Advertisement

IF I WANTED TO DESTROY AMERICA...

Do you ever get the idea that some of the people in our country just don’t like it? Even some elected officials who want to govern the country, like MN Congresswoman Ilhan Omar openly says we need to dismantle the very structures of America, including our economic system. I find that a bit strange coming from someone who escaped the absolute squalor of Somalia where the annual per capita income is $225 and came to America where she lives large and even somehow got elected to Congress. Is her goal to make us like her home country? I sure hope not! I’m starting to think that some loud voices in our world want to get rid of America once and for all. And they’ve observed that it doesn’t work to do it from the outside. An attack like Pearl Harbor or 9-11 only unifies the country and gives us the resolve to fight back. So suppose I wanted to destroy America? What would be the best way to do it?

I’d first replace the education system top to bottom. Instead of giving students the tools to think, reason, and analyze based on hard facts, I’d give them a system in which everyone thinks alike. Deviating from “group-think” would be strictly forbidden, and would result in a person being ostracized, scorned, and prohibited from even being employed. I’d erase all substance and symbols of history. Instead of ensuring that students actually read and understood the documents of our origin, like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I’d focus instead on pop culture and fill history books with Lady Gaga, the Kardashians, and Beyonce. I’d demonize George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin by never allowing students to see what these men actually said or did. I’d find any flaw in them and make that the only thing kids learned.

I’d never simply teach that the country had some ugly chapters of slavery and racism, as did virtually every nation. I’d pretend that those things still exist now, despite the obvious fact that a black person was twice elected President by defeating white candidates which meant that a large number of white people voted for the black candidate. I’d ignore that black people have held virtually every cabinet agency at one time or another, served at the top of our military, advanced in business to become millionaires and billionaires, led the world in several scientific and medical innovations.

I would seek to undo a system of economic capitalism which rewarded work and innovation. I wouldn’t demand equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome, which would mean that there wouldn’t be an incentive to study all night for an “A” since everyone would get the same grade anyway. And why take the risk of starting a business based on a better idea to do or create something if working from early to late still netted you the same pay as the person who came late, left early, and never created anything? I’d just give everyone a trophy. No one would ever lose.

I’d get rid of law enforcement. Cops get in the way of us doing what we want, taking what belongs to others, and having civil order. If there is anarchy and chaos and people are terrified to live and work where they live, it’ll be easier for me to convince people that the problem is not LACK of law enforcement, but the presence of law enforcement. I’d use words that sound good to cover my real intentions. I’d say equality when I really mean favoritism; I’d say tolerance when I really mean intolerance; I’d say diversity when I really mean uniformity; and I’d say women’s health when I really mean doing a very unnatural surgical procedure to kill a baby and do real damage to a woman’s physical and mental health. I’d marginalize religion and brand its adherents as fanatics, bigots, hate-mongers, and racists because belief in moral absolutes like love, forgiveness, charity, sacrifice, and service are a real threat to controlling people and making them follow what they are told.

I’d never attack America with a bomb, bullets, or battleships. I’d just lie about her history and origins, destroy every symbol of its legacy both good and bad, indoctrinate instead of educate so as to have uniformity of thought, and I’d take away all ownership of private property and personal capital and give everyone the exact same thing so as to destroy the incentives that made people like me who grew up poor to work really hard to live better and with that to give better.

But I don’t want to destroy America. I love America. And it’s why I won’t let her get destroyed without a fight.

CNN's ignorance and bias

July 10, 2020

The talking heads on CNN make so many biased and ignorant comments about conservatives and Christians that I hardly consider it news anymore and seldom even bother to comment. This is especially true of Don Lemon. But yesterday, he went so far beyond offensive and made me angry enough that I had to call him out on it.

During an interview with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Lemon was talking about the tearing down of statues of the Founders because they weren’t perfect people when he said this:

“Jesus Christ, if that’s who you believe in, Jesus Christ, admittedly, was not perfect when he was here on this Earth.” Shockingly, Cuomo, who is Catholic and should know better, let that slide by without objection. It suggests that he subscribes to the same strange form of Catholicism as Nancy Pelosi, who seems to think that abortion is a sacrament.

The Bible makes it very clear in numerous places that Christ was the only perfect person ever to walk the Earth. This article at Faithwire.com cites a few of the passages.

Among those verses are that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21), was “a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:19) and is “holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (Hebrews 7:26). In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” and Matthew 5:48 tells us that “your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.”

It’s bad enough that CNN has become a fountain of stupidity, but the stupidity has now crossed the line into blasphemy. It’s also telling that a top anchor on CNN is so utterly out of touch with the majority of Americans, who are Christians. The media’s hostility to people of faith is obvious, but now, so is the fact that they’re hostile toward a belief system about which they don’t even know the most fundamental tenet.

I believe there’s a word for hating people you know nothing about: “bigotry.” Liberals might not care if they commit blasphemy, but maybe that will force them to do a little self-examination and, to use one of their favorite phrases, “educate themselves.”

From the Gov: My writer/researcher Laura Ainsworth was intrigued by the title of a piece by Stella Morabito in THE FEDERALIST called “Why Do So Many White Women Hate Themselves?” and asked to post it with her own commentary. As she herself is a white woman –- but one who most decidedly does not hate herself –- that seemed like a great idea. Here’s what she had to say…

………………………

In recent days, I’ve been dismayed to see young, white female protesters screaming in the faces of cops on duty, even black cops. Under different circumstances, those same cops would have jumped into action to save the lives of those very women –- or anyone else of any race or gender. That thought obviously hadn’t penetrated the tiny pea brains of these women. “You’re a traitor to your race!,” one white woman shrieked hysterically at a black officer.

Their conduct was so out-there, it seemed to me like some strange psychological phenomenon, and now I see that the same thought has occurred to Stella Morabito, a senior contributor at THE FEDERALIST. Something is seriously wrong.

We’re talking cult behavior. This is the result of drinking the Kool-Aid as devotedly as the truest true believer at Jonestown. Perhaps you or someone you know has a daughter or granddaughter like this, and you feel defeated trying to even talk to her. What is going on with these middle- and upper-middle-class white women?

Actually, this weirdness has been a long time coming. I’ve written from time to time about the indoctrination being carried out by fashion magazines, within whose pages it is assumed that all readers hate Trump (and all Republicans), support abortion on demand as a woman’s “health” right, and think America would be a utopia if only it were run by an all-female committee headed by Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama.

Young white women are made to feel terribly “privileged,” simply for being born white.

Capitalism and profit are bad, bad, bad. Never mind that the prices of some of the clothes and accessories in these magazines rival those of a new car or the down payment on a house. Money to buy important fashion "must-haves" and “investment pieces” is a necessary evil; one must feel extremely guilty about possessing such wealth and find major ways to atone. (It helps if the designers you choose are “woke” and support the right causes.) If you’re buying a 1.04-ounce jar of face cream that costs more than what a sun-shriveled field laborer in some poor country makes in a year, you’ve GOT to atone, big-time.

Your parents wanted to give you everything. So they took out a second mortgage and sent you off to one of the “best” schools, where you learned about alternative economic systems and climate justice and were introduced to a new “morality” intended to replace the old one. Since the dawn of human existence, females have been regarded as the moralizing force of society, and today, young, educated women are taking up this duty once more, but to enforce the new cultural morality. In 2020, their behavior suggests they’re the most self-righteous of all the “woke.”

I remember hearing someone comment years ago that the real reason women weren’t on the battlefield is that, once provoked, they would actually be TOO bloodthirsty. I don’t know where this observation came from, but after seeing that one woman screaming in the face of a nonthreatening cop, I thought for the first time that there might be something to it. It was scary.

Stella Morabito’s article points out that it was white women who were guarding a “blacks only” (!) area inside Seattle’s CHOP. It was a 29-year-old white woman who was arrested for torching the Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta, her way of punishing the establishment simply for calling 911 to report a man asleep in his car in their drive-thru line. Other white women have physically assaulted peaceful protesters with whom they disagreed.

"Some observers see all this as a contradiction,” Morabito writes. “Since the ‘woke white woman’ is educated, many think she must be smart. Since she comes from a middle- or even upper-class suburban background, people assume she must be emotionally stable. Because she is socially aware, she must be interested in trying to understand people as individual human beings. How is it that such a woman can so easily become an arsonist, a terrorist, a mobster, and a taunter of black police officers?”

I’m reminded of Winnie Mandela, the radical wife of black South African political hero Nelson Mandela (before they divorced). During his imprisonment, she became known for endorsing a practice called “necklacing.” “With our boxes of matches, and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country,” she famously said. In case you don’t know, “necklacing” involves placing a tire filled with gasoline around a person’s shoulders and arms and setting it on fire. The victim is burned alive and can take up to 20 minutes to die.

Morabito cites an extreme case of cult initiation, the Symbionese Liberation Army’s abduction and brainwashing of 19-year-old newspaper heiress and college student Patty Hearst in 1974. “They isolated her in a closet,” she writes, “and put her through Maoist-style indoctrination sessions, schooling her in ‘white privilege’ and ‘systemic racism,' even though those terms were not yet in wide circulation.” Hearst was also raped and called horrible names I won’t use here.

That’s not quite the same experience as devouring TEEN VOGUE and being required to read WHITE FRAGILITY in freshman year, but these are all different ways of accomplishing the same thing.

Morabito agrees, citing a powerful, MUST-READ article by Peggy Noonan about the “struggle sessions” held by Mao during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. These were designed to torture people by humiliating and berating them to get them to confess to social “crimes.” “I don’t want to be overdramatic,” Noonan writes, “but the spirit of the struggle session has returned and is here, in part because of the internet, in part because of the extremity of our politics, in part because more people are lonely.” (This article is from March of 2019, before the virus made most of us a lot lonelier.)

As Morabito points out, there’s nothing new about emotional blackmail; the new part is how it’s being used “so blatantly” to make people support Black Lives Matter (and Marxism). Many young women are cutting friends and family out of their lives if they don’t declare that racism is systemic. A friend of mine who is white and the father of a 16-year-old girl has been informed it’s not enough for him not to be racist; he has to be ANTI-racist. He is required to “do the work.”

I’m with Morbito that we “must challenge the menace of this psychological weaponry embedded in today’s turmoil.” I’m not about to start calling out my friends and family as racist, because they aren’t. Instead, I’m calling out the combination of toxic social media and cultural indoctrination as the scourge of our time.

Now, let’s see if you’re allowed to share THAT.

As exasperating as the news is that Judge Emmet “Captain Ahab” Sullivan refused to comply with an order by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and drop the case against Michael Flynn, it’s hardly unexpected. After all, the original Captain Ahab just kept pursuing his great white whale until (spoiler alert!) it finally dragged him down to his watery grave.

The investigation of the attempted coup against the Trump Administration has uncovered widespread misconduct in the FBI and DOJ, including evidence that Flynn was set up, he did nothing wrong and the FBI knew it, and exculpatory evidence that should have been turned over to his attorneys was hidden. The DOJ rightly requested that the case be dropped, which is the prosecutors’ prerogative. But Sullivan, attempting to act as both judge and prosecutor, still refuses, even after being ordered by his superiors to hang it up. He’s clinging to a novel legal theory that if a defendant changes his plea, he can be charged with perjury for making the plea he withdrew (and never mind that we now know Flynn’s initial guilty plea was coerced: after having lost his job, reputation, home and life savings, he was being threatened with having the same done to his son if he didn’t plead guilty.)

It's obvious that there is no real case against Flynn, but Sullivan apparently hopes either to force Trump to pardon Flynn so it can be made into a political issue, or else drag the case out beyond the election in hopes that anti-Flynn conspirator Joe Biden is elected. Then the coup cabal can return to power, kill the investigation into their own misconduct, cover up their crimes and go right back to their unconstitutional abuses of government power against political opponents, just as if Hillary had been elected in 2016.

So now, the case will have to be heard again by the entire DC Circuit Court. If there is any justice remaining in Washington at all, let us pray that the judges quickly dispense with this unfunny farce, release Flynn so that he can get on with the serious legal business of suing the pants off of the people who targeted him, and order that Sullivan be removed from the bench and have to run 15 laps around the courthouse. I know that last part isn’t technically within their constitutional powers, but that hasn’t been much of a factor in this case so far.

A salute to Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Hackett for finally demonstrating to other corporations the proper way to deal with “cancel culture” cranks on their payrolls. We’ve seen far too many companies cave in to the childish demands of crybully leftist staffers, from the publisher who canceled Woody Allen’s autobiography to the New York Times, who fired an editor for daring to run an op-ed by a Republican Senator. So when some employees of Ford demanded that the company stop making police cars because they’re “accessories to police brutality and oppression” and “racist policing policies,” Hackett politely but firmly refused. He couched it all in a lot of soft-soap liberal buzzwords to keep from offending anyone, but the point was clear.

Personally, I would have suggested that if their consciences wouldn’t allow them to do their jobs, there are plenty of other people who’d be happy to take them, while, to quote Bill Murray from “Ghostbusters,” “someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries.” That’s also what should have been said to the entitled snowflakes at the Times and the publishing house, two businesses where there are easily a thousand eager applicants for every open position.

By the way, I’ll throw the Ford CEO a salute, but only with my index finger. If he wants the full-hand salute, then the Ford Foundation should stop giving money ($7.6 million since 2018) to groups like Black Lives Matter that are now pushing to defund the police departments that buy police cars from Ford. That’s both bad politics and bad business. You’d think the shareholders would bring that up to him.

Now, here’s a CEO who deserves the full-hand salute for bravery

Joe Biden unveiled his economic plan in Pennsylvania Thursday. If I had to sum it up in a few words, they would be: “Exactly like Trump, only with a lot more government. And he doesn't really mean it.”

It’s almost funny to see how much “America first” rhetoric Biden has cribbed from Trump, after spending the past three years accusing Trump of being a xenophobic fascist for putting America first. I guess it’s not xenophobic if you don’t really mean it. I have to assume Biden’s talk about bringing back manufacturing jobs from overseas and standing up to China and being “laser-focused on working families” is all banana oil. That’s because he’s done nothing about any of those issues during 42 years in government, the last eight as veep to a President who scoffed that Trump would need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing jobs. Also, Biden mocked Trump for suggesting that China was our adversary. And frankly, I don’t think he can laser-focus on anything these days.

What he’s mostly done is take popular buzzwords from Trump, like “bring back American manufacturing jobs,” and parrot them while proposing a lot of big government plans that would actually retard growth. Before the pandemic (from CHINA) knocked down the economy, Trump was standing up to China, renegotiating bad trade deals, bringing manufacturing back to the US and creating real private sector growth, with record low unemployment in all demographics and wages rising for the first time in years.

One of the biggest keys to that was that Trump cut taxes and slashed the onerous regulations that were acting like a boot on the neck of business. Biden now claims he will “stimulate” the economy by having the government spend hundreds of billions of dollars on American goods (with money raised from new high taxes on Americans, who might have spent their money on American goods themselves if they hadn’t had to send it to Washington) and tons more new regulations to pick winners and losers in the markets and punish industries that don’t do what he wants them to do.

Sorry, but I’ve seen those policies, and their lousy results, before. I believe it was during the Obama-Biden Administration. Trump calls his plan, “Keep America Great.” If Joe is looking for a name for his, I’d suggest “The ‘Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me’ Plan.”

MORNING EDITION

July 9, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

DEFEATING THE ENEMY WE FACE

In commentaries over the past couple of days, I’ve illustrated how quickly freedom can be lost --- Hong Kong is the current real-life example --- and shown the true nature of the threat our country faces, as we need to know what that is before we can combat it. Turns out, it really is very much like the Chinese Communist Party that clamped down on Hong Kong, with the same Marxist underpinnings as the CCP.

For example, let’s take a look at Black Lives Matter, which has shown itself NOT to be as much about black lives as many thought. Thanks to Tucker Carlson for bringing attention to a CNN interview segment with “America’s Got Talent” host Terry Crews criticizing BLM’s indifference towards black-on-black shootings. Host Don Lemon said this: “The Black Lives Matter movement was started because there was talking about police brutality. If you want an ‘All-Black-Lives-Matter’ movement that talks about gun violence in communities including, you know, black communities, then start that movement with that name, but that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about.”

READ MORE AND COMMENT HERE>>>

BULLETIN: SCOTUS RULING ON TRUMP TAXES

This morning, in two 7-2 decisions, the Supreme Court allowed Democratic Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr. access to President Trump’s personal and business tax returns, but denied Democratic Congressional investigators access to them.

There are more details on the rulings at the link. In the meantime, we’ll start the clock ticking on how long it takes the Manhattan DA to illegally leak the tax returns to the Congressional Democrats and the New York Times. Tick, tick, tick…

"MODERATE" JOE BIDEN UPDATE

A group of Biden and Bernie Sanders supporters are working on what’s called the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations, a compromise suggested Democratic platform that appears to be largely cut-and-pasted (plagiarized?) from Bernie’s 2020 campaign platform of straight-up, open-borders socialism.

Here’s an example of the kind of “moderate” policies you’re likely to get under a President Biden: not only would the estimated 11-22 million illegal immigrants currently in the US get amnesty (and Obamacare), and virtually all immigration laws and border controls be removed, but the US would be declared an asylum for all the world’s migrants. That’s currently estimated at about 160 million, or roughly half the current US population.

