Advertisement

Doctors are now speaking up to report their own successes in treating COVID-19 (Chinese) coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine, zinc and the antibiotic Zithromax, and more international studies are indicating that it is effective. So is the rising evidence in its favor actually causing Trump haters to ratchet up their opposition to it, with social media sites banning even actual doctors relating their personal findings as “dangerous misinformation”? Would someone actually hate Trump so much that they would discourage the use of a drug that might save lives if admitting that it worked might make Trump look correct?

Matt Margolis at PJ Media makes that case.

It is hard to believe that anyone would be so twisted as to prioritize political advantage over protecting human life. But then, we just had the mayor of Portland lecture rioters not to try to murder people by burning down a building with human beings locked inside because Trump might use the footage in his campaign commercials.

I wonder, has anyone done a test to see if hydroxychloroquine might be effective in treating Trump Derangement Syndrome?

From our “Stop The World, I Wanna Get Off” Desk: Five protesters in Seattle filed a federal lawsuit claiming that having to buy expensive protective gear like gas masks deprives poorer people of their First Amendment rights, so taxpayers should have to pick up the tab for them to buy equipment to protect them from the police responding to their actions.

Pretty sure there’s no right to riot in the First Amendment, but if this lawsuit is successful, expect bank robbers to sue to make taxpayers pay for their bullets and office stationery to write hold-up notes. After all, bank robbers have a right to make a living, don’t they?

Fox News’ Shannon Bream suggested that it would make more sense for peaceful protesters to sue the violent rioters who have made it dangerous to attend a protest by attacking police and forcing them to respond with force and tear gas.

In fact, it might be possible that all these street fights will soon be moving into the courts. BLM and other protest groups have been filing lawsuits against authorities, but some legal experts note that because of the hundreds of millions of dollars showered on BLM by terrified corporations, they’re now a ripe deep-pockets target for lawsuits by people such as business owners harmed by the protests/riots and those who think their First Amendment rights are being squashed by BLM and its supporters.

It could all end up proving the old adage that no matter who gets into a fight, the only real winners will be the lawyers.

Trump's Comments Reviewed

August 9, 2020

Sometimes I feel as if it’s become my job by default to explain jokes to liberals who have completely lost their senses of humor since Trump’s election.

Among a number of things in that Axios interview that were taken out of context was President Trump’s comment about Ghislaine Maxwell, wealthy pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s former lover and alleged fellow human trafficker who was recently placed in a New York jail cell. Trump said he knew nothing about the case personally, but “I wish her well, whatever it is.”

The media leaped on that as “Trump’s shocking support for Ghislaine Maxwell.” Those of us not suffering from TDS took it as a sarcastic joke, a reference to the skepticism about Epstein “committing suicide” once he was locked away in a New York jail cell. We assumed he meant, “I wish her well in staying alive.” But liberals are no longer able to write or recognize a joke, so they took it literally (as when they thought Trump was literally inviting Russians to hack into Hillary’s email devices that had already been taken offline, Bleachbitted and smashed with hammers.) As Peter Theil observed, Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, while the media take him literally, but not seriously.

Maybe if they ever looked at a conservative news or commentary site, they would know that one of the top-selling T-shirts for several weeks now has been one that reads, “Ghislaine Maxwell didn’t commit suicide.”

And FYI to the media: Trump was on record years ago as slamming Epstein as a creep, while it was heroes of yours like Bill Clinton who were actually hanging out with him. I haven’t talked much about this because it’s so unsavory that I’d like to see more hard evidence and witness testimony first. But most media outlets don’t have such high standards, yet they’ve been so silent about the recently released documents connecting Epstein to Clinton that even Bill Maher is calling them out.

You would think that the idea of a city doing away with its police force would be idiotic enough just on the face of it that no sane person would actually suggest it. But if you think beyond the surface inanity, there are also further negative consequences that advocates haven’t even considered. Here’s one of them.

City dwellers don’t like to think about this, but they are heavily dependent on us rubes outside the city to create all the products they consume, like food, and to deliver them into their barren concrete jungles. Trucking companies aren’t too thrilled about the idea of sending expensive trucks loaded with valuable merchandise into cities where the police have allowed armed gangs to take over the streets. Just because the people were foolish enough to elect politicians who left them at the mercy of criminals, that doesn’t mean trucking companies outside the cities have to risk their drivers' lives, trucks and merchandise to keep them afloat.

As the trucking company owner at the link says, any states that defund the police, truckers will avoid for safety reasons. He estimates that the food chain will collapse, the people will run out of food, and there will be complete chaos within 72 hours. Then again, in places with no police, there may already be so much chaos that they won’t even notice more.

Michelle Obama is in the news again.

It doesn't surprise us --- one of my writers has said for two years that the former First Lady would be on the ticket for 2020 --- but Michelle O is starting to take a higher profile now that doubts are being expressed more publicly about Joe Biden’s mental decline. We know that even if he makes it across the finish line to Election Day and (shudder) wins, the new VP will be taking his place soon in the Oval Office. Biden won’t be able to find the Oval Office, or tell an oval from a rectangle.

Putting Michelle –- or someone, but probably her –- in at the last minute was likely the plan all along. She’s black, she’s female, she's famous, there won't be much time to take a hard look, and for many Democrats and possibly independents, she puts an appealing and, yes, moderate face on the increasingly radical Democrat Party, a friendly image that they very badly need now. She’s been voted the Most Admired Woman in America, and even Most Admired worldwide! But Michelle Obama is NOT in the mainstream.

Watch, though, how she can take a leftist goal like income redistribution and skillfully finesse it to make it seem downright middle-of-the-road. Wednesday, in her new podcast (yes, she has a new podcast), she did just that in a conversation with Michele Norris. She called coronavirus an opportunity to think about “how wealth is distributed” to lower-income essential workers.

Read the transcript, and you’ll see how she lays the groundwork for “thinking” about wealth in a different way. “...We have to think about that [being essential],” she says, “in terms of how wealth is distributed.” As she goes on about this, it sounds so reasonable, so thoughtful, so compassionate, until you realize that the solution to this, in the mind of anyone on the left, will be a monstrous government program involving large-scale bureaucratically-calibrated income redistribution, with more pages of regulations than in Obamacare (which is a good real-world example of what I’m talking about).

Michelle even helps us understand why nothing in the budget is ever cut. “...All the things that we look to cut were put in place in response to some crisis.” I see. That’s why, once we have a government program, we can NEVER cut it. The crisis never goes away, so we always have to keep it as-is (or bigger).

More: “...We actually have power; we can...change so much of what we do, we can sacrifice a little more...we can shift priorities, and not just in our own lives, ‘cause IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST DO IT IN YOUR OWN LIFE IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO DO IT IN OUR BROADER POLICY.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, out of compassion, we have to force everyone to do what we would have them do. This kind of thinking can be used to rationalize all kinds of control and taken to tremendous lengths. Goodbye freedom.

"It’s in our country’s DNA to step up,” she says. But she warns that this is “always with great opposition, because you’re asking people to sacrifice, to give up things that, that they think they deserve, that they’re entitled to, for the sake of the greater good.”

See how she subtly suggests that the “opposition” is against personal sacrifice and the greater good? Why, some people are just selfish, that’s what they are, thinking they deserve things. We’ll decide who deserves things! And to do that, we’ll have to force everyone into a “broader policy.”

Beware. Someone with this kind of skill, teamed with the more pushy radicals like AOC and "the Squad," could take control of just about everything in your life. Trump 2020!

The Worms Are Turning

August 8, 2020

And the great turning continues, as liberal institutions that went all-in on supporting lawlessness and anarchy realize it’s going over with voters like a punch bowl full of manure. First, the mayor of Portland – PORTLAND! – admitted that people who throw incendiary devices into occupied buildings with the intention of murdering the people inside are not “peaceful protesters” (I’m sure that was a difficult concession for him to make.)

And now, the New York Times (!) has actually printed an in-depth article about the living hell inflicted on the people whose businesses were inside CHOP, the area of Seattle that the mayor turned over to violent leftist, Antifa anarchists, some armed, and tried to pass off as the new “summer of love.” Those businesses are suing the city for the massive costs inflicted upon them when officials failed to do their most basic duty of protecting public safety and private property. None of this is news to you, of course, but for the Times to suddenly wake up to reality is massive.

(The Times is behind a paywall, so I’m linking to a lengthy excerpt at Instapundit. There’s a link there to the full story if you are a Times subscriber. I also wanted you to see the comment by Instapundit founder, Prof. Glenn Reynolds, that all this abrupt backpedaling away from supporting rioters by leftwing politicians and media suggests that the Democrats’ internal polling on this issue must be truly awful.)

Between this lawsuit and others like it in similar blue cities, Nick Sandmann’s lawsuits against the media outlets that slandered him, all the lawsuits against leftist college administrators who denied students due process and First Amendment rights, and the countersuit the NRA just filed against New York’s Attorney General…

…it appears that conservatives have learned from the lawfare that liberals have been waging and are turning the left’s favorite weapon against them. It might even be more effective than expected, thanks to all the Trump judicial appointees who actually respect the Constitution -- one of the top reasons why it's so important not to believe any johnny-come-lately "law and order" rhetoric from the left and instead to reelect Trump.

President Trump issued some important executive orders Thursday, all aimed at China.

Two of the orders were to ban transactions with the popular video-sharing app TikTok and the social media app WeChat in 45 days. Their parent companies are the Chinese-owned ByteDance and Tencent Holdings. Both orders warn that the apps automatically capture “vast swaths of information” from users, amounting to actions that threaten “to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information.” According to an internal document obtained by the Epoch Times, TikTok's parent ByteDance employs at least 138 members of the Chinese Communist Party, many in high managerial positions. To paraphrase comic Yakov Smirnoff, in communist China, video app watches YOU.

And in another long-overdue move, Trump issued an order designed to ensure that essential medicines, medical supplies and equipment are made in the United States. The order has several components to persuade manufacturers to move plants back to the US from China and to keep that move from raising prices for consumers. We never should’ve relied on China for all our medicines and medical supply needs, but COVID-19 brought home the urgent need for a change. You can read more about that EO here.

Imagine if President Trump had written an op-ed or gone on TV with a message to those who might be subpoenaed by, say, Adam Schiff or Jerrold Nadler: REFUSE TO COOPERATE.

Can you even imagine the fevered cries of “Obstruction!!”? Of course, in the chess game that was the phony “Trump/Russia” investigation, they managed to set it up so that virtually anything Trump said or did, even it it was well within his authority as President, could be viewed as obstruction of justice.

But Andrew Weissmann, former special counsel Robert Mueller’s infamous “pit bull” whose specialty is withholding exculpatory evidence, has quite arguably obstructed justice himself. Here’s the story from Daniel Chaitin in THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER.

In an op-ed in THE NEW YORK TIMES (where else?), he and co-author Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel, urged Justice Department officials to consider not cooperating with two investigations being overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr. There’s the wide-ranging John Durham investigation, and also the John Bash investigation into all that unmasking of American citizens. (Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was one of those unmasked, but there were many more.)

The reason Weissmann and Goodman are making a stink is that they don’t want either of the reports to come out before the election. So they maintain that putting it out before the election would be political --- an attempt to interfere with the election. But I say that keeping a completed report under wraps until AFTER the election would be political --- a calculated attempt to interfere with the election by keeping voters in the dark. Likewise, interfering with the investigation so that the report can’t be completed in time would be political. Sounds like obstruction to me.

"What can be done if Mr. Barr seeks to take actions in service of the President’s political ambitions?” they wrote. “...Employees who witness or are asked to participate in such political actions –- who all swore an oath to the Constitution and must obey Department policies –- can refuse, report and, if necessary, resign. Other models include speaking with Congress under subpoena or resigning and then communicating directly to the public. Reputable organizations are at the ready to advise whistle-blowers about the risks and benefits of pursuing these paths."

They’re probably talking about that same law firm that protected the “anonymous” whistleblower that kicked off Trump’s impeachment. How conveeeeenient. Of course, if Barr does anything at all that happens to benefit Trump, it must have been done “in service to the President’s political ambitions.”

One big take-away from Weissmann’s behavior is that he must think these investigations found some really, really bad stuff.

By the way, if you’re interested in a book not to buy, Weissmann has a book coming out in September, purported to explain why the Mueller team could have “done more” in their Russia investigation. Well, let’s see...according to Sidney Powell, they sure could have “done more” to get exculpatory documents to defense attorneys! A lot more.

From James (with slight editing):

The only bad thing about President Trump's [agenda] is that the Democrats keep finding ways to...lie about it to the nation...They don't ‘mislead’ the people of this country –- they create intentional falsehoods and present them as fact. Then, if someone is foolish enough to repudiate their lies, that individual is destroyed in public, shamed, and labeled as a vile character.

Sir, I understand that you and some on FOX News present the truth in his defense, but how are we to combat this constant barrage of lies? Sometimes I lose hope. And people I have known for years have begun to spew this unsubstantiated drivel as gospel. When I ask them for corroboration, they look at me like I'm a fool and shake their heads and refer me to the nightly news. I might quote you or Fox News in response, and they laugh, because "everybody" knows those are not reliable sources.

...How can an individual battle a horde of sanctimonious [media] mouthpieces for a radical, insidious faction bent on usurping our rights?

Maybe I am asking too much of you, but I know you have many contacts who could help us in this quest. Will you reach out to them, bring their voices to the rescue, and lift our spirits before this most integral election of the age?

We hear too many voices from the Left. It is time for us to start hearing a barrage of voices from the Right, to reinforce our belief in a just cause. Without a chorus, the voice of "Truth" will be lost under the clatter and mumbling from the balcony.

From the Gov:

You voice the frustration and worry of millions of Americans. It often feels as though WE’RE the ones stuck in the balcony, high up in the nosebleed seats, while the leftist narrative takes center stage and the prime orchestra seating as well. Our message gets crushed. What to do?

First, some historical perspective. The left has always done this. I’m old enough to barely remember the infamous LBJ anti-Goldwater campaign ad with the little girl playing with a daisy as the atomic bomb goes off, painting Goldwater as a warmonger. That ad was largely credited for Goldwater’s spectacular loss, and Lyndon Johnson, ironically, went on to dramatically escalate the Vietnam War.

The lies intensified when Reagan got into office. And the left has never stopped with the outrageous whoppers, whether it’s a paid ad showing “Paul Ryan” literally throwing a wheelchair-bound granny over a cliff --- in case you didn’t see this, I am not exaggerating --- or the media right now trying to make us fear Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses. They never, never stop lying. And now they use so-called “fact-checkers,” who are themselves typically anti-Trump, to try to make it look as if WE are lying.

I’m sure the worst part of this is seeing people you know buying into the lies and becoming “pod people." They mindlessly tar FOX News as “faux news” when FNC, aside from clearly-designated opinion shows, has been shown statistically to be far more balanced than the major left-leaning outlets. If you’ve suffered through segments with certain DNC-connected FOX News contributors, you know FOX isn't all that conservative. But people have been trained --- yes, trained --- to automatically discount anything from FOX News.

It’s gotten so bad, we can’t let the left get away with it any longer. This is no time to be “shamed” or intimidated into silence. Some tips: Be sure you have the facts on your side when you make a point, and then if someone says you’re wrong, calmly tell them why you’re not.

Be polite, but don’t back down even if someone calls you names, even “racist.” Just tell them: they have no more right to their judgment calls than you do to yours. Name-calling is a pathetic way of saying they have nothing else. Also, you don’t have to stay on the defensive; put it on them to back up what they say.

As for me, believe me, I do what I can. And tell your “pod” friends that they may disagree with the opinions expressed on MikeHuckabee.com, but I doubt anyone has a better record than we do on getting facts right. They should try reading it. They might not like our conclusions, but they can’t say our information is incorrect. Come to think of it, this recent piece in which we answered the accusations of a leftist reader might help you talk to the “pods.”

Finally, you say you want your spirit lifted? Well, let me tell you that I believe conservatism is quietly making headway right now, largely because the far-left, after gaining control of the Democrat Party, has finally shown itself to be what it is, which is to say full-out, batwing crazy communist. Also, millions won’t talk about this, but they are dismayed by the new fanatical religion of anti-“racism” and will not stand for being labeled as racist by people who are themselves obsessed with race. If that weren’t enough, they’ve seen how leftists run cities --- into the ground. They SEE the shocking destruction and anarchy and want it stopped.

They will turn out in force on Election Day. Of course, we can take nothing for granted and must make it an INCONTESTABLE LANDSLIDE to make up for whatever voter fraud there is, and there may be a lot this time. So tell everyone you know who’s not a leftist “pod” person how important it is to vote to keep the crazies from running (ruining) America. And vote in person!

Gallup and the Knight Foundation just released a massive poll on Americans’ views of the media. No wonder people weren’t as outraged as the media thought they should be when President Trump called them “the enemy of the people!”

The survey of more than 20,000 adults found pessimism about the news media delivering factual, nonpartisan information deepening. A staggering 86% of Americans see at least a “significant” amount of bias in the media (49% see “a great deal” of it), and 73% say there’s “too much bias in the reporting of news stories that are supposed to be objective.” They don’t buy that it’s unintentional or just their subjective perceptions: 54% believe the media knowingly misrepresent facts, and 28% think they make up facts entirely (believe me, I could do a “Fake News” feature every day.)

As for all the divisiveness that the media blame on Donald Trump: 48% of Americans say the reporters deserve “a great deal” of blame for our deep political divisions, while another 36% let them off easy with only “a moderate amount” of the blame.

Of course, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that Republicans express more negative sentiments about every aspect of the media’s performance than Democrats. Maybe that’s because you’re less likely to be negative about people who are biased toward your side. But then, to approve of their bias is to admit they’re biased. And since 86% of Americans agree they are (and 86% aren’t Republicans), that means a lot of Democrats must know the news they’re watching isn’t objective or trustworthy, but they approve of it anyway. These Americans are known as “MSNBC viewers.”

Here’s Stephen Kruiser of PJ Media, with some bluntly-expressed examples of the most egregious recent media bias and why it’s so dangerous to America.

"Fact-Checkers"

August 7, 2020

If you’ve read my newsletter for a while, you won’t be surprised that I put the term “fact-checkers” in quotes. That’s because many “fact-checkers” these days don’t check facts so much as reinforce leftist opinions by citing biased sources to brand anyone who disagrees with them as being misinformed or a liar. We know this because what we do is check actual facts. For instance, if a story claims that a prominent person said something outrageous, we track down the original quote in context, in its entirety. Sometimes, that means we correct or don’t use a story from a conservative news source. But most often, it means we correct a liberal news source. Or sometimes, a so-called “fact-checker.”

The bias of “fact-checkers” is something that many conservatives have come to hold as conventional wisdom, but now, Sharyl Attkisson of Real Clear Investigations has taken a deep dive into their backgrounds and dug up solid evidence that all those assurances of non-partisan objectivity are anything but factual.

The study confirmed that media “fact-checkers” (surprise!) lean left. The claim of objective fact-checking is largely “illusory” and amounts to a “circular feedback loop of verification” in which “like-minded journalists or often Silicon Valley gatekeepers” rely on a small group of partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives and shape and censor information. One obvious example: for monitoring media bias, the far-left activist group Media Matters is treated as a trustworthy, reliable source for “fact-checkers” such as NewsGuard, while the conservative Media Research Center is ignored.

Facebook uses the World Health Organization as a source to fight “disinformation” about the coronavirus, even though we know the WHO has engaged in multiple incidents of spreading misinformation itself. Facebook also claims that members of its new oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” Yet 18 of the 20 have ties to George Soros’ far-left Open Society Foundations, while none have taken conservative stances on any controversial issue.

