A Presidential Metric
To quote the incomparable Thomas Sowell, âWhen you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.â Having experienced many election cycles, I know that nowhere are these words truer than in a presidential debate. Debate is a necessary, but insufficient, means of assessing a candidate. It can expose a candidateâs intelligence, breadth of knowledge, and ability to think on his/her feet. Chiefly though, it highlights a candidateâs ability to persuade through oral argument and body language. Sadly, history has repeatedly shown us that some very bad people can be quite persuasive. It is folly to elect a president based primarily on debates and oratorical skills. For example, Joe Biden campaigned as a moderate who would unite a divided nation. But from the moment he took office, he proved to be perhaps the most divisive president in our nationâs history.
Recently, I watched the Trump v. Harris debate and basically saw/heard exactly what I expected from both sides. As with anyone, but especially politicians, it is much more informative to watch what they do rather than listen to what they say. Fortunately, one can judge both Trump and Harris in an apples-to-apples comparison using this better metric of actual past performance.
As President, Donald Trump was responsible for all aspects of performance for the nation including the border. As Vice President, Kamala Harris was clearly delegated responsibility for the border by Joe Biden. Biden went so far as referring to Harris as his âBorder Czar.â How then, do Trump and Harris stack up regarding the border?
1. Number of Illegal border crossings
During his term, President Trump greatly decreased the number of illegal border crossings. He did so through Executive Action and through the declaration of a national emergency along our borders.
The Biden Administration immediately rescinded the Trump era actions and, for the next 3 ½ years, proceeded to do essentially nothing under Harrisâ responsibility as âborder czarâ. Hereâs the result:
Source â Heritage.org
Recently, as the election approached, Harris and the Biden Administration became very vocal about a âtough bipartisan border billâ (S. 4361) that was killed by Republicans. Biden and Harris know how unpopular our border problem is among voters. This was an attempt to appear as though they cared and were pursuing a solution. They put the blame squarely on Republicans for the failure of the bill. One shouldnât be fooled by this political theater.
Here's the reality:
A. The current administration caused the border crisis by rescinding Trumpâs Executive actions. Harris, in her capacity as âborder czarâ, could have easily solved the crisis, at any time, by having Biden reinstate these Trump-era actions. Instead, she would have us believe that a 292-page bill was needed.
B. Despite all 292 pages, S. 4361 would not have solved our border crisis. Buried within it were provisions to keep our borders uncontrolled, including the allowance for 5000 illegal entries per day!
C. The Democratic leadership bundled this bill with other expensive and highly contentious funding proposals, virtually ensuring that it would not pass. So, one can assume that rejection of the bill was their true intent. In other words, continue letting illegals flow through our porous borders, but blame the Republicans.
US Senate unveils $118 billion bill on border security, aid for
Ukraine, Israel
Richard Cowan, Costas Pitas
2. Dollar costs associated with illegal immigrants
Upon entry each illegal migrant is given $2000 and a phone. With 11 million new illegal immigrants since Biden took office, the entry payment alone adds up to $22 billion.
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1832761775118561579
They are then provided with government-funded transportation further into the country. Beyond that they are provided with housing and food from a variety of federal and state taxpayer funded sources. Much of the shelter and food comes from NGOs but these NGOs rely on government grants, so the taxpayer is the ultimate source of funds despite efforts to muddy the waters.
Back in 2019, when the rate of illegal immigration had been drastically curtailed by Trump, the taxpayer paid approximately $134.9 billion to cover the education, medical, welfare, and law-enforcement costs associated with the nationâs illegal alien families.š This cost has, no doubt, risen astronomically since.
3. Social costs associated with illegal immigrants
When considering social costs/benefits associated with illegal immigration, perhaps the most important considerations are the safety and security of our citizens. With that in mind, here are crime data for the Trump and Harris eras:
i) The following charts depict migrant crime statistics during the Trump and Biden regimes:
Source â Heritage.org
ii) During the Biden Administration Venezuela emptied its prisons and drug rehabilitation centers with the provision that all released be sent to the U.S. DHS knew this and allowed it!
We currently have violent Venezuelan gangs brutalizing people and terrorizing whole neighborhoods.
iii) Under the Biden/Harris administration, 75% of the people arrested in midtown Manhattan for assault, robbery, and domestic violence are illegal migrants.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1832254356747370874
https://x.com/RobSchneider/status/1832157564152459767
In Conclusion
The data are clear and compelling. Under Donald Trump our border was made secure. Under Kamala Harris the U.S. experienced a dramatic surge in illegal immigration, costing taxpayers many billions of dollars and jeopardizing the safety of U.S. citizens. Itâs possible that the surge under Harris is indicative of her leadership capabilities. Itâs also possible that this surge was precisely what she and Joe Biden wanted. Either way, one should keep these results in mind when heading to the polls on November 5th.
References
š Crashing The Border, The Leftâs Manufactured Crisis, John Perrazo, Copyright 2019 David Horowitz Freedom Center, pg. 32
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Canât Decide Who to Vote For? Read The Durham Report.
Most people donât remember much about the Durham Report. It was published on May 12, 2023. It was an investigation of an investigation. Special Counsel John Durham led it. It focused on the conduct of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBIâs investigation of Donald Trump for alleged Russian collusion. The Durham report made a brief splash in the media before being quickly expunged from any news. For a nation that loves liberty, it should have caused riots in the streets. Instead, we got crickets.
The Trump âRussian Collusionâ Hoax in a nutshell
During the period leading up to the 2016 election, the Clinton campaign cooked up a scheme to slander Donald Trump with lies about collusion with Russia. Using a convoluted series of intermediaries to hinder traceability, reports (the Steele Dossiers) and other information were generated and provided to the FBI and, in some cases, also to the media. The Clinton campaign ultimately paid for this scam. Among others, the convoluted series of intermediaries included:
1. Michael Sussman, an attorney at Perkins Cole, who represented the Clinton Campaign.
2. Fusion GPS, a company hired by Perkins Cole to âuncoverâ (actually fabricate) a collusion between Trump and Russia regarding the 2016 election.
3. Orbis Business Intelligence, owned by Christopher Steel, and retained by Fusion GPS to âuncoverâ (actually fabricate) the specifics of this concocted collusion.
4. Igor Danchenko, Charles Dolan, Olga Galkina as primary sources (Danchenko especially) of the information provided to Orbis Business Intelligence. Christopher Steele wrote the infamous Steele Dossiers based on this information.
The Durham report makes clear that:
1. The FBI, eagerly and very prematurely, pounced on an opportunity to go after Trump by opening a full investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, based on extraordinarily limited and unsubstantiated information from an unvetted source. In fact, it opened the investigation based only on alleged comments made by George Papadopoulos in a tavern in Australia. At the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok was tasked with opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. As stated in the Durham report, âStrzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.â In one text to Lisa Page, another Trump-hater, Strzok wrote regarding Trump, âweâll stop from becoming Presidentâ. Other texts between Strzok and Page referred to Trump as âloathsomeâ, âan idiotâ, and as someone who should lose to Clinton â100,000,000 â 0â.
This premature opening of a full investigation, based on such limited and unsubstantiated information, was entirely uncharacteristic of the FBI and was counter to its own rules. In fact, at the time that Crossfire Hurricane was opened, the FBI was in possession of significantly greater and more credible evidence regarding a plan by the Clinton campaign to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin. Per the Durham report, âUnlike the FBIâs opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the informationâ.
2. The FBI immediately began working on requests for FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) authorities against Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign. FISA authority was denied until the Crossfire Hurricane investigators obtained âCompany Intelligence Reportsâ generated by Christopher Steele. Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign, was put under surveillance despite the fact that Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Furthermore, eventually the main source of the information in the Steele reports (Igor Danchenko) was unable to corroborate any of the information he had provided, and characterized it as ârumor and speculationâ and the product of casual conversation.
3. So, after justifying a FISA surveillance based on minimal and fabricated information, the FBI requested and obtained three FISA extensions on Carter Page. During these three extension filings with the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court):
A. The FBI deliberately withheld information they had found which contradicted the information under which the initial FISA filing was granted. This new information likely would have prevented the extension of FISA authorities.
B. The FBI deliberately withheld exculpatory (for Page and Trump) information that they had learned from the first FISA activities.
C. An FBI OGC (Office of the General Counsel) attorney intentionally falsified a document that was material to the FISCâs consideration of one of the FISA applications. It was the Durham investigation that uncovered this activity leading to the prosecution and conviction of the FBI OGC attorney.
4. Because the Steele Reports were ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign, these reports were provided to the Clinton campaign as well as to the FBI. Michael Sussman stated to the FBI that he was only providing the information as a âconcerned citizenâ. The Durham investigation revealed that this was a lie and that Sussman was being paid by the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign provided these reports to the media at the same time Sussman was providing them to the FBI.
In Summary
The Durham investigation and Report demonstrated that:
1. The Clinton campaign funded a massive, and entirely bogus, plan to vilify Donald Trump.
2. The bogus reports were provided to the FBI and to the media simultaneously.
3. The FBI spared no time or expense in its pursuit to take down Trump. Unfortunately for the FBI, it was all based on bogus information that could never be corroborated.
4. The media published stories about the FBI investigating Trump for Russian collusion, all of them based on lies ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign. So, severe damage was done to the Trump campaign based on lies alone.
5. Millions of dollars were spent on a fraudulent FBI effort orchestrated by the Clinton campaign, all funded by the taxpayer.
During the months leading up to the 2016 election, and throughout his term in office, President Trump was continuously bombarded with accusations related to âRussian Collusionâ stemming from the Steele Dossiers. All of these accusations were false. More importantly, all of these accusations were ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign and the associated FBI investigation was funded by the taxpayer.
The Durham report was a success in that it brought to light what had actually transpired. It exposed a corrupt Clinton campaign that engaged in rampant election interference. The Durham report also exposed a highly weaponized FBI⌠offensively weaponized against Trump and defensively weaponized toward Clinton.
