

“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, under God, for real.”

I think they should start the first debate off with that.

If you read the commentary for Tuesday morning, you know that if Democrats take the Senate and White House, their threats of packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, granting statehood to Puerto Rico and DC, and making other seismic changes will be carried out whether or not President Trump fills the vacant Court seat before the election. So Trump may as well DO IT, and, in fact, intends to. As we reported yesterday, the Senate apparently has the votes. So that part of the discussion is over, or at least should be.

EVERYONE knows that if a Democrat President were in the same position as Trump, with a Democrat Senate to confirm his choice, he’d have his new (activist) justice sworn in faster than you can say “Christine Blasey Ford.” The full Court would be able to start hearing cases in October, hardly missing a beat.

But the double standard applies once again. The media are completely off their meds. The meltdown on CNN and MSNBC was so predictable that there’s no point in even getting into it. Mostly, they’re wrongly equating one situation (the Merrick Garland nomination), in which the President and Senate were of different parties, with another situation, in which the President and Senate are of the same party. But these scenarios are very different, and the anger we see is coming from their blind partisanship and willful ignorance. I’ll do what I hope you do --- ignore it.

Except for one dangerous part of it: They’re encouraging the Democrats to go ahead and “burn it all down": As soon as they gain power, pack the Court to suit the President, destroying checks and balances. (VOX said this might be “the only solution.”) Add states, to gain senators who vote their way. Get rid of the filibuster completely. “Blow up” the Electoral College and choose the President by straight popular vote (gee, why shouldn’t California and a handful of big cities pick the President?). Maybe even impeach the attorney general, for, um, agreeing with Trump too much. Do whatever it takes to hold onto power. The media apparently learned in journalism school that they’re supposed to be the cheering section for all this.

THE FEDERALIST has a great piece on just how far the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) plan to take this.

However, this episode has taken one surprising turn. Under the heading of “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” I have to give credit to Utah Sen. Mitt Romney for seeing the big picture on this issue and putting history and precedent over politics and personal grievance. The LA TIMES wrote that Mitt “made the wrong call,” which means he made the right call. They also left out –- I’m sure deliberately –- the first part of what he said, about the fairness of following the law, so I’ll put that back in:

"My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’...it is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent,” his said. “The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm one of its own.”

Romney went on to say that he would follow the Constitution and vote based on the nominee’s qualifications. Good job, Mitt!

House Republicans had something to say about Court-packing, too. Not that Democrats care.

As reported in POLITICO on Monday, Joe Biden refused to tell a reporter whether or not he would pack the Supreme Court if he won. He weaseled out by saying, “It’s a legitimate question. But let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question: Because it will shift all the focus. That’s what he [Trump] wants.”

"Shift all the focus”? To quote Biden after the passage of Obamacare, “This is a big (bleeping) deal!” The idea of Court-packing is a big deal. Shouldn’t we focus on it right now? If Biden won’t renounce Court-packing, that tells us his party intends to do just that if they get the chance.

This is also one more example of Biden flip-flopping, as he said during the primary race that he “would not get into Court-packing...we’d begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all.”

And so we would. Why can’t he say that now?

Kamala Harris was more forthcoming, in a chilling sort of way. As reported by THE NEW YORK TIMES, she said she was “absolutely open to” packing the Court. Well, of course she is. She and AOC are on the same page, you can bet the farm. (Of course, if they end up in power, they’ll likely take your farm.)

Biden won’t even divulge his own “shortlist” of SCOTUS nominees. Maybe he doesn’t know them or remember their names. But he knows who’s in charge of his party, and he has said he’ll have “the most progressive administration in history.” If you want to see progressive, all you have to do is look at the extremists running New York City, Portland, Seattle and San Francisco. Leftists have way too much power NOW; we’d be crazy to give them more.

Finally, for when you have time, it’s fascinating to look back at what happened when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to get the House and Senate to pass legislation to help him pack the Court, just so it would rubber-stamp his New Deal programs. Back in 1937, even though these were all Democrats, they reacted with horror at such a power-grab and refused. FDR’s plan flopped spectacularly. If only this were still your great-great-grandfather’s Democrat Party.

FDR’s Court-Packing Attempt | The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Insanity

September 23, 2020

PJ Media’s Stephen Green does a news round-up that he calls the “Insanity Wrap,” and today’s outdoes itself for craziness.