Google’s “fact-checking” group First Draft was not only started by the extremely liberal parent company, but it’s also supported by liberal nonprofits, including the Soros groups, and it routinely cites biased news sources to discredit non-leftist views. Its digital director frequently tweets and retweets “anti-American rhetoric and progressive positions.” First Draft even referred readers to an article that pushed the false claim that President Trump encouraged people literally to drink bleach.

This study simply confirms what anyone who’s been paying attention already knows: a great deal of today’s so-called “fact-checking” is just leftist advocacy in camouflage. This is why we have to spend so much time here fact-checking the “fact-checkers.”

A new Gallup poll found that 61% of black Americans want the police to maintain the same amount of time they currently spend in their communities. Another 20% of blacks want the police to spend MORE time in their communities. Only 19% want the police to spend less time in their communities.

A large majority of blacks think that we need police reform, and 37% aren’t confident that they’d be treated with courtesy and respect if they interacted with the police. But that doesn’t mean they want the police to go away. In short, they think there are problems, but you don’t solve them by doing away with the police and leaving citizens to the mercy of gangs and criminals and the protective abilities of unarmed social workers.

To put it in even fewer words: unlike a leftist city council, they’re not nuts.

An unintended positive consequence of the pandemic is that college students who have to attend online will not be getting their standard fall dose of leftist, anti-American brainwashing.

And here’s a piece by a New York City nurse who points out that she has spent months working directly with COVID-19 patients, and grocery store employees kept working, so why should teachers be considered any less “essential?” Her husband, who is a public school teacher, opposes a strike and feels it’s his duty to serve in the classroom. My observation: some of those grocery workers are no doubt high school students themselves, so even the kids continued working while their teachers’ unions are fighting going back to work.

(FYI, that’s in the Atlantic, so of course the writer blames New York’s problems on the federal government and President Trump, who made sure New York had no shortage of ventilators or hospital rooms, and not on her own local and state Democratic leaders, who made every possible wrong decision and turned nursing homes into killing fields.)

Deadly inaction

August 7, 2020

There was a massive explosion in Beirut this week that killed at least 135 people, injured 5,000 more and caused devastating damage that’s left up to 300,000 people homeless. Investigators have been trying to ascertain if it was an attack, a hidden weapons cache or what? Now, it appears that it might have been due to Russian fertilizer.

A Russian ship called the MV Rhosus that was carrying agricultural fertilizer with 2,750 metric tons of ammonium nitrate came into port in Beirut in 2013. It had technical and financial problems, was abandoned by its owners, and the crew sent back to Russia. It’s been there for years, despite multiple warnings from the customs director to the judiciary that it was a “floating bomb,” warnings that were apparently ignored. So the explosion wasn’t due to a deadly action by a foreign government, but deadly inaction by Lebanon’s own government. And yet some people still insist that we need to entrust every important aspect of our lives to the care and efficiency of government bureaucrats.

The mayors of such big blue cities as New York, Chicago and L.A. don’t seem willing or able to stop their residents from rioting or shooting each other, but they are going medieval on anyone who violates their coronavirus rules (unless they do it to protest the police, of course.)

It’s ironic that New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio is instituting checkpoint stops on in-bound travelers, quarantines and other strict rules that will make it even harder to come to New York at the same time that Gov. Cuomo is practically begging people who’ve bugged out to come back. Cuomo even pleaded, “I’ll buy you a drink!” Where? Aren’t the bars closed? And how do you drink through a mask? Well, he also promised to cook.

But let’s get real: New York has been losing its tax base for years as productive residents flee to other states like Florida. It isn’t just the Chinese virus that’s diving them out; it’s the virus of leftist policies that’s bringing back the bad old days of high crime, gangs, drugs, homelessness, filth and sky-high taxes.

I have sympathy for New Yorkers for all they’re having to endure right now (although they lost a lot of my sympathy when they voted to reelect DeBlasio.) But I have to assure them that they won’t have to worry about me coming anytime soon. The one negative about doing my former Fox TV show was that every weekend, I had to go to New York. You have no idea how much I love being on TBN and doing our show from our beautiful theater in Hendersonville, Tennessee, just outside of Nashville.

I’ve often wondered what would happen to New York (or to San Francisco and other big blue cities) if people ever realized that these days, much of the work they do, including stock trading, can be conducted via computer, out of an office in a beautiful spacious home overlooking the ocean in Texas or Florida, where there are no income taxes and the mortgage is less than what they were paying to rent an apartment the size of a Toyota. A gradual exodus from these cities may have been inevitable, but thanks to the necessity for all white-collar employees to work at home and all the arts and nightlife shutting down anyway, the coronavirus has pressed the accelerator to the floor.

Some Presidential endorsements are starting to come in, and they practically tell the story of this epic contest all by themselves. Police unions that normally back Democrats are lining up for Trump. The American Postal Workers’ Union’s national executive board voted to endorse Biden, which should really fill you with confidence in the trustworthiness of mail-in ballots. And most impressive of all, Joe Biden just picked up the coveted endorsement of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA.

Party leader Bob Avakian says Biden and the Democrats are still “representatives and instruments of this exploitative, oppressive, and literally murderous system of capitalism-imperialism,” but communists must vote for Biden because it’s imperative to remove the “Trump/Pence regime.” Or maybe he looked at a list of Joe’s campaign advisors and realized it contained a treasure trove of “useful idiots.”

Well, I think that should tell you who to vote for. In fact, since Democrats claimed to be so outraged over a false claim that Trump was a puppet of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, I assume they’ll now want to put their anti-communist concerns to good work by voting to reelect him instead of the candidate openly endorsed by the head Communist Revolutionary.

Important Education Story

August 7, 2020

Here’s an important education story that I can’t find anywhere in the mainstream media:

Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul introduced the SCHOOL (Support Children Having Open Opportunities for Learning) Act. Since teachers’ unions are refusing to let schools reopen but expect taxpayers to keep funding them anyway, Paul’s bill would reallocate federal education funds directly to parents. Parents would get their own tax money back to use to educate their children however they see fit, whether in public schools, private schools or for supplies, tutoring and other expenses of home-schooling.

This is such a great idea that the media will surely try to bury it, as will Democrats, who depend heavily on teachers’ unions to get them reelected. I’m sure it will be assailed, just as school choice and vouchers are, as an assault on our sacred public school system.

Sorry, but I’ve studied theology, and I see nothing sacred about any governmental “system.” I think the public school system is a great and noble idea, and I have nothing but respect for the many dedicated teachers who are a part of it and who give their all (and sometimes spend their own paychecks on supplies the schools won’t provide.)

But the devil’s bargain between the union leaders and the Democratic Party has perverted that system. Our sole focus should be on how to provide the most effective learning experience for every student. Instead, we see failing schools kept open, students forced into them at detriment to their futures, political indoctrination substituted for real history and civics, and incompetent teachers protected, as if their job security were more important than our children’s futures. Just as with any other government system, I support the public school system as long as it works. When it starts doing more harm than good, then like a broken-down car, you either need to fix the problems or trade it in on something new that will get you where you need to go.

From Carol:

If you won the lottery, would you mail in your ticket or take it in person? Some things are important enough to do in person. For me voting is one of them.

From the Gov:

I couldn't have made the case for in-person voting better than you just have. Everyone pushing for mail-in ballots should have to answer your question.

Then, there was this, from Kathi:

Governor, I agree with your entire column up to the point that you started mask pandering by telling people to mask up and go vote. A virus with a 99+% recovery rate no longer requires and actually never did require a mask. Free Americans need to be free to vote as free Americans, and that includes having the CHOICE to mask up or not. I ask you to please #StopMaskPandering! #StayFree

From the Gov:

Kathi, if (when!) you go to the polls, and they insist that you put on a mask before you can come inside --- and they will --- what are you going to do? Elbow your way inside and demand a ballot? I guarantee, that will not get you anywhere. You will be made to leave, by force if necessary, and your voice in the 2020 election will not be heard.

No, if the mask issue is all-important, you will just have to vote absentee or, in the states that institute it, with a mail-in ballot. I suggest you think about Carol's letter, above, before deciding.

Is winning that one "mask" argument on that all-important day so vital to you that you will risk your vote not counting, or walk away rather than vote at all?

If you don't like the intrusion of "mask" rules, remember that if the Democrats take the White House, we will face intrusion into our lives such as we have never seen. If you don't want to put on the mask for any other occasion, we can have that discussion, but in this one case, I will say again, put on the doggone mask and vote.

Tuesday's Elections

August 6, 2020

Tuesday, primary elections were held in Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Arizona and Washington. Among the most important results: in Kansas, moderate Rep. Roger Marshall defeated Secretary of State Kris Kobach for the GOP nomination for the Senate seat being vacated by Pat Roberts. Marshall had heavy backing from the Party establishment who feared that Kobach was too conservative to hold the seat, after he lost the Governor’s race in 2018.

In Missouri, in a stunning upset, Cori Bush defeated longtime Rep. William Lacy Clay in the Democratic primary in the Ferguson area. Bush is a formerly homeless nurse with no elective experience who is mostly known as a protest leader and fervent supporter of Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders. She was the first candidate backed by the far-left group Justice Democrats that got AOC into Congress. Her supporters declared that with her primary win, which makes her a virtual shoo-in in that heavily Democrat district, “The Squad” is now growing, which is very bad news for America.

Speaking of “The Squad,” Squad member and notorious anti-Semite Rashida Tlaib is comfortably ahead of her establishment challenger Brenda Jones, but the vote count is expected to go on until late Wednesday.

And speaking of very bad decisions by the voters, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, most recently known for immediately releasing rioters while prosecuting people who exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves (even if it means tampering with evidence) easily defeated her primary challenger. I guess St. Louis voters enjoy lawlessness and going unprotected from criminals because quite a few of them just voted for a lot more of it.

Neil Young just joined the seemingly endless list of rich leftist musicians complaining about their music being played by Republicans, only he’s taken the step of actually suing the Trump campaign for playing some of his songs at their events. The story is here:

Having had personal experience with this nonsense, I’ll just point out the obvious: if a venue pays for an ASCAP performance license, it is allowed to play any ASCAP licensed song it wants without having to get permission. If you want to dictate who’s allowed to play your music, then you should’ve kept it in your bedroom and not signed that evil, capitalist ASCAP contract.

Some artists are now pushing for a separate license for political events so that they can bar politicians they dislike from using their music, but as yet, that doesn’t exist. Since many of these artists are boomer icons such as Young or the Rolling Stones, I would strongly suggest that they think twice before alienating older, non-coastal Republicans. Those are not only their biggest fans, but just about the only people who still buy CDs instead of illegally downloading music files for free. They’re making the same mistake as a lot of corporations and sports leagues these days: ticking off their real fans while sucking up to people who don't patronize their product anyway.

MEDIA-WORSHIP OF CHRISTOPHER STEELE LIKE A BAD JOKE NOW

The rug has been pulled out from under those who insisted for years that Christopher Steele was some brilliant British super-sleuth who had the goods on Donald Trump. He turned out to be pretty sorry at intelligence-gathering, and even his fiction appears to have been gleaned from others more creative than he.

As Mollie Hemingway reminds us in THE FEDERALIST, Steele was supposed to have a “vast network of credible and well-connected sources spread throughout Europe,” but he really didn’t.

In the media, Steele was reverently described as “a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence.” Whew, that sounds impressive. Before he was even identified, MOTHER JONES described him as maybe the foremost expert in Russia matters in the world! Ooh, big stuff. They said he “spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and...now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on corporate clients.” HA, that “U.S. firm” turned out to be Fusion GPS, the dirty oppo research company working for Hillary and the Democratic National Committee. Not quite so impressive now, is he?

As we’ve reported, Steele got all his information from his “primary sub-source,” identified as Igor “Iggy” Danchenko, who was a staffer at the leftist think-tank (make that “think”-tank) the Brookings Institute. Recall that the Brookings Institute was at that time headed by longtime Clinton ally Strobe Talbott. (Again, when it comes to lies and corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary.) Danchenko picked up nothing that was actually documented; instead, he depended on what Hemingway describes as “rumors, drunken gossip, and outright brainstorming, conjecture and speculation.”

Hearsay based on hearsay was conveyed to Steele, who, in his admitted desperation to keep Trump out of the White House, dramatically overstated it.

No one ever had any reason to believe any of this, other than that they just wanted to. They thought they could turn Trump’s image into that of some evil Manchurian candidate and keep him away from power. That’s why the media grabbed onto the outrageously fake story with both hands and wouldn’t let go. As Hemingway reminds us, Adam Goldman of THE NEW YORK TIMES actually won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting the false “Russia collusion” narrative. (I will add that he should humbly return it, as the award is as fake as the story.)

When the narrative turned out to be bunk, Goldman and his colleague Charlie Savage got together and turned on a dime to make their story more about the unmasking of Danchenko as Steele’s source. (Hemingway provides the link to this.) Clever, these media hacks. They gave no evidence that Danchenko had been promised anonymity, though he was promised immunity for speaking with the FBI. Late in their story, they do admit problems with the dossier --- what else can they do? --- while simultaneously glossing over them.

The Horowitz report, which came out last December, strongly criticized FBI investigators for mischaracterizing the Steele dossier and the results of the Danchenko interview to the FISA court, just to keep renewing their warrant to spy on Carter Page (and thus the Trump campaign, and thus Trump.)

As Hemingway reminds us, revisionists have tried to say that the “dossier” didn’t actually come out until after the election. But that timeline isn’t right; we know that it --- and other so-called “dossiers” designed to damage Trump --- were kicking around during the summer of 2016. Steele himself admitted in a British court (he was being sued by executives of Alfa bank) that he was meeting with media and law enforcement people about the “dossier” prior to the election, as he wanted it weaponized and used against Trump.

Steele even told a State Department official, Kathleen Kavalec, that it was his goal to get the story around before the election; she provided notes about that to the FBI investigators, so they knew good and well. And Michael Isikoff’s September 2016 story about Carter Page being a Russian asset was taken right from the “dossier.”

Other media outlets, mostly on the left but even THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, inflated Steele’s resume and mystique. They really should be embarrassed now; I wonder how many of them are. Read Mollie’s entire piece; it’s quite entertaining. In fact, some of it is a real laff riot, as when she quotes NYT reporter Scott Shane as saying in January of 2017, “If all the information in the dossier is false, it is a very sophisticated fabrication.” Hahahahaha. That sounds so ridiculous now.

Come on, it was a pile of stinking, unverifiable garbage that many of us could tell was fake from the start. You in the media were taken for a ride, and you’d buy the ticket again if it meant you could hurt President Trump.

So, if you defund the police, what do you replace them with?

According to a blueprint reportedly backed by a majority of the Seattle City Council, the Police Department “perpetuates racism and violence” and upholds “white supremacy culture,” so they want to replace it with non-profit programs and “community-led activities.” They’re seeking groups that are “well-versed in de-escalation skills and mental health support,” including “trauma-informed, gender-affirming, anti-racist praxis,” and that are “committed to retention of social service workers with adequate and equitable pay and benefits, preferably unionized” and have a “demonstrated commitment to a harm-reduction model, including safer consumption practices.” They'd also better have really excellent medical insurance benefits.

There’s a lot more of this touchy-feely, leftwing fantasyland word salad at the link, but to help the citizens of Seattle, I’ll boil it down to just one word:

“MOVE!”

Thursday Fake News

August 6, 2020

A story exploded onto the media Wednesday that for the first time, Facebook and Twitter had banned President Trump from tweeting because of a video clip of him talking about reopening schools in which he said children are “almost immune” to the coronavirus, which the sites branded as “misinformation.”

That was actually due to sloppy reporting by the Washington Post, which confused President Trump’s personal Twitter account with his campaign account, which is where the clip actually was posted.

As to whether either social media platform had any business censoring Trump’s comment, that’s an entirely different and legitimate question. A spokeswoman for Trump’s campaign said the President was merely "stating a fact that children are less susceptible to the coronavirus," and the ban was “another display of Silicon Valley’s flagrant bias against this President, where the rules are only enforced in one direction. Social media companies are not the arbiters of truth.

I just wrote about a study showing the leftwing bias of the “fact-checkers” such sites rely on.

But I’ll toss this in, too: According to the CDC, the number of children in the US under age 15 who have died of COVID-19 is 42 out of 135,579 as of July 25th. That represents 0.03% of all virus deaths, and only 0.3% of all deaths in that age group. Eighty percent of COVID-19 deaths are among the elderly, and people under 45 account for less than 3%. COVID-19 is not even among the 10 leading causes of deaths of children school-age and younger. So while it must be taken very seriously, and obviously, all children are not immune to it, saying they’re “almost immune” doesn’t sound like it’s that far off the mark to me.

Incidentally, those numbers come from a must-read article by Heritage.org with a number of surprising facts and debunked popular claims about COVID-19. For instance, it is not the leading cause of death in America right now, the US does not have the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world, and Florida’s deaths-per-million rate is far from equaling that of New York (by 327 to 1,685.) Listen to the media long enough, and you’ll be like the old Firesign Theater album: “Everything You Know Is Wrong.”

You remember back in 2016, when Hillary Clinton thought she was a shoo-in for President, and Trump might question the validity of her win, and she expressed shock, outrage and horror that anyone would be so selfish and unpatriotic as to refuse to accept the results of a US Presidential election…then she lost, and she’s spent the past three years doing precisely that, along with millions of her fellow “Resistance” sore losers.

Now, it’s déjà vu all over again as the same never-Trumpers who’ve spent every moment since 2016 refusing to accept that Hillary lost are floating nightmare conspiracy theories that Trump might refuse to accept that he lost to Biden and leave the White House (to be fair, there were also some crackpot theories on the right that Obama would refuse to leave the White House.)

This kind of paranoia and refusal to accept the peaceful transfer of power and the verdict of the people in elections is something new and extremely destructive in the history of the United States. It’s a large part of what’s led us to a period that may be the most divisive since the Civil War. And there’s growing concern that if Trump is reelected, it will actually get even worse (like Portland everywhere.)

To test that, a bi-partisan anti-Trump organization called the Transition Integrity Project (Ha!) secretly gathered 100 "former high-ranking government officials, senior political campaigners, nationally prominent journalists and communications professionals, social movement leaders, and experts on politics, national security, democratic reform, election law, and media." Together, they war-gamed various election scenarios to try to figure out what the reactions would be.

These scenarios ranged from Biden winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College to a narrow Trump win but with claims of some Biden ballots being destroyed. In the end, there was only one scenario in which a candidate won a clear victory and the losing side refused to accept it, and that loser was Biden.

The moral I draw from this (aside from "be VERY prepared") is that Trump’s victory needs to be so overwhelming in both the popular vote and the Electoral College that there can be no disputing it. That won’t stop the left from disputing it anyway, because they may not believe in God, but they think they have a Divine right to rule us. It will, however, send them a signal that they’re outnumbered so maybe they'll finally develop a little introspection and realize it’s time to grow up, end their three-year-plus tantrum and start thinking about why so many people think they shouldn’t be within 100 miles of the levers of power.

Nah, that'll never happen! But at least they can comfort themselves that Trump won't run for a third term.

Or maybe he WILL!...

Most reporters covering the White House have a severe illness --- not COVID-19, but Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS. The main symptom of TDS, at least as it manifests itself at Trump’s press briefings, is the inability to resist the urge to correct him with fake information, typically DNC talking points.