The Durham report was also a dismal failure in that Durham lacked the balls to go after the big players. With such obvious rampant corruption, only a minor OGC lawyer was indicted and convicted. Why isnât Hillary spending the rest of her days in jail? She used the taxpayer-funded FBI as her gun, pointed it at Trump, and fired. Why havenât heads rolled at the FBI and why isnât Strzok in jail? I ask these questions already knowing the one sad answer.
So what does the Durham Report have to do with the 2024 election?
Since one can scarcely believe anything coming from mainstream media these days, the Durham Report is the most thorough and verifiable indicator of the existence of a radical Left Deep State. The FBIâs actions were sharply aligned with the Democratic Party in targeting the Republican candidate. Personal rights and liberties were trampled upon in an attempt to take down Trump.
The Durham Report is the most thorough example, but there are others. For example:
A. Fifty former intelligence officials signed a letter stating that the story of Hunterâs notebook computer had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. This letter was written when the notebook was already in the hands of the FBI. Biden stated that the intelligence services had established that the story was Russian disinformation when he certainly knew that was a lie. Why didnât the FBI fess up? Why were these intelligence officials (mostly CIA) all âformerâ intelligence officials? Do you suppose it might have anything to do with plausible deniability? So now we can at least include the CIA with the FBI in this Deep State.
B. What benefit did we draw from the CDC and NIH mandates regarding COVID-19? We certainly werenât protected from Covid. We had our liberties stripped. We had small businesses shuttered, many of them unable to recover. Money was printed by the Federal Reserve Bank and widely distributed, often to people who werenât in need and often well after any Covid justification could be made. The result was a massive redistribution of wealth and runaway inflation. Landlordsâ businesses failed because they werenât allowed to evict residents for non-payment. Religious people were prevented from congregating to worship, while violent BLM protestors were allowed by the DoJ to congregate with impunity and without masks.
Pick any government acronym and youâll find a segment of the radical Left Deep State⌠FBI, CIA, CDC, NIH, DHS, DoJ, FED etc. The upcoming election will not be a choice between presidential candidates. It will be a choice of ideologies. President Trumpâs objective is to eradicate the Deep State. It is unknown whether he can accomplish this objective, but it is a certainty that the election of ANY Democrat in 2024 will mean an acceleration of the grossly damaging policies that blossomed under Biden and were orchestrated by the Deep State. Any Democrat in the Oval Office will be nothing but a Deep State puppet like Joe Biden was and is. If you hate Donald Trump â Get Over It! If you are a moderate Democrat of the JFK variety, realize that your brand of Democracy will not exist as long as this Deep State persists. The liberties that we are guaranteed under the Constitution have already been seriously eroded. Those that remain will not endure another four years with a Democrat at the helm.
https://archive.org/details/durham-report_202305/mode/2up
Please at least read the Executive Summary, pages 7 though 19.
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ-
Donât Celebrate Just Yet
If you think last nightâs debate was a win for Conservatives, youâve missed the fact that the outcome was exactly what the Democratic leadership wanted. Joe Biden has never been our President. He has been nothing more than a mouthpiece, albeit a stammering and incoherent one, for a cabal. Other than Obama and Pelosi, I donât know the membership of the cabal. Itâs safe to say though, that they are extraordinarily wealthy global elites who hate our constitutional republic and seek to impose a totalitarian socialist regime. As leaders of this regime, they will never experience the hardships and loss of liberties that they intend to foist upon the public.
Prior to the 2020 election Biden was presented to us as a moderate liberal. Those who actually voted for him, far fewer in number than the supposed votes he obtained (thank the cabal for that), were voting for that moderate liberal. The moment he took office, his handlers transformed him into a radical wrecking ball. He has served the cabal well in this regard by:
- Building on Obamaâs practice of fueling racial hatred by pretending to fight against the myths of Systemic Racism and White Privilege.
- Destroying the nuclear family by usurping responsibility for children that has always been reserved for parents.
- Promoting sexual deviancy and perversions, and infiltrating government and military with these perversions.
- Undermining our military by using non-meritocratic standards of race, gender, and sexual orientation to determine promotion and commendation.
- Opening our borders to a massive influx of terrorists, drug traffickers, child sex traffickers, rapists, and violent felons, then providing welfare to these illegal aliens.
- Destroying our economy by shuttling small businesses for a much longer period than reasonable due to Covid, then keeping people on the government dole long after it was prudent.
- Supporting the insane concept that gender is a choice rather than a genetic absolute. Asserting that this choice, accompanied by irreversible physical mutilation, can be made by children.
- Encouraging mentally ill perverts to interact with and indoctrinate our children through programs such as âDrag Queen Story Hourâ.
- Abandoning sophisticated military equipment, worth billions of dollars, to be seized by terrorists upon our withdrawal from Afghanistan. In the process, deserting Americans and Afghan allies to be captured and tortured by the Taliban.
- Pushing unconstitutional DEI programs throughout government and industry.
- Attempting to buy votes through a student debt cancellation program. This is an increased tax on working people who, most likely, paid for their own education.
- Using the justice system as a weapon against political opponents.
- Limiting and/or freezing our production of oil, gas and coal while subsidizing expensive and unreliable wind and solar power of dubious and unquantifiable benefit, all in the name of combating a mythical climate emergency.
The cabal knows that, after four years of the American public coming to know Joe Biden, there is no way that Biden could win against Trump. They pushed Biden into a debate with Trump knowing it would be a blood bath and would lead to the removal of the doddering old fool from the 2024 presidential race. It is no coincidence that this debate was the first in history to take place before the Democratic nominating convention. Biden will not emerge from the primaries as the candidate.
Who then will be the candidate? Many suggest Gavin Newsom. I find that unlikely. Newsom is more vibrant and intelligent than Biden but will surely march us down the same destructive path that we have been on for the last four years. The American public need only look at California to know that. As in the 2020 election, I think it will be a candidate who appears to be moderate, then quickly changes to a radical after the election. Others have suggested Michelle Obama. I think this is more likely. Michelle is not at all equipped to be president, but neither was her husband. Most people know very little about Michelle other than as the wife of that smiling guy who won the presidency simply by being Black and repeating the words âHopeâ and âChangeâ a million times. Michelle Obama also enjoys the benefit of being Black and Female which, sadly, are apparently the presidential qualifications most highly valued by a majority of white women with college degrees.
No matter who emerges as the candidate, if that person wins, he/she will merely be the next mouthpiece for the cabal.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Our Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength?
Recently, when Joe Biden was whining about Republicans blocking his efforts to secure the border, I revisited the many Executive Orders and policies he put in place at the start of his term. As I correctly remembered, these orders/policies obliterated a relatively secure border that had been achieved under Trump.
I also noticed that his very first Executive Order (EO 13985) contained the same moronic pablum that has been spewed by the Left for yearsâŚ
ââŚ.. our diversity is one of our countryâs greatest strengths.â
Where has it ever been shown that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths? As Thomas Sowell points outâŚâIs diversity our strength? Or anybodyâs strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japanâs homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity â or does the very word âBalkanizationâ remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times? Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?â
And what type(s) of strength are we talking about? Strength leading to âŚ
Productivity?
Innovation?
Safety and Security?
Sense of Community?
General Happiness?
Health and Wellbeing?
Financial Security?
Something Else?
For many of the above categories there are scarcely any readily available data that can be correlated with âdiversityâ. There is, however, one for which a correlation can be investigated. Since Murder Rate data can be obtained for many cities, and since racial population data can be obtained for these same cities, we can investigate âSafety and Securityâ using Murder Rate as a proxy measure. In government parlance âincreasing diversityâ often means increasing the percentage of Blacks, but it always means decreasing the percentage of non-Hispanic White males.
So, lets investigate how Safety and Security (lack of murders) correlates with diversity using:
a) one diversity proxy as the percentage of the population that is not a White Caucasian male
and
b) one diversity proxy as the percentage of Blacks in the population.
Here are the results:š ²
These results should be no surprise to anyone who has eyes and ears. Racial differences in crime are well known and have been substantiated in past works as have racial differences in cognitive abilities.Âł
Weâve all experienced occasions when diversity of thought or of past experiences has caused a group to achieve an optimal result. However, the type of diversity needed for an optimal solution depends on the problem to be solved. Itâs absurd to think that a random mixture of race, or sex, or class is automatically beneficial. The Leftâs efforts to promote diversity, based on such simple measures as race, are disingenuous and harmful. A focus on individuals, rather than groups, is what allows those with particular skills/abilities to break free from whatever stereotypes might be attributed to their specific identity group.
I recently read that the Biden administration is working to diversify small rural towns because it finds them to be too white. Of course, no mention was made of any existing problems in these towns or of any expected benefits from the changeâŚ. because there wonât be any. Also, among the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, I canât seem to find the clause allowing the federal government to conduct social engineering experiments.
Sources:
š Crime In 2018: Updated Analysis, Brennan Center For Justice, Ames Grawert and Cameron Kimble, 12/12/2018
² DataUSA.io/profile/geo/
Âł Facing Reality â Two Truths About Race In America, Charles Murray, published by Encounter Books, 2021
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ-
LETâS STOP PRETENDING WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION
There is a document on display in the National Archives building in Washington, D.C. In its Preamble, the document is described as the âConstitution for the United States of Americaâ. In Article VI of the document, it is stated that this Constitution âshall be the supreme Law of the Landâ. Today, that document and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.
Over the years our Constitution has been so violated and ignored as to now render it virtually meaningless. The document itself is an incredible piece of work; painstakingly crafted by some very wise and highly educated individuals. These individuals, now often mocked as âdead old white guysâ, had studied the rise and fall of governments throughout history. Based on the lessons of history, they put in place a unique framework, a âConstitutionâ, to promote prosperity and safeguard individual liberty. They recognized, however, that any constitution would be meaningless unless the people were both moral and educated. We have now reached that point of an impotent Constitution because of an immoral and ignorant public, and a particularly immoral collection of federal officials.