One of the stories is especially worth noting because it shows us how the media are already gearing up to attack any Trump nominee for Supreme Court on any pretext, no matter how flimsy (shades of Brett Kavanaugh!) Newsweek ran a lengthy article about Trump short-lister Amy Coney Barrett, implying that her particular Charismatic Catholic religious sect was the inspiration for the ridiculous leftist horror-fantasy, “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Only at the end of the article did they add a postscript/correction noting that author Margaret Atwood never mentioned the group as an inspiration for the book, and that a New Yorker profile mentioned a news clipping that was part of her research, but it was about a different religious group. It ends, “Newsweek regrets the error.”

But apparently not enough to remove the lengthy article promoting the (way-at-the-end) admitted total falsehood of its premise. Welcome to the serious and solemn “Supreme Court vetting process” of 2020.

Unsurprising Story

September 22, 2020

In a shocking but somehow unsurprising story, a professor at Marshall University in West Virginia is on suspension pending an investigation after allegedly telling students during an online class that she hoped all of Trump’s supporters would get the coronavirus and die before the election. I thought universities were supposed to create “safe spaces” for students. How safe would a Trump-supporting student feel in her class?

I say it’s unsurprising because this is the kind of nasty, dehumanizing, violent, radical left rhetoric that’s become all too common among university faculty who fancy themselves smarter and better than the rest of us. At least this one is still clinging to enough shards of self-awareness to say she’s sorry she’s “become the type of person” who wishes death on people who disagree with her politically.

That prompted this interesting blog post on how apparently intelligent and well-educated people who live in a bubble where only one view is ever expressed can let a steady diet of political hatred turn them into soulless tyrants with no regard for human life.

What is missing from these people’s lives that has left such a huge hole in their souls that they would prioritize ideology over human life? I think I know what it is, but she works in a university so I assume I wouldn’t be allowed to give her a Bible.

"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time...I’ve heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

So said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an NPR interview on July 24, 2019.

Democrats are now threatening to pack the Court with as many as four more justices; it seems they have no problem going against RBG on this, while using her name as a pretext for doing it.

As reported by NPR, she also dictated a statement to her granddaughter in her last days saying it was her “most fervent wish” that she “not be replaced until a new President is installed.” Ah, but this time, Democrats consider RBG’s wishes sacrosanct.

And they ignore something she’d previously said: “...the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continue into year four...and that’s how it should be.”

Never mind the confusion created by these very different versions of what she said she wanted, let alone the idea that someone’s deathbed wish should override the Constitution. And what did she mean by “new President”? “New,” as in “different”? Did she mean that if Trump is re-elected, we should hold her seat open till the “new” President takes office in 2025? That sure is a long time to struggle on with a tie-prone 8-member court. Just getting through the next few months that way would be a nightmare, given the inevitable election challenges.

Times sure have changed. As I said on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, it was Sen. Harry Reid who “threw the match in the gas can” in 2013, when he killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. He was told at the time that it would come back to bite, and now it has. Thank God we have a President who won’t be intimidated and will do his duty, and I pray the Senate will do the same. I also wish we had some real journalism going on; then people would know that proceeding with nomination and confirmation of a new justice under these circumstances is constitutional and customary.

Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in NATIONAL REVIEW, makes the same point I did over the weekend --- that what happens now really all comes down to politics. One party will do what it calculates it has the power to do, given the anticipated political fallout.

As McCarthy points out, there was nothing wrong with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice, just as there was nothing wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority blocking that nomination. It’s all constitutional. The rest –- all the “outrage” –- is pure politics.

McCarthy worries, though, that Republicans’ push to confirm before the election may make it harder for Trump to win against enraged Democrats, as it motivates them even more. I don’t know about that. At the risk of sounding like Chandler Bing from FRIENDS, could Democrats BE more enraged? Republicans could smile and nod and confess to deep-seated racism and capitalist greed and cave to everything the left wanted, no matter how insane and unconstitutional, and they’d still move the goalposts and find more reasons to be enraged. It would never end. Republicans have the opportunity to make this appointment, it’s perfectly constitutional, and they must take advantage of it, just as the Democrats absolutely would. Case closed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham said on Hannity’s show that “we’re gonna move forward in the [Judiciary] committee, we’re gonna report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process.”