HIDDEN JOE BIDEN

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is getting a lot of attention for a piece that many interpret as a trial balloon for the DNC, to see if Americans will actually buy their feeble excuses for Joe Biden staying hidden in his basement until the election and not debating President Trump. Biden already agreed to three debates (his campaign taunted Trump for not being brave enough to debate Biden more than three times, even though Trump requested four debates.)

Now, it’s obviously dawning on them, to their horror, that Biden will actually have to show up and talk without a prompter or a ventriloquist for a total of six hours, which is 10,000 hours in Joe Biden ad lib time. So Friedman is test-marketing a couple of excuses: that Biden shouldn’t debate until Trump releases his old income tax records (surely, the issue that weighs most heavily on Americans’ minds at this moment in history) and that because Trump “lies” all the time, poor Joe would have to use all his debate time correcting him (Joe Biden being the very definition of a walking fount of encyclopedic knowledge.) So Biden should only debate Trump if he’ll agree to have a panel of “fact-checkers” there to pick apart everything he says (and coincidentally, use up all the time when Joe would’ve been talking.) That would make it a debate between Trump and a panel of liberal advocates, with Joe reduced to spectator.

A few quick asides: First, that “lie” accusation is rich coming from a writer for the former “paper of record” that’s now a full-time fake news dispenser and DNC propaganda organ and that spent three years deluding its liberal readers with “Russian collusion” fairy tales. Second, we all know what “fact-checker” means these days: someone who declares every policy dispute, difference of opinion, debatable minor detail or obvious joke by a Republican to be a “Pants On Fire LIE!” Meanwhile, the Democrats can put out an ad that tells 10 blatant lies about Trump, and the media doesn’t bat an eye.  And third, we already saw how well it works to have debate moderators play “fact-checker” in 2012 when CNN’s Candy Crowley “corrected” Mitt Romney’s description of Obama’s handling of Benghazi, in effect doing Obama’s debating for him, even though she later admitted Romney had been right.

While the column was obviously intended to bash Trump and lay the groundwork for Biden avoiding debates, all it did in reality was draw renewed attention to the herculean efforts by Democrats to keep their candidate hidden and renew the uncomfortable questions about his fitness for office.

Still, I like to be helpful whenever I can, even to my political opponents. So since “Trump will lie” and “He hasn’t released his tax records yet” don’t seem to be persuading anybody that Joe Biden would be justified in not debating, here are eight more suggestions to fill out…

The Top Reasons Joe Biden Can’t Debate Trump

8. Joe left the border open, and his border collie got in and ate his debate prep.

7. He’s only been in Washington for 42 years and hasn’t yet had time to finish his plan to transform America overnight.

6. Can’t debate until “Beto” O’Rourke finishes teaching him to speak bad Spanish.

5. Won’t debate until the organizers assure him in writing that none of the questioners will be dog-faced pony soldiers.

4. No debates until it’s agreed they will air exclusively on Joe’s all-time favorite TV channel: BET.

3. In the spirit of Obamacare, Americans have to elect Biden first and then find out what he will do to them.

2. Hunter hasn’t finished finalizing the sponsorship deal to put the Chinese flag on his necktie.

And the #1 Joe Biden excuse for not debating Trump…

1. Joe’s pretty sure he already debated Trump in 1949.

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)

 



In commentaries over the past couple of days, I’ve illustrated how quickly freedom can be lost --- Hong Kong is the current real-life example --- and shown the true nature of the threat our country faces, as we need to know what that is before we can combat it. Turns out, it really is very much like the Chinese Communist Party that clamped down on Hong Kong, with the same Marxist underpinnings as the CCP.

For example, let’s take a look at Black Lives Matter, which has shown itself NOT to be as much about black lives as many thought. Thanks to Tucker Carlson for bringing attention to a CNN interview segment with “America’s Got Talent” host Terry Crews criticizing BLM’s indifference towards black-on-black shootings. Host Don Lemon said this: “The Black Lives Matter movement was started because there was talking about police brutality. If you want an ‘All-Black-Lives-Matter’ movement that talks about gun violence in communities including, you know, black communities, then start that movement with that name, but that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about.”

Never mind that BLM’s campaign to “Defund the Police” has direct bearing on the safety and security of black people in violent neighborhoods. Some black residents of Minneapolis are definitely disenchanted with the attack on police, as they know they NEED COPS. “It’s time to tell the city council that utopia is a bunch of B.S.,” said one violence prevention advocate. “We are not in Mayberry RFD; we are in the wild wild west.”

(By the way, Carlson also aired a very different clip of Lemon from 1991, in which he lamented that “more than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock --- that means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison.” He goes on to blame “the hip-hop and rap culture that many of you embrace.” How “un-woke” is that?? This was one of the few times I’ve ever heard Don Lemon make sense, but CNN will have to fire him immediately for his past failure to blame white people for problems in the black community. But I digress.)

Anyway, we’re finding out just what BLM really is about. Since it’s billed as a “grassroots group” and not legally organized, it doesn’t report where its money comes from and how it is spent. But it’s the project of a 501(c)3 promoting “alternative economies” and “climate justice” called Thousand Currents, and, as Carlson pointed out Wednesday, the vice chair for fundraising of Thousand Currents is Susan Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist who spent 16 years in federal prison until she was pardoned by...wait for it...Bill Clinton on his last day in office. (She’d been sentenced to 58 years.) As former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik said, Black Lives Matter is “a revolutionary Marxist group...a group that wants to overthrow this country.”

Kerik said the DOJ should be looking into BLM as a terrorist organization, and he’s right. The founders of this group were inspired by a woman who is now in exile in Cuba after assassinating a New Jersey state trooper and being involved in a number of bombings and executions of NYC, New Jersey and San Francisco police. That should tell you all you need to know about BLM.

Such activity has been going on since the 1960s and ‘70s. BLM isn’t the kind of organization that U.S. corporations should be supporting or even paying lip service to. Yet they’ve been so intimidated by “cancel culture” and cries of “institutional racism” that they’ve gone along. But, as Kerik says, “If ‘Black Lives Matter was truly, you know, working for black lives, they’d be marching tonight in Chicago, or Baltimore, or Cleveland, and I can give you 20 other cities.”

Most media will ignore this, of course. In the four months leading up to the next election, we’ll have to work overtime beating back lies from the media, which can be counted on to spout nothing but DNC talking points. The people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome are not going to be cured in the next few months, but we can help inoculate others against the lies.

As for “Republican” officials suffering from TDS and vowing to “burn down” the Republican Party by supporting Democrats, Kurt Schlichter at TOWNHALL has some choice words for them.

"GOP dummies,” he asks them, “what is your excuse? I want to know the thought process by which you slack-jawed nimrods who make up a startling proportion of the Republican Party’s political cadre got the idea that we sent you to Washington to rename army bases and switch-up holidays...You want to be ‘reasonable’ --- stop that!...You simps are staggering into the world’s most obvious ambush.”

It goes on, with a long list of things our elected “Republicans” need to do. We’re going to have to get angry at those do-nothings and communicate our immense displeasure directly to their offices. The Republican rank-and-file have to make their voices heard, now.

Schlichter has a brand new book called THE 21 BIGGEST LIES ABOUT DONALD TRUMP (AND YOU!), and it is fabulous, full of inspiration for the fight ahead.

Schlichter is really funny, especially when you’re in that mood I increasingly find myself in, the one that says “I have had enough!!” So read it, enjoy it, get out your yellow highlighter and study it, and use it to make the case whenever you can for Trump 2020. It’s not enough just to savage the Democrats, although, heaven knows, there’s plenty to be said there, too, and organizations such as Black Lives Matter must be exposed for what they are. But voters need reasons to vote FOR someone. They’ve been lied to nonstop, and it’s up to us to be the antidote for the poison. Some will tune us out, but others won’t. This book looks to be the greatest defense of Donald Trump, warts and all, that anyone will see.

To quote Schlichter from his Introduction: “Lies have always been a part of politics, but today defamation has replaced actual debate. It’s almost quaint to see someone offer a coherent, thoughtful argument instead of spewing a spray of cheesy slander. When was the last time you heard someone provide a detailed, pointed critique of Donald Trump’s policies? Not of his character or his alleged personal failings, but his POLICIES?”

He goes on to point out that this is not what you hear. Instead, you hear lies about what a racist he is. There’s plenty in this book to counter that fake argument, and numerous others.

So we’ve got to get busy these next few months. Take advantage of every opportunity to get involved. With people you know, don’t be intimidated; speak up confidently with facts and reasoned argument. To some, your approach will seem refreshing and, yes, “almost quaint.” Others may call you names, but be like our President and simply decide, with so much at stake, not to CARE. We can’t change most minds, but we can change some, and some is all we need.

......................

Postscript: Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, co-owner of the Atlanta Dream, has refused to bow down to BLM. She's the only owner in any major pro sports league with the courage to call out BLM for what it is, Marxist and divisive. The WNBA players' union is calling for her to be "canceled" (removed). She will not be silenced. Good for her!

Byron York of the Washington Examiner compares what President Trump said at Mount Rushmore to what Trump-hating media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post told their readers that he said. Their "reporting" reflects reality about as accurately as a Picasso portrait with three noses.

Let this stand as an important lesson: from now on, and especially until the election, do not believe anything that these media outlets tell you that Trump (or for that matter, any Republican) said. Go to the Internet and check out the original source. That’s what my staff and I have been doing for years, and we’ve had to issue far fewer corrections than the New York Times does.

It’s sad that this is necessary, but these outlets have willingly quit the journalism business to become 24/7 Baghdad Bobs for the Democratic Party. Believing that you know what Trump said because you heard it from them would be like thinking you really understand Israeli government policies because you watch Al Jazeera.

Tuesday, Minnesota Rep. and “Squad” member Ilhan Omar condemned the entire American way of life, telling an audience “As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality…We cannot stop at the criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”

Conservatives immediately pointed out that Omar was openly calling for the destruction of the US political and capitalist economic systems, and demanded to know if Joe Biden and fellow Democrats backed those goals. Which is silly…they’d never admit that!

I take a more charitable view of Rep. Omar’s bloviations. Let’s look at the evidence:

She came to America as an immigrant from Somalia, a nation that is under the following travel advisory from the US State Department: “Do not travel to Somalia due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health issues, kidnapping, and piracy.” So at least we can assume she thinks America is slightly better than that or she wouldn't be here.

After having come to America, she got elected to the House, where she currently pulls down a healthy $174,000 a year. That’s about 773 times the average annual income in Somalia ($225 US.) She has parlayed that position into other lucrative areas, including a book deal for a memoir (“This Is What America Looks Like”) with an advance alone that was reported to be in the $100k-$250k range.

I think we can also assume that she will personally benefit from the reported $878,000 paid since 2018 to her latest husband’s political consulting firm out of donations to her Congressional campaign. They’re taking advantage of a loophole in the federal anti-nepotism law that bars Congress members from hiring relatives for government jobs but not from doing campaign work.

So while Rep. Omar might enrage a lot of people by seemingly wanting to turn America into Somalia, a more charitable view might be to take inventory of all the ways she’s turned into a money-grubbing capitalist since escaping Somalia for our oppressive, racist shores. Maybe mouthing a lot of anti-American, anti-capitalist garbage to her deluded leftist followers is just her business model. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of rich liberals.

By the way, none of this is to suggest that I think she’s not a dangerous figure who shouldn’t be within 300 miles of government power. If her constituents are having trouble finding someone better to send to the House to replace her, I will happily provide them with a local phone book and a dart free of charge.

And now, a rebuttal to Rep. Omar by a Venezuelan refugee who has seen exactly where all her socialist rhetoric really leads (and it’s not to Rep. Omar’s now-fat bank account):

This morning, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s order protecting the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to provide abortion-causing drugs to workers under their health insurance plan. (For the record: this is an order of Catholic nuns who take a vow of poverty and provide care to terminally ill indigents, so just imagine how shriveled a soul you’d have to have to threaten them with ruinous fines and legal costs just because you love abortion so much.)

The ruling was 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts remembering he’s supposed to be a conservative and protect people’s First Amendment rights. Only abortion-rights-above-all Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from what should have been the most obvious slam-dunk decision possible (“No, the government shouldn’t be able to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion drugs! Are you insane?!”) It will now be up to historians to argue how anyone could have ever thought that was (A.) remotely Constitutional or (B.) not a repulsive and reprehensible idea.

The nuns have already had to fight for years against the government forcing them to violate their most sacred beliefs, and having won that exception, to fight for it again. Just as with the same-sex marriage lawsuits against Christian bakers and florists, losing in court doesn’t stop those bent on destroying religious liberty, they just find some other legal loophole to attack from. Let’s all pray this will settle it for good.

Let’s also pray it will serve as a long-overdue lesson to the SCOTUS to stop throwing bombs into settled moral and Constitutional issues, and then expecting people to go bankrupt fighting endless lawsuits in order to clear up the legal murk that they created.

Warning to anyone playing poker with President Trump: Never assume he’s bluffing. Tuesday, Trump officially served notice to the UN and Congress that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization, effective one year from today. Of course, that means he’ll need to be reelected because if Biden gets in, the WHO will be only one of many international organizations in thrall to China that will have more sway in the White House than American citizens do.

Trump’s announcement drew the expected condemnations from Democrats, the media and even some Republicans. The general thrust was “It’s outrageous to withdraw from the World Health Organization during a worldwide pandemic!” Going unspoken is the fact that if the WHO hadn’t covered up for China and repeated its lies, there might not even be a worldwide pandemic. As Trump pointed out, we give the WHO $450 million a year while China gives it $40 million and seemingly has total control over it.

I mention the money because opponents will try to claim that withdrawing from the WHO means Trump is turning his back on world health initiatives. No, it means the money that was going to the WHO can instead go to more effective, efficient and honest health organizations. This is the same false argument presented whenever we talk about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and liberals scream that we’re slashing “women’s health care.” No, the money would instead go to real local medical clinics that actually provide women’s health care, not to those that spend all their money on abortion facilities rather than purchasing a single mammogram machine.

Personally, I second Charlie Kirk’s tweet in that linked article: now that we’ve notified the UN that we’re withdrawing from the WHO, let’s next notify them that we’re withdrawing from the UN.

And in a second ruling that also strikes a blow for religious liberty, the Supreme Court again ruled 7-2 (Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting) that religious schools should be free from discrimination lawsuits if they don’t hire people for ministerial positions whose lifestyles conflict with their religious beliefs.

Read the details of both cases at the link. Religious schools were already supposed to be protected from these lawsuits, but again, litigants are searching for ways around those protections and liberal judges in places like California are only too willing to help them do that. This ruling expands that protection to cover less ministerial positions and more types of discrimination lawsuits to help head off all the various ways in which people were trying to use the law to force religious schools to hire people who contradict their beliefs and teachings.

As this article points out, the decision will raise controversy because opponents claim it allows religious organizations to discriminate against employees who are not in fully ministerial positions, such as math teachers. But the alternative is to allow the government to decide which positions in a religious institution qualify as “ministerial,” and that doesn't sound like a job that the government should be doing at all. It sounds instead like a perfect example of what the Founders were banning when they wrote that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:  Supreme Court rules on abortion-health care fight

Several bogus studies claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and didn’t help with COVID-19 were highly touted, then retracted, but not before causing clinical trials to be halted and the FDA to bar doctors from obtaining the government’s stock of the drug for coronavirus patients.

Now, a large scale study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan found that the drug “significantly” reduced the death rate of hospitalized patients, from 26% to 13%. For the math-challenged, that’s cutting the death rate in half.

A study spokesman said, “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was a benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

But the data is also clear that simply because President Trump suggested it might be worth a try – and in the anti-Trump media narrative, everything Trump says must always be denied, refuted and proven WRONG – the media ballyhooed bogus studies and caused people to be afraid to take a drug that might have saved their lives or to be denied it if they wanted to try it. I’d call that deadly journalistic malpractice, and I’m not alone.

Since these media outlets have tried to blame Trump personally for every last death from a pandemic unleashed on the world by China, how about if we hold them responsible for letting their lethal cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome cause them to try to destroy a cheap, plentiful, safe drug that might have saved countless lives?

Here are some reminders of what Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) said about hydroxychloroquine, and a convincing argument that every unnecessary death that it might have prevented is on their heads.

Yesterday, I brought you the story of what has happened to the rights of the people of Hong Kong in an attempt to show how quickly it can happen here. Truly, the Democrat Party cares no more about your rights than the Communist Chinese Party cares about Hong Kong’s. As a follow-up today, I’d like to explain a bit about the philosophy we’re up against and the grip it currently has on our media and culture. We have to know about our enemy – and, yes, it is our ENEMY – in order to figure out how to defeat it.

To help me in this, I’ve linked to an excellent piece in THE FEDERALIST by John Andrews, former president of the Colorado Senate (where I’m sure they could use him now) and former vice president of Colorado Christian University.

Andrews is right in seeing “Marxist fingerprints” all over the current mess in our country. The infiltration has been going on for decades. I’m sure it once seemed farfetched to many when the more outspoken conservative commentators, such as Mark Levin, frequently warned of Marxism in America. Today, no one would call that over-the-top. He has always been right about this; it's just more obvious now.

RELATED READINGWhat do Americans have to lose? Look at Hong Kong...