Our Founding Fathers and past presidents realized what a fragile framework we had in place to preserve a free nation of self-governance. Here are a few things they had to say:
âIf a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.â
Thomas Jefferson
âA sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of free government.â
Alexander Hamilton
âTo suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.â
James Madison
âBeing democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law.â
Margaret Thatcher
âOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â
John Adams
âLiberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.â
John Adams
âOur Constitution rests on the good sense and the respect of the American people.â
John Quincy Adams
âIt is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in a country where virtue and knowledge prevail.â
Samuel Adams
âNeither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.â
Samuel Adams
âThe government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves.â
Grover Cleveland
Lest you think it an exaggeration to state that we are now pretending that we live under the Constitution, consider these three egregious examples:
1. The Constitution prohibits federal entitlements of any kind, yet now 50% of our national budget is devoted to entitlement programs.š
Amendment 10 states â
âThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â Quite simply, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to impose entitlement programs. Therefore, under this Amendment 10, the federal government is prohibited from doing so.
The term âGeneral Welfareâ is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 and there are those who have attempted to pervert the meaning of this term so as to allow for âwelfareâ entitlements. The term had no such meaning as dictionaries of the time will attest. More importantly, the authors of the Constitution made it clear that entitlements were not allowed under the Constitution. James Madison, considered by many to be the father of the Constitution, had this to say â âI cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.â and âThe powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.â
The Constitution does not completely outlaw entitlements; it outlaws entitlements imposed at the federal level. States and local governments are free to enact entitlements as they see fit. How can we possibly say that we are living under the Constitution when half of our budget is devoted to expenditures outlawed by that Constitution?
2. Amendment 2 of the Constitution is very short and very clear â âA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â
Our disingenuous President likes to talk about AR-15s not being needed for hunting, as though Amendment 2 was drafted to allow for hunting. Amendment 2 was clearly not drafted for hunters. It was drafted to protect the public, as a last resort, against tyrannical overreach of its own government. This amendment has been âinfringedâ more times than anyone can count, not only by our federal government, but by the states. All 50 states have gun control laws. All of these laws, in one way or another, âinfringeâ on the right to keep and bear Arms. Biden has issued executive actions to restrict privately made firearms and items known as stabilizing braces. Despite what he and his corrupt DOJ say, he has no authority to do so. In fact, he is violating the Constitution which he pledged to protect and defend.
Amendment 2 is a prime example of a Constitutional law that states and federal agencies have decided to selectively ignore because of their own beliefs and preferences. I canât, however, find anything in the Constitution that says itâs OK to ignore these laws if they conflict with your personal beliefs or preferences. There is a process, clearly spelled out in Article V of the Constitution, by which the Constitution can be amended. It is doable, but not easy, to amend the Constitution. This is exactly as it should be so as not to have a government that undulates back and forth at each change in leadership. The amendment process is one that has successfully worked 27 times over the years. It has yielded some profound and productive changes including the abolition of slavery (13), equal treatment of all people (14), the right of Blacks to vote (15), and the right of women to vote (19). For those lawmakers unhappy with Amendment 2, a course of action to ignore the amendment is illegal, but a course of action aimed at obtaining a new amendment is not.
3. Lastly, the federal government has completely ignored the equal protection clause. Worse yet, it acts as if it is being virtuous in so doing.
Among other things, Amendment 14 states â âNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â
This law is all about equal treatment of all people. It makes no distinction regarding anything â age, race, gender, sexual orientation. It is an Amendment that was long overdue when it was enacted and, even then, was largely ignored by a corrupt government under Jim Crow laws, including the absurd âseparate but equalâ concept. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it looked as though the 14th Amendment would finally have teeth, and colorblind equal treatment would prevail. Unfortunately, this never happened as we immediately jumped into other, âpolitically correctâ, methods to treat people unequally.
First there was Affirmative Action, which still persists, and is devoted to unequal treatment so as to advance minorities, particularly Blacks. Affirmative Action has been challenged in past suits that have gone as high as the Supreme Court. It has been upheld. This is not due to a complex, or nuanced, law. It is due to a corrupt Supreme Court judiciary that conflates their personal political views with their duties to properly interpret the law. In the 2003 case âGrutter v. Bollingerâ, Justice Sandra Day OâConner wrote â âThe Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.â The use of the term, âracial preferencesâ alone makes it clear that this was not equal treatment under the law. Moreover, Iâm unaware of any clause in the Constitution that says itâs OK to ignore this Constitution for a certain period of time, say 25 years.
Now we have âEquityâ which is a nice sounding term for a morally bankrupt concept. âEquityâ has brought a proliferation of unequal treatment, chiefly to the detriment of white heterosexual males. The Left defines âEquityâ simply as equal outcomes for all. Equity as so defined has never existed throughout human history. The closest approach to âEquityâ can only be found in highly oppressive totalitarian regimes. It is a concept that ought to sicken anyone who gives it a second thought. For the purpose of this paper though, we need not consider the morality of âEquityâ. We need only consider the fact that it is undeniably unconstitutional. This can be best demonstrated by a simple example given by F.A. Hayek â
âFrom the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve one or the other, but not both at the same time.â
Two more examples are among my favorite quotes from Thomas Sowell:
i) âThe fundamental difference between equal treatment and equal performance is repeatedly confused. In performance terms virtually no one is equal to anyone. The same man is not even equal to himself on different days.â
ii) âWhat exactly is your âfair shareâ of what someone else has worked for?â
I love our Constitution. It is extraordinary in its breadth, thoroughness, and simplicity. I have a 3â by 6â pamphlet in which the entire document is presented in 33 pages! Contrast that with our recent government spending proposal that numbered 5,000 pages (including attachments), and was delivered to Congress just hours before a vote was required.
As our Founding Fathers foresaw, for our beloved nation to survive and prosper, we must fight to make our government adhere to the âSupreme Law of the Landâ!
š https://federalsafetynet.com/entitlement-programs/entitlement-spending/
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harmful Gender Nonsense â The Ultimate Gaslighting
The Past
* There are two and only two sexes. They are male and female, otherwise known as man and woman.
* The words âgenderâ and âsexâ have the same meaning.
* A personâs sex is locked in at conception and canât be changed.
* Proper pronouns for a male are âheâ and âhimâ.
* Proper pronouns for a female are âsheâ and âherâ.
* Only women can become pregnant and have babies.
From the dawn of human history until the most recent blink of an eye the above statements have been fundamental truths.
The Present
Now, suddenly, we are being told (not asked) to accept that:
* Gender is fluid. It spans a spectrum and can be changed instantly at a personâs whim. If you think the term LGBTQIA+ contains a lot of characters, consider this; in her book, The Diversity Delusion, author Heather Mac Donald observes âby one count there are now 117 categories of gender identity, many of those developed by students struggling to find some last way to be transgressive in an environment where their every self-involved claim of victimhood is met with tender attention and apologies from the campus diversity bureaucracy.â
* Men can become women. âTrans women are women.â
* Women can become men. âTrans men are men.â
* The only proper pronouns are each individualâs âpreferredâ pronouns. Apparently, now one must ask a person about his/her preferred pronouns on any given day (they can change suddenly and without notice) before referring to him/her with a pronoun.
* Men can get pregnant and have babies.
* Women can impregnate other women.
* Women can impregnate men.
From these concepts it follows that Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine are both women. Therefore, Lia Thomas can win an NCAA national championship in womenâs swimming and Rachel Levine can be named Woman of the Year. So, one shouldnât be at all surprised or concerned if a hairy, burly dude in a dress follows his/her young daughter into a public restroom. Furthermore, if one doesnât buy into these concepts, that person is hateful.
We are also being told that these recent new ideas about human sexuality represent âThe Scienceâ.
The Impact
According to a very recent Gallup poll, the percent of the population identifying as LGBT or something other than heterosexual has shown a dramatic recent increase:
The 2021 Gallup data, striated by age, yields:
Born LGBT %
Before 1946 0.8%
1946-1964 2.6%
1965-1980 4.2%
1981-1996 10.5%
1997-2003 20.8%
Personâs younger than 18 were not included in the poll but, if they had been, itâs likely that their identified LGBT representation would exceed 30%! This astonishing recent increase in LGBT identification defies any timetable that could reasonably be attributed to biological evolution. Frankly, and especially considering that there is a natural evolved purpose behind sex, that being propagation of the species, itâs just not believable. What is believable is that it depicts a social contagion being spread by social media and a radical education system. Gender identity is just one facet of the identity politics cancer that has consumed the country and overwhelmed our education system.
In her book, Mac Donald also mentions the 2012 hiring, at UC San Diego, of its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion, for a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500 and reimbursement of all moving expenses. âThis new diversocrat position would augment UC San Diegoâs already massive diversity apparatus, which included the Chancellorâs Diversity Office; the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity; the assistant vice chancellor for diversity; the faculty equity advisors; the graduate diversity coordinators; the staff diversity liaison; the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives; the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity; the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture, and Inclusion; the Diversity Council; and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Womenâs Center.â
Claiming a non-binary gender status now allows one to climb at least one rung of the âintersectionalâ ladder and thus participate in the popular contest to see who can claim to be the most victimized. Indeed, it even offers whites a rare opportunity to shift from oppressor to victim. Simply put, itâs a fad that has gone viral. Like all fads it will pass but this one will leave behind an enormous amount of physical and emotional damage to children and young adults and this damage will stay with many throughout their lives.
Words Matter
Recently, my wife and I spent a night at a very old historic hotel. The hotel had a library full of fascinating old books, manuscripts, articles, and artwork. It had a few dictionaries dating back decades. While there, I took the opportunity to look up a few definitionsâŚ
Colliers New Dictionary Of The English Language (1909)
Female: of the sex in animals or plants that produces or is capable of producing eggs or bearing young
Woman: an adult female human being
Male: of the sex in animals or plants that fertilizes in order to reproduce
Man: an adult human male
The Random House Dictionary Of The English Language (1966)
Female: one of that sex which conceives and produces young
Woman: an adult person of the female sex
Male: pertaining to the sex that begets young; not female; bearing stamens; suitable to the male sex
Man: an adult male of the human species
Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary Of The English Language (1990)
Female: a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts and retaining a beardless face
Woman: the female human being
Male: a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence
Man: an adult male person as distinguished from a boy or a woman
To obtain the most current example, I looked up these words on Dictionary.com. The results were very much the same as those from Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary.