On Wednesday, during President Trump’s press briefing, it happened again. Someone tried to correct the President as he was answering a question on mail-in balloting. The reporter chimed in, “There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” The President, knowing a Democrat talking point when he hears one, called her out on that, saying, “Oh, really? Well, then, you’re reading a different newspaper than me.” Gotta love it.

Let’s try THE NEW YORK TIMES. Thanks to Dan Bongino for calling attention to this piece from the NYT from just a month before the 2012 election –- significantly, long before Trump called attention to the problem –- called “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” Note that this article was talking mostly about absentee voting, which still has more controls than widespread mail-in voting.

Using a primary election as an example, this piece illustrated how easy it is to make a ballot NOT COUNT, just by comparing signatures and deciding the “r’s” don’t match. Lather, rinse, repeat, for as many times as you need votes.

At the time this article was written in late 2012, the use of absentee ballots and other forms of mail-in balloting had tripled since 1980 and accounted for almost 20 percent of all voting.

According to the NYT story, statistics showed that votes cast by mail were less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth. Twice more mail-in votes were rejected than in-person votes.

There’s something called the “margin of litigation” that allows election lawyers to challenge results with the possibility of changing the outcome. We’ve seen that if election results fall within that margin, there absolutely will be a challenge. If you recall the Florida results after the Bush-Gore election, you know what a ridiculous mess it turned into, with election judges trying to second-guess and accept or reject ballots on the basis of how their chads were hanging. Anyone who thinks wishful thinking and subjective analysis didn’t enter into that judgment is living in a fantasy world. That counts as fraud in my book.

Keep in mind, this was in THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.”

The NYT even cited as an example the 2008 election that made Al Franken a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. (Recall that his win was what ended up giving Obamacare the Senate vote. Elections mean things.) Franken won by a mere 312 votes after 12,000 absentee ballots (about 4 percent of those) had been rejected.

In general, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to vote absentee; ironically, this might help explain the NYT’s willingness to criticize it. (To be fair, it might also have something to do with the push by Republicans in the past for absentee voting.) But widespread voting-by-mail has much less oversight than the process that is normally gone through to vote absentee. Some states are just wildly sending out mail-in ballots. Again this is from THE NEW YORK TIMES: “There is general consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms.”

Absentee voting was not meant to be the main way to vote. It’s for people who know they’re going to be away or otherwise unable to come in and vote on Election Day. In a normal election year, early in-person voting accommodates many of those people, and absentee voting takes care of the rest. I don’t think most people have thought seriously about what it would be like if virtually EVERYONE voted by mail. I agree with Bongino that it would be “an apocalyptic disaster.” (I haven’t even mentioned that the American Postal Workers Union has endorsed Biden. That in itself justifies a lack of confidence in the mail-in process.)

Even with the number of people who would normally vote absentee, the idea that “every vote counts” is naive. The only way we can counteract this problem is with a LANDSLIDE victory for President Trump and Republicans down the line.

I've previously linked to the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database of proven examples of voter fraud from across the country, and in case you didn’t see it or would like to review it in this context, here it is again.

Voter fraud is hard to prove –- better to head it off than try to do something about it afterwards. Though this accounting is not all-inclusive and is limited to proven, not just suspected, cases, it gives an idea of the scope of the problem. In their words, “preventing, deterring and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of our voting process. Reforms intended to ensure such integrity do not disenfranchise voters and, in fact, protect their right to vote.”

Bongino also had a story from the NEW YORK POST from just two days ago (August 4), with the headline “25 percent of ballots in Brooklyn June primaries invalid.” They’re trying to deal with the mess; here’s an updated story from later that day.

Election Day has always been a day for Americans to celebrate. There’s a certain ritual involved in going to the polls THAT DAY and exercising our right. Even early voting diminishes that a little, I think, and it also encourages people to vote without knowing as much about the candidates as they might if they had waited. Then there's absentee voting, an alternative when one simply cannot go to the polls. (This year, that would include the elderly and others at high risk.) But large-scale mail-in voting is an unnecessary invitation to fraud and must not happen.

Think of the generations of Americans who have risked their lives –- given their lives –- to preserve our precious freedom and our right to vote. In light of that, the VERY LEAST that freedom-loving Americans can do is put on a doggone mask, go to the polls, keep the proper distance, and VOTE, for crying out loud. They’ll have hand sanitizer there, promise.

Gregg Jarrett has an excellent write-up of former deputy Attorney General Sally Yates’ testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s a must-read.

To put it mildly, Jarrett was not impressed with this Obama holdover at the DOJ. “Like Comey,” he said, “Yates was a model of prevarication and insincerity...She minimized her own negligence and incompetence while blaming everyone else.”

Her strategy was so transparent that it even amused at times. She threw James Comey under the bus (which does seem like a pretty appropriate place for him, but still), and she cast herself as a Pollyanna who just didn’t know about the problems with the so-called evidence in the “Russia” case. Give me a break.

In “Yates World,” George Papadopoulos really is “connected to Russian intelligence”; the wiretapping of Page wasn’t surveillance of the Trump campaign because Page was a FORMER campaign associate; and Michael Flynn was not truthful with FBI agents Strzok and Pientka. Also, there was no bias on the part of FBI agents. None of this is true. Is Yates the Queen of Denial, or is she concocting an insanity defense in the event she is charged?

Many Trump supporters are frustrated that the President seemed unprepared for some of the tough questions about the US coronavirus response in his Axios interview with Jonathan Swan. So he might want to take a cue from Matt Margolis at PJ Media, who has some advice for him on how to explain it in clearer terms.

Margolis points out that in comparing the US negatively to Germany and South Korea in terms of deaths per million, Swan cherry-picked two nations but left out a lot of others. In fact, the US is not #1 in deaths per million, but tenth.

Also, the US isn’t a small, homogenous nation with one all-powerful central government; it’s a collection of 50 states that the federal government can only offer aid and advice to as they make their own local decisions, and with Constitutional rights for individuals that must be accommodated (even if they are trampled in some blue states.) Because of that, many of the COVID-19 deaths have been in a small handful of Northeastern blue states. If you lifted New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and DC out and lumped them together as if they were a nation, they would lead the world in deaths per 100,000, while the entire remaining states together would come in 18th.

Liberal media outlets would like us to believe that Trump is somehow responsible for the bad decisions made by local Democratic officials, like forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients. Trump didn’t run the New York State or City response to the virus, but he did insure that the predicted deadly shortages of ventilators and hospital rooms (remember that scare story?) never materialized.

If Swan wants to know who was in charge of the response in New York, maybe he should interview New York City’s Health Commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot. Wait, I’m sorry: she’s now the former Health Commissioner. She just resigned and blasted Mayor DeBlasio on her way out the door. She wrote, “I leave my post today with deep disappointment that during the most critical public health crisis in our lifetime, that the health department’s incomparable disease control expertise was not used to the degree it could have been.” There had been longstanding conflicts between her and DeBlasio, who said he needs team players: “It had been clear in recent days that it was time for a change. We need an atmosphere of unity. We need an atmosphere of common purpose.” (Can you imagine the media's reaction if Dr. Fauci had resigned and blasted Trump, and he replied that he needed team players?)

Please note that I’m not even going to comment on which side is right here. I may think that DeBlasio has done a terrible job, but that doesn’t mean that he should have done whatever Dr. Barbot said. Way back in April, when there were reports of dust-ups between Trump and Fauci, I said I wouldn’t be surprised, since they both have different jobs. Fauci has only the health issue to deal with, and if he thinks we could prevent even only COVID-19 death by shutting down the economy for two years, he might think it’s worth it. But Trump is more like a general overseeing a battlefield: he has to consider all the ramifications and unintended consequences; he can’t focus solely on one platoon if it’s going to cost him the war in the long run.

We have pandemics all the time (remember swine flu in 2009?), but we can’t shut down the world for a year or more until we develop a vaccine for all of them. Maybe DeBlasio thought he was protecting both New York’s health and its economy. He simply failed on both counts.

Consequences Are Back

August 6, 2020

All the underemployed liberal arts majors who wanted to play “social justice warrior” might start rethinking that decision after hearing this news: The FBI has opened more than 300 domestic terrorist investigations since the rioting began following George Floyd’s death. That doesn’t include investigations of violent crime and civil rights violations. Consequences are back.

That news was revealed Tuesday during the opening of a Senate hearing titled, "The Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: Protecting Speech by Stopping Anarchist Violence.” It’s chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz, who said these violent rioters’ actions "are profoundly racist. The rioters...destroy minority communities, minority businesses and minority lives across this country. This shouldn't be complicated: peaceful protests must be protected. Riots must be stopped."

Cruz kicked off the hearings with some shocking video of what’s been allowed to rage on over the past couple of months in major American cities. You can see it here, if you dare:

Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono declared that the hearings should be called, "The right of the people peaceably to assemble without being beaten up by unidentifiable federal agents." That’s repeating a piece of fake news that the federal agents sent to Portland were not identified. In fact, they had their agency and number on their uniforms, they just didn’t have their names because those “peaceful protesters” were hunting down their families online and threatening them.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley also claimed that protesters in Portland were “holding flowers, dancing, chanting" and calling for equal justice when federal agents emerged and attacked them with “military-grade tear gas" and other tools. Sen. Merkley has a bright future as a screenwriter if they ever reboot the “Billy Jack” franchise, but that doesn’t sound like the video we’ve seen actually coming out of Portland. As Sen. Lindsay Graham pointed out, if the feds hadn’t intervened, those peaceful flower children would have burned down the federal courthouse.

Throughout the hearing, Democrats attempted to blame the violence on overreaction by law enforcement and white nationalist groups posing as far-left radicals. The hearing ended with some political theater as Hirono dramatically walked out, accusing Cruz of refusing to listen and saying, “How many times have I had to say that we all should be denouncing violent extremists of every stripe?”

Cruz asked if that included Antifa. After she stormed out, he noted that “throughout her remarks she still did not say a negative word about Antifa nor has any Democrat here." I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

Weird Fake News Wednesday

August 5, 2020

Since 2016, there’s been a Twitter account allegedly run by an anonymous Arizona State University anthropology professor who claimed to be gay and Native American and to have fled Alabama because of the South’s “oppression of queer folk.” The widely-cited account promoted leftwing social justice issues. Recently, the writer claimed to have contracted COVID-19 because she’d been forced to come in and teach. She accused ASU of forcing her to continue giving 200-person lectures and to have cut her salary by 15% while she was hospitalized. And then came the announcement that she had died.

It was all very sad and tragic and infuriating…until the announcement came that every word of it was a big, fat lie. ASU has been closed since March and didn’t cut anyone’s salary. Also, the professor never really existed. Tuesday, one of the account’s Twitter contacts, BethAnn McLaughlin, admitted to making up the entire hoax. In a statement through her lawyer, she said, “I take full responsibility for my involvement in creating the @sciencing_bi Twitter account. My actions are inexcusable. I apologize without reservation to all the people I hurt.”

On the plus side, this does impart a very valuable lesson: Twitter is an open fire hydrant of sewage. Be very careful about which Twitter accounts you trust. There’s mine, and…well, after that, you’re on your own.

Susan Rice is the latest to be cited in the media as the current frontrunner to be Joe Biden’s running mate. He has committed to choosing a woman, and he's pretty well obligated to choose a woman of color as well. Naturally, the leftist media are obsessed with who it will be.

Folks, it’s all theatrics. Kamala Harris won't be it; Val Demings won't be it. And neither will Susan Rice, though she does have suitable Obama connections. Precisely none of the women mentioned as candidates for the #2 spot in recent weeks can help Biden win, and, more importantly, given the circumstances, none of them can be envisioned as President of the United States, because we all know that Biden, if he's still even the candidate on Election Day and (shudder) wins, will be replaced practically on the spot. Rice, with her foreign policy credentials, might have a little more gravitas than the others –- it wouldn’t take much to stand out in that crowd –- but she still has way too many problems.

For one thing –- not that it would matter to hard-core Democrat party hacks and rabid anti-Trumpers –- she’s a liar of great repute. By that I don’t mean little lies here and there, tiny fibs that might be rationalized as necessary for national security, but huge politically-charged whoppers told repeatedly on national TV and even under oath. I’m still enough of an optimist to think that this would matter to the independent voters, the folks in the middle, the thoughtful “swing” voters that Biden or any challenger would need to sway.

Of course, we all know that Rice lied her head off about the cause of the 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed. She went on five different Sunday shows and told the same fake story about an anti-Islam YouTube video setting off protests that turned violent. Hillary told the same story. We all know it was fabricated to cover up the fact that it was a terrorist attack. American personnel were not given the protection they needed and deserved, help was not provided once the attack was underway, and our people ended up dead. But Rice did her political duty. From then on, we knew what she was made of.

That was just the first. Later on, we found out that Rice had written a curious “note to self” on the very last day of the Obama administration --- just as Trump was being sworn in, in fact. It was a “memo to the file” about the meeting she'd attended (aside: WITH JOE BIDEN) in the Oval Office on January 5, 2017, to say that Obama had told them everything having to do with the “Russia” investigation had to be done “by the book.” I think she mentioned that five times. This is what you call a “CYA” memo. She was “C”-ing Obama’s “A.”

Later, she covered her own “A,” too. She had her lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, who also happens to have been PRESIDENT OBAMA’S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, write a letter to Sens. Grassley, Graham, Feinstein and Whitehouse, saying, “While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent testimony.”

Oh, really?? Comey didn’t testify until March 20, 2017, but Rice was present at the January 5 Oval Office meeting that dealt with exactly that –- in particular, with the investigation into Michael Flynn.

And it gets worse. She also denied this under oath. On September 8, 2017, she gave sworn testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (then chaired by Republican Devin Nunes) that she knew nothing about the FBI’s “Russia” investigation while she was at the White House. Apparently anticipating some difficult questioning from Republicans, she arrived with two attorneys from Latham & Watkins (Ruemmler’s firm). Ironically, it was a couple of questions from Democrats that tripped her up.

Adam Schiff: “Director Comey testified that, in July of last year [2016], he began a counterintelligence investigation into people associated with the Trump campaign and what contacts they may have had with Russia. That investigative responsibility, wasn’t part of your portfolio, I take it?”

Rice: “No, not at all.”

Schiff: “And would Director Comey brief you on the progress of his investigation?”

Rice: “No. I think it’s important for everybody to understand: We were not informed by Director Comey or the attorney general that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit...In the Obama White House, we maintained scrupulously the firewall between the people in the White House and contacts with Justice about potential or actual criminal matters. The only communication that was sanctioned in that vein was between the White House counsel and the Justice Department or the FBI.”

She goes on: “And Director Comey did not volunteer to us, not only then but for the duration of his administration, that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit...I learned about it formally in the public domain after I left office.”

And later…

Eric Swalwell: “Is it fair to say that, as the national security adviser, you were not read in on active, ongoing investigations that the Department of Justice or the FBI were conducting?”

Rice: “Absolutely, that’s the case. Those were law enforcement matters...”

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Who is she kidding?

According to the Horowitz report, testimony from Comey differs markedly from that of Rice. Comey said the Obama team knew about the FBI’s investigation in detail, almost from the start. He said Rice was one of the people he had told (along with Obama) about “Crossfire Hurricane” in the summer of 2016. And, of course, her presence at the January 5 meeting shows she had to have been aware of the Michael Flynn case.

So, it appears that Biden’s current frontrunner for the VP slot has lied quite brazenly under oath. She'd had plenty of practice before then, too. Leftists won’t care one bit, but I don’t think swing voters will want to put someone in office who more appropriately belongs in jail. We knew Hillary belonged in jail; notice she didn't win in 2016.

This excellent article from RealClear Investigations details all of Rice's lies.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MISS MANNERS (Judith Martin)

Dear Miss Manners,

Please let me preface this letter by saying I am a longtime fan of your column, as I am distressed by the lack of courtesy in today’s society and always appreciate your witty replies. You may or may not be aware that I have even affectionately parodied your column with “Miss Mannerly,” here on this very website. That said, here is the original, very thoughtful letter you received and your answer ("Clarifying racism for a white man") that has prompted my missive to you:

I do agree with you that talking about what racism is (or is not) is a semantic discussion. We currently have two “working” definitions of racism being used simultaneously, and we also have many people far too willing to throw around the “r-word.” Under one (the “classic”) definition, anyone of any race can be racist; it means the notion that people of another race are inferior to you and don’t deserve the same treatment as people of your own race. Under the other (the “evolved”) definition, only a white person can be racist, and, in part because he has lived his entire life with racial privilege by virtue of being white, he cannot be considered the victim of racism, either. Add nuance to taste, and stir.

The man who wrote to you, a self-described white male, told you he’d been informed that he would be viewed as racist for bringing up examples of how he personally was abused, targeted with racial epithets, and even lightly hit by a car while living in a mostly non-white country where he was in a racial minority.

The man was obviously trying to show empathy for others who have been treated badly because of their race. But because he is white, his view was considered unwelcome. They told him that the treatment he received was not out of racism, but “rather out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others.”

In your answer, you essentially agreed with his friends, saying that even though the treatment he had experienced had been “horrid and unfair,” it was not the same as “the experience of most marginalized groups” because it never took away his basic rights and equality. (Not having been in whatever country this was and experienced what he went through, I don’t know if that is necessarily true. As a woman, I could easily name countries that would take away MY basic rights and equality.)

You made what you called the "key" distinction between “retaliatory” bias and “inherent” bias. With all due respect, being on the receiving end of “retaliatory” bias for something one’s ancestors, as opposed to oneself, did is, to me, as unacceptable as any other kind of bias. I would make the case that it is also extremely racist.

You said his argument makes this gentleman look naive. I am hardly naive, and I agree with him.

If the treatment this man received was “...out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others,” I’m sorry, but that was still racism. The man himself had done nothing to anyone; he was being judged –- judged –- by the color of his skin. The argument being used to defend that, which you helped further, is a rationalization for racist behavior. One may agree with that rationalization or disagree as I do, but a rationalization it is.

One problem we have right now is that we’re all encouraged to be having “conversations” about race, but these “conversations” all have to be very carefully articulated in certain ways in order to avoid charges of racism. The man who wrote you obviously is not a racist, but he must speak in exactly the "right" way in order to avoid a minefield. The slightest deviation is heresy. I’m sorry, but that is not real conversation, Miss Manners. It is control. A real conversation is a two-way street, with give and take, and people try to understand each other. I don’t see that happening with this subject. To create a “safe space” for others --- even his own partner --- this person’s thoughtful view is being shut down.

Thank you, Miss Manners, for your attention. Though you are correct in saying this gentleman risks alienating some people –- that they might challenge his point and perhaps call him naive and even racist –- simply telling him to “stop” is to inhibit honest, heartfelt conversation. I, for one, am willing to (very politely) have that conversation, and if someone wants to wrongly accuse me of racism, that is the person who needs to learn some common courtesy –- and some common sense.