As Andrews notes, the assumptions underlying Marx have pervaded schools and universities, mass media and popular entertainment, corporate philosophy, medicine, the arts and sciences, even many churches and seminaries. They define today’s Democrat Party as well, “Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi no less than Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama.” That’s why I said yesterday that it doesn’t matter whose names are on the ticket this fall.

So what are these Marxist assumptions? Well, they certainly don’t spring from the Judeo-Christian values we hold dear, the spiritual connections that enrich our lives. Both Marx and Hegel were materialists, considering all things spiritual to be inconsistent with their way of looking at the world. The idea gives new meaning to Madonna’s song about “living in a material world.” Living in THIS “material world” is a grim, empty way to exist, with no real objective concepts of right and wrong, only what your leaders tell you. But in places such as North Korea, it’s how the people exist. They know nothing else. They are ALLOWED to know nothing else.

Atheists tend to see the world as a random collision of atoms affected by physical forces, so they’re much more likely to “gravitate” (ha) to this way of seeing life. And it’s true that more Americans are atheists today than in previous generations. But it should be stressed that many people who doubt the existence of God have still been exposed in our culture to religious beliefs about right and wrong and understand the value of these concepts in our lives. They love America and dread the thought of our freedoms being taken away just as much as any churchgoer. Some of them may even be induced to start praying for our country, as in the old saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”

Still, as Andrews says, “Cultural Marxism is increasingly defining the worldview within which all debates and decision-making take place, even for most of those who rightly fear and despise Marx.” The goal: “deconstructing the American way of life from top to bottom, leaving no sphere of our lives untouched.”

I would add that race is just a pretext for all of this. Create chaos, add heat, mix well, cook until done.

Andrews warns of the three main ways Marxism accomplishes this deconstruction. (If you’ve read George Orwell, especially ANIMAL FARM, you’re ahead of the game. Ironically, Orwell himself was a democratic socialist but an unsparing critic of how Marxist societies worked in practice, particularly under Stalin. Brilliant as he was, it seems he was too much of an idealist to realize in those days that his socialist dream of a classless society and nationalizing everything was not also going to be free.)

Anyway, the first step: dehumanizing of the individual. We’re seeing the Democrat Party doing this with identity politics, which reduces every person to his or her group victimhood or guilt.

Second, demoralizing relationships. In a world with no objective right and wrong, everything boils down to the material; forget such things as personal dignity, family ties and duties, promises, tradition and heritage, even love and life itself. Really, all the things that make us human have no value in such a world.

I would add that if you’ve read Orwell’s “1984,” you know that in such a society, truth itself is meaningless, as the truth is whatever your leaders say it is. (It’s not enough for you to say that 2+2=5; you must truly believe that 2+2=5.) To give a current example, if it’s politically correct for you to believe that, as a white person, you are a racist, but you know you’re not, you will have to undergo sensitivity training and read WHITE FRAGILITY as many times as it takes for you to sincerely believe you are one. If you can’t believe this about yourself and do what is required of you to atone, you will have to be a nonperson.

Third, institutions must fall. The idea of civics and the citizen, with a shared history, is seen as absurd. Look at how it’s being destroyed now, with statues crumbling and history being twisted. Even language has to be controlled, as it’s a shared part of the culture used to communicate and seek truth. We can see that happening today as well.

Importantly, ANIMAL FARM shows that the noble idea that “all animals are equal” inevitably is tweaked into “...but some are more equal than others.” We see this now in the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Try saying that “all lives matter” and see where it gets you. And don’t think that those at the top of the socialist pyramid will ever give up their wealth and control. Rather, they will cast it in stone and make sure no one else gets it.

Why would “educated” young people and “the masses” living in leftist cities ever want this kind of nation? They’ve been brainwashed into thinking capitalism must be overthrown. In their artfully poisoned minds, America must atone with “social justice” for generations of racism and exploitation. America is evil, with an evil history and corrupt values that must be erased for all time. Even seeing an American flag "triggers" them. Trying to reason with a person indoctrinated in this view is like trying to communicate with a cult member. He’s not interested in what you think, only in getting you “woke” or getting you out of the way.

We’ve got people like this expressing themselves quite openly in the House of Representatives. Here’s just one.

I realize that today’s commentary hasn’t exactly been a treat to read, but knowing what we’re dealing with is the first step in developing a plan of action. Many of you have written in frustration to ask, “What can we DO??” Tomorrow morning, we’re going to talk about what we can do. A long-term plan is important, but we’ll focus on the short-term for now, as we have four months to keep leftists from taking over America.

RIP Charlie Daniels

July 7, 2020

I am still in shock after receiving a message Monday from country legend Charlie Daniels’ representative, letting me know that he had died of a stroke at 83. He was so big, so strong, so omnipresent in music for 70 years, and so bold and outspoken in defense of America and its veterans, police, and first responders that it seems almost impossible that he could have left us so suddenly. I’m proud to say that he was a friend of mine and a friend of our TBN show, where he appeared just recently to promote one of his many initiatives to help our veterans.

Fox News immediately contacted me to write a tribute. I hope you will read it at this link.

This obituary from the Nashville Tennessean includes some highlights from Charlie Daniels’ amazing career and the many fellow icons who worked with him, from Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen to Ringo Starr and Elvis Presley. He was truly a “musician’s musician,” the "best there's ever been" on both fiddle and guitar, and the man the greats called when they wanted to make music history.

Here are some of the many tributes to him that are pouring in from fellow music stars.

To show the deep love and respect that Americans felt for Charlie Daniels, here are some photos of his body being driven to the funeral home, accompanied by a police escort, followed by a group of fans on motorcycles, and saluted by fans lining the sidewalks to pay their respects as they held up the American flag he revered.

Finally, it’s especially unfortunate that he leaves us at a time when so many people are turning on the patriotic American values he fought so hard to protect and defend. I wish he could have lived to see what I hope and pray will be the crushing repudiation by voters of the current wave of violent, ignorant, intolerant and divisive anti-Americanism. But he left us a great legacy of writings and recordings to help inspire patriots to fight back.

One of the greatest was a song that came out during a similarly depressing, if less violent, time in America’s history: 1980, the end of the Carter years when we were told that malaise was our “new normal,” that America was in decline, that we could be pushed around by countries like Iran, and we’d better just get used to it. He released a battle cry of a song that reminded us not to believe the demoralizing lies and anti-American propaganda. Some say he helped save the nation, as that song fired up patriotic Americans to go to the polls, elect Ronald Reagan, and reclaim America’s greatness. He revived it again after 9/11, as you can see in this live video. I think it’s high time we start playing it again, right up to and beyond Election Day 2020. It’s called “In America.”

The June Jobs Report

July 7, 2020

Last week, it was reported that a record 4.8 million jobs were added to the economy in June, dropping the unemployment rate back down to 11.1% and bringing the two-month total to nearly 8 million jobs restored since the coronavirus lockdowns began. Even with some states reimposing lockdowns and closures because of a rise in cases, this is more proof that the underlying economy remains strong and is being artificially held down by the virus and the official reactions to it.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden had to dump a big shovel full of gloom and doom on the good news. I won’t bother recounting it all here, but you can read it at the link if you’re not easily inclined to losing your lunch.

A couple of reminders:

(1.) Joe Biden was part of the Administration that turned what should have been a quick economic recovery into an 8-year struggle in economic quicksand; the slowest recovery in history, where people working three part-time jobs were told to get used to it because anemic job creation and below-2% GDP growth were the “new normal.”

(2.) Biden blames Trump’s “bungled” response to the coronavirus for both the job losses and the deaths from the disease. Yet Biden was part of the Democratic crowd that accused Trump of racism and xenophobia when he shut down travel from China (a nation that owns Biden so thoroughly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a receipt). They also predicted 2.2 million US deaths and now blame Trump that there are 126,000 deaths, even though most of them were in the Democrat-run states of New York and New Jersey and due to idiotic policies like forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients. Biden also points to the recent rise in cases, implying that it's due to the economy reopening, conveniently ignoring the massive superspreader events that Democrats not only endorsed but participated in. Finally, how many of those victims might be alive today if Democrats and the media weren’t more interested in badmouthing the now-proven drug hydroxychloroquine to make Trump look bad than in saving patients’ lives?

Biden's Radicalism

July 7, 2020

While President Trump’s speech defending America’s history, heroes and values was mercilessly attacked by the media, their Presidential hope, Joe Biden, also made a 4th of July statement. His vision of America (which I’m sure they would never call dark or divisive) is of a place rotten with racism, a “systemic racism” that he vowed to rip out in its entirety (translation: government will take over everything) and that once elected, he will “transform America.” Into what, downtown Minneapolis? The CHOP autonomous zone in Seattle?

As was noted when Barack Obama used that phrase, how can anyone claim to love America, then vow to fundamentally transform it? Biden’s radicalism is especially eye-opening, considering that he’s what now passes for a “moderate” in the Democratic Party. It’s even rubbing off on his potential running mates, who are so scared to upset the mobs, they can’t even say they wouldn’t blow up Mount Rushmore if elected.

The narrative of Biden as a “moderate” is the basis of what I call the Democrats’ Trojan Horse campaign (or maybe that should be Trojan Donkey.) The Party has moved so far to the left that they could never get elected if they admitted what they really plan to do, so they’re hiding it behind Biden’s bland image. But nobody seriously believes that Biden will set the agenda, any more than we believe that Lambchop was the brains behind Shari Lewis’ ventriloquist act.

Possibly the most hilarious self-reveal came when Ted Cruz listed some of the radical ideas that they represent, and to refute him, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sarcastically tweeted back that the Democrats wanted to do all those radical things, so they nominated Joe Biden.

Yes, that’s precisely why they nominated Joe Biden. Because if they nominated someone like AOC, they wouldn’t win, even if those are the policies you’ll get either way. What you should be asking yourself is this: “If Joe Biden is such a moderate, why is he being defended by one of his top campaign advisors, notorious socialist and ‘Green New Deal” pusher, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?”

I hope you had a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July weekend, which means I hope you didn’t turn on the news for the past four days, except to watch President Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore. Here it is if you missed it, and if so, it’s today’s Must-See. It may be the most important speech of his Administration, and one of the most important of any President.

After weeks of riots, looting, arson, vandalism of national monuments and historic statues, slander of America’s founders, bullying and intimidation of law-abiding citizens and “canceling” of anyone who dares voice an opinion unapproved by the radical left mobs, Trump took to national television to stand up and fight back against leftist fascism and on behalf of America’s great heritage of liberty, justice and government of, by and for the people. In the most memorable line of a stunning speech, he declared that Americans “only bend the knee for God.”

Naturally, the anti-Trump media had a hair-on-fire hissy fit. The New York Times repeated the mischaracterization of his Inaugural speech by claiming that Trump gave a “dark and divisive” speech. The most hilarious bit was their claim that he created a liberal “straw man” by trying to convince us that the left is engaging in violence, rioting and anti-American radicalism. I have to assume that the Times’ reporters haven’t glanced at their own news pages in the past month.

Of course, for the Times, denying reality is par for the course.

Of all the Fourth of July celebrations in my lifetime, this was perhaps the strangest --- and also the most important for us to ponder.

The Fourth of July is usually a time to get together and enjoy our freedom as Americans, and we mostly take for granted that we will always have it. But the very fact that this year was so out of kilter should tell us how very much we have to lose. Leftists here in this country –- a trifecta of the power-mad, the indoctrinated and the ignorant –- want to “burn it all down” to set up a fantasy Marxist utopia ruled by identity politics, which is just another form of racism. Look around; they’re in the process of doing it. We can’t take our freedom for granted any longer.

We forget how quickly everything can change. A system of government can fall just like...THAT! (I’m snapping my fingers.) It’s like toppling a statue; no matter how much skill and care and artistry went into creating that unique piece, or how many centuries it has stood, it can be turned into rubble with one hard pull of a rope or a few sticks of dynamite. Even a constitutional republic like ours can be very quickly taken over and altered beyond recognition, with little or no hope of going back. We are at risk of that now.

Look at what China has done to Hong Kong in just a week. All it had to do was pass a law, and now Hong Kong authorities are forced to strengthen regulation of the media and the internet. Beijing also has given itself broad powers to deploy state security agencies and to establish a bureau overseeing “national security” in Hong Kong. As reported in BLOOMBERG NEWS, China may even block citizens of Hong Kong from leaving for the U.K. Thousands took to the streets last week in protest, but it won’t change any of this. The “one country-two systems” framework that has governed the former British colony since it was returned to China in 1997 is essentially over, now that China has chosen to disregard that agreement.

As Mike Pompeo said to Laura Ingraham on Monday, “We can see this is going to end up being just another Communist-run city. It’s unfortunate; Hong Kong was such a special place, where there were all the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong were promised by the Chinese Communist Party. It’s much like the promise they made to tell us the truth about where the coronavirus came from...It’s the same kind of broken promises that’ll lead the United States to take the right response.”

Fine; we should hold them accountable. But the CCP is going to steamroll Hong Kong anyway, just as surely as they rolled their tanks through Tiananmen Square. They are liars and not to be trusted. The rule of law has been eviscerated in Hong Kong; now it’s the rule of the CCP.

Alarm bells have sounded in Taiwan as well, as CCP control of social media also applies to the millions of Taiwanese messages of support for Hong Kong’s democracy movement and Taiwanese independence, as well as criticism of human rights abuses in China. Of course, they’re also worried that their country is next.

Hong Kong is now essentially just another Chinese city, according to Jillian Melchior of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. The people of Hong Kong weren’t even allowed to read the legislation before it was passed. What it does, she says, is criminalize dissent on a sweeping scale. “Basically anything but complete submission to Beijing is illegal,” she says. “It’s bringing the Chinese system of justice to Hong Kong.” She means even in the physical sense; mainland government offices will be coming there as well. In other words, there’s no need to extradite people from Hong Kong to China to exact “justice” –- China will just do it there. How conveeeenient.

Life in prison is now a very real possibility for anyone in Hong Kong who expresses dissent against the CCP. The same law also applies to foreigners, including journalists, who have spoken out against the CCP; they might risk arrest simply by stepping inside Hong Kong or even touching down at the airport there.

"This is the end of legal autonomy,” Melchior says, “and it’s the end of rights for Hong Kong’s people.” She’s talking about the basic rights we as Americans take for granted: freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. And the law as written is so broad, it can be used to target anyone the government doesn’t like.

More details here.

So, since we’re talking about basic rights that Americans enjoy, let’s look again at the threats we as Americans face in the year 2020. In about four months (!), we’ve got an election coming that has the potential to bring about the end of many freedoms we enjoy. In case you didn’t know, leftists don’t like freedom. At least, not for you.

Let me tell you what is going to happen if the Democrats win in November. It doesn’t matter if Biden is at the top of the ticket or not or who is #2. Hard-core leftists run the party, and they will run the government like they’re the CCP and we are Hong Kong.

They will cement their power in numerous ways, with help from a compliant media. If they happen not to take the Senate, it won’t matter; they’ll just govern by executive order. They’ll fire Attorney General Barr and immediately close all investigations except those relating to President Trump. They’ll pack the Supreme Court with far-left judges. They’ll further reward schools for indoctrinating students into hating America. No monuments to America’s past will be left standing. Courts will rule in favor of states going around the Electoral College, effectively destroying it and making sure “flyover country” never gets a say in another presidential election. They’ll open borders, make Washington DC a state and let non-citizens vote, canceling out the votes of many citizens. With help from social media and the political correctness brigade, conservative speech will be shut down. The most reasonable, fact-based observations, even in fields such as science and technology, will be classified as “hate speech” and disallowed. Perhaps even the American flag will become "hate speech." The police will indeed be defunded, property rights will be disrespected, and more infringements will be made on the 2nd Amendment. Individual rights in general will be sacrificed to the god of identity politics, which will rule the day.

We don’t have to live in Hong Kong to experience a loss of personal rights on this level. We can just stay right here in America and let the far left take over our country in November. Think I’m exaggerating? Some of it is already happening. What did leftist-run American cities look like to you this Fourth of July?

Another Trump comment that the Times took issue with was his assertion that Democrat-led cities have allowed violent thugs to run rampant in the streets. Seriously, where does he get these crazy ideas?

Maybe from watching the real news. Even the New York Times was forced to report the tragically bloody holiday weekend in Chicago, where at least 72 people were shot between Friday morning and Sunday night, 15 fatally. They included a 7-year-old girl who was visiting her grandmother when she was killed by drive-by shooters who attacked a family gathering with a number of children. Several other victims as young as 10 were wounded around Chicago.

New York City had 44 shootings with 63 victims, the direct result of Mayor Bill DeBlasio dismantling the effective policing that Rudy Giuliani instituted when he brought the city back from the devastation of the Dinkins years.

And in Atlanta, 8-year-old Secoriea Turner was riding in a car with her mother and another adult when they came too close to where protesters were gathered at the burned-out Wendy’s whose parking lot was the site of the police shooting of Rayshard Brooks. The group opened fire on the car, hitting it multiple times and killing that innocent little girl. She was black, but apparently, her life didn’t matter to them, any more than any of the other victims of the violence that’s raged since the death of George Floyd, something that people of all races and political views condemned. Over the weekend, four people including Secoriea Turner were killed in Atlanta alone.