So, based purely on the meaning of words as they have been used for over a century, itâs clear that:
1. Men canât become women.
2. Women canât become men.
3. Men canât get pregnant and have babies.
4. Women canât impregnate anyone.
These truths are independent of any science because they are implicit in the definitions of words. Of course, itâs possible for an interest group to hijack words and butcher their definitions to emphasize an objective, usually political. This tactic has been used extensively, particularly by activists on the radical Left.
âThe Scienceâ
Assuming one is willing to ignore the contradiction based on words and their definitions, what can be said about âThe Scienceâ?
First of all, if you hear anyone use the term âThe Scienceâ you should recognize immediately that he/she is promoting an agenda and attempting to preempt any argument. Science is rarely, if ever, settled such that it can be called âThe Scienceâ. Real science is usually in a state of constant debate and advancement based on new theories and new experimental results. There was a time when those who believed the earth to be flat held âThe Scienceâ. Then came early theories of the solar system which had the sun rotating around the earth with the earth at the center of the universe. Then came the model with the earth rotating around the sun and the sun at the center of the universe. Next was the sun being the center of our solar system with many solar systems in our galaxy and many galaxies comprising the universe. Then came debates on whether the universe was finite or infinite. Also, in the field of physics there was first Newtonian Mechanics, later Relativity, and still later Quantum Mechanics. All of these were science, none were âThe Scienceâ.
Some Real Science
In his book âHUMAN DIVERSITY, The Biology of Gender, Race, and Classâ author Charles Murray summarizes the results from hundreds of recent peer reviewed statistical studies regarding differences among genders, races, and classes. Murray is a mild-mannered political scientist who is extremely thorough in his work. He is also highly controversial, loved by many and hated by many, simply because he is fearless and reports his findings accurately.
Murray observes âThe core doctrine of the orthodoxy in the social sciences isâŚthe sameness premise: In a properly run society people of all human groupings will have similar life outcomes. Individuals might have differences in abilities, the orthodoxy (usually) acknowledges, but groups do not have inborn differences in the distributions of those abilities, except for undeniable ones such as height, upper body strength, and skin color. Inside the cranium, all groups are the sameâŚ.. the sameness principle holds that whatever their gender, race, or class they are born into, people in every group should become electrical engineers, nurture toddlers, win chess tournaments, and write sci-fi novels in roughly equal proportionsâŚLarge group differences in these life outcomes are prima facia evidence of social, cultural, and governmental defects that can be corrected by the appropriate public policy.â
The sameness premise implies that Gender, Race, and Class are nothing more than social constructs. Regarding gender, it implies that âPhysiological sex differences associated with childbearing have been used to create artificial gender roles that are unjustified by inborn characteristics of personality, abilities, or social behavior.â Among the three groupings (Gender, Race, Class) to which the orthodoxy presumes the sameness premise applies, gender is the most absurd. Individuals from different classes have no obvious physical differences. Individuals from different races have only obvious cosmetic (skin color) differences. With gender, right off the bat we are to accept that âphysiological sex differences associated with childbearingâ are inconsequential. So, we are to ignore all differences in sexual âplumbingâ, as well as differences in developed height, developed weight, developed strength, developed balance, chromosomes, and genetic encoding for release of specific hormones at specific times. This is akin to making the statement that dogs and cats are exactly the same providing that you ignore all of their differences.
In his book of 490 pages and 801 references (mostly scientific studies) Murray debunks the sameness principle for all three groupingsâŚGender, Race, and Class. For all these categories many significant differences can be found among groups within each category that ARE NOT social constructs. Regarding gender, this means that males and females have significant differences in âcognitive repertoiresâ (what goes on inside the cranium) that cannot be attributed to socialization. Men, as a group, and Women, as a group, are different. Men canât become women and women canât become men. In all cases, Murray Is Not suggesting that any one group is Better than any other, simply that the groups have differences which are not due to socialization. Murray specifically states, âTo say that groups of people differ genetically in ways that bear on cognitive repertoires (as this book does) guarantees accusations that I am misusing science in the service of bigotry and oppression. Let me therefore state explicitly that I reject claims that groups of people, be they sexes, or races, or classes, can be ranked from superior to inferior. I reject claims that differences among groups have any relevance to human worth or dignity. The chapters to come make that clear.â
Most of the studies reviewed by Murray rely on sophisticated use of statistics including such things as statistical significance, statistical size-of-effect, factor analysis, regression analysis, and a method to amalgamate statistical size-of effect measures across different traits called Mahalanobis D. Some, however, rely simply on observed differences in newborn infants (meaning no time for socialization to have done anything). For example:
* Newborn girls showed stronger interest in a human face while newborn boys showed stronger interest in a mechanical mobile.
* On average, infant girls cry longer than boys in response to recordings of another baby crying.
* On average, infant girls hold eye contact with an adult human longer than infant boys.
* On average, infant girls show more expressions of joy than infant boys at the appearance of the mother.
* On average, infant girls are more responsive to maternal vocalizations than infant boys.
* On average, infant girls are more distressed by maternal âstill faceâ than infant boys.
* On average, infant girls show visual preferences for objects with human attributes while infant boys show more visual preferences for balls and vehicles.
* On average, infant girls are more likely to initiate and respond to joint attention.
My purpose here is to expose the truth that there are differences, not to discuss each of those differences in detail. Many of the differences are quite interesting, for example in understanding differences in vocational choices between men and women. I encourage you to pick up the book if you are interested in learning of specific differences.
Iâm compelled to expose an internal conflict within views held primarily by the Left. Letâs take Race for example. On the one hand:
1. There is a reliance on the sameness principle when decrying that race differences are âprima facie evidence of social, cultural, and governmental defects that can be corrected by the appropriate public policyâ. Said differently, if groups arenât the same, discrimination is the cause.
2. There is an implicit rejection of the sameness principle when âValuing Diversityâ. If groups were the same, there would be no synergism from diversity.
More Real Science
1. According to Merriam Grossman, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist:
âFor the White House to state that early affirmation of children with gender issues is âcrucialâ is a dangerous falsehood, one that misleads parents and places children at risk for serious harm and lifelong suffering.
Instead, parents must be aware of the following:
Regarding children who develop gender dysphoria before puberty, the great majority, on average about 80% but ranging between 50 and 96% depending on the study, become comfortable with their bodies. This improvement occurs if they go through normal puberty and is called âdesistance.â There is no way to know if a particular child will desist.â
âOne clinician with expertise in the field explains, Gender dysphoria in pre-adolescent children is a condition that ameliorates by itself in most cases if you are just patient.
Changing names, pronouns, and presentations can decrease desistance. Puberty blockers are controversial and have a history of lawsuits. Their off-label use in healthy children is experimental, and they have serious adverse effects that are irreversible, such as osteoporosis and early menopause. There is no country in which PBAs are licensed for the treatment of gender dysphoria. Once on puberty blockers, desistance is very rare. Nearly all children placed on blockers go on to take opposite sex hormones, which must be taken forever.â
âThe new form of gender dysphoria develops during adolescence, predominantly in girls with no earlier discomfort with their sex. It appears suddenly and is therefore known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). The girlsâ discomfort with being female typically follows increased use of the internet and social media and is associated with comorbid mental health disorders and neurodevelopmental disability.
The social influence aspect of ROGD is striking, with one study showing that 86.7% of young people with ROGD had one or more friends who came out as transgender at the same time and/or had an increase in their use of social media. The spreading of behaviors and beliefs amongst friends, especially between girls, is a well-documented phenomenon.â
2. The American Psychological Association has stated, ââŚbecause no approach to working with [transgender and gender nonconforming] children has been adequately, empirically validated, consensus does not exist regarding best practice with pre-pubertal children.â
3. In 2020 the UKâs National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) did a systematic review of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and found evidence that the medicationsâ âpotential benefits are of very low certainty.â
4. Dr. Stephen Levine, a pioneer in the study and treatment of sexuality and gender problems since 1974 and arguably the most highly credentialed and respected voice in the field, wrote in an expert affidavit: âThe knowledge-base concerning the causes and treatment of gender dysphoria has low scientific quality.â
5. Professor Carl Heneghan, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal and director of the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford, along with Professor Tom Jefferson, a clinical epidemiologist, completed an independent analysis of research on transgender medical interventions. Concerning puberty blockers, Prof Heneghan stated, âThe quality of evidence in this area is terrible.â
So Why Should We Care?
The title of this paper mentions âHarmful Gender Nonsenseâ. It is, in fact, very harmful and thatâs why we should care:
First, we should care simply because truth matters.
Second, itâs obvious that young women are being victimized in the field of womenâs sports. This is happening throughout high school and college athletics and it is sure to come to professional sports soon. This isnât just about the denial of trophies and recognition to hard working young women who deserve them, but about lost opportunities for scholarships, professional sponsorships, and income.
Third, there are perverts taking full advantage of recent changes in the law regarding this nonsense. One example is the high school bathroom rapes (two of them) by a trans girl (meaning boy) in Louden County, VA. This same thing (also two incidents) happened in Oakhurst Elementary School, in Decatur, Georgia. The perpetrator identified as gender non-conforming. One of the girls was five years old.
Fourth, criminal males who now identify as females, are being housed in female prisons. Prisoners, among themselves, are becoming pregnant. This is absurd and, if nothing else, places a burden on the prison system.
Fifth, âeducatorsâ and our government, without parental permission, are indoctrinating young children with this false poison. Even our woke leaders are pushing this on small kids. Jen Psaki recently stated the White House position stressing the importance of âgender affirming careâ (code for radical indoctrination, administering dangerous chemicals, and eventually surgical mutilations) for young children.
Sixth, studies on gender are being funded by Big Pharma which stands to make billions on gender blockers, hormone âtherapiesâ, and drugs accompanying Trans surgeries which must be taken for life. With such a conflict of interest, just how unbiased could these studies be?