There’s this small little gang of people who once made lots of money in DC as Republican political consultants, pollsters, party insiders and commentators who really hate President Trump. They have always been tied to the establishment of DC, or the swamp as some like to call it. They once were the toast of the town because they were joined at the hip with the well-established elites who really didn’t have deep convictions about issues, but rather just enjoyed playing for the Republican team because the pay was good and they got invited to all the cool parties in Georgetown, Manhattan and Hollywood. They were also the reason nothing ever changed or was even challenged in Washington. They worked for candidates and elected officials who pretended to care about issues like the sanctity of life, our alliance with Israel, the middle class, jobs leaving the US for China or Mexico, and health care. In reality, neither they nor the candidates or elected officials they worked for really cared at all. We voted for them, because our alternatives were candidates with far-left positions that threatened free enterprise, the lives of unborn babies, small businesses, factory jobs, important court appointments and more. But the election of Donald Trump messed up their legalized looting of the political donor class. Donald Trump didn’t become President because he was bought and owned by the political class. He mostly used his own money to become President and hasn’t had to do the bidding of the typical political hacks and they aren’t happy! In fact, he’s called on very few of them for anything and they aren’t going away quietly. They don’t hate him because he failed to do what he said-they hate him because he did exactly what he said he would do. The so-called Lincoln Project is about as true to Abraham Lincoln as I am to Weight Watchers. They loved the power and money and when Donald Trump became President, they just didn’t matter that much.

I do have friends who claim to be conservative but say they will vote for Joe Biden because they think President Trump is vain and vulgar. The same Joe Biden caught on a hot microphone uttering a truly vulgar term when talking to President Obama about signing Obamacare and who has cursed at the very people who attended his lightly attended events? But are elections even about a candidate’s tone, Tweets, or temperance? Sure, I’d love for all the people I vote for to be near perfect in personality, piety, and personal manners. But I care even more about whether the performance matches the promises on issues that really matter.

Believing in the intrinsic worth and value of every human life from conception is sacred to me. A candidate right about everything else and wrong in respecting the God-given worth of every human life is a candidate I can’t support. No candidate—not even Ronald Reagan, has taken the number of bold concrete steps to protect innocent human life as has President Trump. Donald Trump has done more for preserving religious liberty than ANY President in my lifetime. I believe strongly in the 1st amendment and with it, untouchable religious liberty. Other Presidents have claimed to be champions for churches, synagogues, and mosques to be free from government control, but President Trump has delivered. Most all Presidents promise to create jobs, and preserve middle class jobs, but until the shut-down of the economy because of the Chinese Virus, President Trump had delivered, marking record jobs for blacks, Hispanics, women and youth with record pay increases. And while the previous administration said our manufacturing jobs would never return, they actually have come back under President Trump. He has unflinchingly stood for the 2nd amendment. He’s insisted that America stop being the chump for China and its cheating. He’s stood for our border security while his opponent believes in open borders. Instead of folding like a cheap ten in a windstorm in the face of violent riots and mass looting, he’s called for protection of private and public property and the arrests of anarchists who have turned streets of major cities into war zones. And he has cut 7 regulations from the backs of Americans for every new one enacted.

So I understand why the ruling class of elitist snobs who run the DC Swamp would vote for Biden to restore their control. But it means the not-so-connected American being abandoned, so I don’t understand those who call themselves conservatives or even moderates voting for Biden, a candidate 180 degrees from what they claim they believe, and 100% a return to a government for the elites and the swells. Donald Trump went to Washington to shake things up. His problem wasn’t that he failed at that. It was that he succeeded.

READER COMMENT REPLY FROM THE GOVERNOR

Robert Berger

07/31/2020 03:45 PM

Governor Huckabee, with all due respect, look who's talking. President Trump did not even have the decency to attend the funeral of the late, great John Lewis. Of course, this is typical of him.

And yes, despite what he and his defenders say, Trump IS a vicious racist. And do you have to bring up the irrelevant fact that Bull Connor was a Democrat? Such racist bigots are no longer found in this party. However, the racism of the Republicans is now much more subtle. Republican social and economic policies have done nothing but grievous harm to blacks and other minorities in America for decades; for example, making it extremely difficult for them to vote and suppressing so many of their votes by failing to count them.

Constantly eviscerating and abolishing essential government programs to help the poor.

GOP refusal to raise the minimum wage, thus keeping millions of Americans helplessly mired poverty. Refusing to make health care, college, food, and housing affordable. And so on.

And on top of this, GOP politicians have the sheer unmitigated gall to accuse the struggling poor of being "lazy bums " who want to "sponge off the government " while it allegedly takes hard-earned money form honest Americans who do work.

John Wilson spent his life fighting these destructive GOP policies. Trump is only making them worse.

* * *

Robert, I want to thank you for listing so many false Democratic political narratives in one post. During an election year, we’re going to be hearing all of this repeated ad nauseam, so it’s helpful to be able to shoot them all down in one spot. Everyone, please bookmark this post so you can refer back to it and save me having to repeat myself.

I don’t know who John Wilson is, but I’m going to assume that’s just a typo and you meant John Lewis. Also, I can only imagine the media meltdown if Trump had attended that funeral. He would’ve been accused of hijacking the funeral to score cheap political points (“Cough! Obama! Cough!”) His choice was between “How dare he show up there?!” and “How dare he not show up there?!” All things considered, I think he made the most respectful choice.

As to your other points, I’ll go through and reply to them one-by-one…

1. You say, “Yes, despite what he and his defenders say, Trump IS a vicious racist.” I notice that you immediately moved on without offering a single scrap of proof. This is par for the course. I consider racism to be a grievous sin, and “racist” is one of the worst things you can call someone. That word should never be thrown around lightly, which unfortunately is happening today. The Trump narrative is based on viciously fake news stories, like claiming he called all Mexicans rapists and murderers (he was talking about MS-13 gang members) or that there were "fine people" on the side of white supremacists (he was referring to some people who oppose removing Confederate statues, and he said neo-Nazies and white nationalists "should be condemned totally.")

As we’ve reported here before, a tabloid reporter whose job was to cover Trump before he entered politics said that while he was desperate for any dirt, he never heard any claims of Trump being a racist until the day he announced he was running for President as a Republican, and then he suddenly became the BIGGEST RACIST EVER!! He revealed that he did get a number of stories about Trump performing secret acts of generosity, like paying the bills of unfortunate people he saw in the media. But the tabloids weren’t interested in positive stories, and Trump didn’t publicize them. However, here’s one that made the news.

Note that the same Democrats who tell you Trump is a racist also claimed throughout the 2016 Convention that he had never done anything to help anyone else, another lie that also became Democrat/media conventional “wisdom.”

Here’s a list of awards presented to the pre-political Trump for his support of black, Jewish and youth organizations.

And here’s the Rev. Jesse Jackson praising Trump for his support of the Rainbow Coalition’s project to help minority businesses:  Jackson called Trump a “friend” who embraced “the under-served communities.”

He’s continued to be their friend by signing sentencing reform that Democrats promised for years and never delivered; creating opportunity zones to encourage businesses to bring jobs, goods and services to poor minority communities; and building an economy that resulted in rising wages and record-low minority unemployment, until the Chinese unleashed a virus on the world that Democrats want to blame him for. As I've said before, if he's a racist, he's really bad at it.

2. “And do you have to bring up the irrelevant fact that Bull Connor was a Democrat?” I mentioned that Bull Connor was a Democrat (and not just a Democrat, but a delegate to the 1948 Convention, where he led a walkout of the Alabama delegation over a proposed civil rights plank) because the Democrats would like modern Americans not to know that. It’s for the same reason they demanded everyone stop saying “China virus” or “Wuhan virus” – so that Nancy Pelosi could eventually start calling it the “Trump virus.” It’s a cynical attempt to rewrite history so that the misled can be manipulated for political purposes. We don’t allow that around these parts.

3. “Such racist bigots are no longer found in the Party.” The modern Democratic Party is all about dividing and judging people by skin color, a complete repudiation of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream. And I don’t just mean reverse racism against white people. Watch some of the videos online of those white “peaceful protesters” supported by Democrat Mayors, screaming disgusting racist insults into the faces of black police officers and any black people who dare to express different opinions, and even physically assaulting them. Take a look at what this black Marine vet encountered in Portland and tell me how it differs from the angry bigots civil rights activists dealt with in the ‘60s.

4. “Republican social and economic policies have done nothing but grievous harm to blacks and other minorities in America for decades.” Odd, I thought that cities where the black and minority communities were suffering from crime, gangs, filthy and decaying neighborhoods and terrible schools, like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, have been run entirely by Democrats for decades. Chicago hasn’t had a Republican Mayor since 1931. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd’s death kicked off all the protests, both the city and state are solidly Democrat. There’s not a single Republican even on the city council.

5. “…making it extremely difficult for them to vote and suppressing so many of their votes by failing to count them.” Again, an assertion with no proof. Republicans believe in voter ID because we want all elections to be honest and trustworthy. I’m all for everyone voting who is legally eligible. But every fake vote cast isn’t just a score in a political game. It cancels out a legitimate vote, denying that voter his or her most fundamental right to have a say in determining our government. When I see stories like this

…I don’t care what party the miscreants represent, I want the book thrown at them.

For the record, surveys show majorities of all demographics back voter ID laws (a 2016 Gallup poll found 80% support overall, including 77% of non-whites and even 63% of Democrats.) Where such laws have been instituted, measures have been taken to make it as easy as possible to comply, including offering free state IDs. The argument that black people are somehow incapable of obtaining a simple ID is one of the most condescendingly racist narratives in circulation today.

As for voter suppression, that’s a convenient excuse for barring even the most rudimentary efforts to insure a clean election, from voter to ID to purging dead people off the voting rolls. The queen of the narrative is Stacey Abrams, who’s claimed for the past two years that she’s the rightful Governor of Georgia, deprived of office by voter suppression. Yet 1.3 million more Georgians voted in that midterm election than in the previous midterm election. If Republicans suppressed the vote, they sure did a lousy job of it.

6. “Constantly eviscerating and abolishing essential government programs to help the poor.” Like what? As Ronald Reagan said, there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Democrats love to accuse Republicans of slashing one program or another (Social Security the prime example), yet spending always increases. Merely suggesting a reduction in the rate of increase gets you accused of “slashing” the budget, even if it would still rise more than the rate of inflation.

If you mean things like requiring able-bodied people with no family obligations to work in exchange for welfare, then “guilty.” The government shouldn’t make it easier and more lucrative to be on the dole than to work. Even the Scandinavian nations Bernie Sanders wants to emulate began cutting their cushy safety nets after they realized people had started feeling entitled, using them as hammocks and losing their work ethic.

7. “GOP refusal to raise the minimum wage, this keeping millions of Americans helplessly mired (in) poverty.” As someone who grew up poor, if I thought simply raising the minimum wage would end poverty, I’d be on the front lines demanding it. But it’s the sort of simplistic idea that comes from people who have never run a business, just studied “economics” from a liberal professor (Here’s how well that works: https://youtu.be/uSLscJ2cY04 ).

Simply ordering businesses that pay the minimum wage to raise or even double it violates the most basic law of supply and demand: forcibly pricing labor at more than it’s worth. Many of these employers are small businesses with tiny profit margins whose owners might put in 60 or 70 hours a week and make less than minimum wage themselves. If they raise prices enough to cover the new labor costs, they drive away their customers. Their only choice is to cut staff (thanks, Democrats!), and those who do keep their jobs soon discover the raise doesn’t help because prices go up all over to cover the new labor costs. Many businesses don’t survive at all.

After San Francisco voted to double the minimum wage, there was a story about a longtime liberal bookstore that went out of business. The patrons were shocked to learn there was a connection between their vote to raise the minimum wage and losing their favorite hangout. Liberal Seattle restaurant critics were baffled at why all the little bistros they loved were closing down. In New York, the place where AOC used to bartend went out of business because of the minimum wage hike she advocated and all her former co-workers lost their jobs. Too bad, I was hoping she’d return to work there soon.

Minimum wage jobs aren’t meant to support a family, they’re for young people just starting out who need experience more than pay or people who need a little extra part time income, or a starting job you’ll soon be promoted out of. If an experienced adult can’t find anything other than a minimum wage job, that’s a symptom of bad anti-business, low-growth policies, like high taxes, overregulation and illegal immigrant labor undercutting wages. The kind of Obama policies that Trump reversed, leading to record low unemployment and naturally rising wages for the first time in years. Biden wants to take us back to the days when the government thought it was helping you by destroying your job with a mandatory minimum wage hike. Again to quote Reagan, the nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

8. “Refusing to make health care, college, food and housing affordable.” The major reason most of those things cost what they do is government subsidies, mandates, taxes, regulations and interference in the marketplace, all Democratic hallmarks. Do you have any idea how much complying with Medicare costs doctors and how much time they spend dealing with paperwork instead of seeing patients? Before all the government, insurance and Medicare involvement, doctors never charged $50 for a Band-Aid.

The more money the government is willing to spend to subsidize college costs, (surprise!) the higher those costs go. And try comparing the prices of food, housing or fuel in California or New York to those in Texas or Florida. Liberal policies make everything more expensive, and then the politicians raise taxes to help people pay for the things they made more expensive that will now get even more expensive because of the high taxes and on and on in a never-ending vicious circle.

9. “GOP politicians have the sheer unmitigated gall to accuse the struggling poor of being ‘lazy bums’ who want to ‘sponge off the government.’” I don’t do that, and I don’t know anyone who does, but if anyone actually does, they’re wrong. I’ve been the “struggling poor,” and I know better. That sounds like the kind of creaky, old fake stereotype of Republicans you get from only watching liberal media outlets or reruns of "All In The Family." I suggest you broaden your news sources. I do believe, though, because I actually read and watch liberal news sources, that this sort of canard is repeated because the left hopes to fool the poor into voting against policies that would help lift them out of poverty and in favor of policies that will keep them struggling and dependent on government.

I might as well make it a hat trick and finish this off with a third Reagan quote: Republicans don’t measure compassion by how many people are getting a government handout. We measure it by how many people no longer need a government handout.

When I heard the sad news that my friend Herman Cain had lost his fight with coronavirus, it was the same day, Thursday, as Rep. John Lewis’ funeral. Lewis, a strong partisan with whom I disagreed on most issues, had indeed been a brave leader for civil rights since he was a very young man and deserves recognition for that.

President Obama shared many positive words of tribute to the man and his fight for civil rights, and that was all fine. But he somehow...just...couldn’t...resist...getting political. What is it about Democrats and funerals that they just can’t avoid politics long enough to honor the dead person?

Here’s a link to the transcript of his entire speech, but I’d like to call attention to the brazenly political part, which he led into by saying we have to “keep vigilant” for the “darker currents”…

Obama:

"...Bull Connor may be gone, but today, we witnessed with our own eyes police officers kneeling on the necks of black Americans. George Wallace may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators. We may no longer have to guess the number of jellybeans in the jar in order to cast a ballot, but even as we sit here, there are those in power who will do their darnedest to discourage people from voting by closing polling locations and attacking our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining our Postal Service in the run-up to an election that’s gonna be dependent on mail-in ballots so people don’t get sick.

"I know this is a celebration of John’s life. There are some who might say we shouldn’t dwell on such things. But that’s why I’m talking about it. John Lewis devoted his time on this earth fighting the very attacks on democracy and what’s best for America that we’re seeing right now.”

ME:

Okay, Mr. Obama, you couldn’t have planned your words to be more divisive. The segregationist BULL CONNOR (a Democrat, by the way) was the city official in Birmingham, Alabama, who in the 1960s directed that fire hoses and attack dogs (!) be turned on civil rights protesters, even children, who were peacefully protesting. To bring up that kind of ugly and truly “systemic” racism of old now in light of what is happening today is as divisive and inflammatory as it gets. You should be ashamed.

By the way, since you mentioned George Wallace, I will add that this old-time segregationist actually helps exemplify the progress we’ve made in our society, in that in his later years, after being paralyzed by an attempted assassin’s bullet, he came to denounce his earlier views. But no, we have to ignore progress and dwell on the ugly past.

We aren’t seeing, as you described it, “police officers” kneeling on the “necks” of black Americans. We saw one very bad cop with his knee on the neck of a black man, and that bad cop, along with others who were complicit, have rightly been charged with MURDER. And our government did not send officers to use tear gas and batons on “peaceful” protesters. This is hardly a “peaceful” protest, and black lives are being destroyed. The neighborhoods being destroyed are largely black neighborhoods. Many of the cops are black, too, and I’m sure the last place they want to be is in the middle of that mess, having to deal not just with the violence but with racist abuse being hurled at THEM just for trying to keep the peace.

But you just had to say those things, didn't you? Thanks, Obama!

Then you went on to talk about “those in power” who will “do their darnedest” to keep people from voting. You didn’t have to get specific; we know and your cheering audience knew you meant my party, Republicans, led by President Trump, trying to stop blacks from voting…”with surgical precision,” as you put it. And in the most laughable comment you made, you said we’re “even undermining our Postal Service” when we warn against problems with mail-in ballots.

Undermining our great Postal Service? The problems with mail-in voting are real and well-documented; thousands of ballots can be “lost” at a time. THIS can be carried out with "surgical precision," as can other types of voter fraud. Imagine this in 2020 on a massive, nationwide scale.

What we want is a clean election. Most of all, we have to be able to trust the results. We want everyone to be able to vote safely --- either with distancing and masks, or with a documented absentee ballot --- and for every vote to count. EVERY vote. That’s it.

Yes, as you said, we are seeing attacks on democracy now. But I see them coming from organizations such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter, largely run and funded by white people on the left. The left, where you reside.

Oh, something else: You said that if making changes to the Voting Rights Act means getting rid of the filibuster, “another Jim Crow relic,” then we should. You also likened this summer’s protests to the ones led by Dr. King. I certainly can’t speak for Dr. King, but it seems to me that he would be sickened by the violence.

As for the filibuster, yes, it was used by senators (mostly southern Democrats) to hold off passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But it has been used many times for many reasons; mostly it’s a tool to keep a bare majority from running roughshod over the minority. But the ends justify the means, right?

How I wish I could ask Herman Cain what he thought about this. On second thought, it would probably just tick him off (along with all the leftists blaming him for his own death), and he's in a much better place now.

Many of you wrote to say you shared my disgust at the Democrats’ embarrassing attempt to take down Attorney General Bill Barr. But before I answer a few letters, I have to offer one quick update.

The way they treated the attorney general was shameful enough, but one Judiciary Committee member simply had to complain afterwards about HIS behavior. Here’s Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean: “He was disrespectful, spoke over [the] top of every one of us. In particular, he spoke over women. He was flanked by at least ten staffers –- not a person of color among them.”

Okay! We've pandered to women and people of color. Now, on to the letters...

From Linda:

Thanks for your continued excellent news, Governor! If I don't hear it from you, I don't trust it.

I think the Left sees that their end is near, and they are frantic in their targeting of Barr, Trump, and anyone who stands with them. They are trying anything and everything to take them down. But as Sen. Kennedy says, "The American people are not morons."

From the Gov:

You’re right about their fear of Barr; he’s too smart for them and knows too much. I’ll bet you could have smelled the fear in that room, and it wasn’t coming from him.

From Carlos:

As a Spinal Tap fan,"I know that Democrats "BREAK LIKE THE WIND.”

From the Gov:

And that’s the “Reader Comment Of The Day.”

From Tim:

Great article...Liberals are an embarrassment and are lawless with no dignity. No one is surprised by their behavior but everyone is very tired of seeing [it], and the coup continues in the streets at this point. The DOJ and GOP better do something about the censorship of conservatives on social media and the attack on voting with the mail-in election tampering and voter fraud.

From the Gov:

Agreed. I wish Barr showed more concern about mail-in ballots. Ballot integrity is CRITICAL this time –- every vote!

From Roberta:

I watched the hearing and was thoroughly disgusted with the way the Democratic representatives treated Mr. Barr. The Democratic Party is not the party that I grew up with...Surely the American people see through their lies and hopefully will reject any... Democrat candidate!