Why so determined? “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me,” he said. “They’re not gonna intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else...We’re gonna have a process that you’ll be proud of, a nominee who’s gonna be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and WE’VE GOT THE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE JUDGE [emphasis mine] on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

Trump says he'll announce his choice on Friday or Saturday. Senators know it'll be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly met with the President on Monday, or one of several other women on his shortlist (which he, unlike Biden, has revealed).

So this is apparently happening. Get ready to hear a lot more threats about packing the Court as “payback” for doing what the Senate absolutely has the constitutional right and, arguably, obligation to do.

REASON has a must-read (cautionary) article that outlines the various power-grabs the Democrats intend to make as soon as they are able. What everyone needs to understand is this: IF THEY GAIN POWER, THEY WILL DO THESE THINGS WHETHER TRUMP WAS ABLE TO GET HIS NOMINEE CONFIRMED OR NOT. For this reason, no matter what else happens, Biden and the Democrat ticket absolutely must not win. I cannot say this strongly enough. If they do, the America we love will be largely over. Republicans have to win in such a landslide that there’s nothing Democrats can do after November 3 to upset the process and the will of the electorate.

Author Josh Blackman agrees with Jeffrey Toobin in the NEW YORKER that these changes are not only good payback but “good policy as well.” He’s all for 1) the complete elimination of the filibuster, 2) statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, with two new senators for each (“an appropriate rejoinder”), 3) adding to the number of lower-court judges, and 4) adding to the number of SCOTUS justices (“the greatest and most appropriate form of retribution”).

"If Republicans succeed in stealing two seats,” he writes (note his choice of the word “stealing”), “the Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies, the Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court." He likens this to playing a game of hardball.

See how the “game” is rationalized? (Again, they really don’t care what RBG would think of adding seats.) I brought up this article to get you into leftists’ heads and show you what they have planned. Clearly, they intend to do these things whether Trump gets his way on a new justice or not.

President Trump says his list of Supreme Court nominees is down to five and he’ll be naming a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg within days. Many Democrats, from political leaders and celebrities down to Twitter keyboard warriors, are ranting that “nothing is off the table” if he and the Senate do their Constitutional duty and vote on that nominee. They’re threatening everything from violence in the streets to expanding and packing the SCOTUS with leftists when they get back into power, both things they were already doing/threatening anyway, but it’s good of them to remind voters of why they should NEVER be put back into power.

All this childish tantrum-throwing prompted some conservative commentators to start making lists of what the left has already done over the past few years, just to see what, if anything, might be left on the table that they haven’t already hurled in their mindless rage. So I decided to compile one, too. Here’s what they’ve already tried:

1. Months of rioting, looting, arson, vandalism and attacks on and even murder of police and innocent citizens in their own cities (they’ve also tried it in a few Republican areas, but that did not go well for them.)

2. Violent assaults against Republican politicians and media figures, including nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise by shooting up a House GOP charity baseball practice; multiple assaults on Sen. Rand Paul; and attempts to assault all of us who attended Trump’s nomination speech at the White House.

3. Staging a baseless impeachment to try to undo the 2016 election.

4. Staging a Deep State coup to frame Trump and his people and undo the 2016 election. This includes falsifying evidence, perjury, setting perjury traps, sullying the reputations of the FBI and other agencies, and many other assorted offenses against the law, the Constitution and basic decency.

5. Leaking classified information to try to undermine the President.

6. Politicizing the entire news media (includes the media’s credulous promotion of countless anti-Trump books and stories based on anonymous sources refuted by people who were actually there.)

7. Destroying late-night comedy, movies and professional sports with endless leftist propaganda.

8. Shutting down their own economies and public schools, ostensibly because of a virus they baselessly blame on Trump, even when they knew the painful shutdowns weren’t necessary (see “Nashville.”)

9. Mailing deadly ricin to the White House (this comes after years of liberals “normalizing” the idea of assassinating the President.)

10. Setting up the apparatus for mass voter fraud and announcing in advance that they will refuse to accept the results of the election unless they win.

11. And to take their insanity to a whole new level, Antifa jerks smashed up a car that they thought belonged to a “Nazi” (i.e., anyone who disagrees with them), but which actually belonged to one of their own, in total disregard of the fact that there was a poor, terrified dog in the back seat. Put this in the “How low can you go?” category.

And now – after assaults, murders, riots, arson, looting, lying, ripping up the Constitution, assassination attempts and even terrifying a dog -- they’re threatening even worse unless we install them back into power over us and give them a Supreme Court seat that they have no right to fill. I think they’re making the mistake that many toddlers do of thinking that just because the adults have thus far shown remarkable patience and restraint, we’re going to let this public tantrum go on forever and keep rewarding it.