Seventh, this represents yet another attack on the nuclear family. The Left abhors the concept of the nuclear family. When it comes to raising children, communism and socialism both place the role of the state far above that of the parents.
Eighth, itâs biased against males. The untrue sameness premise dictates that, barring some failure of society or government, men and women should end up in the same work fields and at the same levels in those fields. âCorrectiveâ measures are being taken to jettison men from many positions and backfill these positions with women. Hiring practices and promotions are also dramatically favoring women over men. These actions, to âcorrectâ a âdisparate impactâ, are grossly unfair and in violation of our constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. âDisparate impactâ laws, many of which unbelievably have been upheld by our Supreme Court, blatantly assume that any group disparities are caused by discrimination. This is patently false. In the case of genders, among other things these laws ignore the fact that, on average, men and women are attracted to different fields and have different priorities regarding the amount of time to devote to work.
Ninth, there are serious negative health impacts, some of them life-long, from gender blockers, hormone therapies, and âgender transitionâ surgeries.
In Closing
The foisting of this gender nonsense on children and teens represents a concerted effort by our government and our education system to undermine the rightful role of parents. It is extremely harmful and will have damaging effects on children and young adults for years to come. I urge parents to become active, particularly regarding the curriculum being used in schools. Attend school board meetings, speak out, and insist that curriculum be transparent to parents such as posting detailed curriculum on the internet. I will continue to view the world as a binary gender one and to use the same pronouns I have used for the last 65 years. Finally, I strongly encourage you to buy and watch the movie âWhose Children Are They?â available for download from www.salemnow.com. The 2+ hour movie costs $25 and is worth every penny!!!! It exposes what is happening in our federal government and public education system regarding the indoctrination of our children.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trump and 2024
In 2016 I reluctantly voted for Donald Trump. I chose the person who I believed to be the lesser of two evils. Frankly, there are few people who I consider to be more evil than Hillary.
In 2020 I again voted for Trump but without such reluctance. Trump had reversed some awful and insidious policies that had been put in place by the previous administration and instituted some very positive changes:
Immediately, he cancelled our participation in the Paris climate accord. That agreement, unilaterally signed by Obama without congressional input, was destined to achieve almost nothing beneficial for the climate, but was sure to kill key industries and cripple our economy over the years while allowing China to thrive and grow.
He backed out of Obamaâs Iran deal, a deal that would place nuclear weapons capabilities into the hands of an enemy dedicated to annihilating one of our strongest allies, Israel. Biden, of course, re-entered the deal and just today (8/1/22) Mohammed Eslami, head of Iranâs atomic energy organization, stated âIran has the technical ability to build an atomic bomb, but such a program is not on the agendaâ. Only a fool could believe that last clause.
He cut both corporate and personal taxes in a manner that strengthened our economy to the benefit of all and disproportionately to the benefit of low-income people. As is often the case, government tax revenue actually increased under these tax cuts because of the positive impact they had on the economy.
He demonstrated strength to potential aggressor countries. His trade sanctions against China, while still being debated regarding net short-term benefits or detriments, had an important long-term benefit by sending a clear message to China that we will respond in kind if they continue to engage in unfair trade practices. Itâs also no coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine on both Obamaâs watch and Bidenâs watch, but not on Trumpâs watch. Biden, on the other hand, continues to demonstrate weakness and wokeness. Our Afghanistan withdrawal left citizens and allies to die and placed military equipment worth billions of dollars into the hands of an enemy. We now have a weak military that places CRT training and LGBTQ+ pride initiatives above combat readiness. During US/China talks held in Alaska in 2021 Chinese Communist Party foreign affairs chief Yang Jiechi told Bidenâs US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, the USA is âNot qualified to speak to China from a position of strengthâ.
Amidst all his âmean tweetsâ and bluster, I never found Trump to be the tyrant he was constantly portrayed to be by the media and the left. As blue cities burned during the âlargely peaceful protestsâ (aka immensely destructive BLM riots), Trump, eager to provide federal troops to quell the violence, nonetheless showed restraint in respecting the sovereignty of the states and statesâ rights to call upon the federal government for help when needed. This stood in stark contrast to Obamaâs weaponization of the DOJ against state and local police forces in the wake of the completely legitimate Michael Brown shooting, or the Biden DOJâs similar tactics against âdomestic terroristâ parents who dared to speak out at school board meetings against CRT and gender ideology indoctrination of their children.
Despite the inability of our media or the left to cite the name Trump without also invoking the term âracistâ, Trumpâs economic policies did more to benefit Blacks than those of either his predecessor or successor. As Jason Riley points out in his book The Black Bloom, âWe know that Blacks and other low-income minorities benefited disproportionately from Trumps economic policies. And we know that Trump didnât get the credit he deserved for the economyâs robust performance on his watch because most of the intelligentsia, including an overly hostile mainstream media, consciously played down or ignored his successes.â
During Trumpâs time in office, I saw a president under unrelenting attack from all parts of the left. While claiming Trump to be the tyrant, the mainstream media, woke corporations, the deep state of federal bureaucracies, and the democratic leadership kept Trump under a constant barrage of impeachments and false accusations. Just exactly whose actions were tyrannical?
Trump spent his entire time in office under attack and/or impeachment for his supposed Russia collusion. We now know that the Steele Dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and approved by Hillary, and NONE of the allegations in it were true. Itâs hard to imagine that a document claiming such vulgar behavior as the president asking hookers to urinate in front of him while in a Russian hotel room, would not be thoroughly challenged before being released. But our own FBI, hateful of Trump, had no interest in doing so.
We saw Twitter suspend the sitting presidentâs account at a critical time just before the 2020 election.
We saw the mainstream media completely quash the Hunter Biden laptop story which was published (only) by the New York Post shortly before the election. We heard Joe Biden state that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. The FBI echoed this claim WHILE THE LAPTOP WAS IN THEIR POSSESSION. Over 50 former senior intelligence officers signed a letter stating they believed the laptop story to be Russian disinformation. We now know that the laptop story was 100% true. Further, the results of a poll reported by the Daily Wire suggest that 13% of Democrats would have voted differently had they known the truth about the laptop at the time of the election.
We saw Google, Apple, and Amazon work together to kill Parler, whose engineered demise can only be attributed to the fact that Parler was a social media platform that didnât cancel conservative speech.
The tactics of the left served only to boost my appreciation for Trump. Most people would withdraw and assume the fetal position in the face of such vicious, unjust, and unrelenting attacks. Trump, however, continued to fight and to do his job.
Perhaps the most loathsome effort by the left to bring down Trump is the ongoing Circus/Witch Hunt/Kangaroo Court/Kabuki Theater otherwise known as the House January 6th Investigation. Iâll discuss this in a separate publication soon.
In summary, although I still find a fair amount of Trumpâs behavior to be off-putting, I must thank the left for convincing me that, should he receive the nomination in 2024, I will very enthusiastically vote for him. He has pledged to drain the fetid swamp. I think he just might pull it off, and I see nothing more important to our republic and to our personal freedom.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Actual Big Lie
The âBig Lieâ
Weâve all heard the phrase âThe Big Lieâ invoked ad nauseam by mainstream media and liberals when referring to President Trumpâs insistence that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Anyone using that phrase is being disingenuous. For the phrase to be true, President Trump would have to i) know that he lost the election and ii) be deliberately promulgating a falsehood. Thatâs not what is happening. His vehement continued assertion that the election was stolen is obviously something that he believes to be true. If, like many, you donât agree with his assertion, then you might refer to it as âThe Big Delusionâ, but you canât honestly refer to it as a lie.
Despite what one hears from our highest levels of government, itâs not at all clear that the election wasnât stolen. Bidenâs early claim that âThe November 3rd election was the most secure in American historyâ is laughable, and is as believable as his claim that the Hunter laptop story was Russian Disinformation. How could he have known so soon after the election was over and after an unprecedented number of recent election law changes had occurred throughout the states? The answer is he couldnât. But then there is the fact that all the lawsuits regarding the election led to nothing. They led to nothing because they were all thrown out on technicalities. There was never an unbiased and thorough attempt to hear an argument or weigh any facts.
So, what do we know for certain?
1. A CNBC poll taken at the end of November, 2020, showed only three percent of Trump voters considered the election legitimate: 73 percent said Trump won the election and one-third wanted him to fight the results in court. Two-thirds said the president should not concede the race. So, one can infer that 71.4 million voters considered the election to be illegitimate.
2. Trumpâs 73.6 million popular votes represented over 7 million more than any sitting president in history.²
3. Biden was the first person in decades to win the presidency while losing bellwether states such as Ohio and Florida. Biden also lost all but one of nineteen bellwether counties.Âł
4. For all key 2020 Pennsylvania electoral races other than that for president, a big red wave washed over Pennsylvania, yet Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,000 votes.Âł
5. âOn election night itself, in key swing states where Trump held large leads â Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan â election officials shut down and stopped counting votes. When the lights came back on the next morning, Biden was in front in all.â â´
6. Despite the worst showing among minorities of any Democratic nominee since JFK, Biden surpassed Barak Obamaâs record-breaking turnout by 10 million votes.
7. Prior to the 2020 election, under the pretext of accommodating for the pandemic, there was an unprecedented number of last-minute voting law changes across several states. Some of these were in direct violation of state election laws, and some were in violation of state constitutions. These resulted in an explosion of the types of voting known to be most susceptible to fraud, namely mail-in and drop-box voting. Efforts by the Trump team to expose this fraud, with data, prior to certification of the election results, were met with non-responsiveness, complete dismissal without basis, and deliberate misrepresentation by the media.âľ
8. Dinesh DâSouzaâs documentary 2000 Mules provides compelling evidence that there was widespread illegal ballot harvesting and ballot trafficking in key swing states.âś
9. From Trumpâs first day in office, and throughout his four years in office, his presidency was under constant attack to discredit him and remove him from office. The Steele Dossier which led to the Russian Collusion Allegations which led to Impeachment was one giant lie and an illegal attack partially funded and promulgated by the Clinton campaign (Steele Dossier) and partially funded by our tax dollars (Mueller probe).