The heartbreaking murder of Secoriea Turner finally – FINALLY – convinced Atlanta’s Democrat Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to say “enough is enough” and order the area around the former Wendy’s to be cleared out (so now, it’s enough lawlessness and death? And who will clear it out? The police I assume.) I wonder if even this would be enough if the Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, hadn’t declared a state of emergency and ordered 1,000 National Guard troops to Atlanta to protect government buildings that Bottoms would not protect.

Maryland’s Republican Governor may soon have to take the same stand in Baltimore.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing these Democratic officials say, "Black lives matter," then standing back and allowing people to be killed by rampaging criminals. If any lives matter to them at all, then knock off the fatuous rhetoric and let the police stop the killing!

On the Fourth of July, we celebrate having this exceptional nation and the freedoms it gives us, but we must always remember that we have those things because of all the soldiers who put their lives on the line to secure them for us, from Revolutionary times forward. There’s a story I love to tell that illustrates that for young people.

When I was Governor of Arkansas, I got to know an outstanding high school teacher in Little Rock named Martha Cothren. She was one of my original Huck’s Heroines, and I was always telling her it was my goal to make her one of the most famous teachers in America, because she’d be such a great example to all teachers. Here’s just one reason why.

Martha became concerned that many of her kids didn’t fully appreciate their precious American freedoms. So she prepared an unusual lesson for them. On the first day of school, the kids shuffled back into class only to discover that it was completely empty. Not a desk in sight. So they asked, “Miss Cothren, where are the desks?” She replied, “You don’t get your desk until you can tell me how you earn it.”

The kids were stunned, but they started trying to guess how they earned their desks. By getting good grades? No, that’s not the answer. By behaving in class? No, that’s not it. The first period ended with the kids leaning against the walls or sitting on the floor, but they never had figured out how they earn their desks.

Well, in trooped the second-period class. They were greeted with the same empty room and the same question they couldn’t answer. This went on all day, and by lunchtime, word was circulating all over school that Miss Cothren had gone crazy.

Finally, during the last class of the day, she told the students, “Okay, nobody’s figured out how you earn your desks, so I’ll tell you.” She opened the door, and in walked 27 military veterans, each one carrying a desk. As they quietly placed them in neat rows, Martha said, “Kids, you don’t have to earn your desks because these guys earned them for you.” She said you get free desks, free books and a free education, but it wasn’t free to these veterans…or to their friends who never came home from the wars they fought to give us all that freedom. She said, “Whenever you sit in that desk, try to remember who earned it for you.”

After that lesson, Martha was approached by one of those veterans, a news photographer, with tears in his eyes. He told her that when he returned from Vietnam, he was cursed and spat on, and made to feel ashamed of his service. He said, “Today is the first day since I’ve been home that I felt like someone appreciated what I did.”

Unfortunately, there can’t be a Martha Cothren in every school. I certainly wish I could replace every America-hating “history” professor in every university with a clone of her. But other teachers and parents can make sure their kids know who earned their desks for them. And we can all make it a point to say “thank you” to current and former members of the U.S. military. Seems to me, the 4th of July would be a great time to start.

This weekend we celebrate 244 years as an independent nation, but the events of the past few months leave us wondering if we will have many more to celebrate. We started as a unique country based on the notion that our rights come from God, not government; that because we recognize God as the creator of us all, we are all equal in intrinsic worth and value; that we would not require a big government because we would mostly self-govern and live with the understanding that the great freedoms we enjoy require great responsibilities. As the scripture teaches, “unto whom much is given, much is required.”

We were never perfect and still aren’t. We’ve had some very ugly chapters in our history, but the brilliance of our Founders was to create a nation that would be governed by law and not by our passions and emotions. We would grant rights even to those accused of awful crimes so that we wouldn’t be ruled by a mob, whose sense of justice would be at best uneven, and at worst, as evil as the crime, it was seeking to avenge. It made our system at times slow, sometimes unfair, and just plain wrong on occasion. But the ideal way to make all of us accountable to the same laws and suffer the same consequences for violating them.

All of that is at risk of going away if we allow people in the highest levels of law enforcement and the intelligence community to get away with trying to stage a coup d’etat against an elected President. A man of color in Minneapolis was murdered by a cop and a video of the murder is seen by the world. While no one defends the cop’s action, some use the tragedy as an excuse to break windows, assault innocent people, loot stores, and burn businesses that were actually owned by people of color. When that happens, we are rewarding anarchy and mob rule.

But while the news reports the worst of our nation’s sins, there are truly outstanding things of love, kindness, and sacrifice that are happening around us every day. We need to hear more of their stories and tonight you will. I hope you’ll celebrate America this weekend. Sure, we aren’t perfect, but we are a better nation than any of the over 70 nations I’ve visited.

244 years ago, some very courageous souls risked their fortunes and their very lives to give us a country unlike any ever created. I don’t want to lose this country by those who would trade liberty for the lunacy of a system that would resemble the government like it was in the time of the Judges of the Old Testament, where “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

Let’s celebrate America. But let’s fight to preserve the best of it, and change and reform the worst of it.

MORNING EDITION

July 4, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

A BIG SHOW THIS EVENING

We’re taking a brief break from the daily news so that my staff and I can enjoy some time off to celebrate the Fourth of July with our families. But don’t worry, we’ve prepared some newsletter material in advance. And if anything major occurs that cries out for comment, we’ll set down our hot dogs and rush to our laptops! We will return to covering the daily headlines on Tuesday.

Before watching the socially-distanced Fourth of July fireworks displays on TV, join me for some real fireworks on “Huckabee” on TBN! We’ve put together a very special July 4th show for you. I’ll have some new comments on the holiday and the news, plus we’ll revisit some of the very best, funniest and most patriotic moments from previous shows. I won't spoil the surprises, but I guarantee you'll love it.

It’s all coming your way tonight at 8 and 11 EST, 7 and 10 CST, and the same times on Sunday, only on TBN. To find where you can watch TBN, from local cable and broadcast channels to streaming, visit https://www.tbn.org/huckabee and click on the “WATCH” menu at the top. You can also stream previous episodes, highlights and Internet-only “Digital Exclusives,” like extended interviews and extra performances by our musical and comedy guests. It’s all at https://www.tbn.org/huckabee

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA

Happy Independence Day and happy 244th birthday to the United States of America! No, this nation was not born in 1619 when slaves first arrived, no matter how many trinkets liberal “journalists” award themselves for creating bogus history. It was born on July 4th, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which officially kicked out the previous regime and kicked off history’s greatest experiment in freedom.

Today is when all Americans celebrate our freedoms. But sadly, too many young Americans have been miseducated to feel no gratitude for the titanic struggles and sacrifices made by those of previous generations to secure and preserve those freedoms. Even those who recognize how lucky they are to be Americans are often too willing to trade away their freedoms in exchange for hollow promises of comfort and security. As the great philosopher Joni Mitchell once said, “You don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone.”

That’s why the Founding Fathers took such care to lock our most important rights safely within the First Amendment to the Constitution. There are more freedoms guaranteed in that one short sentence than people in most nations can even dream of. That’s why for centuries now, people from around the world have risked their lives to come to America, and why immigrants are often more aware of how unique America is and more grateful for those freedoms than native-born Americans. The Founders understood that freedom really is that precious.

When the framers of the Constitution first met in 1787, many feared that if they created a strong federal government, it would trample the rights of the people, just like the British king they’d fought to break free of. So to make sure the people’s rights would always be protected, they added 10 amendments - although George Mason thought they were so important, they should come first, as the Preface!

Now, in case you’ve never heard it or have just forgotten (as too many federal judges and a few Supreme Court Justices I could name have), here is the First Amendment, in its entirety. Don’t worry, this really won’t take long:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yep, that’s it. This was before the government needed a 2,000-page bill just to ruin your health insurance. Only 45 simple words were needed to protect our right to speak freely without fear of government retribution...Our right to publish those words so that other Americans can read and debate them…Our right to band together with like-thinking Americans and protest peacefully without fear of arrest (note: protesting peacefully does not include rioting, arson, and looting)…Our right to petition our leaders to change their policies…And our right to be free from having an official state religion forced upon us, but also from government interference with the free expression of our personal religious beliefs (like telling us we can’t gather in church to worship, but we can gather in Walmart.) A lot of people celebrate the first half of that religious right (no state religions) but pretend the second half (no state interference in religion) doesn’t exist. The Supreme Court even seems to be reticent lately to make clear that it means what it says, even though it takes only six words to say it: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These are the rights that together create the free American culture that those of who know real history celebrate today. The Founders thought they were all so important that somehow, they found a way to list every single one of them first.

Then, just to be certain that no future government ever tried to take those rights away, they made the very next amendment the right to bear arms.

And they emphasized that these rights are given by God, not government. So no matter how hard some people might try to scratch some of them off of the parchment, it won’t make a lick of difference. You can’t edit God.

YANKEE DOODLE

Usually, around the Fourth of July, we hear a lot of songs about all the great things about America: “God Bless America,” “God Bless The USA,” “America the Beautiful” (although you might not have heard them this year because of some people whining that hearing God’s name or praise for America “triggers” them.) But before them all, even before “The Star-Spangled Banner,” there was the original American patriotic anthem, “Yankee Doodle.” However, it didn’t start out as a celebration of Americans, but as a mockery of them.

Since 1776, the song “Yankee Doodle” has been as much a symbol of America as the flag. Every child learns it from the cradle. But many of us grew up without ever knowing what it really means. Like, why did he call his cap macaroni? Did he use cheese for hair mousse (I’ll bet a lot of recent college graduates actually believe that)? Well, I’ll answer those questions and more.

“Yankee Doodle” dates back long before 1776. It most likely started as a German nursery rhyme, since “dudel” is an Old German word for “fool.” It first became associated with America when British soldiers made up their own lyrics to it to mock the ragtag American Revolutionaries. That baffling line – “stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni” – makes sense when you know that a macaroni wig was one of those ridiculously large powdered wigs that dandies of the time wore. The Brits were ridiculing Americans as a bunch of hayseeds, so dumb they’d think sticking a feather in their hat would make them look sophisticated. Imagine a Huffington Post article about Trump voters from Alabama, and you’ll have a pretty good idea of just how much arrogant condescension they intended to convey with that.

Unfortunately for the British, it turned out wars weren’t settled according to who had the spiffiest uniforms (in fact, red coats just made you a brighter target.) Those unfashionable Americans were fighting for their homes, their families and their freedom. So they did what Americans have done ever since: they took the ridicule aimed at them, threw it back in the faces of those who mocked them, and got the last laugh.

The Americans took the song “Yankee Doodle” that was meant to belittle them and adopted it as their anthem. They marched to it in the streets, sang it in bars, and made up their own new lyrics to promote the cause of freedom and glorify leaders like General Washington, “upon his strapping stallion.” It wasn’t long before the British learned to dread the sound of that tune, especially when it was played on a fife and drum, accompanied by American militiamen. A Boston newspaper reported that Minutemen who captured two British officers forced them to dance to “Yankee Doodle” until they collapsed. After that, the Brits admitted that that mocking little song didn’t sound so funny to them anymore.

Well, now you know how “Yankee Doodle” came to be the unofficial American battle anthem that later inspired another great patriotic song for this time of year, George M. Cohan’s “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” As Cohan proudly sang, “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy, a Yankee Doodle, do or die…A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam, Born on the Fourth of July!”

Of course, Cohan was actually born on the third of July. But that’s another story for another day.

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)

 



CHOP has been chopped

July 2, 2020

NEWS UPDATE: CHOP has been chopped. After degenerating from an alleged “festival atmosphere” and “second summer of love” into a dangerous, lawless war zone within days, the area of Seattle “occupied” by leftist radicals was finally cleared out Wednesday morning.

Mayor Jenny Durkan must’ve gotten tired of competing with Bill DeBlasio for the title of America’s Worst Mayor because she finally issued the order police had been waiting for. They moved and gave the big, tough social justice “warriors” eight minutes to clear out (yes, that’s how quickly this could have ended if the Mayor had ever done her job.) Among those who resisted, there were 31 arrests. Let’s hope that for probably the first time in their lives, they will discover what it means to face real consequences for their rotten behavior.

CHOP was a disaster and a massive dereliction of the city’s duty to protect its citizens. It was also an unwarranted tragedy that resulted in robberies, assaults and other violent crimes, three serious injuries from shootings, and the shooting deaths of two black teenagers - Lorenzo Anderson Jr. and Antonio Mays Jr. – by people who claimed they launched this radical Romper Room with no police allowed to protest the unjust killing of black people by police.

At the link is a post-mortem on what happened in Seattle and how (the first step was the mistake of electing a far-left government.) As bad as the entire episode was, it did serve one purpose: seldom has there been a more horrifying but useful illustration of how swiftly civilization can spiral into anarchy when you do something as stupid as abolishing the police and giving power to a bunch of socialist undergrads.

We’re taking a brief break from the daily news so that my staff and I can enjoy some time off to celebrate the Fourth of July with our families. But don’t worry, we’ve prepared some newsletter material in advance. And if anything major occurs that cries out for comment, we’ll set down our hot dogs and rush to our laptops! We will return to covering the daily headlines on Tuesday.

In the meantime, all of us here wish you and your families a safe, fun, and blessed Fourth of July weekend. Please remember, in the midst of the current radical anti-American garbage that’s taking up way too much space in the news that there is a reason why you’re called “the Silent Majority” and they are just the extremely loud, tiny minority. This is NOT a nation of racists and white supremacists with a shameful history based on nothing but slavery that deserves to be smashed and forgotten. This is instead history’s greatest experiment in freedom and respect for the God-given rights of the individual.

As we all gather peacefully and unapologetically, both native-born Americans and immigrants, to fly Old Glory, watch the fireworks and sing patriotic songs, let’s remember that when anyone tries to claim that America is an evil, irredeemable, racist nation that needs to be “fundamentally transformed,” they have the First Amendment right to say it, but they deserve no more serious consideration of their ignorant views from intelligent adults than do any other prattling children.

Yes, our ancestors were flawed human beings, as are we all. So far, there’s been only one perfect person in the past 2,000 years. But never has there been such a nation that continually strove to overcome its problems and prejudices, that was founded on the government being the servant of the people and not vice versa, that fought a bloody civil war to end slavery, and that has sacrificed so many lives to protect others around the world from oppression and tyranny. For generation after generation, Americans have worked and struggled to create a more perfect union, and to ensure the blessings of liberty and equal opportunity for people of all races and creeds so that the future will forever be brighter than the past. That is worth celebrating!

Our Founding Debate

July 2, 2020

I hope you’re having a great 4th of July week, but between the celebratory fireworks on one hand and the anti-American political fireworks on the other, let’s take just a moment to reflect on what Independence Day really means and how it led to the freedoms and blessings that far too many Americans fail to appreciate these days.

Most historians (not New York Times writers, but real historians) mark the beginning of America as the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. But in truth, there was still a long road to travel before America as we know it came to be. First, of course, there was the matter of fighting a bloody revolution against Great Britain, one where victory was an overwhelming longshot, and win or lose, the leaders risked their lives and fortunes. Victory was followed by more heated battles over what kind of government we would have.

Our Forefathers finally agreed to a blueprint, the Constitution, that wasn’t even introduced until 1789 – over 13 years later. Today, many Americans take those hard-won freedoms very lightly and seem eager to trade them away for false promises of security. Some can’t even name the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Maybe they’d cherish them more if they knew how close they came to not having them at all.

Did you know that the Constitution very nearly got passed without the Bill of Rights? Even some of the wisest of our forefathers thought a Bill of Rights was a dangerous idea. Alexander Hamilton argued that it was risky to list the rights the government couldn’t take away because then, politicians might try to grab any and every power that wasn’t specifically prohibited to them (apparently, the ability to rap wasn’t the only way Hamilton predicted the 21st century). He and many others also felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary: since nobody was surrendering their God-given rights by agreeing to the Constitution, there was no need to list them, right? Hamilton wrote, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

It’s ironic that Hamilton made that argument. Later on, as the first Treasury Secretary, he cited powers that the Constitution merely implied that the government had in order to take on debt, create a federal bank and impose unpopular taxes. Over a century later, when the federal income tax was passed, some lawmakers wanted to include a 10% limit, but they were voted down. Opponents scoffed that it was absurd to think the government would ever steal as much as 10% of an American’s hard-earned wages. Flash forward just 30 years, and they were happily taxing away 94%. So just imagine how few freedoms we’d have today if they’d listened to Hamilton and decided it wasn’t necessary to put specific limits on government power.

Luckily for us all, Thomas Jefferson won the argument, and the Bill of Rights was added. They even included the 9th amendment, which I’ll bet most people can’t even describe. Here’s what it says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It means that just because some God-given rights aren’t specifically listed, that doesn’t mean the people cede them to the government. Maybe because so many of the framers were also farmers, they understood that like weeds, government tends to grow and grow, choking out the productive crops -- and like a bull, it will trample you if you don’t corral it.

So if we want to preserve our freedoms, and keep government limited, maybe we should send more farmers to Washington -- and fewer lawyers.

Handy Links

July 2, 2020

A petition opposing the renaming of John Wayne Airport in Orange County.

To remind you of why you need to sign that petition, here are 40 quotes from John Wayne, some of them amazingly timely, like, “I’m responsible only for what I say, not what you understand” and “Life is tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid.”