Personally, I sense that many Americans are fed up with the Dr. Spock approach of remaining patient while the child screams his or her lungs out. They’re about ready for the Captain Kirk approach: “I have had…enough…of YOU!” But I hope they express it at the polls by simply kicking them out of office.

PS to number 11 above: If the car owner wasn't really a "Nazi," what was he doing owning a dog? Doesn’t he know that the latest thing that’s “racist” is being white and having a dog? That’s “cultural appropriation,” stolen from the ancient people of color who domesticated wolves! No, I'm serious.

According to this loon, white people should give their dogs to people of color, so they can live in a perfect, non-racist home. It’s obvious, in many ways, that he’s never read Southern humorist Lewis Grizzard. I believe he was the one who observed that dogs are natural racists: a black family’s dog will always bark at a white person and vice versa.

Leftists want us to take them very seriously, up until the point they’re held responsible for what they say or do, and then they become like Gene Wilder in “Young Frankenstein”: “I was JOKING! Don’t you know a JOKE when you hear one?!!”

One delicious example came last week when Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber decided to engage in some fashionable virtue signaling by releasing an open letter declaring that "racism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton" and that "racist assumptions" are "embedded in structures of the University itself." This came after hundreds of Princeton faculty members released an open letter claiming that "anti-Black racism has a visible bearing upon Princeton’s campus makeup."

So, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos (hooray!) sent a letter to Princeton, announcing a federal investigation into the school’s admitted racist practices. It points out that since Eisgruber became president in 2013, Princeton has received over $75 million in federal funds by repeatedly representing to the government that it was in compliance with the ban on racist practices required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The letter orders Eisgruber and a corporate representative of the university to appear under oath for questioning, to answer written questions about these admitted acts of racism, and to produce records related to them and to the school’s sworn (possibly perjurious) declarations that they do not engage in racism when they applied for grants.

Seems to me, Princeton has two options:

1. Admit they are racist and return the $75 million-plus any penalties for misrepresenting themselves on federal forms. Or…

2. Admit their president was just talking through his hat and engaging in empty public self-flagellation because that’s what liberals are expected to do these days: virtue-signal about racism, even though they don’t really mean it.

Either way, Congratulations Secretary DeVos for finally forcing these pompous phonies to put up or shut up.

Restoring “Honesty” to the White House: Joe Biden went to the Constitution Center and told lie after lie about the Constitution, the Supreme Court and his own past statements.

To sum up the major whoppers:

No, Trump did not wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died to demand that Biden release his list of potential SCOTUS nominees. He’s been doing that since he released his own list on September 9th. (Some pundits noted that since Biden has pledged to nominate a woman of color, which restricts his potential candidates to liberal, female, minority, top-level federal judges, his list should be very short and quite easy to compile -- or to guess.)

No, Constitutional norms don’t bar the Senate from confirming a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. That argument against an Obama nominee was called the “Biden rule” in 2016, and Biden insisted that it didn’t exist.

Biden also claimed that the SCOTUS doesn’t meet again until after the election. Its next session starts October 5th.

But to give him credit, Biden did say one thing that’s true: "We can't keep rewriting history, scrambling norms, ignoring our cherished system of checks and balances."

It would have been nice, though, if everything else he says wasn’t an attempt to do just that.

If you thought the left had gone insane over the coming election (and its results-be-damned aftermath), you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

With the sudden vacancy on the Supreme Court, they have completely lost their minds. On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump if he dared to do his constitutional duty and nominate a new justice. She described impeachment as “one of the arrows in our quiver.” Good grief.

Interestingly, in a Sunday evening presser, Sen. Chuck Schumer was joined not by Pelosi but by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which should tell you who is really running the show among the Democrats.

The media are nuts, too. To cite one of many incendiary comments, Reza Aslan tweeted, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire (bleeping) thing down.”

To his credit, President Trump says he’s going to go ahead with his obligation (his word) to make the nomination.

Schumer said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” That’s hilarious; we all know what he said in 2016 (the opposite), and what he’d do now if positions were reversed (fill the vacancy immediately).

He knows, of course, that if Trump DOESN’T nominate someone before the election, the chance of us having a “new President” rises exponentially, as nothing would make Trump’s supporters stay home in fury like his failure to do this. Republicans would burn their OWN party to the ground.