From the Gov:

I hope you’re right, and that traditionally independent voters will see it’s impossible now to vote for anyone with a “D” by his or her name. We’ve gotten a good look at what the party as a whole has become. Anything that strengthens the Democrat Party as it exists today is wrong for America.

From Karen:

Loved the reference to 1984 with the “two minutes of hate” comment. I am rereading 1984 after reading it the first time some 45 years ago. Orwell had no idea what a prophet he really was. Thank you for your common-sense approach to the news!

From the Gov:

Thanks, Karen. George Orwell imagined his bleak society of the future long before the digital age, GPS and video surveillance, which take “Big Brother” to a whole new level. But hate --- hate is timeless, like the quest for power. If the “democratic” socialists running the Democrat Party today could remake America, it would end up just like Animal Farm.

From Helen:

When Nadler said to the attorney general, "...You should be ashamed of yourself," it was too much for me. Nadler is the one who should be ashamed –- he should never show his face again. He should resign and go into hiding.

I wish there was a way to thank the attorney general and to let him know how much sympathy and sadness we have for him for going through that awful treatment.

From the Gov:

Nadler has no shame. And believe it or not, there are some who hate Trump so much, they applaud Nadler for abusing Barr. But I think Barr knows that lovers of the law are applauding HIM for his resilience. I also get the impression he’s determined to do the right thing, regardless, for its own sake. When Barr is in the room, Nadler and his Democrat colleagues are far outclassed. Not to mention outwitted --- that’s why they couldn’t risk letting him talk.

From Glenda:

Is there any way to censure the [House] Judiciary Committee for this proceeding? I have never seen anything like this before!

From the Gov:

They deserve that, but censure requires a vote on the House floor. Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t about to allow that, as she is no doubt pleased as punch with them. This is the woman who tore up the President’s State of the Union speech and has essentially called Republicans murderers.

From Laurie:

Nadler, you have met Antifa and they are you.

From the Gov:

Laurie, you’ve hit on something. It reminds me of the Greg Gutfeld tweet we featured in our own commentary. People like Nadler are using their positions of power to do to America figuratively what Antifa is doing literally; namely, burning it down. In that sense, because these elected leaders do have such power, they are even more dangerous than people with torches.

From Shannon:

...I pray that the American people can see through this and show their feelings at the polls in November. God bless the United States of America.

From the Gov:

Indeed. And I’ll leave the discussion on that hopeful note.

Herman Cain

July 30, 2020

Thursday brought the sad news of the death of a friend, Herman Cain.

After a highly successful career as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, this brilliant entrepreneur spent the following years as a radio talk show host and a Presidential candidate, but always he was a tireless advocate for free enterprise, for opportunity for all, and for an America that gave people opportunities to dream big and do big.

I became closely acquainted with Herman Cain in 2007 during my campaign for President in the GOP Primary. Herman was one of the national leaders of the Fair Tax movement, and the Fair Tax was a centerpiece of my campaign. We spent time together throughout the campaign in advocacy for the Fair Tax.

After the campaign and when I became a contributor for Fox News, I would regularly invite Herman on my show to talk free enterprise, conservative values, and of course, the Fair Tax.

In 2012, Herman launched his own campaign for President. Feeling that the country might not be able to fully understand the Fair Tax, he created a “Step One” toward the Fair Tax in his simple but profound 9-9-9 plan. The simplicity of the plan caught on, and Herman was like the evangelist in a crusade, brilliantly explaining that a tax fixed and finite is more fair. I was able to spend time with him on the campaign trail and one of my favorite memories is playing bass for a band that accompanied Herman in singing his beloved Gospel music.

He had a great sense of humor and was the eternal optimist. I loved just being around him as his vivacious spirit was truly contagious.

I’ve hated all that the Chinese Virus has done to the world, but I’m especially angry that this awful virus took the life of a great American, a kind gentleman, and my friend, Herman Cain.

At this link, some prominent people from the political world pay their respects.

It turned out to be a good thing that Attorney General Bill Barr released his opening statement in advance of his appearance before Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, as that statement was just about the only way he had to express an opinion or offer any information at all.

In fact, he could have just submitted it and not even appeared, as Team Nadler had obviously huddled beforehand and decided not to let him answer their questions.

Their strategy was to berate him, throw an incriminating question at him, and, as soon as he began speaking, interrupt with the parliamentary phrase “Reclaiming my time,” intended to make him stop. When ranking Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio requested that they quit cutting Barr off, Nadler responded, “What you want is irrelevant. Irrelevant to the rules.”

While attempting to smear Barr as someone who acts politically, they turned their own hearing into the worst political spectacle since impeachment. (Once again, Democrats do the very thing they accuse others of doing.) The level of hate in that room was turned up to 10 –- for fans of Spinal Tap, 11 –- and it reminded me, uncomfortably, of the Antifa burn-it-all-down show currently playing in an American city near you. It was that nasty. Here’s an example of how it went down.

Here’s a more amusing take, as we could all use a laugh.

In the most bizarre, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink moment of all, Barr was implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide.

I get the impression the Democrats must start every day with a Two Minutes Hate against both Trump and Barr. They likely hate (and fear) Barr as much as they do Trump himself, as Barr has no doubt seen every bit of classified material that incriminates them in scandal. He KNOWS. They know he knows. And he knows they know he knows.

Chairman Nadler showed a similar lack of respect to his Republican colleagues, telling them they couldn’t even have water during the hearing. In retrospect, that might have been a good thing, because he refused even a five-minute bathroom break when Barr finally, politely, asked for one. He received no break for lunch or for...anything else.

Barr did get a few chances to express himself, such as when he said, “What makes me concerned for the country is that it’s the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our great political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts.” Amazingly, he managed to call the Democratic Party “one of our great political parties” without revealing a trace of sarcasm, which would probably have been impossible for me to do.

Weirdly, Democrats keep trying to insist the protest has been “peaceful” when Barr sees it as decidedly not. No doubt you’ve seen video from Seattle, Portland and Atlanta; what do YOU think it is? Any sane person would agree with Barr. It has been a bloody freak show, and the violence needed to be shut down with the first brick thrown.

The always colorful and thoughtful Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana appeared Tuesday night on Shannon Bream’s FOX NEWS show, where he expressed disgust. He said he had to turn the hearing off after watching “bits and pieces” of it, because, he said, “It was triggering my gag reflex.” Rather than being a hearing, he said, it was “an attempted persecution" --- one he thought the American people would see through.

"I think the point that some of my Democratic colleagues seemed to be trying to make was that the attorney general is out of control. But what they really mean is that he’s out of THEIR control.”

Exactly!

He went on: “Bill Barr is guided by the rule of law, and he doesn’t do anyone’s bidding. He calls it like he sees it. I thought that he was, for the most part, his usual unflappable self. And he’s tough; you’ve got to be tough to be in that job. He’s tough as a pine knot, and I respect that about him as well.”

Since Barr didn’t get to talk much about the true nature of these “peaceful” protests, I’ll link to this excellent commentary from Victor Davis Hanson, who ends on an optimistic note that the American public will recognize what this is and push back forcefully on Election Day.

Finally, a couple of tweets to wrap up the day. Byron York tweeted: “Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton speaking to Attorney General Bill Barr, in a line that sums up today’s Judiciary Committee appearance: “You’ll have a chance to comment after your testimony is over today.”

And this caution, from Greg Gutfeld: “In that hearing you witnessed people whose salaries you pay, accuse a man of murder and treason – then refuse to let him speak or defend himself. You think the unbending mob on the street is worse? No, this is. And it’s coming for you.”

We’ll be ready. As Sen. Kennedy said, “The American people are not morons.”

Even with the anti-Trump media working overtime to cover for the horrendous violence and “peaceful” (sure) demonstrations ruining businesses and lives, there must be some moderate Democrats refusing to be gaslighted, understanding the level of hate driving this chaos, and walking away from their radicalized party.

Speaking of walking away, Brandon Straka, founder of the #WalkAway movement tweeted this on Monday:

"Trump lowered your taxes, built a thriving economy, created opportunity zones. The Democrats, by contrast, are willing to order your businesses shut as long as possible to maximize the virus narrative to push for mail-in voting (aka – fraud). Dem voters – are you getting it yet?”

Those words sound as if they came from Mike Huckabee, but they’re from a former liberal Democrat who saw the light, who gets it, and who I’m pretty sure shares my belief that most people are essentially conservatives and just don’t know it. Some have been lied to for so long –- by the media, by teachers, by family and friends –- about “evil” America and those “evil” Republicans who actually love this country that they’ve never allowed themselves to dig deeper and discover that this is all projection. The radicals pointing fingers at us, accusing us of hate and racism, should more accurately be pointing in a mirror. Their party has become all about “identity politics” --- in other words, all about race. And the evidence of hate is everywhere. You name it, they hate it. They hate it enough to shine lasers into its eyes and blind it, and not care.

HOW bad is the hatred? Try this.

Why else but for pure, seething hatred would any American WANT to use political violence to tear everything down? Do they really think they’re going to build a wonderful society in its place with free cotton candy and unicorns and perfect racial quotas? No, their focus is mainly on taking power from those they hate for being “evil” and having it for themselves. Never mind that exercising power over a society you have destroyed is like being the King Of Nothing; they don’t see it that way.

Consider the issue of opportunity zones, which benefit everyone in an economically-challenged area. Radical “progressives,” such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, hate them, and anything else that allows wealthy people to profit along with others. (Of course, that’s why the wealthy invest in the first place.) So she actively works against this and other proposals that would help her district. And she wins because an organized radical group, in her case Justice Democrats, is behind her and also because, traditionally, an “evil” Republican who would work to help that district economically couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.

But recent man-on-the-street interviews suggest that some are seeing the light, especially where the police are concerned. As Brandon Straka also tweeted:

"The left has done to this country everything that they feared and dreaded Donald Trump would do when he was elected.”

It’s true. They feared a race-baiting, power-seizing dictator who would create chaos. No one called Trump a racist until the day he came down the escalator at Trump Tower and announced he was running for President. If you look at what both sides have actually done since then, it’s the left that has race-baited, created chaos and torn the country down. They obviously fear doing anything that will benefit America as long as Trump might possibly gain. If anything, Trump has been hesitant to brandish his presidential power and go in to stop the madness that local leaders (again, Democrats) won’t address. Heck, a REAL dictator would have sent in tanks weeks ago; you know, the way Janet Reno did with the Branch Davidians.

But even Democrats, the ones looking from the outside in, are starting to notice with horrified eyes that the violence isn’t about George Floyd, at least not any more. It seems more and more to be about nothing except raw aggression.

Here’s a stunning example of the hate we’re seeing from the left –- not violent, but so chilling that I can’t believe some Democrats won’t see this and lament what has happened to their party. Consider the media response to the death last week of university professor Mike Adams. This sensitive column by conservative writer Robert Oscar Lopez is a must-read.

University of North Carolina sociology/criminology teacher and TOWNHALL contributor Mike Adams was found dead on July 23; details are sketchy but involve a firearm. There will be an investigation, of course, but suicide looks likely. The friend who called 911 said Adams had been behaving erratically (not dangerously) and had been under a lot of stress in recent weeks.

And why was Adams under stress? Lopez writes that it was due to “the gigantic network of agitators who had tracked his comments for years in hopes of driving him out of his job.” Of course, they went back as far as it took to find comments made by Adams, a conservative Christian, that they could slam. Some of these, for example, had to do with the mental health issues of transgender people, and, by 2020 standards, no one is allowed to say them --- or ever to have said them.

After years of abuse, he was finally forced into early retirement at age 55 and was set to retire on August 1. He had negotiated a settlement of $500,000. (“Dollars are precious, but our institutional integrity is priceless,” the school chancellor self-righteously said after the settlement.)

There are two points made by this tragic story; first (and Lopez elaborates on this in his article) is the need to stop the persecution of conservatives and “cancel culture” in academia. The second is the ungodly hate on the left, revealed as they dance on his grave. “Mike Adams was imperfect,” Lopez writes. “...But don’t let him die in vain. He was one of us, and the way he died was wrong. Let’s at least be as decent and respectful to him as the leftists are to their imperfect poster children.”

Consider how respectful we on the right have been after the death of Democrat John Lewis. He said plenty of outrageous things in his time, but we let it go, because we are decent. Now look at a couple of headlines to see how the media reported the death of Mike Adams:

"Professor behind ‘vile’ racist and sexist tweets found dead in his North Carolina home.” --- NBC online

"A professor who was known for his racist, misogynistic tweets was found dead in his home.” --- BuzzFeed

Moderate Democrats, please see your hate-filled party for what it is and...WALK AWAY.

The violence and lawlessness continue in blue cities around America, so much so that I don’t have time nor space to recount it all. Here’s just a taste…

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that much of what we’re hearing from the media and the Democratic politicians covering for the rioters is an attempt to deny reality that’s crossed into self-delusion. It’s as if they’ve all become that MSNBC reporter who famously declared that the protests were “mostly peaceful” as he was broadcasting from in front of a burning building.

For instance, Rep. Jerrold Nadler can see all sorts of things that aren’t really there, like “Russian collusion” or an impeachable offense in a Presidential courtesy call. But he apparently can’t see a violent riot in front of his face. Journalist Austen Fleccas asked Nadler on video if he would disavow the violence and riots by Antifa in Portland right now. Nadler’s response:

“That… that… that… that’s a myth that’s spreading only in Washington, DC.”

I wonder if he also thinks the violent protests in Washington, DC, were a myth?

I’m sure Rep. Nadler is among the willfully deaf, dumb and blind crowd who insist that the rioters in places like Portland are “peaceful protesters” being bludgeoned and tear-gassed for no reason by federal fascist goons – who wouldn’t even have to be there if the Mayor of Portland hadn’t let the rioting go on for nearly 60 days now, including assaults on federal officers and repeated attempts to destroy the federal courthouse.

Fortunately, some people are tired of playing along with this dream world. That includes a number of black Americans who are fed up with how a legitimate protest following the death of George Floyd has been hijacked by young, white, anti-American radicals who are only making race relations worse and black neighborhoods more dangerous.

The president of the Portland chapter of the NAACP complained that the protests have lost focus and turned into “a spectacle, a debacle.” Another local black leader complained that they’ve been taken over by violent, “mostly white anarchists,” noting that most black people don’t even live downtown, and their problems, like the need for better schools, are far away and being ignored.

And here is today’s MUST-READ story.

Gabe Johnson is a 48-year-old black Marine veteran who lives in downtown Portland, near the riot scene but far enough away that he assumed from media reports that they were just “peaceful protesters,” with maybe a few typically angry young punks thrown in. Then last weekend, when he was kept awake by the sound of explosions and tear gas started coming in through his A/C vent, he stood up and declared that somebody had to do something.

He thinks of the American flag as a symbol of unity among all people, so the next day, he went to the protest site, hung a couple of flags on a fence and tried to engage protesters in a peaceful dialogue about how to bring people back together. It didn’t go well. They called him the worst kind of racist names, and ripped down his flags and stomped on them. When an older black man grabbed one of his flags and handed it back to him, a "peaceful protester" punched him in the face and ran.

Johnson said he dealt with terrorists overseas and he sees the same tactics being used in Portland: “They’ve got spotters with cameras that will follow you around, and they’ve got their thugs. Those are the guys with the baseball bats. They have people that will intimidate you in Black Lives Matter attire.”

He also noticed a lot of out-of-state license plates and said 99% of the people he did talk to didn’t live in Portland. Johnson says that what he learned is that Antifa has attached itself to the Black Lives Matter movement and taken it over, and the claims that the protests are largely peaceful and the federal officers started the violence are lies.

He said, “It’s beyond me how they can sit there and say that they’re not causing damage or rioting. It’s a riot, and it’s real, and when you are on the front line and you’re looking back into that crowd, it is an angry mob that is built on doing as much destruction as possible.”

He also stressed that he is not a conservative or a Trump supporter, but he is a patriot. And having seen what’s going on with his own eyes, he now believes that Portland Police should use any means necessary, including force, to stop it.

In short, these people have declared war on America. They were just smart enough to pick cities with leaders who were dumb enough not to realize when someone is waging war on them. But the residents are finally figuring it out.

We’re seeing exactly what happens when we give the mob its wish and order the police to stand down. These protesters don’t say, “Well, that’s more like it” and go home; they ramp up the violence because now they figure they can get away with even more.

Law professor Glenn Reynolds of the Instapundit blog has written wisely that the inevitable result of this is not a utopian society with no evil gestapo cops, but vigilante justice. The people will only put up with being terrorized for so long, particularly when the officials they foolishly elected abandon them to the mob and tell them, as the Seattle Police Chief just did, that “we can no longer enforce the law. You are on your own.”

The only responses in such a case range across a spectrum from armed self-defense to neighborhood patrols to gangs to vigilante groups to militias. Do the leftist leaders of these cities really prefer any of those options to police (I exempt Chicago, since they’ve obviously preferred letting gangs run wild to backing the police for years)? As Prof. Reynolds puts it, “In the end, the police aren’t there to protect the public from criminals, they’re there to protect criminals from the public. Communities dealt with crime long before police were invented, usually in rather harsh and low-due-process ways. The bargain was, let the police handle it instead. No police, no bargain.”

All those who accuse the police of not being gentle enough with them when they assault someone or steal or destroy someone’s property really aren’t going to like what happens if the police go away and their victims start dealing directly with the problem themselves.

We’re seeing exactly what happens when we give the mob its wish and order the police to stand down. These protesters don’t say, “Well, that’s more like it” and go home; they ramp up the violence because now they figure they can get away with even more.

Law professor Glenn Reynolds of the Instapundit blog has written wisely that the inevitable result of this is not a utopian society with no evil gestapo cops, but vigilante justice. The people will only put up with being terrorized for so long, particularly when the officials they foolishly elected abandon them to the mob and tell them, as the Seattle Police Chief just did, that “we can no longer enforce the law. You are on your own.”

The only responses in such a case range across a spectrum from armed self-defense to neighborhood patrols to gangs to vigilante groups to militias. Do the leftist leaders of these cities really prefer any of those options to police (I exempt Chicago, since they’ve obviously preferred letting gangs run wild to backing the police for years)? As Prof. Reynolds puts it, “In the end, the police aren’t there to protect the public from criminals, they’re there to protect criminals from the public. Communities dealt with crime long before police were invented, usually in rather harsh and low-due-process ways. The bargain was, let the police handle it instead. No police, no bargain.”

All those who accuse the police of not being gentle enough with them when they assault someone or steal or destroy someone’s property really aren’t going to like what happens if the police go away and their victims start dealing directly with the problem themselves.

Suddenly, we are bidding farewell to some celebrities whom it seemed had been around forever and would go on forever.

Olivia DeHavilland, one of the last surviving veterans of Hollywood’s Golden Age, died Sunday at her home in Paris at 104. Last year, she was photographed riding her bicycle at 103. She noted the irony that she was the last living cast member of “Gone With The Wind” when her character of Melanie was so fragile that she was the only one who died in the film.

In addition to “Gone With The Wind,” her five-decade movie career included “The Adventures of Robin Hood” with Errol Flynn (the first big-budget feature in three-strip Technicolor, a year before “The Wizard of Oz”) and “The Heiress,” for which she won the Best Actress Oscar three years after winning it for “To Each His Own,” scoring two wins out of five career nominations. (One was for “The Snake Pit,”also the premise of one of my favorite obscure jokes, when after escaping being thrown into a pit of snakes, Bullwinkle the moose leans over the edge and says, “Goodbye, Olivia!”)