Joe Biden has a new campaign slogan: “Vote for Biden and Pay Higher Taxes!” Okay, that’s not an official slogan, but it is now his official policy, as if we didn’t already know it.

If the mainstream media really believe that black voices should be heard, why are they trying to suppress Larry Elder’s new documentary “Uncle Tom: An Oral History of the American Black Conservative” that dismantles the BLM narrative?

The New York Times has jumped on the Idiot Train in denouncing Mt. Rushmore as a monument to white supremacy built on land stolen from Native Americans. Which prompted the observation that the New York Times building is on land stolen from Native Americans for $24 in junk jewelry, so they should immediately sell it and give the money to the Lenape Tribe as reparations.

Must-See Video: You’ll enjoy this, I promise.

The number of coronavirus cases is spiking again (let’s see, what might have happened a few weeks ago to spread it that Democratic officials refused to lock down?...) Across America, officials are panicking and reinstating lockdowns and other draconian measures that did more harm than good.

The good news that’s being overlooked is that while testing is finding many more cases than we expected, the number of serious illnesses has dropped sharply. The vast majority of people found to be carrying the virus have mild or no symptoms, and those who are hospitalized are not getting as sick as before and are recovering in greater numbers. We’ve learned more about the disease and found better ways to treat it (and no, having a billion ventilators was NOT the key).

In fact, an Oxford study found that we’ve progressed so far so quickly that a hospitalized COVID-19 patient’s chances of dying are now one-fourth of what they were as recently as April. Of course, that one-in-four deaths is still all the fault of President Trump, while the three-in-four who now live owe nothing whatsoever to the massive public-private team effort he put together to study and battle the disease.

While early computer models were telling us the death rate could be as high as 2% of all who were infected, we’ve since learned that it’s much more widespread and asymptomatic than we first thought. Studies worldwide are finding between 10 and 100 times more infections that we knew, the average being 20 to 25 times more. While media reports are still using outdated, inflated figures, the actual death rate might be as low as 0.26% of those infected.

It’s still a bad disease, and certainly one that we should take all reasonable precautions to avoid. But it may be time to start putting the emphasis on “reasonable” instead of “all.”

Great news: the First Amendment is still in effect, at least in some courtrooms. Friday, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio from enforcing restrictions on outdoor and indoor gatherings of religious groups that are stricter than those on businesses and other types of gatherings. They'd even put tighter restrictions on religious groups than on businesses and gatherings that were classified as “non-essential,” which ranked religious expression as lower than “non-essential.”

It’s a great victory for religious liberty but what makes it extra sweet is that the judge based his ruling partly on the blatantly biased way that those two Democrats treated the recent street protests over George Floyd and the police.

Judge Gary Sharpe pointed out that Cuomo and DeBlasio not only allowed but endorsed and participated in protests that violated their own restrictions on large gatherings while harshly enforcing those restrictions on religious groups (DeBlasio even spoke at one – with no mask! – at the same time that he was threatening to arrest Jews who gathered in groups of more than ten to worship.) That denied churches, synagogues and other religious groups equal protection under the law.

Some legal experts noted that what they were also doing was establishing an unconstitutional state religion: the religion of secular leftism, which is allowed to flout the rules because the government deems its mission and message to be so much more important than those of traditional religions.

So now that we have an official ruling that secular leftism is a religion, I’m sure the leftists will agree with me that it has to be kicked out of public schools immediately.

Once again on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that he can no longer be considered part of the “conservative” wing of the Supreme Court, as he joined with the liberals for the third time in two weeks on major cases. This time, it was a 5-4 ruling striking down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to some hospital within a 30-mile radius.

While the pro-abortion lobby (and probably Kermit Gosnell from his cell) celebrated this ruling as a victory for “women’s health,” it is anything but. They fight tooth and nail against any laws that hold abortion clinics to the most basic standards of safety and hygiene that any other medical clinic has to meet. This is because to them, nothing must interfere with aborting babies, even protecting the health of the mother by ensuring that if something goes wrong during this invasive surgical procedure, that she can be quickly taken to a real hospital where they know how to save lives instead of just ending them.

As the article at the link makes clear, once again, Justice Roberts engaged in his patented form of legal reasoning that begins with choosing your preferred outcome, then working backwards to find a way to justify it. In this case, he argued that since the Court overturned a similar Texas law four years ago, “the legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Here are the problems with that: the Louisiana law was not as restrictive as the Texas law, yet four years ago, Roberts was on the dissenting side of the ruling against the Texas law. Also, in his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Roberts, pointing out that stare decisis is usually applied only to historic rulings with a long record of decisions stemming from them, not a case that was just decided four years ago.

I know it’s disheartening for conservatives to stand by as a so-called “conservative” Justice (he’s earned those sarcastic quotation marks) appointed by a Republican President (George W. Bush) stabs them in the back more times than Norman Bates, and then see any point in voting for a Republican President to appoint SCOTUS Justices. But it’s actually all the more reason why we need to do so.

There is a natural tendency inside the Beltway for judges to become more and more liberal with age (the rare principled Justices such as Thomas being the blessed exceptions.) Roberts now "swings" more than Hugh Hefner, so this can no longer be considered a majority conservative Court. The only way to protect the Constitution is to reelect Trump, whose most important contribution to America might not be his work on the economy but his many conservative judicial appointments. Given four more years, he could appoint another two or more SCOTUS Justices. Then Roberts could attend all the liberal cocktail parties he wants, and invent all the half-baked excuses for violating the Constitution that he wants, and it won’t make any difference because when he votes with the liberals, they’ll still lose 6-3.

But if, Heaven forbid, Joe Biden (or actually, his handlers) are picking those SCOTUS nominees, we might as well sell the Constitution to the Charmin company.

And now, something fun to take your mind off all the crazy and infuriating news, and remind you of how little most of America has changed. Ford commissioned a survey to find out just how much Americans love their pickup trucks. They were asked what they would give up before they would give up their pickups. Here’s what they said:

* 82% would give up Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime Video.

* 79% would give up drinking alcohol.

* 71% would give up drinking coffee.

* 47% would give up using their phone.

* 44% would give up eating meat.

* 38% would give up sex.

And if people had to give up alcohol, sex and barbecue, PLUS their pickups, we’d all have to give up country music, because there’d be nothing left to write songs about.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET) and America’s first black billionaire, has a message for all the virtue-signaling white liberals who are making a big show of their racial wokeness by vandalizing statues of historical figures and getting “The Dukes of Hazzard” taken off TV. And that message is:

Black people are laughing at you!

Johnson calls these overheated white racial warriors (have you seen the video of the entitled young white woman screaming in the faces of two black police officers about how they’re undermining her struggle against racism?) “borderline anarchists” and says their attempts to “cancel” people for thought crimes such as saying that “all lives matter” are "tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on a racial Titanic. It absolutely means nothing…White Americans seem to think that if they just do sort of emotionally or drastic things that black people are going to say, ‘Oh my God, white people love us because they took down a statue of Stonewall Jackson.’ Frankly, black people don’t give a d**n."

And he thinks the “silliest expression of white privilege” is white celebrities releasing videos of themselves apologizing for being white, and saying, “'Oh, my God, I am so sorry that I am white.’ I don't find any black people getting on Twitter and saying, 'Oh, I'm so sorry I'm black.' And we got the worst problems...My thing is: embrace being white and do the right thing."

Johnson said none of this self-righteous political theater is going to “give a kid whose parents can't afford college money to go to college. It's not going to close the labor gap between what white workers are paid and what black workers are paid. And it's not going to take people off welfare or food stamps.”

Incidentally, I should point out that that’s what he means by “Do the right thing,” not that you should watch the Spike Lee movie instead of “Gone With The Wind” and tweet at length about how woke to your privilege it made you.

The Democrats tweeted, then deleted, this message. But too late; it was archived.

So this is what we’ve come to in 2020. If you vote for Democrats, you’re voting to put people in charge of a nation whose own history and culture they hate so much that when they hear the patriotic phrase “President to attend 4th of July celebration with fireworks at Mount Rushmore,” what they hear is “President to attend white supremacist rally at sacred land stolen from indigenous peoples.”

I implore you: please have some sympathy for the poor Democrats and don’t curse them by forcing them to hold public office in a nation for which they are seething with hatred and obviously despise most of its people, whom they believe are irredeemable racist deplorables. Encourage them instead to retire to someplace where they would feel much more comfortable, like Cuba or Venezuela.

The streaming service Hulu has yanked an episode of the ‘80s sitcom “The Golden Girls” because Rose and Blanche appear in blackface – except they don’t. The two ladies are wearing mud masks on their faces, just like women (and some men) of all races have for centuries.

When a black character walks in on them, they’re embarrassed and insist they’re not wearing blackface, which shows that the writers were aware even then that blackface was offensive. But of course, trivialities such as accuracy, intention or context mean nothing when you’re competing to see who can find the next thing to be faux-offended by, or when you’re panicking in fear before the phony outrage of the cancel culture brats.

But there’s a larger point that makes what Hulu is doing seem even stupider, if that’s possible. Most people forget now, because “The Golden Girls” is so beloved by multiple generations for its humor, its cast and its wonderful characters who seem like family, but in its day, it was one of the most “progressive” shows on TV. Creator Susan Harris (who wrote the landmark abortion episode of “Maude”) filled the show with liberal messages that were on the then-cutting edge of what was allowed on prime time

Blanche, of course, was the poster girl for recreational sex, but the show also touched on adultery (Dorothy’s husband left her for another woman, and she later had an affair with a married man) and sex among senior citizens. Blanche’s single daughter wanted to get artificially inseminated, a lesbian had a crush on Rose, Dorothy’s brother was a transvestite (the girls also accidentally hired a transvestite band for a fundraiser), a male character confessed to having had a sex change operation, and Blanche’s gay brother showed up with his partner to announce that they were getting married.

This was well before “Friends” aired the first lesbian wedding, although that show made sure to put a thumb in the eye of Christian conservatives by casting Newt Gingrich’s lesbian sister to officiate and say that “nothing makes God happier than when two people – ANY two people – come together in love.” (I’d cite the Bible chapter for that, but I can’t find it.) “Friends” also included Kathleen Turner as Chandler’s trans dad. In the same way, “Will & Grace” is often lauded for using the sitcom form to promote acceptance of gays and “soften America up” for accepting same-sex marriage.

Even in the “Golden Girls” episode that Hulu is pulling, the storyline was about Dorothy’s son marrying a much older black woman and everyone having to overcome both racism and ageism.

But here’s that larger point I mentioned: The left always eat their own. The creators of “Golden Girls,” “Friends” and “Will & Grace” thought they were brave pioneers of tolerance for including all those liberal messages in their shows. Yet all three are now under fire from intolerant leftists: “W&G” for promoting swishy gay stereotypes, “Friends” for homophobic behavior by the men, and “GG” over a “blackface” scene that really isn’t. Instead of honoring them for pushing the envelope in an earlier time, leftists attack them for not living up to current standards that might not even exist if it weren’t for them. They demand that those shows be edited or yanked, just like they demand that statues be smashed or books be burned or bowdlerized – and by the way, the big streaming services are already doing that with some e-books.

In social justice warrior land, there is no honor or respect for those who went before. There is only ruthless judgement and condemnation for not meeting a standard that changes almost hourly. If you give into it, it’s like trying to appease the sharks circling your life raft by cutting off a finger and tossing it to them. The taste of blood will only make them all the more ravenous. It’s better just to give them the finger from your boat and preserve history the way it happened.

This is why my house is stuffed to the rafters with real books, LPs, CDs, DVDs, files on hard drives, singles, VHS tapes, cassettes, 8-tracks, Play-Tapes, etc. etc. If you have to rely on streaming for anything, then you don’t really own it.

Incidentally, for a great lesson in how to react to the SJW mob and how not to, look at Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel. Former partners on the raunchy comedy series “The Man Show,” Carolla refused to knuckle under to the mob. He started a very popular podcast so the networks can’t censor him, and he’s become a defiant champion of free speech. He’s often vilified, but he is never censored or silenced. And he has a new book out on that very subject called “I’m Your Emotional Support Animal” that’s sure to be a best-seller. (Warning: contains rough language that he refuses to self-censor.)

Meanwhile, his former partner Kimmel has tossed in his lot with the leftists. His once-funny late night show has become just another Trump-bashing snoozefest, and he’s as likely to deliver a teary lecture on some hot button leftist subject as a comedy monologue. But all that virtue signaling gained him zip: when it was revealed that in long-ago comedy bits, he’d worn blackface and said the “n-word” while impersonating black celebrities, he was forced to take a break to “spend time with his family.” He’s now playing the liberal martyr by blaming his problems on evil right-wingers digging up his old material. But it’s not right-wingers who are demanding his head for comedy bits he did 20 years ago. All they’d like from him is for him to be funny again. It’s the leftists he sucked up to and who will turn on him on anyone else in an instant if they smell any deviation from accepted groupthink.

My advice to him would be to spend less time interviewing boring leftists and more time with Adam Carolla.

I didn’t address this story when it came out on Friday because I have a standard rule: any shocking “blockbuster” anti-Trump story that comes from hostile media outlets such as the New York Times should be allowed to sit and air out for at least 48-72 hours to give the truth a chance to bubble up. Since this story came out on Friday, and it’s now Monday, I guess it’s safe to mention it.

The New York Times, citing its favorite source, “unnamed officials,” “reported” that Russia offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill US troops in Afghanistan to drive the US out of the region, and that the President was briefed on it. Joe Biden, picking up the softball handed to him by the Times, declared:

“The truly shocking revelation that if the Times report is true, and I emphasize that again, is that President Trump, the commander in chief of American troops serving in a dangerous theater of war, has known about this for months, according to the Times, and done worse than nothing.”

Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) screamed that Trump was guilty of Russian collusion (do they ever get tired of doing that?), and even some top Republicans are demanding an investigation. They really need to learn to count to 100 before taking anything seriously that comes from the New York Times.

So here’s what we know after waiting a couple of days: Russia called the story “fake,” and the Taliban denied there was any truth to it. Neither of those things may cut any ice with you, but Trump also tweeted that the Intelligence agencies reported to him that they did not brief him or the Vice President on this because they didn’t find the info credible (and that was even before they saw it in the New York Times.)

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, “This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence, but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter.” So she's saying that maybe Russia did offer such a bounty (even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally), but the big anti-Trump “bombshell” part of the story was fake news. Unless you believe our intelligence agencies are willing to lie to make it appear that President Trump is NOT colluding with Russia. And if you believe that, you haven’t been paying much attention for the past three years.

In a somewhat related story, there’s a new movie coming out about the time in the 1930s when the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for fake stories covering up atrocities committed by Russian tyrant Joseph Stalin, an award they never returned. Now, THAT'S Russian collusion!

Michael Flynn knows firsthand what it’s like when a small group of highly motivated people gets together behind the scenes to “affect change.” He was “changed” right out of the White House.

Lately, he’s applied that wisdom to the country at large and doesn’t like what he sees. Now that he can glimpse the light at the end of his own personal tunnel, he’s raising alarm bells to all Americans who want to continue their way of life. This is no time to be complacent, he says in an op-ed for the WESTERN JOURNAL. If we stand by, it’s not too much to say that America as we know it will be destroyed.

Reading this piece, one can’t help but think that its author would have made such a fine national security adviser. (Who did we end up with after the FBI interfered? John Bolton.) It’s clear that he would be encouraging President Trump right now to set up a tough line of defense. This is a man who loves America while recognizing its flaws --- having almost been done in by them himself --- and who knows how vulnerable our democracy is.

"I believe the attacks being presented to us today are part of a well-orchestrated and well-funded effort that uses racism as its sword to aggravate our battlefield dispositions,” Flynn says. “The weapon is used to leverage and legitimize violence and crime, not to seek or serve the truth.”

Its end goal: the creation of a socialist society. “The very heart and soul of America is at stake,” he warns.

This is a wake-up call for us to face the reality of 2020. Obviously, Flynn sees America right now as a battlefield, and battlefields are something he knows quite a bit about. He understands that a small, highly motivated, and organized group can quickly gain control over a much larger group that isn’t fighting back hard enough. As he puts it, “If we’re not careful, 2 percent of the passionate will control 98 percent of the indifferent 100 percent of the time.”

"Treason and treachery are rampant,” he says, no doubt drawing on personal experience with our own government, “and our rule of law and those law enforcement professionals who uphold our laws are under the gun more than at any time in our nation’s history. This passionate 2 % appears to be winning.” He’s concerned that Americans don’t realize how severe the consequences will be if the “passionate” do win.

Voting is one very important part of this (it’s become a cliché, but in this case, it’s true that no election in our lifetimes has mattered more than this upcoming one.) But Flynn says we have to do more. We have to exhibit the “audacity and resolve” that the small, well-organized, fired-up groups do.

Speaking like a battlefield commander, he makes an intriguing point: that our enemies have vulnerabilities we don’t know about. “I also sense that only a slight push on our part is all that is required to defeat these forces.” Mostly he looks to our law enforcement professionals to hold the line against “the corrupt and the criminal.” They need our support most of all, the support of “our entire being.”

They are NOT the enemy, he says. “They bring light to the darkness of night through their bravery and determination to do their jobs without fanfare and with tremendous sacrifice.” (One might say this is the ultimate example of the enemy of our enemy being our friend.)