10. Prior to the election, the FBI suppressed the release of the highly incriminating contents of Hunter Bidenâs laptop. While the laptop, now known to be legitimate, was in the possession of the FBI, 50 former high-level FBI and federal intelligence officials signed a letter stating that they believed the laptop story to be Russian Disinformation. Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted that the FBI visited Facebook/Meta just at the time when the laptop story would have gone viral. The FBI warned Facebook of an expected dump of âRussian Disinformationâ, thus causing Facebook to suppress the laptop story.⡠Just two days ago (8/30/22) FBI special agent in charge, Timothy Thibault, was escorted out of the Washington field office by at least two âheadquarters-looking typesâ. Thibault, said to have âresignedâ, has been accused of attempting to thwart a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.⸠President Trumpâs Twitter account was suspended and the entire Parler social media platform was shut down by Amazon, Apple, and Google acting in concert. These steps, by the deep state and liberal elites, effectively thwarted any ability to get to the truth out about the laptop.
None of the above, either individually or collectively, provide proof that the election was stolen. At the very least, however, collectively they support the notion that itâs reasonable for people to have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the election, and to demand investigation into what transpired.
The Actual Big Lie
Although Trumpâs assertion is not a âBig Lieâ, there is a big lie associated with the 2020 election, and itâs a whopper! That lie is the assertion that on January 6, 2021, President Trump incited a deadly armed insurrection at the Capitol by white supremacists. The only falsehoods in that assertion are:
A. That Trump incited this peaceful protest. OK, it was a riot. But if one accepts that the BLM summer of carnage and destruction (35 dead and $2+ billion property damage) were âpeaceful protestsâ, then surely this short-lived (approx. 4 hours) event, with $1.5 million property damage, qualifies for such a description. In any case, it wasnât incited by Trump.
B. That it was deadly. The phrase âdeadly insurrectionâ implies that murders were committed by the insurrectionists (protestors). Although itâs true that 4 people died that day, all who died were protestors and none of these deaths were at the hands of any protestors.
C. That it was armed. Not a single person was arrested on January 6 for possessing a firearm, and there is zero evidence that anyone who entered the capital had a firearm.
D. That it was an insurrection. There are specific criteria which must be met for an event to be classified as an insurrection. The Jan. 6 riot at the capitol did not meet any of these criteria.
E. That this was a crowd of white supremacists. For a protest that only lasted about four hours, this was the most filmed event in history, including 14,000+ hours of video surveillance by security cameras and police body cameras. Although some Capitol police officers have said they were called the âNâ word, no video or audio evidence supports this contention. Were there a few racists in the crowd? Itâs statistically possible, but that hardly supports characterizing the crowd as white supremacists. They werenât. They were a group of citizens who, right or wrong, believed the election had been stolen.
The Events Of January 6, An Overview
The program for the January 6, 2021 Save America March in Washington D.C. consisted of two activities. The first part of the program, held at The Ellipse, was a gathering to hear speeches by President Trump and others. For this portion of the program a crowd of well over one hundred thousand Americans came together. That event was entirely peaceful. The second part of the program was much smaller. It involved a march to the Capitol for a protest regarding the election. This protest at the Capitol had pockets of violence.
The Speeches
The crowd that gathered to hear President Trump speak was one of the largest to have ever gathered in the ellipse, although one would never know this based on the almost non-existent coverage of the event by biased media. Almost no videos of this rally were shown on mainstream media. When discussed on TV, commentators often referred to a crowd of âabout ten thousandâ or a crown that ânumbered in the thousandsâ. The crowd, in fact, numbered well over one hundred thousand. Participants came from across the nation. The rally was peaceful. The crowd was composed of young and old, men and women, and all races. A true depiction of this rally can be seen in either of the following documentaries:
A. Capitol Punishment available on Locals. This documentary, by well-known actor Nick Searcy, provides a real view of what transpired on January 6th and thereafter.
$9.99 at https://nicksearcy.locals.com/
or
B. The Real Story of January 6/Documentary. Available on EpochTV
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.html
For an accurate understanding of January 6, I strongly recommend BOTH of these video documentaries, as well as the books JANUARY 6 How Democrats Used The Capitol Protest To Launch A War On Terror Against The Political Right (Julie Kellie, Bombardier Books, Š2022) and THE BIG FRAUD: What Democrats Donât Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else (Congressman Troy E. Nehls, Bombardier Books, Š2022).
One is hard pressed to find a photo on the internet that provides evidence of the scale of the rally. This one comes close, but it was taken early before many of the participants had arrived:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/crowds-gather-for-the-stop-the-steal-rally-on-january-06-2021-in-dc-picture-id1294918033
The Capitol Protest
The plan for the day included a march to the capitol for a peaceful protest after the conclusion of the speeches in The Ellipse. The number of people who participated in this protest was a fraction of the number who gathered in The Ellipse to hear the President Trump speak. Some hot-heads in the crowd engaged in violence, mostly window smashing, after having been incited by others in the crowd. Some officers were injured, although none critically. The violent activity was criminal and deserving of prosecution consistent with that typical for similar criminal activity. But âthe idea that a brief disturbance at the Capitol â a chaotic political protest that had pockets of violence and featured more clownish behavior than criminal misconduct â rose to the level of an âinsurrectionâ or attempted coup dâĂŠtat was absurd and overblown from the start.ââš Although at some Capitol entrances protestors were blocked by police, at others police freely allowed these protestors to enter. Many entered, walked around, then left without having any idea they had done anything illegalâŚ
https://twitter.com/i/status/1440776133675388931
https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4?t=292
The Events Of January 6, Some Specifics
Death Toll
Four people, all protestors, died at the Capitol on January 6. They were Ashley Babbitt, Roseanne Boyland, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips. Contrary to incessant blatant lies from liberal politicians and mainstream media, no Capitol Police officers died that day nor did any die later as the result of any injuries sustained on January 6.
Ashli Babbitt
Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed 35 year-old white female, was shot and killed by Lt. Michael L. Byrd, a Black man, as she was climbing through a broken window at the Capitol. The appalling video of this murder can be found in either of the aforementioned documentaries. Had the races of the two been reversed, and had the victim not been a Trump supporter, this gruesome video would have aired nonstop on mainstream media, and itâs likely that half the nation would still be on fire. As it is, the video went viral on social media for a short period but mainstream media largely neglected it. Apparently, the mediaâs only interest was to vilify Babbitt, a veteran who had served 14 years in the Air Force with 8 tours overseas. The cover-up began immediately. The Capitol Police never disclosed Byrdâs name â nor did the U.S. Department of Justice when it announced in April that the investigation into Ashliâs shooting was closed and the officer would not face charges.
Byrd finally came forward in August, 2020, well after the USCP cleared him of any wrongdoing. In an NBC News interview with Lester Holt, Byrd immodestly told Holt that he had shown the âutmost courageâ on January 6 and âI know that day I saved countless livesâ. How he could believe he save countless lives, on a day when not a single person was killed by any protestors, defies all rationality. Incredibly, he also said that if he had it to do over again, even knowing she was unarmed, he would have still shot her. Byrdâs temerity is colossal, and his statements are revolting.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated after a review of the documents concerning the shooting; âThe Biden-Garland Justice Department and the Pelosi Congress have much to answer for over the mishandling and cover-up of this scandalous killing of an American citizen by the U.S. Capitol Police.âšⰠStan Kephart, a police use-of-force expert, after studying the evidence concluded that, âAshlie Babbitt was murdered. She was shot and killed under color of authority by an officer who violated not only the law but his oath, and committed an arrestable offense.âšš Congressman Troy E. Nehls, who served nearly thirty years in law enforcement, with eight of those years as a county sheriff in Texas, was in the Capitol that day. After reviewing documents and video evidence, Nehls concluded, âAshli Babbitt did not deserve to die, and Capitol Police Officer Lt. Michael Byrd should have been tried for murder, rather than cleared by the Capitol Police.âš²
Roseanne Boyland
Roseanne Boyland became trapped in an entrance tunnel to the Capitol as rioters pushed from one side and Capitol Police pushed back from the other side. The police employed a noxious gas in the tight space causing several people to vomit and pass out. Many proclaimed âI canât breatheâ. As confirmed by a District Court Judge, Boyland had fallen on the step and was being crushed as officers pushed protestors back away from the doors of the tunnel entrance. Protestor Michael Foy attempted to help the unconscious Boyland. He swung a hockey stick at police, who continued to push the crowd, while yelling âSheâs being crushedâŚ.sheâs dead, sheâs hurt.âš³ In a video of the melee at the tunnel entrance, a police officer appears to repeatedly beat the unconscious Boyland with a truncheon.šⴠBoyland was eventually taken to a local hospital and died later that day. Incredibly, the D.C. Medical Examinerâs Office ruled the cause of death as acute amphetamine intoxication without any mention of extenuating factors. Boyland had been prescribed Adderall (used for attention deficit disorder) for years. Adderall contains amphetamine salts as its main ingredient. In the same vicinity as that of Boylandâs death, an unarmed woman, Victoria White, was severely beaten by a police officer. White, trapped in the tunnel by the crowd, was struck with a metal baton nearly forty times in the head and face over a 5 minute period.šâľ
Kevin Greeson
Kevin Greesonâs death was ruled a heart attack with no mention of extenuating factors. Greeson had a history of heart problems. An anonymous witness told National File that Gleeson was hit in the eye by a projectile from an explosive device thrown into the crowd by police. â[H]e couldnât start breathing [sic], he collapsed, and thatâs when we [were] just like, âParamedic, paramedic!â.âšâś
Benjamin Phillips
Benjamin Phillips died of a heart attack during the protest. Phillips had a history of heart problems. There are no known extenuating factors regarding Phillipsâ death.
Weapons
As of November 1, 2021, sixty-five defendants faced charges of either possessing or using a deadly or dangerous weapon. Not a single firearm was among the list of âweaponsâ. Included in the list were flagpoles, sticks, a crutch, chemical spray, metal signs, tasers, a stun gun/walking stick, and a skateboard. Protestors who carried some sort of weapon told investigators they did so in order to protect themselves against anticipated attacks by leftwing activists. BLM and Antifa activists had recently harassed and assaulted people at other Trump rallies.