She also made history in a couple of other ways. In 1943, fed up with being forced to take mediocre roles, she sued Warner Brothers and won. The case resulted in a ban on long-term studio contracts that automatically renewed without the actors’ consent, which became known as “the DeHavilland Law.” And in the days when communists were trying to stealthily take power in Hollywood and called anyone who opposed them “fascists” (sound familiar?), she bravely threw out a pro-commie speech written for her by Dalton Trumbo and gave her own speech, denouncing communism. Read the full story here, it will make you respect her even more:

Also, on Saturday, Regis Philbin died at home of natural causes a month before his 89th birthday. He first came to national attention as the announcer/sidekick on Joey Bishop’s late night show that challenged (barely) Johnny Carson. From there, it was on to “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” “Regis & Kathie Lee,” “Regis & Kelly” and countless other shows and talk show appearances.

Coincidentally, Regis died just a few weeks after the passing of longtime TV host Hugh Downs at 99.

Both Regis and Hugh made record albums: “An Evening With Hugh Downs” (1959) and four LPs by Regis, from “It’s Time For Regis” (1968) to 2009’s “Just You. Just Me” with his wife Joy. “The Regis Philbin Christmas Album” (2005) features Donald Trump on “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and an animated Trump appears in the Claymation video: https://youtu.be/U03Q83nl8-4

Regis also broke Downs’ Guinness World Record for the most hours spent on network TV (15,188). Regis was on national TV for about 17,000 hours. That would take being on TV for two hours a day five days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 30 years. Blogger Mark Evanier recalls meeting Regis once at a Hollywood benefit about 10 years ago, where he happily talked, shook hands and posed for photos with everyone who asked. When Evanier told him that David Letterman must really love him to have him on so often, he replied:

"That's because I'm always available! Someone cancels, it's 'Call Regis!' and I'm there like a trained cocker spaniel! But you know what they say…showing up is 90% of everything! I may not be the funniest guy on TV but I'm really good at showing up."

Regis kept showing up for over 50 years, and we were always glad to see him. TV won’t be the same without him.

Actor John Saxon has also died at 83. Some of his most famous roles included the movies “Enter The Dragon” with Bruce Lee (Saxon was a martial artist himself), “Joe Kidd” and “Raid on Entebbe,” as well as TV roles on “Dynasty” and “Falcon Crest.”

Finally, British singer/guitarist Peter Green died Saturday in his sleep at 73. If you remember when Fleetwood Mac was a blues-rock band, that was under Green. He co-founded Fleetwood Mac but left in 1971, before it morphed into a pop-rock mega-group. Green was considered one of the best British blues guitarists ever. Even B.B. King said he had “the sweetest tone I ever heard. He was the only one who gave me the cold sweats.”

Once again on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s liberals against First Amendment religious freedom protections. In a stunning 5-4 ruling against Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley in Nevada that echoed a similar ruling in May against a California church, the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal arguing that churches, synagogues and mosques shouldn’t have to comply with the Democratic Governor’s 50-person limit on worship services to combat COVID-19.

This is blatantly discriminatory against people of faith because it applies only to them. In a blistering dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the restriction doesn’t apply to casinos or movie theaters, which could easily be packing in hundreds of people with far fewer health precautions than places of worship are imposing. Not to mention all the anti-police protests for which restrictions never apply, since they’re an exercise of First Amendment rights that liberal officials agree with.

Sen. Ted Cruz sarcastically tweeted that churches should install craps tables; then maybe they’d be allowed to open. My reaction was blunter: I called on Roberts to repent and resign:

Here’s another great commentary by Andrea Widburg on this outrageous ruling that calls it “a constitutional no-brainer.” She writes that “There’s something very wrong at the Supreme Court, and Justice Roberts seems to sit at the heart of the problem.” She adds that the only way to insure a real conservative majority on the Court is to reelect Trump so that he can make more appointments, and if Biden is elected, the “Constitution will be abandoned for the foreseeable future.”

(Ms. Widburg also makes the excellent point that Nevada’s COVID-19 death rate is only 0.02%, with almost all the cases concentrated near Las Vegas, more than 400 miles away from the church. Yet the casinos can open and the church cant’?)

Roberts seems to believe that his job is not to declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional (it's actually his #1 job), but to find some legal excuse to justify whatever the government does, on the theory that if elected officials did it, then the people must want it. The Bill of Rights does not exist to insure that the government or even the majority always get what they want but to protect the people from their own government. It’s also not a list of rights granted by government until they have a good reason to take them away. It’s a list of God-given rights granted to every American by their Creator that the government has no power to take away.

If Chief Justice Roberts can’t figure out the difference by this stage of his career, then it’s time to find a new career.

Believe it or not, we’re down to the last hundred days before the election. (Wow, time sure flies when you’re not having fun.) Event-wise, this has been the worst lead-in to a presidential election since 1969, and in some ways it’s arguably far worse. Who would ever have imagined that we’d have an election year heading down to the wire with essentially no in-person campaigning, no big national conventions and probably even no debates. (Come on, does anyone really think Joe Biden WON’T get out of debating President Trump?) All this, when the stakes for this country are higher than they have been since, oh, maybe the Civil War.

Elections mean things, and this year, they mean everything. That’s why it’s critical to continue uncovering what was done to try to hijack the last one. Sadly, one of the major ways to influence elections, though it’s not supposed to happen (ha), is through the use –- the misuse –- of the tax-exempt 501(c)3. (To cite the most obvious example, does anyone believe that Media Matters doesn’t concern itself with election outcomes?) Recall that the Obama IRS was clearly weaponized to disqualify Tea Party organizations that had been formed around conservative principles while letting most “progressive” groups sail through to tax-exempt status.

California Rep. Devin Nunes broke some stunning news in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on her FOX BUSINESS NEWS show “Mornings with Maria” about THE most prominent liberal think-tank, the Brookings Institute, a 501(c)3, being involved with...(drum roll, please)...Christopher Steele and the “dossier.”

According to Rep. Nunes, there are direct links between the 2016 president of the Brookings Institute, longtime Clinton loyalist Strobe Talbott, and the creation and distribution of the phony Steele “dossier.”

"I think they have real...questions that need to be answered here,” he told Maria, “about what on earth the president of Brookings was doing texting back and forth to Steele. Why was he accepting the “dossier”?

Nunes returned Sunday to talk with her on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, just as more news broke about the “dossier.” Steele’s main source has been unmasked and is identified as Igor Denchenko (whom I would add is also a close associate of Adam Schiff’s star impeachment witness Fiona Hill). Nunes first offered a little background, saying that a few months ago, he and Sen. Lindsay Graham were saying they saw “three Russians” as possible sources, but that now it turns out that the one finally identified wasn’t really a Russian national, that he lived right here in the U.S. Both the FBI and the media had led Congress –- and the American public –- to believe Steele had some super-secret Russian source, but no.

We've learned something else very interesting about him: Steele’s “Russian” source used to work at the Brookings Institute.

Nunes says the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired while Republicans led the House, had already known through testimony that back in 2016, Strobe Talbott gave a few copies of the “dossier” to a few people. They also know that there were other so-called “dossiers” that mirrored the main one and that these were being passed around at the State Department; Nunes believes there are connections between those other “dossiers” and the president of Brookings as well.

Understand that all this material was completely unverified oppo research bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reporters actually got Pulitzer Prizes for playing their roles in disseminating that rot. In Nunes’ words, “The whole thing was just some sick fantasy made up by the Clinton campaign. (Once again we can say that when it comes to corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary.)

Nunes says the investigation (I assume he means the Senate investigation) has now been expanded to include the Brookings Institute, specifically as it involves the IRS and a 501(c)3’s legal obligation to stay out of politics if it’s going to remain tax-exempt. He says they “clearly have not done that” and for the last four years have obstructed the investigation “with propaganda,” publicly attacking them “through this kind of phony legal group of ‘fact-checkers’ that they set up.”

The other trouble spot at Brookings is its acceptance of foreign money; this may include even money from foreign governments. So the question is, what foreign countries are we talking about? Were donors acting on behalf of a foreign power to damage Trump and help Hillary?

After Trump and his campaign were looked at upside down and sideways, it became clear that they had not “colluded” with Russia to win in 2016. But now we see that the Brookings Institute was playing politics on the Democrat side, and THEY had foreign donors. Nunes asks, “...are they doing all of this not just to help the Democratic Party, but also any foreign government?”

A report by Julie Kelly in AMERICAN GREATNESS tells more, recalling the Brookings Institution’s 4,300-word defense of the "dossier" on the website LAWFARE (where we looked to see that it's "published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings") that came out in December of 2018. It said the “dossier” was “a collection of raw intelligence” similar to other forms used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Kelly's piece --- not the LAWFARE piece, unless you want your head to explode --- is a must-read.

Laughably, Chuck Rosenberg and Sarah Grant wrote for LAWFARE, “The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven. The Mueller investigation has clearly public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.”

Gosh, even Peter Srtzrok, in an internal FBI report, said there was no evidence that members of the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian officials.

"It’s safe to say that LAWFARE acted as the Adam Schiff of the blogosphere,” writes Kelly. That says it all. She also tells how LAWFARE targets Attorney General Bill Barr and Rep. Nunes. (Take a look at the headlines on their website; you'll get the idea.) They slammed Nunes' memo on FISA abuse though we now know it was accurate and Schiff’s was not. The very person who trashed Nunes’ memo for LAWFARE, David Kris, ended up being the person appointed by the presiding FISA judge to offer guidance on cleaning up the FISA process!

Why is it so important now to look at all this? Because there’s a bigger question: If the Democrat Party could go THIS FAR to tip the scales in 2016, what lengths might they go to in 2020 to win? Is there a limit? (That would be a “no.”) What on God’s earth are they doing behind the scenes NOW, under cover of the coronavirus? And how do we prevail? That, in the last hundred days before the election, is what we need to know and act on.

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

Incidentally, Sen. Lindsay Graham announced on Sunday that this week, evidence will be released that shows not only did the FBI lie to the FISA court about the reliability of the Steele “dossier,” but they also lied about it in their 2018 testimony to Congress. “And that is a separate crime,” Graham said.

There’s been a huge development related to the story we brought you a few days ago about Peter Strzok’s plan to use President Trump’s first official intelligence briefing to spy on him in January of 2017. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Thursday declassified a memo that details the specifics of an earlier briefing, with then-candidate Trump, in August of 2016. That briefing must have made Strzok very happy, because one can see from this new memo that they were already using such meetings to spy on Trump when he was still a candidate.

In fact, they filed the memo in several very interesting places mostly unrelated to the stated purpose of the briefing: under “Crossfire Hurricane,” code name for the “Trump/Russia” investigation; under “Crossfire Razor,” code name for the investigation of Michael Flynn; under “FARA,” the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and also under the vaguely titled “Russia Sensitive Investigative Matter.”

As reported by John Solomon, the memo shows that agent Joe Pientka attempted to gather evidence against both Trump and Flynn, not just briefing the candidate but also writing down the questions Trump asked during the meeting and scrutinizing the demeanor of attendee Flynn as well.

Recall that Strzok wrote later in an email to his boss Bill Priestap that he was “angry” (his word) he’d been left out of the loop ahead of the January 2017 briefing, as he planned to use it to further his investigation and wanted to offer input beforehand. In other words, this was far more than just an intelligence briefing; it was a set-up to play "gotcha" with the newly-inaugurated President, and his colleagues knew it. Unbelievable.

But true. As for the earlier briefing of then-candidate Trump, a source told FOX NEWS that “...the briefing was used as ‘a cover to listen for any remarks’ by Trump or others about the Russian federation.” See the report by Brooke Singman and Gregg Re here.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/source-says-fbi-agent-used-2016-briefing-on-election-interference-as-cover-to-question-trump-team

This intelligence briefing, held August 17, 2016, was supposedly to brief candidate Trump on foreign election interference. But according to the typewritten notes of FBI agent Joe Pientka, the agent “actively listened” for what was said on certain topics, particularly the Russian federation, using his 13-minute briefing for “cover” to monitor both Donald Trump and Michael Flynn.

The briefing was held at the FBI’s New York Field Office. Also in attendance was Trump campaign adviser and former candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. (As far as we know, all this is news to him.)

It was Pientka’s duty as the one giving the briefing to “warn and tell the candidates what they needed to watch out for.” Yet even with their supposed evidence about the Russians targeting the Trump campaign, Pientka did not tell Trump and/or Flynn that this was happening.

Interestingly, the document written by Pientka and supplied to FOX NEWS shows that it was approved by both Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith, you’ll recall, is the subject of a criminal referral –- so far the only one we know of –- for altering a document to say that Carter Page had not worked as our own asset for the CIA when he actually had done just that. (Page’s work with the CIA would have been exculpatory evidence for him, but somehow they ‘forgot’ to mention it in the FISA application to spy on him, altered evidence of it, and accused Page of being a Russian agent instead.)

According to the FOX NEWS source, Pientka was at that time also handling the FBI’s investigation into Flynn. (Recall that Pientka and Strzok were the two agents who went to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days into his new job as Trump’s new national security adviser.) The same source told FOX NEWS that the briefing was used as “a cover to listen for any remarks” by candidate Trump or others about the Russian federation.

Note that these officials were really out to get Flynn at that time; this particular incident of spying may have been just as much about snagging HIM as it was about stopping candidate Trump. With all Flynn knew about the inner workings of the intelligence community, they did NOT want him working with Trump. This concern would no doubt become a desperate one after Trump was elected.

Another senior administration official did not hold back in commenting to FOX NEWS, saying that this document “shows the same cast of virulent characters that spearheaded the Russia hoax and set Trump up from ‘jump.’” They were trying to make good on their promise to keep Trump from winning. It was “a scam briefing from a scam crew of miscreants at the FBI.”

Then-FBI Director James Comey later testified that he had assured President Trump he was not personally under investigation. (Recall that Trump at the time was understandably upset that Comey wouldn’t come out and state it publicly.) But Comey was lying to Trump. The FBI had Trump under an electron microscope, both before and after he was in office.

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, on Sean Hannity’s TV show Thursday night, clarified how they conducted that early briefing. “The FBI went to then-candidate Trump...They told him Russia might try to spy on you; what they didn’t tell him is, ‘WE’RE spying on you.” And they did it just 17 days into this investigation. It opens on July 31; August 17, they do this. Thirteen minutes for the ‘defensive briefing,’ the part...you’re supposed to get; and then an hour and 42 minutes where they’re trying to get information and set the [candidate] up.”

Jordan went on to say that this came very shortly after Strzok’s August 8 text to Lisa Page in which he said, “We’ll stop it [Trump’s election],” and his August 15 text to Page about the “insurance policy” discussed in “Andy’s office” (Andrew McCabe). Just two days later, they start implementing that insurance policy.

Gregg Jarrett, also on Hannity’s show, brought up the fact that Pientka has been scrubbed from the FBI website and is now cloistered in the San Fransisco Field Office, where the FBI refuses to make him available after repeated demands by Congress. And who is responsible for that, as well as for the excruciating delays in releasing these memos? Why, that would be current FBI Director Christopher Wray, of course! Every time we have a story that involves slow-walked evidence, we always seem to end up back at Wray’s office door, which is always closed.

Remember when we said that if Biden were elected, he’d essentially be bringing back the old Obama machine to the White House? (Of course, my writer Laura Ainsworth has been saying for two years that Michelle Obama will end up either being the nominee or running on the ticket with Biden –- if he manages to make it to the election –- with the goal that she end up in the Oval Office with the original Obama team.)

Well, we'd like to thank Ray Arroyo on Laura Ingraham’s “Seen and Unseen” segment Wednesday for pointing something out. Former President Obama and presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden got together to record a video conversation, and the Biden campaign has released a trailer. The campaign made quite a production out of it, with cameras following the two men as they exit their cars with entourages in tow and even time their entrances from the elevators. Arroyo describes it as playing “like a streaming event.”

He also points out one moment in this trailer in which “Obama reveals more than perhaps he intended.” Can you guess what it is?

It's when Obama says this: “You are going to be able to reassemble [pause and big hand gesture] the kind of government that cares about people and brings people together.”

Okay...REASSEMBLE? Arroyo recalls for his audience the “old group” of Susan Rice, Eric Holder and John Kerry; of course, there are many more. (Quite a few of them are probably still at the FBI.) Whether or not Michelle Obama is Biden's running mate, it’s easy to see that the same old Democrat machine will be back if he wins. Deja vu all over again.

And does anyone think Biden would be willing and able to stop the lawlessness in “blue” cities around the country? No, the only way he'd be able to quell the protests would be to give those thugs everything they demand. They have a long list of "reforms" that would end America as we know it, and Biden would just do it all. I like what Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia said on BREITBART NEWS TONIGHT about Biden, that he is the “leader of lawlessness.”

Collins, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, praised President Trump for working to restore law and order when that is exactly what our country desperately needs.

Elections have consequences, said host Matthew Boyle, and he had a message for those who care about law and order: “I’m calling out to all the listeners of Breitbart Radio tonight: do not think for one second the conservative voice in America needs to be complacent in this country. If you don’t like [it] in these cities, if you don’t like lawlessness, if you don’t like the liberal takeover of your rights and your freedoms, your guns, or anything else, then you have to do more than simply just talk about it.”

We have to fight for what matters, he said. That includes having “a bigger conversation” about “the fact that Joe Biden in his basement in Delaware has been subscribing to these ultra-leftist positions of defunding the police and disrespecting the police.” He has “caved to leftist groups.”

Nothing less than a “conservative movement” will stop this.

But these are the people to whom Joe Biden would bow.

Here are just a few of the ideas these “woke” prosecutors in the Seattle area –- King County –- would like to see considered:

First, to not necessarily file third-degree assault charges against someone who attacks a police officer. “These (charges) often arise from aggressive responses by law enforcement officers toward persons of color, or from an arrestee’s mental health or substance abuse episode,” so such cases should be filed “reluctantly.”

Also, to not file third-degree assault charges against someone who attacks a police officer if the officer didn’t have his bodycam turned on or didn’t have proper training in de-escalation and “implicit bias.”

In addition, to give crime investigators “less input” into bail recommendations. But this group does have recommendations of their own; for example, they think “Burglary 2” suspects with no violent history shouldn’t be held in jail during a pandemic “simply because [Seattle] PD is annoyed by how often they’re responding to break-ins.” (!)

They also recommend that prosecutors not file charges on referrals for: escape, eluding, drug possession, drug possession with intent to deliver, delivery of controlled substance, second-degree burglary, and auto theft, “as long as the suspect “has remained crime free from when the case was referred to present.”

I wish I could say I was making this up, but it’s real. All of these crimes would essentially go unpunished. As in, go and sin no more!

The prosecutor who brought this letter to the attention of FOX Q13 (and did not wish to be identified) was disheartened. “I don’t even know why we’re prosecutors anymore,” this person said. Indeed. “It seems almost as if the prosecutor’s office becomes less and less relevant and necessary to a safe society when we’re willing to let burglars or robbers go free or have a license to assault police officers.”

This letter isn’t the only “starting point” for long-term “reform” of law enforcement in Seattle. Tuesday, an internal memo from the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention outlined their plan to end juvenile detention by 2025 and to close the King County Jail in downtown Seattle once the pandemic is under control.

And this November, King County residents will vote on whether the sheriff will continue to be elected or instead be appointed, responsible just to county officials. Some, obviously, in county government are pushing to have more direct control over the sheriff. Voters will also decide whether or not the charter can be changed to transfer some policing functions to “other offices.” (Uh-oh.) As councilmember Girmay Zahilay said, “Millions of people around the nation have said we need to redirect most policing functions to unarmed, public health, and community-based alternatives. The King County Charter as currently written does not allow us to do this.”