He also warns not to be taken in by fake news. Trust your instincts and your common sense to help you see the difference between right and wrong. “Those with courage will always choose the harder right over the easier wrong,” he says. He applies this not only to dealings with our enemies but with our own government, our own “so-called leaders,” the people WE put in charge and can remove as well. Politicians who have been in office too long have “discarded us like old trash,” he says.

Flynn communicates the same strong faith, commitment, and optimism that surely kept the soldiers under his command at their peak in the field. Our goal, he says, “is to remain an unwavering constitutional republic based on a set of Judeo-Christian values and principles.”

"In war, as in life, most failure comes from inaction.”

Reading this, I am angered anew that Michael Flynn was kept from being Trump’s national security adviser, and not just because of the criminal way he was treated. We were shortchanged; we deserved someone of this caliber working for us. Personally, I would love to see him put right back into that job. In the meantime, he has made his position clear, and the President knows, at least in general, the advice he would be giving.

Incidentally, Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell made some news in an interview on “The Vickie McKenna Show” on Madison, Wisconsin, radio by saying one reason Flynn was taken down was that he was prepared to “audit” the U.S. intelligence community. The big fish there: former CIA Director John Brennan.

Now, if you’ve been reading the HUCKABEE newsletter, you already knew that Flynn was planning to do that audit. As Lee Smith reported in his book, THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, Flynn wanted to streamline the Pentagon and the intel community, and that would have involved financial audits and much-needed downsizing. They didn’t like it at all. One area of particular interest was the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), which appeared to be hiring contract people to produce reports of dubious value. Interestingly, one of those contractors was...(yes) Stefan Halper, the very person who would go on to ambush Trump campaign associates as a confidential human source on foreign soil and record their conversations. On the books, he was being paid to “write reports.”

Anyway, there were lots of reasons why Obama’s intel community --- and Obama himself --- did not want Michael Flynn around. Ironically, he thought the CIA was “too political,” and it was the truth of this that ended up taking him down. The idea of his being national security adviser and almost certainly discovering what they'd been up to in the summer of 2016 had to be just too much. That’s why McCabe, Strzok, and the rest HAD to make sure the case against him stayed open and why they had to see him gone baby gone. Look around today and you can see that it was our country’s loss.

Well, it’s taken long enough, but I’m starting to sense a shift in the wind as the “silent majority” are getting sick of staying silent while America-hating jerks smash national monuments.

Immediately after President Trump signed an executive order requiring the enforcement of the federal law against vandalizing public statues and monuments, the Justice Department announced indictments of four men in connection with the attempts to topple the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square in Washington.

The DOJ rightly drew a line between lawful protest and vandalism, stating, “This Office remains steadfast in its commitment to protect the sacred First Amendment right of individuals to peacefully protest, but these charges should serve as a warning to those who choose to desecrate the statues and monuments that adorn our nation’s capital: your violent behavior and criminal conduct will not be tolerated.”

I feel fairly certain that the idea of facing consequences for their actions will be a completely new experience for these folks, and one that their parents should have introduced them to long ago. They were among 15 people whose photos were tweeted by Trump and whom the DOJ is searching for. Naturally, some liberal media outlets accused Trump of “inciting violence” by tweeting their wanted posters. Here’s a hint: if you don’t want to be the subject of a federal manhunt, then don’t do things that put your face on wanted posters, like trying to smash national monuments. This seems like one of those “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it” situations.

Trump isn’t the only one who’s fed up with allowing rampant crime and destruction in the streets under the guise of protesting racism. In Oklahoma City, DA David Prater announced charges of terrorism, rioting and assault against protesters who turned violent in May. He said, “This is not Seattle. We’re not putting up with this lawlessness here.”

In Manassas, Virginia, a different kind of protest occurred when hundreds of people turned out for a “back the blue” march to support the police. Participants called it “disgusting” to tar every police officer because of what some bad cops elsewhere did, and said police might need better training or background checks for hiring, but as for “defunding the police, "Who in their right mind would even think that's a good idea…” In fairness, I don’t think being in your right mind has anything to do with that particular movement.

At this point, I guess I should stop and make it clear to those who like to take things out of context and leap to dumb conclusions that none of this is meant in any way to diminish the justifiable anger over the death of George Floyd. Indeed, that was something that people of all races across the political spectrum agreed on. The growing backlash is not against legitimate protesters who have genuine concerns about police behavior toward blacks. It’s against the radical left extremists from groups like Antifa, many of them young white adults from privileged backgrounds who were indoctrinated into socialism and hating America in college, who are exploiting the anger over Floyd’s death as a convenient excuse to attack the foundations of the country and try to eliminate the police.

They not only aren’t helping the black community, they’re actively harming it, and they don’t care. And not just by tarnishing the image of legitimate peaceful protesters. Their riots, arson and looting are destroying black-owned businesses and black people’s jobs, eliminating needed goods and services, and making black neighborhoods less safe by driving police out.

Even Bill Maher sees through this latest form of twisted “white savior” behavior as you can see at this link.

Also, check out the must-see video at that link by Ami Horowitz. He asked white leftists on the street who hate the police and want to abolish them if they think black people in East Harlem would agree with them. Well, of course, they would! So he went to East Harlem and asked black people about that. Their response: they think the white leftists who want to abolish the police are “ignorant” and “full of c**p.” They don’t want to live in the lawless chaos that would exist if there were no police.

And check out this blow-by-blow account of the scene at the attempt to take down the Emancipation memorial (the statue of Lincoln freeing a slave) in Washington. Black history reenactors attempted to tell the screaming activists (most of them white) the history of the statue and why it’s important. But what one young white woman called “disgusting” was the fact that they were expected to respect their elders.

And since there are so many white celebrities speaking for black people (without being asked) and calling for abolishing the police, here’s a celebrity rebuttal: Muhammad Ali Jr. says that his father would have called the people who are smashing shops and police stations, beating up innocent people and terrorizing communities “devils.”

And because I don’t believe in smashing heads to make political points, but I’m not averse to making leftists’ heads explode, I’ll also pass along this quote from The Greatest’s son, which has to represent the ultimate backlash against the past few weeks of anarchy:

“I think Trump’s a good president. My father would have supported him. Trump’s not a racist; he’s for all the people. Democrats are the ones who are racist and not for everybody.”

With the investigation of “Crossfire Hurricane” by U.S. Attorney John Durham looking more serious by the day, it’s obvious what the political cover is now. The memo has gone out to everyone in the Democrat Party and the media (but I repeat myself) to paint Attorney General Bill Barr, who had the gall to appoint Durham in the first place, as a purely political AG. Why, he’s not there to consistently enforce the law of the land; he’s just there to be President Trump’s protector, his lackey, his “wingman,” so to speak. (Wait, no, that was Eric Holder’s self-described role as attorney general for President Obama.)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, with visions of impeachment still dancing in his head, assisted in this effort last week by bringing in federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky to speak to his House Judiciary Committee about Barr’s “interference” last February in the sentencing of Trump campaign associate Roger Stone.

Keep in mind that Zelinksy was a member of Mueller’s get-Trump special counsel team and also used to work under Rod Rosenstein. He was one of four prosecutors who dramatically resigned from the Stone case; in fact, he even chose to leave his position but (big surprise) continues to work with the Justice Department. In an interview for NPR on Thursday, Barr dismissed his testimony as “simply false” and “double hearsay.”

"I was the decision-maker in that case,” he said, “because there was a dispute. And usually what happens is, disputes, especially in high-profile cases, come up to the attorney general.” He said he had not discussed the sentencing with Trump and had already decided to change his recommendation before Trump’s angry tweet. Barr said that Stone “doesn’t deserve a break, but he doesn’t deserve to be...singled out, and treated more harshly than everyone else.”

I’ll point out what few Barr critics have: this was simply a sentencing RECOMMENDATION. Judge Amy Berman Jackson may follow the suggested guidelines or not. So what is the all-fired big deal?

Trump’s political enemies want looooong sentences for his associates because that puts pressure on him to pardon them, and that would unleash a media hysteria to last until Election Day. If this means putting a 67-year-old man behind bars potentially for life (especially if he gets coronavirus in there), so be it.

The narrative from now on will be that Barr is motivated only by the desire to help President Trump. Therefore, everything he does will be examined strictly from that perspective. It doesn’t matter that Stone’s sentence WAS harsh, that invading his home with a SWAT team while CNN cameras rolled WAS an abuse of power, and that the Russia “collusion” story in which he was ensnared WAS a hoax.

But Kimberly Strassel, writing about the Michael Flynn case in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, departs from the chosen media narrative. She points out that the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled on Judge Emmet Sullivan’s rejection of Barr’s decision to drop the case has done something beyond simply rule on the legal merits.

Importantly, the ruling is also a rebuke of the FBI and Robert Mueller’s special counsel team. This isn’t being widely reported, of course, but Strassel says it marks the first time a federal court has acknowledged the misconduct that Barr is trying to bring to light.

Judge Sullivan had bought into the same (debunked) Democratic conspiracy theories the FBI had been using; recall that he flew into a fit and even called Gen. Flynn a “traitor,” right there in the courtroom. So, naturally, he couldn’t let this case go just because the attorney general told him to, choosing instead to call on retired Judge John Gleeson to take on the role of shadow prosecutor.

Strassel makes an important point: that if the circuit court judges had any thought that Sullivan was right about Barr playing political favorites, they could have allowed him to continue fighting that. Instead, they said quite bluntly that there was “no legitimate basis” to question the Justice Department's behavior.

They even went after Judge Gleeson for relying in his amicus brief on “news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record,” contrasting that with the DOJ’s motion that “includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt.”

They said this “includes evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

According to Strassel, the DOJ had provided voluminous evidence --- I would add that this is thanks to the determination of Flynn attorney Sidney Powell --- that the FBI had improperly pursued Flynn, kept the investigation open even when it had produced no evidence of wrongdoing, gone after him on the never-used Logan Act when he had acted appropriately, and schemed to trap Flynn into perjury with an interview that had no “legitimate investigative basis.”

Recall that in February of this year, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn case, and four months later, Jensen concluded that dismissal was “the just and proper course.” The appeals court decision was consistent with this.

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman was on FOX & FRIENDS on Friday to offer a similar viewpoint, saying that Flynn was so wronged that he should consider a “Bivens Action” against the Department of Justice and former Obama administration officials. A Bivens Action is the legal remedy to use when one’s rights have been violated by a federal investigator.

"I hope he is looking at it strongly,” Tolman said. I would imagine that at this point, Powell's team is already putting together that lawsuit. Let’s hope they are, and also hope he becomes an extremely wealthy man after losing his career and financial security over this bogus case.

Tolman agreed with Powell’s brief that the newly obtained notes penned by Peter Strzok, which describes the underlying action of Flynn’s phone calls as legitimate, show that stunning exculpatory evidence was withheld from Flynn’s defense.

He described what happened as “an absolute effort --- call it collusion, conspiracy, whatever you want to say --- that now we know goes as high as the Vice President and the President. To not only withhold information about the investigation to the incoming President, but to go after the incoming President through the incoming national security advisor on an investigation that did not have a foundation to it.” The fact that they should still have managed to bring a case should concern everyone, he said.

Tolman dared to voice what we’ve known for a long time: that they were trying to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.

So remember when Barr continues to be accused of politicizing the DOJ, it’s just another example of Democrats accusing others of what they themselves are doing. The attack on Barr is political, and it’s coordinated. It sure seems to me that Barr’s the one trying to get the politics OUT. If his decisions at times help President Trump, perhaps it’s because the President actually has the truth and the law on his side.

If you’re getting demoralized by all the polls showing Joe Biden winning in a landslide, don’t be. That’s the whole point of them. I’ll remind you that at this point in 2016, Hillary was supposedly ahead by 13 points, and I got plenty of eye rolls when I predicted that Trump would win. But if you wonder whether the majority of your fellow Americans have really gone crazy, then this might cheer you up a little.

Reporter Brian Cates reminds us of a number of important factors that the poll takers fail to take into account, such as state organization, ground game and campaign war chests. But the most important one of all is this:

“The Democratic party has openly turned into a party of stark raving lunatics.”

To be fair, I don’t know if the Party leaders are lunatics, or if they’re just pandering to lunatics, but neither one is a very convincing argument for giving them power over your life, your job, your business, your home and your family.

A lot of people are talking about (and I don’t know why) a Yahoo music editor’s article calling for replacing “The Star-Spangled Banner” as America’s National Anthem, possibly with “Imagine” by John Lennon. The excuse is that Francis Scott Key was a slaveholder (he also represented slaves trying to win their freedom in court, pro bono), and that the third verse that is never sung is “blatantly racist” (although his use of the term "slave" has been hotly debated and might mean people pressed into service by the British Navy, oh and by the way, did I mention that it’s NEVER SUNG?

This is hardly the first time anyone’s wanted to replace “The Star-Spangled Banner,” although until now, it’s usually been because it’s so hard to sing (the tune was taken from a drinking song with a high note you practically have to be drunk to attempt to hit.) The choice to replace it was usually Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America,” but we can’t have that now! Referring to God is almost as un-PC as honoring a slaveholder.

But what about “Imagine”? Look, I love the Beatles, but that has to be the most over-praised song of the past century. Even Lennon admitted that it’s basically the Communist Manifesto set to music. Radical leftists love it because it paints a picture of a utopian world without national borders, private property or religion, and Lennon often found himself having to correct their interpretations and reminding them that he wasn’t advocating for those things, he was just suggesting “imagining” that we didn’t have all those differences so we could work together globally.

But people DO have differences, and as experience has taught us, leftist prescriptions, like taking away religious freedom and property rights, do nothing but make them angrier and more likely for those differences to flare into war. Besides, imposing that "utopia" requires an ironfisted oppressive government, which isn’t likely in a world without borders. If the song has a dreamlike quality, that’s because it is a dream. A pipe dream.

Besides, if we had to do away with every song because the writer wasn’t a saint, we wouldn’t have much music left, and that includes John Lennon music. Wonder what the cancel culture would do if they realized John wrote a song intended as a feminist anthem that was called “Woman is the (N-word) of the World”?

As with all art, we have to learn to separate the creation from the creator. Francis Scott Key was a flawed human being, as are all human beings, but he gave us a great song that represents a great nation, and it stands for all our people. Some of the most inspiring renditions of it were performed by black entertainers, from Mahalia Jackson to Jimi Hendrix to Whitney Houston.

If the statue-smashing radicals really want to learn from the wisdom of John Lennon, I’d recommend instead a far better song: “Revolution.”

“You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world...

But when you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out…

You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.

You ask me for a contribution, well, you know, we're all doing what we can.

But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell is brother you have to wait…

You say you'll change the Constitution, well, you know, we all want to change your head.

You tell me it's the institution, well, you know, you better free your mind instead.

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow…”

Remember when people used to complain about there being no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Is anyone still saying that now? It’s not just like comparing apples and oranges, it’s like the difference between Goofus and Gallant. Or Superman and Bizarro World Superman.

To start with, Minneapolis, like other big, longtime one-party Democrat cities, has suffered widespread riots, arson and looting and destruction of public statues and monuments by people who seem to thank that if you smash historic monuments, you change history (or as I call that, “Taliban logic.”) Their Goofus response: on Friday, the Minneapolis city council (which has not one single Republican) voted unanimously to abolish the police department. Some residents who vowed not to call the police and were immediately inundated with hundreds of homeless people and their various drug dealers and other problems could probably tell you where this is going to lead.

A local business owner whose bookstore was destroyed by arson said there are legitimate problems with the police, “but the way the politicians are going about it is just ridiculous. They are pandering to a certain segment of the public.” He said he won’t reopen his store if city leaders push through a “sufficiently stupid” plan. I feel confident that the one and only way in which the Minneapolis city council will exceed expectations is in the field of stupidity.

Fortunately, the city council doesn’t have the power to abolish the police force unless the citizens vote for it in November. Let’s hope they’re now undergone enough of the traditional process for clearing up one’s thinking (“A conservative is a liberal who got mugged”) to vote to abolish the current city council instead.

On the other side, President Trump’s Gallant response to the unrest was to sign an executive order requiring enforcement of federal laws against vandalizing public monuments and government property, providing assistance for protecting it, and withholding federal support and grants from local authorities who fail to do their jobs and protect it.

Trump has also taken measures to declare the violent radical left group Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, and his DOJ is reportedly already conducting dozens of investigations of their organizers. Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Jerrod Nadler (Goofus, NY) stood up in the House and declared Antifa to be “imaginary.” That’s right: the same guy who wasted many months and untold tax dollars to impeach the President over nonexistent crimes, and who has spent years pushing a Russian collusion hoax, believes that it’s Antifa that’s imaginary.

At that link, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan disabuses Rep. Nadler of his delusions, and at this link, so does a former Antifa member, who was quite surprised to learn that all the rocks he threw through windows were actually part of a quilting circle.

Rep. Nadler might also want to check out this video and ask himself, “If Antifa is imaginary, who sprayed that extremist graffiti, shoemaker’s elves?”