An Insurrection?
To be considered an insurrection or attempted coup, a violent attack upon the seat of government must meet certain basic criteria. It must be organized and coordinated; it must be armed; and above all, it must have a plan of action once it seizes the reins of power.âš One need only watch any of the video evidence of the protest to know that it wasnât at all organized or coordinated. What started as a rally of over one hundred thousand people at The Ellipse resulted in only sixty-five weapons charges at the Capitol without a single firearm among them, and including such âweaponsâ as sticks, crutches, and a skateboard. Itâs beyond absurd to call this incident organized and armed. Itâs also clear that this small group of misfits could never have seized power and would not have had a clue what to do if they did. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that this was not an armed insurrection can be found in the actions of the Capitol police. Other than for the murder of Ashli Babbitt by officer Michael Byrd, the police used only rubber bullets, sting balls, flash bangs, truncheons, and chemical irritant sprays to disperse the crowd. To quash an armed insurrection, immediate and deadly force would surely be warranted.
Inciting An Insurrection?
The Left and entrenched D.C. bureaucrats have alleged that President Trumpâs speech on January 6 incited an insurrection. âInciting an Insurrectionâ is an oxymoron. âIncitingâ implies provoking or urging people to act spontaneously. By definition, an insurrection is not a spontaneous act. It must be planned and coordinated, and it must have a plan of action once control is seized. The disingenuous, continued use of the word âinsurrectionâ is reflective of nothing more than an intense hatred of Trump and a goal to stop him, by any means necessary, from running for president in 2024.
The Sickening Exploitation of Sicknickâs Death
The Truth
Officer Brian Sicknick, a member of the Capitol Police Force, was defending the Capitol on January 6. At 2:20 p.m. Officer Sicknick was allegedly sprayed with a chemical irritant on the west side of the building. Video later showed Sicknick, patrolling an area where police were using tear gas against protestors, attempting to wash his eyes with water.š⡠Sicknick texted his older brother Ken on the evening of January 6 and told Ken he had been sprayed twice with pepper spray but was fine. Officer Sicknick died the next day. It wasnât until three months later (4/7), that the District of Columbia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco J. Diaz, released autopsy results confirming that Brian Sicknick had died of natural causes, a stroke caused by blood clots.šâ¸
The Many Astounding Lies
For months the Democrats and the media openly and knowingly lied about the death of Brian Sicknick in order to smear Trump supporters as violently enraged cop killers. Here are some examples of the lies that transpired during the three months between Sicknickâs death and the truth reported by the DC Medical Examiner:
On January 7, the US Capitol Police issued a statement including âOfficer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-dutyâ.
On January 8, Nancy Pelosi ordered Capitol flags to be flown at half-staff. Pelosi also issued the following statement⌠âThe perpetrators of Officer Sicknickâs death must be brought to justice. The violent and deadly act of insurrection targeting the Capitol, our temple of American Democracy, and its workers was a profound tragedy and stain on our nationâs history. But because of the heroism of our first responders and the determination of the Congress, we were not, and will never be, diverted from our duty to the Constitution and the American people.â
On January 8, Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general, wrote âOur thoughts and prayers are with the family and fellow officers of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who succumbed last night to the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol, against the violent mob who stormed it on January 6thâ.
On January 8, the New York Times published âPro-Trump rioters attacked the citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening.â
On January 10, CNNâs Jake Tapper reported âThe flags at the U.S. Capitol are at half-staff this morning for the police officer, Brian Sicknick, who was murdered this weekâ.
On January 11, the Washington Post published an opinion piece stating: âOfficer Sicknick was pummeled by a rioter wielding a fire extinguisher, according to witnesses.â
The blatant âfire extinguisherâ and âmurderâ lies were repeated for weeks by CNN and other news outlets. Reporters Poppy Harlow, Anderson Cooper, Ana Cabrera, Erin Burnett, Rep. Ted Lieu on Wolf Blitzer, Joe Scarborough, Andrew McCarthy, and Tiana Lowe, among many others, all spread these falsehoods.
The militaryâs joint chiefs wrote in a January 13 statement, âWe mourn the deaths of the two Capitol policemen.â (Democrats tried to tie the alleged suicide of another Capitol Police officer to Jan. 6.)
Federal prosecutors included Sicknicksâ death in charging documents against Capitol defendants.
House impeachment managers included the Times story in their official memo detailing the evidence against Trump: âThe Insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.â
On February 1, the House of Representatives passed a resolution stating, âThe remains of the late United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick shall be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol from February 2, 2021, through February 3, 2021.â
Even long after the release of the medical examinerâs findings, Joe Biden has repeatedly referred to the two Capitol Police Officers who were killed on January 6.
As the âfire extinguisherâ narrative began to unravel and before the MEâs report of death by natural causes was released, the DOJ charged and arrested two men, Julien Khater and George Tanios, in connection with an âattackâ on officer Brian Sicknick. Tanios claims that he took a few cans of chemical spray in case he needed to defend himself against leftwing protestors. When the D.C. Metro Police force and the USCP began attacking protestors with flash bangs, sting balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas, Khater is alleged to have taken bear spray out of Tanios backpack and sprayed the chemical toward the officers. Both men spent months imprisoned in solitary confinement without the possibility of bail.
Incredibly, despite the MEâs conclusion, the Capitol Police continue to perpetuate the lie. After the medical examiner released the report, the agency issued a statement: âThe USCP accepts the findings from the District of Columbiaâs Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes. This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.âš⚠Huh????
The KGB
Rounding Up The Domestic Terrorists
If there was a concerted FBI effort to round up and imprison the BLM and antifa activists who
committed violent crimes and massive destruction during the BLM riots, I am not aware of it. As one example, for months a large section of Seattle was overtaken and vandalized by protestors, many of whom were armed, and virtually nothing happened. Federal courthouses were vandalized, and many rioters had come from other states, thus warranting FBI involvement. In stark contrast, after January 6 the FBI immediately began to round up and imprison January 6 protestors. The stories of over-the-top actions by the FBI are plentiful and chilling. Protestors who had done nothing violent, had damaged no property, were allowed to freely enter the Capitol, and who would immediately have turned themselves in had they received a phone call from the FBI instructing them to do so, were awakened by early morning raids on their homes consisting of:
a) Armored vehicles, some with turrets and some with battering rams,
b) 20 to 30 armed officers,
c) Announcements over loud bullhorns, for all the neighbors to hear, that they are under arrest and must come out with their hands up,
d) Police flash-bang grenades being detonated,
d) Doors being smashed in by police before the person had any time to get to a door to open it,
e) Parents being hand-cuffed in front of their neighbors while their children look on frightened and while multiple red dots (laser points from swat rifles) are apparent across the parentsâ torsos.
Video evidence of these actions are plentiful in the documentaries previously cited.
The Gulag
The stories of the incarceration of January 6 protestors depict what one would expect from a dictatorial banana republic. They include many months of incarceration without bail, solitary confinement, brutal treatment, deplorable conditions, and no set trial date. Some imprisoned protestors have had their trial dates postponed multiple times. Some have been imprisoned since shortly after January 6 and are still in prison awaiting trial; eighteen plus months in prison without having been found guilty of anything because they havenât even had a trial. Here is one of many exceptionally disturbing examples that can be found in Chapter 10, âInside the Deplorable Jailâ, of Julie Kellyâs book:
Ryan Samsel
Ryan Samsel was arrested and incarcerated on January 30. Samsel, accused of assaulting a police officer, remained incarcerated and was not formally indicted until August 25th! In March, Samsel was beaten severely by prison employees. According to a fellow inmate, âRyan had a confrontation with one of the guards about getting toilet paper. As a Marine, he wasnât one to put up with a lot of stuff. All of a sudden, they moved him to the last cell out of sight of security cameras.â Samselâs attorney, Steven Metcalf, detailed what then happened to Samsel: âAround midnight, two guards came to that cell, restrained Samselâs arms behind his back with zip-tie handcuffs and âbeat him to a bloody pulpâ.â He was taken to Howard University Hospital the next day. According to his lawyers he was treated at the hospital: âfor injuries including, but not limited to, head strike and loss of consciousness, bilateral eye ecchymosis, acute kidney injury, injury of the wrists, fracture of the orbital floor (right side/closed fracture), bilateral facial bilateral nasal bone fracture, and thoracic outlet syndrome. Ultimately, as a result of the brutal assault, Mr. Samsel lost vision in his right eye, has suffered seizures, and has continuing pain and suffering in relation to the thoracic outlet syndromeâ. After his hospital stay, Samsel was transferred to the Central Virginia Regional Jail where officials refused to provide requested treatments such as MRIs and ophthalmology care to his damaged eye socket.
Exactly what happened to âinnocent until proven guiltyâ and to a personâs right to a speedy trial as guaranteed in Amendment 6 of the Constitution â âthe accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial juryâ? And what are the chances of finding an impartial jury in a district that voted 93% for Joe Biden? In fact, not even the judges or defense lawyers have proven to be impartial. As one of many examples in Kellyâs book:
Judge Tanya Chutkan had this to say at the sentencing of a defendant who had made a plea deal â âI would just remind you of the officers who were in fact killed that day and officers who had heart attacks and officers who had their eyes gouged out and officers who will never be coming home to their families.â The judgeâs statement is rife with errors, myths, and falsehoods. All these assertions are untrue. Apparently, truth and facts carry little weight among DC judges.