Maybe the people who wrote the King County Charter “as currently written” were not insane. Does anyone think that a (shudder) President Joe Biden --- or whoever his chosen successor might be --- would do anything to preserve law and order in an environment such as this? Biden has already said he definitely would “redirect” funds away from the police. There is no question that he would support redirecting their duties as well.

This would be a hopeless situation for law enforcement. So what we need to do this November is “redirect” the power away from leftists and back towards law enforcement, and the one we can count on to oversee that is President Trump.

As most expected, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, the city’s hyper-partisan top prosecutor, set aside the city’s huge backlog of homicides and charged Mark and Patricia McCloskey with felony unlawful use of a weapon for brandishing a rifle and a pistol to warn protesters away from their home. The case made national headlines. Mark McCloskey, who is an attorney himself, said the protesters (sorry: “peaceful protesters”) broke through a gate, entered his private property, and were advancing toward his home, threatening him, his family, and their dog.

Worth noting: When Gardner ran in the Democratic primary in 2016, she was backed by a far-left PAC partially funded by George Soros. This is part of a heavily-financed campaign (the type that got AOC into the House) which targets low-turnout races in one-party districts and cities, winning the nomination, and hence the election, for Democrat DA’s who then institute “criminal justice reform” by legalizing crime and refusing to prosecute criminals. Of course, if you dare try to protect yourself from the criminals they release, then they’ll prosecute you. From her public statement:

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis. We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated.”

Fortunately, it appears that almost as soon as Gardner released that statement, her case against the McCloskeys began unraveling. For one thing, the “peaceful protesters” were on private property and behaving in a threatening manner as verified on video, and Missouri has a strong Castle Doctrine law that protects the right to use a weapon to defend your life and property. There are also reports that the McCloskeys were only bluffing: the rifle wasn’t loaded and the pistol was a prop, which means neither would meet the law’s definition of a weapon “readily capable of lethal use.”

On top of that, within hours of the charges being filed, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss the charges, calling it “a politically-motivated prosecution by a prosecutor who is not interested in prosecuting violent crimes.” He said he would “not stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” and he’s doing this not just for the McCloskeys but “for every Missourian whose rights are threatened by a rogue prosecutor who seeks to punish people for exercising their fundamental right to self-defense."

And if somehow, this case does come to trial, Missouri Gov. Mike Parsons says he’s already considering pardoning them.

Like all these leftist DA’s, Ms Gardner has her job definition backwards. She’s supposed to jail criminals and protect law-abiding citizens, not the other way around. On August 4th, she’s facing one challenger in the Democratic primary, Mary Pat Carl. St. Louis voters will have a very stark choice. Critics of Carl claim she will represent the law enforcement “status quo” and will end the “progressive” direction that Gardner has set the city on.

Look around you, St. Louis residents. Look at all the damage and the graffiti, the crime and bullying and assaults on police. That's the "change" Ms. Gardner has helped usher in. Does it look like “progress” to you?

Last week, I linked to an excerpt from the new book by John Solomon and Seamus Bruner entitled ‘FALLOUT: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.’ That chapter told of the dangerous work of an American undercover agent, William Douglas Campbell, as he risked his life in a Moscow hotel room to document an exchange of cash bribes. Today, another excerpt tells the story from that same informant of how the Russians privately mocked President Obama for so easily giving them American uranium in the Uranium One deal, as well as nuclear fuel contracts and technology.

In Russia, PRAVDA reported it as a coup that Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy conglomerate, had taken control of Uranium One Incorporated, and that was not an exaggeration. Though Rosatom was a Canadian company, Putin’s takeover involved the transfer of ownership of 20 percent of America’s uranium. Today’s excerpt from the book is a must-read for anyone curious about what Putin’s goals were and how his win came about, thanks to the gracious assistance of President Obama.

As reported by Solomon and Bruner: “Putin had set his sights on global nuclear domination before President Barack Obama took office and then, just two days after Obama’s second inauguration, Putin had achieved a near virtual monopoly, producing more uranium than all American miners combined. In a single purchase [Rosatom], he had gained full control of one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies and a nuclear foothold in the land of his greatest adversary.”

Kind of makes you think that all those cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!!” were misdirected.

Rosatom, launched by Putin in 2007, was structured as a private-public enterprise, in that “its expenditures were subsidized, its profits were privatized and its losses were socialized,” essentially giving the Kremlin “a blank checkbook” that ensured Western companies could not compete. (NOTE: This is what they don’t teach college kids about the true nature of government-controlled economies, and why top government leaders in “socialist” countries are typically billionaires while "the masses" scrape by.)

Importantly, Putin needed –- and got –- Obama’s blessing to help Iran develop the Bushehr nuclear reactor, “a project that previous American administrations had deemed unacceptable.” Despite hard evidence that Iran was secretly moving forward on an illegal nuclear weapons program, Obama did nothing to get in the way of this.

Putin also created some lovely new customers and partnerships for Rosatom, including ruthless anti-American dictators such as Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Hu Jintao of China, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and even Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

As you know, the FBI was aware of what Putin was doing because it had its own undercover agent, now identified as Mr. Campbell, inside Rosatom. A few days after he delivered the suitcase with $50,000 cash to Russian officials while secretly recording the transaction with a camera hidden in his pen, he was invited to dinner by the Russians –- including one connected to the KGB and another who was found to have been a spy on American soil –- to Morton’s steakhouse in the tony Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. (He also picked up the tab for the $700 steak-and-vodka dinner; “your tax dollars at work.”)

The Russians were out for a fun evening because they knew the Uranium One deal was about to be approved and they were planning a party to celebrate the opening of the new office of their American subsidiary, Tenam.

It was at this dinner, with the vodka flowing, that the Russians mocked President Obama, whom they denigrated with the racial epithet of “Bongo-Bongo,” for essentially giving away the farm, which, of course, he HAD DONE. They laughed about how weak his administration was and how they had put one over on him. Of course, they were unaware of Campbell’s true identity and thought they were among friends, so they felt free to make fun of the President all they wanted.

They must have repeated what Obama himself is so fond of saying: "Thanks, Obama!"

Campbell later told Congress, “I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil.”

This particular excerpt doesn’t even get into Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal and how the Clintons profited from hugely inflated speaking fees for Bill and contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative while she was Secretary of State and also on the board that had to approve that sale. For those details and a great deal more, I recommend you read the book!

When one dares to look honestly into the Obama administration’s dealings with Russia over the years 2008-2016, it makes the more recent years of Russia-related finger-pointing at President Trump seem like the ridiculous fraud they are. Imagine if Trump’s administration were dealing with Russia the way the Obama administration did. Once again, we have an example of the Democrats accusing Republicans of the very thing they've been doing themselves.

Judicial Watch has done it again. We now have even more texts and emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page, who were having an affair during the time they were targeting Donald Trump, first as a hated candidate and later as President-elect. These two were texting and emailing each other so much that it’s hard to imagine they ever got any work done, but somehow they managed. At this point, I’ve lost track of the number of communications we’ve seen that relate to abuse of FBI power.

The emails we’re just now seeing –- still heavily redacted, unfortunately –- were written right around the time of Trump’s inauguration, with some concerning a White House intelligence briefing of the new President. Besides including Strzok and Page, these emails were circulated among then-deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, and others as well. The frantic flurry of communications going on just before and after Trump’s inauguration testifies to the mood among top FBI officials at that time.

I’d say the most interesting email of all is that from Strzok about the White House briefing --- one that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.” The exchanges leading up to it, written the night before the inauguration, are heavily redacted (NOTE to FBI Director Wray: these redactions obviously are for the FBI’s own “CYA” and are not acceptable), but then, we see that on January 21, 2017, the day after Trump was sworn in, Strzok forwarded to Lisa Page and another person (name redacted) an email he’d sent earlier that day to Priestap, asking them to “not forward/share.” Strzok had written Priestap in reference to the White House briefing: “...I am angry that Jen [counterintelligence official Jennifer Boone] did not at least cc: me. AS MY BRANCH HAS PENDING INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS THERE, THIS BRIEF MAY PLAY INTO OUR INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGY [emphasis mine], and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle the WH [White House] detailee interaction.”

Translation: I want to use the White House intelligence briefing of the new President to continue investigating him, and I’m mad because Jen left me out of the loop.

Other emails from this period detailed in the press release relate to Strzok’s assessment of media reports on the Steele “dossier.” We’ve looked at one such memo by Strzok already, the one in which he admits the NEW YORK TIMES report on Trump colluding with Russian agents was false. Much more detail is here in the press release; it’s kind of “into the weeds,” but if you have time to go through it, some of this stuff is quite entertaining.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton (who deserves huge thanks for working for so long to obtain all this evidence), had this to say, in part: “These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office... And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noticed that Wray’s FBI and Barr’s DOJ continue to slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails --- which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won’t be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!”

This is because the FBI has been processing emails at the rate of only 500 pages per month (!) and has yet to process text messages. Again, this is completely unacceptable, Director Wray. Who knows what is still buried in there? (Answer: maybe Director Wray does.) But right now, we go with what we’ve got, and what we’ve got is tons of incriminating material.

John Solomon at JUST THE NEWS has also written a piece --- highly recommended --- on Strzok’s email about the White House briefing. It goes on to quote some longtime intelligence analysts who can hardly believe this happened. They told Solomon that “...any effort to use official briefings of the President and his White House to spy, investigate or gather information violated the necessary trust for keeping a President apprised of intelligence in a dangerous world.”

Some churches in California are defying Gov. Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional ban on holding services, even though they’re taking extreme precautions, more so than businesses allowed to stay open (taking temperatures at the door, passing out masks, offering an outdoor worship alternative, social distancing, 25% capacity, etc.)

More power to them. And this may hearten them in their fight: in Virginia, a pastor who was hit with criminal charges and threatened with up to a year in jail for holding services saw those charges dropped for no stated reason.

Maybe the reason is that out-of-control Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam realized how that case would go once it got in front of a judge and jury that had actually heard of the First Amendment. This is a case where the legal system, used for so long by leftists as a weapon against the people, is now protecting the people from power-mad leftists. And the church is still pressing its legal rights with the help of the Liberty Counsel, suing Northam for discrimination for raiding their church for having 16 people in a 250-seat church (six over the “crowd” limit) while he exempted other organizations and even encouraged and participated in mass anti-police/BLM protests.

The Trump DOJ has filed a statement of interest in the case on behalf of the church. I’ll also be very interested to see how this comes out, and if the churches in California decide to call up the Liberty Counsel, too.

I keep telling people that most public political polls are meaningless, and those taken this far from an election are less than meaningless. But the media keep hyping the “Biden’s double-digit lead” angle to make it seem as if the election were over (I find it odd that Americans have had multiple chances over the past four decades to make Joe Biden President, but only now that he’s nearing 80 have they shown the slightest interest in the prospect.)

All this has many Trump supporters worried. Combined with the relentless daily media assault on Trump, the blame heaped on him for a virus unleashed on the world by China that his China-appeasing opponents have done everything in their power to prolong, and the right-on-cue riots and racial division that Democrats desperately need to keep minorities from noticing how much worse they have fared under Democrats for the past half-century-plus, they fear Trump’s chances of reelection are slipping.

The media refuse to report what he says honestly (look at the wild misrepresentation of his Mount Rushmore speech), and he can’t hold his rallies to fire up enthusiasm. I suspect, however, that Trump supporters are a lot more enthusiastic than they’re letting on or than is being reported. A Trump bumper sticker might get your car vandalized, but once inside the voting booth, that might just make people punch that “Trump” button all the harder.

Still, the recent shake-up in Trump’s campaign organization shows that he knows some adjustments are needed. One thing that would help would be for him to get off defense and back on offense. Remind people how he actually kept his campaign promises in 2016 to bring troops home, renegotiate bad trade deals, stand up to China, make our allies keep their commitments, bring our troops home, crush ISIS and enforce immigration laws (when he wasn’t being hamstrung by a million lawsuits and out-of-control federal judges), not to target legal immigrants but to keep illegal immigration from undermining American jobs and wages. He promised to create jobs and boost economic growth, and he did.

Trump promised to cut two regulations for every new one, and as Liz Peek at Fox News notes, he’s actually cut eight. Under Obama/Biden, the Federal Register reached an all-time record 97,110 pages. They added 3,853 new rules, of which 629 were flagged as having notable effects on small businesses. Under Trump, the number of federal regulations is the lowest since the 1970s, resulting in record low unemployment in virtually every demographic group, “and in early 2019, hourly wages rose 3.4 percent over the year before, the highest rate in 10 years.”

Trump built an economy so strong, it took a virtual biological attack by China to cripple it, but even now, it’s already surging back. Trump needs to hammer the point that if you want the economy to expire like a senior citizen in a New York public nursing home, then put Joe Biden and the Democrats, with their quack remedies of huge taxes, more regulations, big government and nonexistent “green jobs” back in power.

Trump also needs to build on his great Mount Rushmore speech that’s been deliberately misconstrued, to remind us again and again that we have been bequeathed a great nation and a Constitution and economic system that are the envy of the world, and Americans of every race, creed and gender can succeed when we follow the path the Founders laid out and work together.

Kurt Schlichter has a must-read column outlining 21 second-term promises that he thinks Trump should make, to outline a positive vision the way he did in 2016. When I say it’s a must-read, that means I hope President Trump reads it, too, since there are some great ideas in here. If voters think about the nation that these ideas could lead to, and compare it to the possible Ghost-of-America’s-Future under Democrats that we can see right now in Portland, Seattle, New York City or Chicago, I can’t imagine how anyone who could pass a cognitive test would want to vote for Biden.

Democrat Raccoons

July 20, 2020

My wife Laura and I live in the Dallas-Ft. Worth suburbs and our house used to be surrounded by woods. Recently, many of those wooded areas have been bulldozed to make way for big, ugly cement warehouses (the councilman we didn’t vote for calls this “progress;” we call it destroying our neighborhood.) Anyway, the wild animals have a dwindling habitat, and some have started appearing overnight in our backyard, foraging for food.

Since we keep raccoon hours and are up all night at the computer, we watch through the windows. We’ve seen a fox and a shockingly beautiful skunk that looks like it was brushed and groomed for the Westminster Skunk Show. But mostly, each night brings a constant stream of possums and raccoons coming and going.

I feel bad for them, so I started putting out a pan of dry dog food, which I replenish several times a night, and a bowl of water. The possums are polite: they just eat, drink and move on. The raccoons are more like frat boys on spring break. When they devour all the food and I go out to refill the dish, some of them trot alongside me like tame dogs (maybe it’s all the dog food they eat.)

But after a few months, they’ve started to lose their gratitude and act a bit…entitled. If I don’t refill the dish fast enough, they come up on the back porch, knock over the big plastic container, pull open the lid and spill food all over. So I’ve been trying to stay on top of the refills.

Then last night, I discovered that even though there was still food in the dish, some raccoon had turned over the bin anyway. They still had food, but rather than being grateful for what they’d been given, they felt entitled to simply take more from the person who had to work to pay for it.

That’s when I realized: our raccoons have become Democrats.

To wean them off their folly, I had to move the food bin inside the garage where they can’t get at it. I just hope they don’t burn the house down now. It occurred to me that they feel entitled to break something open and take things that don’t belong to them, and they’re all wearing black masks. They’re not only Democrats, but I think they might have joined Antifa.

Late last week, we brought you some newly declassified documents showing the FBI was ridiculously well aware there was no evidence of the Trump campaign “colluding” with Russians. Yet they went right on accusing Carter Page of being a Russian agent and kept renewing the application to spy on him as a window into the campaign and the activities of Trump's associates. We know without a doubt that this happened, because we have it in their own words, not just in casual texts but even in official reports.

A couple of additional key documents are expected sometime this week. And we’re hearing the word “indictments” more frequently.

Mark Meadows, in his first interview with Maria Bartiromo on FOX NEWS’ SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES since becoming President Trump’s chief of staff, used that word. “I know I expect indictments from the evidence I’ve seen,” he said.

He referenced the “couple of other documents” that will be coming out and said, “It’s all starting to unravel and, I tell you, it’s time for people to go to jail and people [to be] indicted.”

Something else related to swap-draining will be revealed in a few weeks, and I’m not quite sure what to think about it, not having seen it yet. It’s an HBO documentary actually called THE SWAMP, featuring dedicated swamp-drainer Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz along with Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Ken Buck. The producers claim to have had “unfettered access” to them as they covered “a pivotal year in politics, demonstrating the breadth and grip of a system that rewards money-raising above all else, playing Congress on both sides of the aisle.”

The film focuses primarily on these three Republicans, but three Democrats are also interviewed: California Rep. Ro Khanna, Maryland Rep. John Sarbanes, and disgraced former California member of Congress Katie Hill.

It has promised to expose “how the prevalence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington can influence policy based on financial contributions and how Congressmembers’ ability to get key committee assignments depends on how much money they are able to bring in, reflecting both their rank and their ability to affect legislation.”

Ben Kew in BREITBART compares this effort to those of BREITBART NEWS senior contributer and president of the Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer, whose 2020 book ‘PROFILES IN CORRUPTION: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite’ takes a look at how Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and (oh, yes) Joe Biden “cashed in” through corruption and special interests.

Until THE SWAMP debuts on August 4, it’s impossible to know how good a job it does of exposing the corruption within the government. There’s just so much of it, they could turn it into a long-running documentary series without addressing it all. And considering “the swamp” has long been in cahoots with so many in the media, it’s easy to be skeptical about the objectivity of any such production. The directors, Daniel DiMauro and Morgan Pehme, also produced the 2017 Netflix documentary GET ME ROGER STONE.

Pehme appeared with GET ME ROGER STONE director Dylan Bank on MSNBC following Trump’s pardon of Roger Stone. You’ll see from the trailer and from this interview that they aren’t exactly fans of Trump or Stone and certainly painted Stone as a personification of the corruption in Washington. That doesn’t mean their new romp through "the swamp" isn’t accurate –- I don’t want to prejudge that –- but it does give us an idea of what they might and, more importantly, might not be focusing on as they peer into its murky depths. We'll see.

Finally, Sara Carter has a hard-hitting commentary on the news we had last week about the FBI and the need to see justice done.

Carter asks the $64,000 Question: If “senior Obama and law enforcement officials didn’t believe there was evidence to prove a conspiracy, or that one even existed, then WHO IN POWER GAVE THE DIRECTIVE [emphasis mine] to target the Trump campaign and continue investigating beyond the election?”

These people knew it was a lie, yet they harmed America’s national security by feeding their lie to the media: newspapers, social media and cable news outlets around the world. “It was a disinformation campaign unlike anything ever seen in U.S. politics and it was cultivated by former senior intelligence officials with extraordinary power,” Carter rightly says.

I strongly agree with her concern over Barr’s recent statement that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation might not be completed until after the November election. It’s understandable that Barr doesn’t want to be seen as getting in the way of a political process, but holding information back from the public is ALSO a kind of interference, an arguably worse one. That's because in deciding whom to support, voters need and deserve as much information about the candidates and the political parties as they can possibly get. (That’s why I always urge waiting until Election Day to vote; if something comes out at the last minute to cause you to change your mind, it’s too late and your precious vote is wasted.)

So, if Durham has concluded that indictments are called for, Barr needs to move forward. And that report has got to come out, no matter what it reveals. We’ve had investigation after investigation for years now, and it’s time. Long past time, in fact.