Senate Republicans offered up a serious police reform bill similar to but not as radical as the one from House Democrats. It was largely crafted by Sen. Tim Scott, one of the few black Senators and someone who’s had personal experience with racial profiling. Democrats, who claimed to care so much about black people that a bill had to be passed by July 4th, filibustered the Senate bill to kill it so it couldn’t even open up for changes and amendments, then insulted Republicans using racially charged terms such as “token.” Here was Sen. Scott’s response:

He also called Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to blame Republicans for the murder of George Floyd outrageous and sinful.

Meanwhile, back in Goofus Town, Speaker Pelosi claimed that only the Democratic House bill is worthy of “George Kirby’s name.” FYI: George Floyd was killed by a police officer in solidly Democratic Minneapolis. George Kirby was a gifted comedian and impressionist, best known for the 1970s TV show, “The Kopykats,” with fellow mimics Rich Little and Frank Gorshin. He was black, though, so she got that part right.

And while Democrats claim to be displaying their deep concern for black people by tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican who freed the slaves from their Democrat masters, the far-left California legislature just voted to put a measure on the ballot to rescind the state constitutional amendment barring discrimination based on race, gender or national origin. They claim this is good because it will allow them to impose race-based discrimination they approve of, so that the state can openly judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. Since this is California, I won’t call that “Goofus” thinking. Let’s just call it Goofy.

The mayor of Seattle allowed a bunch of far-left radicals to create their own six-block Utopia. She called it a festival and a second “summer of love.” But after just a couple of weeks, what have we learned about what kind of America they would really create?

Well, we immediately learned that they would build walls and barricades around the border to keep out people they didn’t want inside. Those seeking entry would be greeted by armed guards demanding to see their papers. Instead of trained police accountable to the public, arbitrary “laws” would be enforced by a self-proclaimed “warlord” carrying around a semi-automatic rifle in a densely populated area, and passing out similar weapons to other people without any background checks whatsoever (All this is not what I've been told liberals wanted.) Nobody would have any protection from killings, assaults or robbery, including sexual assault; so much for women’s right to say “no” to unwanted sexual aggression. There will also be no food, except for what the capitalists they hate give to them.

And it’s not like they’re being coy about what their real end game is.

Now, the latest piece of sub-mental regression: to protect black people from the racism of white people, white people create special segregated areas where only black people can go.

But as Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media points out, this is not, as many people claim, a failure of the US education system to teach these young people about history, economics or anything remotely useful. It’s actually a triumph of the leftist project to infiltrate schools and indoctrinate a generation of young Americans with hatred of their own nation and its history and culture so they could be used as an easily-controlled mob.

Unfortunately for their would-be masters, their big mistake was in thinking that a group of angry, miseducated and overly-entitled brats could be “easily-controlled.” Note the growing calls for renaming liberal schools like Harvard and Yale that were started by people aligned with slavery, redistributing their precious vast endowments, and “canceling” any professors who argue against it.

Instead of concentrating so heavily on the writings of Karl Marx, maybe some of these leftist professors should have read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”

When last we left the Michael Flynn case, presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan had been advised by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to follow Attorney General Bill Barr’s orders and let it go. Give it up. Shake it off. And then maybe take a loooooong vacation. (Personally, I’d suggest a permanent one.)

But the stalemate continues, though it’s almost overshadowed by another revelation, made possible through the DOJ’s partial declassification of a note in Peter Strzok’s chicken-scratch handwriting, that Obama and Biden participated actively in a January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting about the incoming national security adviser. The notes even suggest Biden specifically brought up the Logan Act.

RELATED READING: Crazy: Judge Sullivan can't let Flynn case go

On Thursday, numerous pundits weighed in on the significance of this, and I was particularly intrigued by one comment from a source we’ve quoted with confidence, Undercover Huber, who tweeted: “Don’t laugh, but at this point, my working theory about Gen. Flynn and the Logan Act is that the people in the Obama administration got the idea from the freaking WEST WING cable TV show. An episode at the end of the series (“Transition”) shows the outgoing lame-duck admin in a foreign policy dispute between China and Russia. They carry out electronic surveillance of all calls with Russia and wiretap the incoming team and confront them about...the Logan Act!”

Dan Bongino brought this up in his Thursday podcast. Could it be?? We’ve seen real-life intersect with fiction before in this scandal; Christopher Steele apparently borrowed from the creative mind of wannabe screenwriter Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS. What if Biden got the idea to go after an incoming national security adviser for violating the Logan Act after seeing something similar on THE WEST WING?

We know he’s not above plagiarizing others’ words and ideas; in fact, he even dropped out of a presidential race after it was discovered he had plagiarized.

It’s likely he also stole a different idea from THE WEST WING, as Bongino illustrated by juxtaposing two clips: 1) Biden at a podium, likening the race to cure cancer to JFK’s call to put a man on the moon in 10 years, and 2) Martin Sheen playing the President in his office, giving essentially the same spiel, with similar delivery.

Hilariously, Obama borrowed the same idea, for his January 2016 State of the Union Address.

My guess is that then-Sen. Biden was a fan of that show, which depicts those in the corridors of government power the way they must love to be portrayed, with constant snappy reparte –- do they EVER tire of hearing themselves talk? –- and nonstop hectic lives, all in the interest of “governing.” Martin Sheen played a President Democrats could only dream of, and goodness knows they needed someone they could idolize in the early 2000s with George W. Bush in office. I’ve imagined this show as therapy for them.

I’d seen clips from THE WEST WING but never an entire episode. So I thought the best way to come to any conclusion would be to watch the episode in question: Season 7 (the final season), Episode 19, “Transition,” which originally ran April 24, 2006, and has been in reruns since. Obviously, this episode is set during the transition period, with President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) transitioning out and President-elect Santos (Jimmy Smits) transitioning in. Concerns are established early in the script about the new administration overstepping the old on foreign policy issues before Inauguration Day.

To set the stage, the episode opens with President-elect Santos returning congratulatory calls from foreign leaders, specifically from the G8 countries. He’s told by an aide that the rest can be dealt with by his chief foreign policy adviser. “Well, then we’d better hire one,” Santos quips.

When he gets to the call from the Russian president, he hesitates. The aide nods him forward, telling him Russia is “one of the G8's.” Santos replies, “He’s also leader of a nation we may find ourselves exchanging hostile fire with any moment.” They exchange uncomfortable looks, and Santos finally says, “Call him.”

A scene in the President Bartlet’s office establishes that the incoming President is going to be briefed in-depth on the “intervention” in Kazakhstan. Santos is taken to a secure deep-basement briefing room --- I’m guessing kind of like the one Adam Schiff’s committee used for their secret impeachment confabs --- where he’s told we’re “reaching full deployment” of ground and support personnel positioned between Chinese and Russian forces. (Say what??) When he asks what happens next, he’s has a big problem with their cavalier answer and the “entire adventure, as I’ve already expressed to the President.” He abruptly leaves the room.

Here’s where it gets interesting. As soon as he’s gone, there’s this exchange:

Official #1 --- The NSA picked up the President-elect’s congratulatory phone call with the Russian president.

Bartlet’s chief of staff (I think) --- They’re tapping his phone?

Official #2 --- In the current crisis, the NSA’s monitoring all contact with the Russian and Chinese governments as a matter of course.

Chief of Staff --- And?

Official #1 --- The Santos call contained nothing improper.

Hm, so why was this even brought up? Later in his office, Santos complains of the Kazakhstan “mess” that “they’re depositing on our doorstep.” He tells his aide to get the president of China on the phone. “China’s not one of the G8 countries,” the aide warns. The message to Santos is definitely "don't go there." But the call is placed as the scene cuts away.

Now, it gets even more interesting. We go to President Bartlet’s office.

Chief of Staff –- Sir, we have a problem.

Official #1 –- NSA monitors picked up a phone conversation between President-elect Santos and Chinese President Lian.

Prez: Yeah.

Chief of Staff: Sir, you’re not going to like what he said...

Then, everything hits the fan. There’s a twist later that reveals the incoming and outgoing Presidents --- who, significantly, are from the same political party --- had secretly coordinated this call to China, using it to play “a little geopolitical good-cop, bad-cop.” VERY different from the adversarial Obama-Trump transition. Still, the episode contains several clear messages.

1. That the incoming administration is supposed to wait till Inauguration Day to insert itself into foreign policy.

2. That the NSA wiretaps calls between incoming officials and foreign leaders. (Apparently when this episode came out in 2006, that practice was kept closer to the vest. Today, both President-elect Trump and incoming national security adviser Flynn would have been aware.)

3. That current security officials will listen to the calls and “tell” on the interlopers, even on the incoming President or his national security adviser.

So, could Biden have gotten the idea of using Flynn’s recorded calls with a foreign leader to prosecute him after watching this show? The words “Logan Act” are never spoken, but if Biden watched the show, it might have come up later in conversation among colleagues exploring possible ways of taking Flynn out. And everyone seemed to be exploring those.

Doesn’t sound too farfetched to me. These days, hardly anything does.

Must-Read Article: I recently linked to an article about how very different life is in rural and small-town America than it is in the deep blue cities filled with riots and “occupied zones” and cancel culture and attacks on police. The writer seemed unconcerned about all those things because they were in those horribly-run cities and wouldn’t touch the rest of the country. I argued that while he was certainly right about life being better and people getting along a lot better outside of leftist-run cities, he was wrong to think that “it can’t happen here.”

In fact, it already is happening. The woke mobs are starting to target smaller towns with the same smear tactics and organizational techniques they’ve perfected in cities to get sympathetic leftists elected to office where they release criminals and make cops stand down and kneel before rioters and monument smashers. Here are some examples of small towns where conservative mayors, school board members and other officials have been intimidated into resigning amid nonsense accusations of being “white supremacists.”

How does this happen? It happens when you’re not paying attention (that’s how AOC got into Congress via a low-turnout primary, the same method radical leftists are using to get local DA’s elected who “reform criminal justice” by refusing to prosecute or jail criminals.) It happens when officials knuckle under, apologize and resign instead of standing up for themselves. And it happens when citizens are too scared to fight back and say “No” to the mob’s demands. Yes, there is a silent majority, but we are quickly reaching the time when the majority can’t stay silent any longer, or it will find itself being oppressed by a very vocal, very leftist and very, very stupid minority.

Facebook censorship

June 25, 2020

Project Veritas has released another undercover video, this one allegedly exposing the free speech-crushing leftist bias inside Facebook.

Facebook insider/whistleblower Zach McElroy said, “We are essentially in charge of what gets said and what gets stifled,” and he’s willing to testify to Congress about Facebook’s bias and its algorithm that results in 75-80% of posts selected for review being ones that support Trump or conservative causes.

The video captures Facebook moderators bragging about how they target and sideline conservative posts. One is asked if she deletes every Republican post that comes up, and she replies, “Yes! I don’t give no (bleep)s, I’ll delete it.” As for anti-Trump posts that do violate policy, she said, “You gotta take it down, but I leave it up. If you see something that’s not supposed to be up, it’s probably me.” Another said, “If someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism…I think we are all doing that.”

Check out the link to see the Project Veritas video, as well as video of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg testifying under oath to Congress that Facebook doesn’t have any bias, why, “to the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.”

He must define “all ideas” the way the New York Times defines “all the news” in its motto, “All the news that’s fit to print.” That is, all the news that fits the leftwing political agenda. If Congress doesn’t change the law to yank Facebook’s protection from lawsuits as a “neutral platform” (HA!), then can we at least see perjury charges brought?

People are next

June 25, 2020

Some people like to look back to the old “Andy Griffith Show” for valuable life lessons. If I had to cite the best advice from that for big city mayors dealing with streets full of radical leftist vandals burning, looting and destroying monuments and historic statues, I’d point to the sage wisdom of Barney Fife:

“Nip it! Nip it in the bud!”

Unfortunately, with Democratic officials having ordered the police to stand back for weeks and let the mob “vent” and “express its feelings,” it’s too late for that. Instead of getting it out of their systems, they’ve just been emboldened to believe that their strategy for destroying America and its history is working, and they’re only ramping it up.

It’s obvious that the call to remove Confederate monuments was only a pretext, and that President Trump was right: they’ve quickly moved on to attacking statues of Washington and Jefferson, and to show their genuine historical illiteracy, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, World War II soldiers, and several prominent abolitionists. In Texas, a statue of guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn was defaced, and there was even a threat against the Alamo (if they dare to damage that Texas shrine, Davy Crockett and company won’t be the only people who made their last stand at the Alamo.) There’s even talk about whether we need extra security to protect up Mount Rushmore. So this is not really about feeling “triggered” by Confederate monuments, it’s an all-out assault on all American history and culture, and everything and everyone who did something to contribute to it.

Christopher Bedford in The Federalist wrote one of the most talked-about editorials of the day, recounting the history of revolutionary mob violence and what happens when nobody stands up to them.

Bedford writes, “A society that believes in itself builds monuments, a sick society does not, and a dying society watches as they are torn down.” He further warns that “everywhere statues are torn down by the mob, history teaches that people are next.”

And we’re already seeing that come to pass, with physical assaults and even killings of police, protesters, and others unfortunate enough to attract the mob’s attention. Just last night, Democratic Wisconsin state Senator Tim Carpenter was beaten by “peaceful protesters” at the State Capitol. They claim he “provoked” them. He says he was just taking a photo. They were toppling two statues, one of them a statue of a Union officer who fought to free the slaves. So either they didn’t want their faces seen by police, or they were too ashamed of how pig-ignorant they are about history to show their faces.

President Trump has now ordered that if local Democratic officials refuse to do their jobs and protect public monuments, he will enforce the federal law protecting them. But what is these officials’ reaction to the expanding anarchy in their own jurisdictions? I’m not certain which would be the most accurate adjective: shameful, oblivious or insane? Take a look at this outrageous statement by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and you be the judge:

When asked about Trump saying Democratic officials should do more to protect monuments, Cuomo replied, “People are making a statement about equality, about community, to be against racism, against slavery, I think those are good statements…It’s a healthy expression of people saying let’s get some priorities here and let’s remember the sin and mistake that this nation made and let’s not celebrate it.”

Far be it from me to tell Gov. Cuomo how to do his job (although I did do that job for 10 years, and somehow managed to avoid killing thousands of nursing home residents, driving businesses to other states, or allowing communist radicals to run riot in the streets, destroying public monuments), but that is not “healthy expression.” It’s felony vandalism. You know, the kind of criminal act and threat to public safety that Governors are supposed to prevent.

It’s too bad Barney Fife isn’t with us anymore. He’d make a much better Governor than Andrew Cuomo.

Some good further reading on this subject: Conrad Black at National Review on why the assault on statues is really a fight against civilization:

Come on, Judge Sullivan; at this point, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

I say this because at the time of this writing, late Wednesday night, Emmet Sullivan, the presiding judge in the Michael Flynn case, still has not complied with the federal appeals court that ordered him to drop the case. What he did was issue a “stay of the current settings” for a hearing already on the calendar and for any further briefings.

The vote was 2-1 from a 3-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m not a lawyer, but it seemed to me that even the judge who dissented was doing it based on the timing of their intervention, not the merits of the case itself. But that’s not enough for Judge Sullivan, who, in defying Attorney General Barr’s decision to drop the case, has shown himself to be the very incarnation of Captain Ahab, determined to harpoon the Great White Trump if it sinks him.

(Aside: to show how apt this imagery is for describing TDS, I’ve included this quote from Melville’s MOBY DICK: “...all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable, in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”)

Anyway, Barr –- who is, after all, the prosecutor –- wants to dismiss the case. The D.C. panel wants to dismiss it. Lord knows Flynn and attorney Sidney Powell want to dismiss it. One would think even the original prosecutors would want the case dismissed, as Powell has amassed a mountain of evidence of their misconduct big enough to send THEM to the hoosgow. It seems the only one still involved who doesn’t want to drop it is Judge Sullivan, and the appeals judges have essentially kicked the ball back to his court. He doesn’t get to exercise his own discretion on whether or not to drop it, but he may choose to continue to stretch this out and have the matter re-heard by the full appeals court.

Former deputy Assistant AG John Yoo, speaking Wednesday with Shannon Bream, pointed out that issuing this writ of mandamus to Judge Sullivan’s court was “an extraordinary step on the part of the D.C. Circuit Court." They’re rare, and apply when a judge has abused power. He said Sullivan could indeed appeal to the full panel of 13 or even to the Supreme Court, but “that would just be prolonging his own mistake.”

We’ve been following the case against Flynn from the start, and it has recently been blown wide open with revelations from FBI interview notes, texts and other declassified documents that it was a trap set for him early on. As the incoming national security adviser, Flynn did nothing wrong in speaking with the Russian ambassador, and he never tried to be less than forthcoming in his interview with agents Strzok and Pientka. It’s clear now that Flynn was railroaded, but the judge is on a mission to take him down just for pleading guilty --- never mind that his plea was coerced and that Powell has the goods on what they were trying to do.

Just this Tuesday, the Justice Department informed Sullivan that it had just found another page of Strzok’s notes that are exculpatory for Flynn. Strzok was the lead investigator on “Crossfire Hurricane,” which encompassed Trump and Russia and also “Crossfire Razor,” the case against Flynn.

At the time of that report, the notes were subject to a protective order, but they've now been released with some redactions. Here is Solomon's updated story, which makes additional points about the case.

A former senior FBI official told Solomon that Strzok’s notes about the Oval Office meeting are a “red flag” that the Bureau, under Comey, “may have been involving itself illegitimately in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and the incoming Trump administration.” Ya think?