As another example:
In cases where a defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court assigns one. D.C. Defense attorney H. Heather Shaner has assigned books and videos to be watched by the January 6 defendants she represents, her âcaptured audienceâ. These materials present a decidedly one-sided view of American history as one of racism and oppression. Just imagine being falsely accused of a crime and having a defense attorney who immediately treats you as an ignorant white supremacist!²â°
The Russian Show Trial
The House Committee On January 6 (aka Circus, aka Witch Hunt, aka Kangaroo Court, aka Kabuki Theater)
I confess, but make no apology for the fact, that I didnât watch this prime-time theater, knowing from the outset that it was a complete farce. I did keep up with much of what transpired through podcasts to which I regularly listen. What can one possibly expect from an investigation that is composed entirely of members selected for the extreme hostility they have demonstrated toward the person being investigated? Usually in House investigations, the House Majority Leader affirms members for the majority party and the House Minority Leader affirms members for the minority party. In this unique case, Nancy Pelosi did not allow any of the Republican members selected by the Minority Leader. Who could have been better suited to sit on the committee than Congressman Troy. E. Nehls, one of the members proposed by House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. Before being elected to Congress, Nehls had been in law enforcement for 30 years, the last eight of which were as a Sherriff. On January 6, Nehls assisted the Capitol Police against rioters who were smashing windows and attempting to enter the House chamber. Pelosi instead chose two members to represent Republicans, both of whom were known to hold animosity for Trump, and both of whom had voted to impeach him. What is one to expect from a trial, of sorts, in which no defense representative is allowed to question witnesses? This farce, which isnât yet complete and which is sure to drag on until shortly before the mid-terms, has already cost taxpayers millions.
To date, the biggest âbombshellâ uncovered by the commission appears to concern a story about Trump lunging for the steering wheel of his vehicle on the trip back from The Ellipse on January 6. Apparently, Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, and the Secret Service was intent on taking him to the White House. My reaction when I first heard about this was, and continues to be, so what? Unless Iâm mistaken Trump, who is known to be brusque and curtly reactive in some situations, was still the sitting President at the time. This story was relayed to the commission by Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Hutchinson wasnât even present at the time, but relayed the story that she said had been relayed to her. The Secret Service members who were present immediately issued statements that Hutchinsonâs story was untrue. These same agents had earlier been questioned by the commission. Why would the commission allow hearsay testimony about an incident for which they could have easily obtained direct testimony and for which the direct testimony contradicted the hearsay?
Lastly, what should one expect from an investigation of Donald Trump done by a committee whose vice chair, Liz Cheney, issued a campaign ad in which her father, Dick Cheney, described Trump as a coward and the greatest threat to our republic in our nationâs 246-year history?
Another Scenario
Another scenario, one that doesnât crumble under scrutiny, is that Democrats and entrenched Washington bureaucrats engineered and instigated the events that transpired on January 6 in order to paint Trump as an insurrectionist and to eliminate any chance Trump might have of retaking the presidency in 2024. Such an action is consistent with the final impeachment of Trump, an endeavor that could not have had any motive other than preventing Trumpâs potential re-election. Here are just some of the pieces of information that donât hold up under the âTrump incited an insurrectionâ scenario, but that make perfect sense under a âGet Trump at all cost scenarioâ:
1. The security arrangements provided an illusion that the Capitol had been prepared for an attack, while making it easy for protestors to enter the Capitol so that they could be charged with crimes, and the narrative of an insurrection, with media coverage and trials, could go on indefinitely.
A. The USCPâs Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (IICD) issued an assessment, regarding January 6, on January 3 that included âthere has been a worrisome call for protestors to come to these events armed and there is the possibility that protestors may be inclined to become violent.â The IICD noted a concern about the attendance of the pro-Trump group Stop The Steal which it said has a âpropensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence,â which âmay lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alikeâ.²š
B. Why was the National Guard not in place to defend the Capitol? Trump claimed in a Washington Times article that he âstrongly recommendedâ to Pelosi that she send in the National Guard to secure the Capitol on January 6 but Pelosi ignored the request.²²
Pelosi denies this but, in any case, as the leader of the USCP Pelosi had the authority to request National Guard assistance, in advance, and did not.
C. Why wasnât the IICD information shared with the USCPâs own officers? As a Senate Report makes clear, âcritical information was not shared with USCPâs own officers and other law enforcement partners.â²³ The Capitol Police on the ground didnât understand what they might be up against.
2. In the April 2022 Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping trial, two defendants were found not guilty because they were subject to clear entrapment by the FBI. Itâs clearly not a stretch, then, to think that the FBI was complicit in a scheme to entrap Trump. It has been discovered that several FBI agents were among the crowd of protestors on January 6, but their purposes and actions have not been revealed.
3. Coincidently the main FBI agent in charge of the Whitmer kidnapping case, was transferred to the DC field office sometime prior to January 6.
4. Some Capitol entrances had significant police protection. These are the ones most seen in media coverage of the event. Others had very limited coverage where officers can be seen removing barricades and protestors can be seen freely walking by officers into the Capitol.²ⴠ²⾠Some officers posed for selfies with protestors.²âś
5. At a rally held on the evening of January 5, a man, later identified as Ray Epps, is captured on video repeatedly and loudly instructing those present to âGo Into The Capitol Tomorrowâ. The crowd is suspicious of Epps and begins chanting âFed, Fed, FedâŚâ. Epps is seen in another video on January 6 at The Ellipse provoking the crowd in the same manner. Later, at the Capitol, Epps is seen standing in front of a police barricade shouting into a personâs ear. That person, Ryan Samsel (recall the horrific prison treatment of Samsel described above), then turns and pushes back the barricade with Epps following right behind. Curiously, Epps himself is never captured on video entering the Capitol. At one point Eppsâ name appeared on the FBI list of those wanted for the Capitol riot. His name later disappeared from the list and Epps was never charged. Epps, perhaps the person most responsible for inciting the melee of January 6, was never charged for anything!²âˇ
6. Video evidence shows that several people who were present at the January 6 rally were also present at BLM/Antifa riots in the summer of 2020. The person who caught Ashlie Babbittâs murder on video, John Sullivan, also known as âJayden X.â, was present at many of the George Floyd protests. He founded a group called Insurgence USA to fight police brutality. He told a crowd at a June 2020 protest âracism is still real in America and that needs to change. Itâs not enough to voice your words. Put those words into actionâŚmake change happen.â He was arrested in July for an altercation with pro-police protestors. According to the Washington Examiner, Sullivan ran âan antifa Discord server that featured other left-wing activists discussing tactics and strategy at protests.â There is footage of Sullivan inside the Capitol yelling âThis shit is ours! Fuck yeah.â and âWe gotta get this shit burned.â²⸠What would be the purpose of BLM/Antifa members attending a Trump rally other than to incite violence?
7. Prior to January 6, fences were put up around the Capitol and signs were posted indicating this was a restricted area. Video footage shows a man waiting alongside the fence for 21 minutes, then, calmly and methodically, cutting down and rolling up the fence and taking down the signs that would have indicated to later arriving Trump supporters that the area was restricted and, consequently, they could be arrested for entering the Capitol area. Oddly, even though there is plenty of footage, this man did not make it onto the FBIâs Most Wanted list.²âš
8. In addition to the videos taken by the protestors, more than 14,000 hours of video evidence was captured by security cameras and police body cameras. Requests by members of Congress to see these videos were repeatedly denied for the stated reason that they could compromise the security of the Capitol. Itâs hard to imagine why these videos could not be released to Republican Congressmen and Senators who are in the Capitol daily. Ultimately it was determined that about 7000 +/- hours of the videos would be released, but the remaining 7000 +/- hours would be withheld because that footage was not relevant. This is akin to a fox who is guarding a henhouse providing evidence that âthe hens are fineâ by showing half of the hens!
In Conclusion
Each reader will draw his/her own conclusions based on this article.
Here is what I know:
The 2020 presidential election was the most corrupt election in my lifetime.
Here is what I believe:
1. The 2020 presidential election was stolen.
2. The âinsurrectionâ lies and distortions, and the House Commission âshow trialâ are part of an elaborate scheme by Democratic politicians, liberal elites, and the deep state aimed at ensuring that Donald Trump is not permitted to run for office in 2024.
References
š January 6âŚHow Democrats Used The Capitol Protest To Launch A War On Terror Against The Political Right, Julie Kelly, Bombardier Books, Š2022, pg. 4
Âł pgs. 4-5
â´ pg. xii
âš pg. 57
šⰠpg. 198
š³ pg. 42
š✠pg. 32
š⡠pg. 34
š⸠pg. 153
š⚠pgs. 139-156
²✠pg. 158
²⸠pgs. 188-189
² Newsweek, Natalie Colarossi, 11/19/20
âľ Jan. 6 Committee Ignores Clear Evidence Of Mass Illegal Voting, Systematically Broken Election Laws, Margot Cleveland, The Federalist, June 17, 2022.
âś https://watch.salemnow.com/series/xFOCFe59zfCS-2000-mules?channel=featured-movies
⡠https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twitters-handling-of-the-posts-hunter-biden-laptop-story/
⸠National Review, Top FBI Agent Resigns after Allegedly Thwarting Hunter Biden Investigation: Report, Caroline Downey, August 30, 2022
šⴠEpochTV, The Real Story of January 6/Documentary, 1 min. 7sec.
š⾠16 min. 0 sec.
šš 43 min. 26 sec.
š² The BIG FRAUDâŚ.What Democrats Donât Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else, Congressman Troy E. Nells, Bombardier Books, Š2022, Pg. 257
²š Pg. 231
²⡠Pgs. 246-247, 249-250
²⚠Pgs. 250-251
²ⰠHuffpost, A Lawyer for Jan. 6 Defendants Is Giving Her Clients Remedial Lessons In American History, Ryan J. Reilly, June 21, 2021
²² The Washington Times, Trump says calls for National Guard on Jan. 6 were ignored by Pelosi, Joseph Clark, Feb. 3, 2022
²³ United States Senate, âExamining the U.S. Capitol Attack: A Review of the Security, Planning, and Response Failures on January 6â, Pg. 2
²ⴠhttps://twitter.com/i/status/1440776133675388931
²⾠https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4?t=292
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The BLM Hoax, Part 4
BLM âAccomplishmentsâ
Several times during his term in office President Donald Trump called the BLM movement âdomestic terrorismâ. This statement, like everything else Trump said or did while in office, came under widespread attack from the Left. The attacks notwithstanding, Trump was correct.
Under federal law domestic terrorism means activities that:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the USš