Carter says she hasn’t “seen any real results since first publishing stories more than three years ago on the subject.” She says she’s “starting to feel, like most people involved in exposing what has happened, like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel.” Judging from letters I receive from readers, she has a great deal of company.

On the bright side, look at what we do already know. Even if indictments aren’t handed down soon, we know there is PROOF that the FBI, with help with some in the DOJ, State Department, CIA and the media, and even some senators and members of Congress perpetrated a fraud to influence the 2016 election and sabotage Trump’s presidency. We even know that Obama and Biden were present at a meeting about at least one aspect of that sabotage, that of framing Michael Flynn.

But that makes it even more frustrating when Durham says his report might not be out before the election. At this point, months of additional delay would be absurd. Those who directed and led the soft coup against the Trump administration must be exposed and indicted, or our legal system is a joke. Or, as Carter put it, “We will no longer be the nation based on the principles of justice and liberty we believe ourselves to be but something altogether different.”

As we near the election, we see leftists trying to MAKE us into something altogether different. Indictments of those who perpetrated this fraud are the appropriate way to push back and show that’s not going to happen.

The slogan “Black lives matter” is indeed true. Of course black lives matter. Our nation is founded on the premise that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No one, regardless of color, ethnicity, or origin, should be denied those God-given rights. So you bet-black lives matter. But recently, the slogan has morphed into a meme that black lives have to matter MORE. The left goes berserk if someone then adds, “All lives matter.” But isn’t that the point? If historically black lives didn’t matter as much, affirming that black lives matter equally should indeed be the uncompromised quest and rightful demand. But if someone gets angry that recognizing that black lives matter because there is equality of lives, then the assumption becomes that black lives matter MORE and thus perpetuate inequality. Such an absurd view is illogical and irrational. It becomes more than a slight to those who are white, who are no more guilty of their whiteness than someone is of his or her blackness. It’s equally an insult to Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and Mid-Easterners who aren’t black, but who are equally human and equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Why would that be offensive to those who chant “Black lives matter?”

It may be because black lives matter is more than a slogan. It’s the name of a radical left-wing Marxist organization that openly advocates for the dismantling of America’s economic system and the family structure involving a man, a woman, and children related by blood or adoption to that man and woman. Here’s some of the actual language direct from the website of the organization Black Lives Matter:

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer?affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

There is more, and some of their goals are shocking. So why do major American corporations like Nike, Apple, GM, Coca-Cola, LL Bean, and others give millions of dollars to the organization whose stated goals are the deconstruction of the traditional family and the free-market economy that has empowered people of all colors to succeed and prosper? Great question! It appears because they are afraid to say no to the bullies who run this and other radical leftist groups and because too many of us who believe in true equality for ALL people whether black, white, red, yellow, brown, are also afraid to stand up and speak out. It’s time we do speak out. I do not believe that a majority of Americans, whatever their color, support rioting, looting, disregard for authority to the point of physically assaulting police officers and demanding that we defund the police. But if we don’t become as vocal in opposition to mob rule as the mobs are so as to cause the biggest corporations in our country and politicians of both parties to cower in the corner and surrender to the mobs, we will get what we deserve, but we will not like it. The elections this year will not be about political parties nor will it be a popularity contest to elect the most pleasant personality. Whether you identify as Democrat or Republican, you better identify as one who believes in the rule of law, civil order, and genuine equality for people that doesn’t favor some over others for ANY reason.

So, yes—black lives matter. And they don’t matter less than any other. But neither do they matter more. To say they do is bigotry and yes, it’s racism as surely as is the sinful notion of white supremacy. No race is supreme. God alone is Supreme. And we must live as servants to Him and to each other as we “do unto others what we would have others do unto us.”

Going into the weekend, we’ve got some great new reading material to pass along that blasts to Kingdom Come any pretext of legitimacy concerning the “Trump/Russia” investigation.

As Sen. Lindsay Graham forecast a couple of days ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, has at last obtained a couple of highly significant documents, newly declassified.

The first is a curious typewritten report by Peter Strzok on the accuracy of a NEW YORK TIMES story on the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russia. Written February 14, 2017, his report (as opposed to the story) shows beyond all doubt Strzok’s awareness that there was NO reliable evidence that the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian intelligence, in any form.

How can we be so sure of this? Well, the NYT had reported that “phone records and intercepted calls” showed that Trump campaign officials had contact with members of the Russian intelligence services. But Strozk, in his report, said, “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen any evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers]."

As Zachary Evans writes in NATIONAL REVIEW, Strzok wrote this not once, not twice, but three times in his report.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, appearing with Devin Nunes and guest host Tammy Bruce on Friday’s HANNITY, said that “nine substantive errors” were found in that single NYT story and that it should be retracted. (Ha, don’t hold your breath. Not that it matters; the damage was done at the time.) According to Solomon, what we’re now finally able to see proves that the FBI knew for months “that everything they gave to the FISA court was wrong --- EVERYTHING --- and yet they never retracted it and renewed the FISA application two more times.”

Nunes stressed the importance of INDICTMENTS. (I put that in capital letters to stress the importance of indictments myself.) “I’m not too interested in the Durham report,” he said. “I would like to know everything, for the four-plus years, that went on, including even the Mueller investigation, but really what we want is...indictments. We’ve made 14 criminal referrals; we have another investigation that’s ongoing...Also, we have suspected for a very long time that Steele had maybe only two Russians, but we believe [that]...he didn’t really know them. How was it that Steele found these supposed 'Russians' and was able to use them? We’ve asked the FBI and the CIA about these Russians; I’ve said for a long time we’re interested in two Russians –- and...they have yet to allow us access to these two Russians who we now believe are living in the United States.”

All right, Director Wray, what is going on with that? It should be all right for senate and congressional investigators to have access to the whole cast of characters by now, as part of their oversight function of the FBI. What is the holdup at this point? If it's just that this is going to make the FBI look bad, well, sorry, that's not a good enough reason.

Moving on...the other document now available is the 57-page transcript of an interview with Steele’s primary source for the “dossier.” The document still contains some redactions, but as THE DAILY CALLER reports, Sen. Graham says it “indicates the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed” after the interviews, which were conducted over three days in January 2017.

In other words, over January and February of 2017, the “dossier” –- and, by extension, the investigation based on it –- was shown without a doubt to be an outrageous farce with no evidence to back it up. But the FBI just kept pushing. So, of course, did the Democrats. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in mid-May!

Incidentally, there had been a hold-up in obtaining this document as well, as can be seen in this earlier report from THE DAILY CALLER, dated June 25.

According to THE DAILY CALLER, the FBI had been “refusing” to supply the document, “saying in response to a public records request that the information is classified and risks identifying a confidential FBI source.” Reading their account, you can see how long and hard the tug-of-war has been to get hold of classified documents that tell the tale of this hoax.

But they're out now --- happy reading!

MORNING EDITION

July 18, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

NEW DOCUMENTS SHOW NO DOUBT "RUSSIA" WAS A HOAX

Going into the weekend, we’ve got some great new reading material to pass along that blasts to Kingdom Come any pretext of legitimacy concerning the “Trump/Russia” investigation.

As Sen. Lindsay Graham forecast a couple of days ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, has at last obtained a couple of highly significant documents, newly declassified.

The first is a curious typewritten report by Peter Strzok on the accuracy of a NEW YORK TIMES story on the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russia. Written February 14, 2017, his report (as opposed to the story) shows beyond all doubt Strzok’s awareness that there was NO reliable evidence that the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian intelligence, in any form.

How can we be so sure of this? Well, the NYT had reported that “phone records and intercepted calls” showed that Trump campaign officials had contact with members of the Russian intelligence services. But Strozk, in his report, said, “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen any evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers]."

As Zachary Evans writes in NATIONAL REVIEW, Strzok wrote this not once, not twice, but three times in his report.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, appearing with Devin Nunes and guest host Tammy Bruce on Friday’s HANNITY, said that “nine substantive errors” were found in that single NYT story and that it should be retracted. (Ha, don’t hold your breath. Not that it matters; the damage was done at the time.) According to Solomon, what we’re now finally able to see proves that the FBI knew for months “that everything they gave to the FISA court was wrong --- EVERYTHING --- and yet they never retracted it and renewed the FISA application two more times.”

Nunes stressed the importance of INDICTMENTS. (I put that in capital letters to stress the importance of indictments myself.) “I’m not too interested in the Durham report,” he said. “I would like to know everything, for the four-plus years, that went on, including even the Mueller investigation, but really what we want is...indictments. We’ve made 14 criminal referrals; we have another investigation that’s ongoing...Also, we have suspected for a very long time that Steele had maybe only two Russians, but we believe [that]...he didn’t really know them. How was it that Steele found these supposed 'Russians' and was able to use them? We’ve asked the FBI and the CIA about these Russians; I’ve said for a long time we’re interested in two Russians –- and...they have yet to allow us access to these two Russians who we now believe are living in the United States.”

All right, Director Wray, what is going on with that? It should be all right for senate and congressional investigators to have access to the whole cast of characters by now, as part of their oversight function of the FBI. What is the holdup at this point? If it's just that this is going to make the FBI look bad, well, sorry, that's not a good enough reason.

Moving on...the other document now available is the 57-page transcript of an interview with Steele’s primary source for the “dossier.” The document still contains some redactions, but as THE DAILY CALLER reports, Sen. Graham says it “indicates the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed” after the interviews, which were conducted over three days in January 2017.

In other words, over January and February of 2017, the “dossier” –- and, by extension, the investigation based on it –- was shown without a doubt to be an outrageous farce with no evidence to back it up. But the FBI just kept pushing. So, of course, did the Democrats. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in mid-May!

Incidentally, there had been a hold-up in obtaining this document as well, as can be seen in this earlier report from THE DAILY CALLER, dated June 25.

According to THE DAILY CALLER, the FBI had been “refusing” to supply the document, “saying in response to a public records request that the information is classified and risks identifying a confidential FBI source.” Reading their account, you can see how long and hard the tug-of-war has been to get hold of classified documents that tell the tale of this hoax.

But they're out now --- happy reading!

"HUCKABEE" PREVIEW

Tonight on TBN, we’ll relieve your hot July with another cool new episode of “Huckabee!” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt will tell us what’s being done to protect America’s monuments from history-hating vandals. You’ll meet one of the unsung heroes of the mission to take out Osama Bin Laden, and a Huck’s Hero who overcame his struggles with autism and now helps countless others do the same. I’ll have some serious news commentary, plus plenty of laughs from hilarious stand-up comic Bob Zany. And get ready for a blast from the past as the Zmed Brothers perform their amazing tribute to the Everly Brothers.

It all gets rockin’ 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

JOHN LEWIS RIP

Longtime Georgia Representative John Lewis died last night of pancreatic cancer at 80. Even those who disagreed with his political views admired him for his bravery in fighting for civil rights, sometimes at risk of his own life. In 1965, he led a civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. As the marchers were crossing the Edmond Pettus Bridge, they were met by state troopers, who fractured Lewis’ skull.

Over the course of his life, Lewis went from a segregated school to being the only person who spoke at the Rev. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington who was still alive and in attendance when Barack Obama was inaugurated as the first black President. Our prayers and condolences to his family. The article at the link has some extraordinary photos from his history-making life.

EXCLUSIVE TRUMP INTERVIEW

President Trump recorded an exclusive interview with Chris Wallace that will air on “Fox News Sunday.” Here is a sneak preview.

One of the big controversy points is that Trump said Joe Biden will defund the police, and Wallace replied that he hadn’t endorsed that and the “unity platform” he signed with Bernie Sanders doesn’t specifically call for abolishing or defunding police. However, Biden said in a July 8th interview that some funds should “absolutely” be diverted from police. His campaign insists that diverting funds away from police does not mean defunding police.

To explain how that works, I refer you to the Biden campaign’s language adviser, Humpty Dumpty…

THE FIGHT OVER LAW AND ORDER

You might have heard the claims that “secret federal police” in unmarked vans are assaulting and arresting “peaceful protesters” in Portland. Portland’s Mayor is demanding that all federal officers leave town because, I guess, he’s doing such a bang-up job of keeping order. The DHS has now responded that those are Customs agents, and they are clearly marked as such. They just don’t wear their names on their uniforms because the radicals they’re dealing with have doxed agents by tracking down their addresses and threatening them and their families. And they have a duty to protect federal property and officers who are being assaulted by the uncontrolled mob.

This story has both sides of the dispute. All that needs to be added is the fact that if the Mayor had done his job at any point during the previous 47 days and taken action to stop the violence in the streets, there would be no need for federal officers to come in at all, and then everyone would be happy except the protesters who like to destroy things.

Speaking of liberal officials who have turned their cities into dystopian hellholes, three suspects have been identified in the bloody assaults on police officers with sticks on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. And a liberal judge immediately put one of them right back out on the street under “supervised release.” Yes, there is the recent idiotic no-bail law that’s created a revolving door that releases a lot of criminals, but that didn’t have to apply here. The judge could have made an exception for a “violent felony” crime. He just didn’t do it.

All this could be coming to your town in 2021 if you don’t vote in November to remove Democrats from power. Clearly, like addicts with heroin, they just can’t handle it.

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)

 



A few days ago, I told you about the new book FALLOUT from investigative reporters John Solomon and Seamus Bruner, and late yesterday, John Solomon had an update about the John Durham probe.

He said that Durham has been conducting “a lot” of interviews and going through a lot of documents; apparently, his investigation has been fairly unhampered by the virus. He said there have been discussions about plea bargains and cooperation from certain individuals, though, of course, he couldn’t name names.

He reported on Thursday’s HANNITY TV show that “multiple sources” with direct knowledge of the U.S. attorney’s investigation had informed him that Durham is looking specifically at the Defense Department’s Office Of Net Assessments, which had kept “confidential human source” Stefan Halper under contract to “write reports.” Durham wants to know if the Defense Department was actually funding Halper’s undercover (SPYING) activities “prior to the FBI having a predicate to do so.” (Never mind that the so-called “predicate” used later by the FBI was phony.)

Recall that the Office Of Net Assessments, like all offices at the Defense Department and within the intel community, would have been subject to audits and likely sweeping budget cuts if former national security adviser Michael Flynn had kept his job. That one fact probably explains a lot about what happened to him. Perhaps justice will be done.

"Listen, all signs are pointing to the building of a criminal indictment,” Solomon said. “Maybe it’ll come up around, just before or after Labor Day.”

But, incredibly, former special counsel Robert Mueller is still defending the “Trump/Russia” investigation, even though doing so involves contradicting his own report. Right after President Trump commuted Roger Stone’s prison sentence last week, Mueller wrote an op-ed for the WASHINGTON POST that, as reported by RealClear Investigations, didn’t just attack Stone but also disputed “broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives improper.”

And why would critics (like me) be making such claims? Well, maybe it’s because after years of examining their bogus “investigation” and finally obtaining documents and testimony that had been withheld even from defense attorneys, we could see that their investigation was illegitimate and their motives were improper.

Mueller’s op-ed contradicts the official findings concerning George Papadopoulos, whose barroom conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer was NOT evidence that “the Russians had signaled” anything to him and also was NOT even mentioned by Papadopoulos to anyone in Trump’s campaign. The record, in the form of a recently-declassified electronic communication (EC) that officially opened “Crossfire Hurricane,” shows it was nothing but hearsay, with no evidence it had come from the Russian government or even from a Russian national.

It seems Downer didn’t know at the time he passed along this hearsay to the FBI that it had come to Papadopoulos by way of Josef Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese academic. Although former FBI Director James Comey has claimed without evidence in a WASHINGTON POST op-ed of his own that Mifsud was a Russian agent, the U.S. government has never tied him in that way to Russia, and the Mueller report takes care not to label him as such. Likewise, when Andrew McCabe was interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 –- this testimony has only recently been declassified –- he said the tip given to Papadopoulos by Mifsud about Hillary’s emails was not considered evidence of a Russia connection.

But Mueller is still pushing this debunked narrative. “By late 2016,” he writes in WAPO, “the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate.” No, Mr. Mueller, they did not.

At his unimpressive congressional hearing a year ago, Mueller declined to comment on Mifsud’s identity or explain why the FBI hadn’t arrested him after his interview and charged him with perjury. After all, the Mueller report claims that he made false statements. Why didn’t they treat him the same shameful way they did Roger Stone?

Speaking of Roger Stone, Mueller goes on to vilify him in ways that don’t match the conclusions of his investigation. In the op-ed, Mueller writes that he “lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks” and also about “the existence of written communications with his intermediary.”

But as RealClear Investigations reports, “that claim from Mueller is at odds with his investigation’s failure to establish that Stone HAD [emphasis mine] an intermediary to WikiLeaks.” Stone had claimed this, but it turned out that the two individuals ever singled out by name, Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi, didn’t actually make contact with WikiLeaks. (Credico did interview Julian Assange on his radio show in August of 2016, but this had nothing to do with being a go-between with Stone.)

There's only one known contact between WikiLeaks and Stone from before the 2016 election, and it was WikiLeaks tweeting to Stone to stop making “false claims of association.”

Stone claimed to have advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of email material, but Mueller has never asserted that he actually did. According to RealClear Investigations, Stone did have “minimal and inconsequential” contact with Guccifer 2.0, but it was actually exculpatory for Stone, as none of the three short Twitter messages even mentioned the stolen DNC emails.

Former senior attorney for the special counsel Andrew Weissmann went even further in his own op-ed, this one in THE NEW YORK TIMES three days later. Weissmann, now a legal analyst for MSNBC (of course), wants to continue the investigation and see Roger Stone go before a grand jury. He still suspects that Stone hid incriminating evidence to try to help Trump, and by gum, he’s going to get to the bottom of this and find out what it is!

I think that even now, many people are unclear about just what Roger Stone was convicted of lying about. Did you know he wasn’t even accused of lying about any actual coordination regarding those emails? That’s because there WAS no coordination. Stone was accused and convicted of making false statements about his FAILED efforts to obtain information about WikiLeaks during the campaign. That’s all. He never was able to actually do it. And by the time they charged him with lying, he had already corrected the record, just not under oath. (They didn’t swear him in and give him the chance to do that, because then they wouldn’t have been able to indict him for lying. That alone is enough reason for Trump to commute his prison sentence.) Even the NYT itself reported that Stone “had no real ties to WikiLeaks.”

The contrast between Weissmann’s op-ed and the known facts of the Stone case, as laid out by RealClear Investigations, makes for some entertaining, if perplexing, reading. Weissmann’s inability to stop chasing windmills when it comes to Trump reminds me a lot of someone else who has been in the news lately. Emmet Sullivan.

UPDATE: I told you yesterday about ViacomCBS severing ties with Nick Cannon over his podcast that spread vile conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism and anti-white racist rhetoric. I said that we finally knew how far a leftist had to go to get “canceled” from holding a high profile job. Well, I take it back: Fox decided that Cannon will continue in his most high profile gig, as host of “The Masked Singer.” After all, he’s apologized and is “remorseful.” Well, that settles it, then. Oh, and by the way, Cannon is demanding an apology from ViacomCBS. Don’t be surprised if he gets one.

Meanwhile, black actor Terry Crews is still facing Twitter mob demands that he be fired from the TV show “Brooklyn-Nine Nine” for criticizing Black Lives Matter, saying we shouldn’t demonize anyone because of their race, and that the solution to white supremacy isn’t black supremacy because “we’re all in this together.”

Well, you can see why they’d want him fired while pouring support out for Nick Cannon. Saying we shouldn't hate each other because of race and we should all work together is genuinely offensive to today’s leftists. It undermines all their hard work.