The notes were said in Powell’s brief to have been taken January 4, 2017, the day Strzok relayed a request from “the 7th floor” to the lead investigator in the case telling him to keep it open, but that appears to be wrong, as they refer to events that happened on the 5th. The DOJ has said they were taken between January 3-5, which would have included the Oval Office meeting. But Strzok wasn’t at that meeting, so he was probably writing down someone else’s account of it.

Still, with stunning evidence like this on Flynn’s side, it’s quite a spectacle to watch Judge Sullivan trying so hard to keep the case going. Curiously, Sullivan seems as desperate to keep it open now, against all odds, as Strzok was in early January 2017. And we know that there were others back then who were just as keen on it, including both Obama and Biden. We know this because they attended a now-infamous Oval Office meeting January 5 to talk about this. And, yes, there are notes.

In her court filing, Powell referred to these: “...Former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice [James Clapper also attended] discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to proceed against him. Mr. Obama himself directed that “the right people” investigate Gen. Flynn. This caused former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn’s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak ‘appear legit.’”

Of course, we already knew from Sally Yates’ testimony that she was surprised to learn Obama already knew in detail about Flynn's recorded conversations. And we’ve long known from a Lisa Page text that Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing.”

Funny that in Strzok’s notes there is nothing about Obama saying to do everything “by the book.” Susan Rice wrote that to herself –- repeating the phrase three times –- a couple of weeks later in her very last act as a White House official, on January 20 just as Trump was taking the oath of office.

Biden is playing dumb about the Flynn investigation –- one of the few instances where it appears to be just an act. Either that, or he only mentioned the Logan Act in that meeting because he was the one person in the room old enough to remember the day it passed, in 1799.

Speaking of people playing dumb, on Wednesday ABC, CBS and NBC slammed the decision by Barr to drop the Flynn case as purely political and pretended to know nothing about the release of the notes implicating Obama and Biden.

Powell, looking understandably weary at the end of the evening on Sean Hannity’s TV show, said she wasn’t sure what’s going on right now. When Sean asked if she was confident justice would be done, she only said, “I feel very strongly that we will make a lot of progress in that direction...and I don’t know that it will be what everybody wants to see as full justice, but we’re heading in the right direction. Today was a big step forward.”

Flynn, though, seemed newly energized on Wednesday and made it clear he intends to fight for justice and the rule of law.

It’s getting so that Democrats these days make so many outrageous, offensive and idiotic statements that it’s hard to decide who gets the honor of Worst Democratic Quote of the Day. After New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared destroying public monuments and statues to be a “healthy expression” of people’s political feelings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “Hold muh chardonnay!” and came out with this stunner, in criticizing the GOP Senate police reform bill:

"For something to happen, they're going to have to face the realities of police brutalities, the realities of the need for justice in policing, and the recognition that there are many good people in law enforcement, but not all. And that we have to address those concerns. So, when they admit that and have some suggestions that are worthy of consideration -- but so far they were trying to get away with murder, actually -- the murder of George Floyd.”

Put aside for the moment that she’s suggesting she cares more about black lives than the creator of the GOP Senate bill, Sen. Tim Scott, who actually is black, as opposed to Pelosi, who is whiter than Caspar the ghost, although not nearly as friendly. Let’s examine her outrageous lie that REPUBLICANS are trying to “get away with” the murder of George Floyd.

I’ve said this before, but as a reminder: George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer, who is part of a department run by a Democrat police chief in a city with zero Republicans on the city council, where there hasn’t been a Republican mayor in 47 years. All county officials are Democrats, including the prosecutors who declined to punish that officer over previous brutality complaints (like now-Senator Amy Klobuchar.) Higher up, the Governor is a Democrat, as are both Senators and five of the state’s eight Representatives (who include Ilhan Omar!) The State Attorney General is a Democrat who’s so far left that he promoted the Antifa handbook on Twitter. And the state is so sold blue that it’s the only state that voted for Mondale over Reagan in 1984. In short, the death of George Floyd is the end result of decades of rock-solid, uninterrupted Democratic Party rule.

And Minneapolis is hardly an outlier. Look at every city in America where there is widespread crime and violence, and complaints of filthy, substandard and dangerous conditions in black neighborhoods, and look who’s been running them for years. Here’s a hint.

Say, while we’re at it, let’s look at all the celebrities currently under fire for racism for wearing blackface. See any Republicans on this list?

No, Republicans are not to blame for the murder of George Floyd. We’re just trying to clean up the Democratic corruption that led to that, the same way Republican Abe Lincoln had to fight the Democratic Southern states to end slavery. Or the way the NRA had to defend the right of blacks to own guns to protect themselves from the Democratic KKK. Or the way Republican President Dwight Eisenhower had to send federal troops to then-Democratic Arkansas to enforce public school desegregation…

You know, it’s suddenly starting to dawn on me why Democrats are so eager to rewrite or erase all of American history.

I don’t often recommend watching speeches in Congress these days, but Wednesday brought one by Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley that is a must-hear for Christian conservatives. It concerns the outrageous Supreme Court ruling, joined by alleged conservative Justices Roberts and Gorsuch (Gorsuch even wrote it) that refines the ban on “sex” discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “gender identity,” a concept that wasn’t even contemplated until decades after the law was written.

It is effectively a surrender to the left, since if judges can interpret the plain language of laws to mean anything they choose, then we no longer have a representative republic, we have rule by unelected judges and bureaucrats. Outrageously, Senate Republican leaders seem to be fine with that, brushing off the ruling as “the law of the land” (say, aren’t YOU supposed to make those?) and showing no interest in passing legislation to correct it. The Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street branch of the GOP is also fine with that, since they don’t care about social values issues anyway, and find them a bit of an embarrassment among their liberal country club friends. Hawley has some important words that they need to hear, and that Christian conservatives and other social values voters really need to hear.

Incidentally, since I think it’s suicidal to ignore your opponents, I also read this take on the same subject by a liberal Washington Post editor.

It’s infuriating because it makes the lazy and bigoted assumption that being opposed to letting the LGBTQ agenda steamroll religious rights, the law, the Constitution and basic biology is born purely out of personal animus toward gay people. But it’s worth reading to hear the arrogant attitude of the left toward millions of people they know nothing about and never even talk to. It boils down to “Why can’t you just take the crumbs we throw you and shut up?” Remember this the next time WaPo runs an article lamenting how some people just don’t recognize when they’re “speaking from a place of privilege.”

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but…Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals on the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, ruling that President Trump’s attempt to rescind Obama's DACA program is unlawful – even though Obama repeatedly stated that he had no constitutional authority to create it before going ahead and doing so.

The Court ruled that Trump didn’t give a good enough reason for why he rescinded it. Roberts wrote, "We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."

Just off the top of my head, how about: “It's illegal because the President has no constitutional power to invent new immigration laws”?

The story at the link states, “No one disputes that the President has the power to end DACA. Instead, the focus of Thursday's case is whether administration officials followed procedural rules when terminating the program.” Actually, a lot of people disputed that Trump has that power, mostly based upon their delusional belief that Trump isn’t really President. The “reasoned explanation” argument was just the excuse that they thought might pass muster in courts, if they could find enough liberal judges. I can almost picture their attorneys leaving the SCOTUS, high-fiving each other and saying, "I can't BELIEVE they bought that!"

Personally, I have supported something similar to DACA in the past. I think it’s wasteful and cruel to send kids who were brought to the US by their parents when they were small and have only known America back to nations where they have no place and might not even speak the language, particularly after the state has already paid to educate them to the point when they’re about to become employed taxpayers. But this was NOT the way to deal with it. Letting a President simply ignore the Constitutional separation of powers as if his office conveys magical abilities is not the way to handle it, nor is restricting the powers of future Presidents from undoing the unconstitutional actions of previous Presidents unless they say “Mother, may I?” convincingly enough to a judge.

In the dissent, Justice Thomas, one of a dwindling number of SCOTUS members who remembers what the Constitution is and cares what words mean, warned that the Court’s decision means future presidents will be stuck with illegal policies inherited from their predecessors:

"Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through executive branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court."

I refer you again to Sen. Josh Hawley’s speech warning that we have become a nation in which laws are no longer made by the elected Representatives of the people but by unelected bureaucrats and judges who think that wearing a robe makes them wizards. I guess now we can add rogue Presidents to that list. Everyone can make laws except our lawmakers.

The good news: if Trump wants to bypass the Democratic House and create laws and programs by executive order, he can now feel free to go ahead, knowing that his successors can only do away with them if they can come up with a reason better than “But this is plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!” As Roberts first signaled when he twisted the law into a pretzel to uphold Obamacare, that’s no longer a convincing enough reason for the SCOTUS to overturn something.

As for what to do about the SCOTUS, it's obvious that having Justices appointed by Republicans, even by Trump, is no guarantee that they'll protect the Constitution. But letting the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate would be exponentially worse. As law professor/blogger David Bernstein (who called the DACA decision "a very dangerous ruling" and "a very bad day for the separation of powers") said, the best insurance against 5-4 liberal decisions thanks to a rogue conservative Justice is to have a 7-2 or higher conservative bench.

In one week, the Supreme Court has managed to douse the Constitution with gasoline and light it on fire with two separate outrageous decisions. In the first, by declaring that “sex discrimination” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act also means “gender identity,” they affirmed that the plain words of laws don’t mean what Congress intended but whatever judges want them to mean, rendering the concept of laws written by elected representatives of the people to be meaningless. In the second, they ruled that President Trump cannot use an executive order to undo a previous President’s illegal and unconstitutional executive order unless the Court approves his reasons for doing so, which eviscerates the separation of powers, usurping for the Court a power reserved exclusively to the Chief Executive. And in both of these dangerous and destructive rulings, the key vote was that of Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberals.

Yesterday in the Senate, Constitutional scholar Sen. Ted Cruz took to the podium and spent about 10 minutes dismantling Roberts’ “legal reasoning,” in which he concedes that something is, of course, obviously what we all know it is, then yanks some rationale out of the ether for ruling the other way. It’s a must-see or must-read for anyone who cares about preserving – or more accurately now, reviving - the Constitution and the rule of law:

None of this is surprising since Roberts has made it clear from his writings and interviews that he doesn’t see his job as ruling on whether an issue before him is Constitutional or not – which is actually his ONLY job. He erroneously sees his job as being to look at something before him that he assumes the people want, like Obamacare, same-sex marriage, gender identity protections, DACA or keeping a citizenship question out of the Census and then work backward to try to find some legal mumbo-jumbo to justify it. He’s now done this so many times that he’s left the Constitution as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

(Incidentally, for Justice Roberts’ enlightenment, here are 10 instances where Obama himself admitted that he had no Constitutional authority to create DACA):

Since there are no elections for Supreme Court Justices, and impeachment is a longshot, there’s only one way to counter this. That is to ensure that President Trump is reelected and the GOP holds the Senate, so that Trump can continue appointing conservative, constructionist judges who can rise to the level of SCOTUS appointments, and we can all pray that he appoints enough of them so that if one or two decide, like Roberts, to go, rogue, they won’t be “swing” votes.

Of course, there is one other solution, but it’s not very likely. As Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton suggested, if John Roberts “believes his political judgment is so exquisite,” “I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa, and get elected. I suspect voters will find his strange views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the Court.”

Supreme Court shock

June 20, 2020

Monday, the Supreme Court not only rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act to redefine the ban on job discrimination by sex to include “gender identity” (setting the stage for endless nuisance lawsuits targeted at religious institutions), but they also rejected a number of cases in which citizens were appealing government interference with their Second Amendment rights.

For instance, the SCOTUS rejected an appeal by a New Jersey man who services ATMs and carries a lot of cash who understandably wants to carry a gun, but the local government requires that he name a specific threat to justify his need for one (as if he knows the name of the person who will eventually pop up and try to rob and likely kill him.) If you read the Second Amendment, you’ll notice that nothing in it says that citizens must justify their specific need for a gun to the government before they’re allowed to keep and bear one.

As the (sadly only) three Justices who dissented from the gay rights ruling noted, this Court is only too ready to pull new rights out of the ether when they involve abortion or LGBTQ issues, but they refuse to defend the clearly-enumerated Constitutional right that the Founders listed second in the Bill of Rights. It’s especially disappointing that alleged “conservative” Justices such as John Roberts and even Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch went along with the liberals in these activist rulings.

Why is it that so many so-called “conservative” Justices morph into liberals after just a short time on the SCOTUS (or as the media call it when a judge goes from respecting the text of the Constitution to rewriting laws from the bench, they "evolve”)? Some of it might be peer pressure, or just living inside the upper-crust liberal DC bubble. Some of it might also stem from the fact that ALL of our Supreme Court Justices attended the same handful of Northeastern Ivy League colleges (every one of them spent time at either Harvard or Yale) and were taught by the same liberal professors. While a few were able to resist the indoctrination, there is no real “diversity” on the Court. For instance, there’s not a single Justice who was schooled in the South or West, and can understand the needs of farmers or ranchers who bring cases to the Court.

Law Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit sums up the problem in a recent book called “The Judiciary’s Class War.”

Reynolds argues that the problem with the judiciary isn’t political but a class divide. Since the judiciary is the only branch of government that requires members to attain elite schooling, it’s dominated by people from upper middle class, elite backgrounds. Once they’re on the bench, they tend to favor things that people of their class embrace (abortion, gay rights, birth control, open borders, etc.) and even invent new “rights” to promote them, while marginalizing the real rights that working class Americans care about, such as freedom of religion, property rights, gun rights and honest apportionment of legislators to represent legal citizens.

Victor Davis Hanson also has some related thoughts about how “class, not race, divides America”…

SCOTUS decisions like Monday’s will make many conservatives despair of ever being able to get America back on the right track of respecting the Constitution and laws as written by elected Representatives of the people. But if you give up and stop voting, then you’ll guarantee the election of people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who will put their lead feet on the accelerator to take America over the cliff.

A Republican majority in both Houses and the reelection of President Trump would at least set the stage for passing legislation to replace the legislation concocted by the courts, and to keep allowing Trump to nominate conservative judges to lower courts who might someday be on the Supreme Court. And of course, to nominate SCOTUS judges who will actually defend the Constitution. So far, he’s batting .500 on that, which is .500 more than we’d ever get under Joe Biden.

In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that the Title VII ban on sex discrimination in hiring from the 1964 Civil Rights Act also applies to LGBTQ people, expanding gender employment protections to include gender identity.

Justice Gorsuch wrote, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas dissented, with Alito arguing that "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” and that’s up to Congress, not the courts. Alito wrote, “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”

I think that most people would agree that it isn’t fair to fire someone from a job just because of their sexual orientation. However, the SCOTUS, as has become its habit in cases that push the envelope of LGBTQ rights, has once again thrown a monkey wrench into the system without making provisions to settle the inevitable chaos that will ensue.

For instance, when they “discovered” a hitherto unknown right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, they added some vague words about how this shouldn’t be construed to trample First Amendment religious protections. But the ink was barely dry on the ruling before radical gay activists, who had argued that religious people had no reason to oppose it because it would never affect them, were gleefully filing federal lawsuits to force religious florists and bakers to cater same-sex weddings or else face bankrupting fines and even jail.

And now, the SCOTUS has done it again. Most people might side with the specific plaintiffs in this case, who were fired from jobs such as skydiving instructor and funeral director for being gay.

But what about churches that don’t want to hire, say, a cross-dressing gay or trans youth minister because that violates their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs? The Court has once again kicked open the door for countless drawn-out, expensive lawsuits, eating up church funds that could have been spent on things like helping the poor, and which will now have to go to lawyers. And all because the Justices can’t resist upending the long-established social order without a thought to providing clarity to head off the negative consequences. They’re like someone who throws a lit match into a fireworks factory, then walks away saying, “I’ll let the rest of you sort this out.”

Happy Juneteenth

June 19, 2020

Happy Juneteenth, and if you don’t know what that means, you probably will soon. Juneteenth (for “June 19th”) has been a popular holiday throughout the South for well over a century, but the current racial tensions have politicians and corporations around the nation suddenly jumping on the bandwagon to declare it a national or state holiday or paid leave day, only about 150 years late. Here’s what it’s about:

On June 19, 1865, Union Army Gen. Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3  to the slaves in Galveston, Texas, which informed them that they were free and now had “an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property, between former masters and slaves.” This was 2-1/2 years after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Juneteenth was a Texas celebration for many years, starting in 1866, but ramping up in 1872, when former slaves bought 10 acres of land in Houston to create Emancipation Park, the city's only park and swimming pool open to African-Americans, and the site of a big annual Juneteeth celebration. It gradually spread throughout the South, but most people outside the South knew very little about it until very recently.

Ironically, Juneteenth has finally entered the national consciousness during a summer when the coronavirus has killed mass public gatherings, so the usual barbecues and concerts will mostly be restricted to virtual events, backyards and close family this year.

I know some people will be cynical and call the sudden push for Juneteenth pandering or politics, but as someone who grew up in the South, I can assure you you’re lucky to finally discover Juneteenth. It’s a great holiday that celebrates freedom just as much as the Fourth of July does, and while it’s considered an African-American holiday, it’s something that every American should celebrate. Anything that can get us all back into public parks, celebrating together with music, fireworks, and barbecues, and remind us that people of all races are free and equal in America, is more than welcome now. It's necessary.