Sunday on FOX News’ MEDIABUZZ, I addressed the political reality by citing Harry Reid, recalling that he “blew up the filibuster” on judicial nominees when Republicans had warned it would come back to haunt him. “So,” I said, “when the Republicans have an opportunity to put a Supreme Court justice on, they’re gonna do it, because they have the Senate and they’ve got the White House. I think there’s plenty of, sort of, double-talk going around...Both parties have taken the position that they’re going to do what they CAN do when they’re in power...That’s politics; that’s how it works.”

In an appearance on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said that “Trump is “following the historic norm. Nine out of ten times, when the party in the White House is the same party that’s controlling the Senate [NOTE: that is key]...during an election year, you put someone forward, they get confirmed.”

Indeed, in 2016, the WASHINGTON POST noted that “one-third of all U.S. Presidents appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year” --- including six lame-duck Presidents!

The critical issue here is getting someone on the Court who will respect the law and the Constitution. But the left has given us a preview of coming attractions on what we can expect from them, as they don't respect the Bill of Rights one whit (a whit being smaller than a coronavirus).

As for Pelosi’s threat to impeach the President (also AG Barr) if Trump moves forward, Jordan said, “I don’t think the American people like to be threatened.”

So at this point, the question isn’t whether Trump will nominate a new justice (he will), but rather if the Senate will vote soon and not wait till after the election. House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler also has issued a threat: that if the GOP Senate confirms before the election, but in November it goes Democrat, that'll mean payback time, as Democrats “pack” the Court the way Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped to during his administration.

What should the current Senate do? Delay voting in hopes that Democrats won’t try to pack to Court later if they get the chance? Or stop acting like Charlie Brown does every time Lucy promises not to take away the football if he’ll just kick, and take the doggone vote?

What have we learned, class? It’s simple: NEVER ‘COMPROMISE’ WITH DEMOCRATS. NEVER APPEASE THEM. NEVER BELIEVE THEM. THEY WILL NEVER COMPROMISE WITH REPUBLICANS.

The threat to pack SCOTUS is serious, indeed; that’s why Republicans MUST keep the Senate this November. Mark this, if they take the Senate and have a new President to appoint leftist justices, they’ll pack the Court faster than you can say “Ruth Bader Ginsberg.”

As I said on MEDIABUZZ, Democrats have “walked away from everything the President has laid on the table that they said they wanted: DACA, infrastructure, tax reform, dealing with COVID...They don’t want solutions; they want control.” They detest Trump because he won’t play their game. Senators had better not play it, either.

RedState.com has a great new column about why Republican senators must reject any “grand bargain” on this with Democrats. It sounds a lot like me, so, of course, it’s a must-read.

"Bonchie” says, “...I think it’s one of the dumbest suggestions I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s basically negotiating with a person threatening to blow your brains out with a gun that has no bullets." He means Democrats have no power now on this and don’t know that it would change after the election.

"Further,” he says, the idea that giving into Democrats here will somehow heal the nation’s divide is ludicrous and naive. If the GOP doesn’t replace Ginsburg before the election...the riots won’t stop and Antifa isn’t going away. You cannot fix what ails this nation with political olive branches.”

That the GOP Senate would press forward in this scenario should surprise no one. Mitch McConnell told FOX News’ Bret Baier in February, “If you’re asking me a hypothetical, whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court, to a vacancy created this year [before November]...we would fill it.”

Of course, the media will NOT do their duty, which is to report this accurately. There is nothing unconstitutional or unusual about confirming a SCOTUS nominee this close to an election when the President and Senate are of the same party. Doesn’t matter; the media are already saying this is OUTRAGEOUS!! But that's just another lie, another false narrative –- an extremely inflammatory one, but they don’t care.

They’ll do anything to pressure the few reachable Republican Senators to waver.

Steve Hilton, on his FOX News show THE NEXT REVOLUTION, had a spectacular opening monologue about madness from the left that is a must-watch! He says pretty much everything else I’d like to say --- with one glaring exception: he did say the Senate should vote after the election. On the other hand, his guest, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, pointed out that the process generally takes about 30 days from nomination to hearings and another 30 days to the vote.

On the OTHER hand --- I’m sounding like Tevye in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF --- there’s something else to consider: we desperately need a full-court to rule on the various election challenges that are inevitable after Nov. 3. That could be the most important consideration of all.