A Costly 'Get Out of Jail Free' Card

There are two things I can say with near certainty about Joe Biden:

• Joe Biden is a crook
• Joe Biden will not be held accountable for any of his crimes

Most of us have seen the now-famous picture of a 60's era Corvette parked in the driveway, in front of an open garage.  Inside the disheveled-looking garage, are beat up boxes of papers - sitting there right out in the open on the floor in front of the open garage door.

Today we learned that the owner of that garage and the man who previously claimed that he was "surprised" when boxes of illegal classified documents were found in his house and garage, (while feigning outrage that Donald Trump had retained classified documents among his personal papers)  1  - has admitted under questioning by Special Counsel Robert Hur and his deputies, to knowing that he illegally held classified documents in his possession.

Hur's findings, outlined in a report which came out on Thursday, February 8, established that Biden, "willingly retained and disclosed classified materials," including "military, foreign policy, and sensitive national security secrets."  Additionally, Biden "knew he kept classified information in notebooks stored in his house and he knew he was not allowed to do so."  

Proving yet again how this corrupt Justice Department maintains a two-tiered justice system, Biden will not be charged (much less, impeached by the House of Representatives) for his illegal activities. In fact, Mr. Hur refuses even to prosecute the theft of classified documents from a secure SCIF while Biden was a U.S.Senator.  Meanwhile Merrick Garland moves forward with the Trump indictment for far less serious circumstances.

Nope.  Instead, doing his best impersonation of Jim Comey protecting Hillary Clinton, Special Counsel Hur declined to prosecute, even after authoring a 388 page report laying out the legal grounds for such a prosecution.

The Special Counsel did, however, throw at least one bone to Biden's conservative critics.  Hur laid bare Biden's drastic and severe cognitive decline when he revealed that Biden's memory had "significant limitations" and that he failed to recall such significant milestones as the time of his Vice Presidency or the date of his older son's death.  The report says, "Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations."

In fact, one excuse given for not charging Biden with these felonies was that after his presidency ends, Biden's legal team would likely present him at his trial as "a sympathetic, (I would say 'pathetic') well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."  Funny, but that sounds to me more like a consideration to be left for the sentencing phase of a trial, instead of the legal basis for blanket prosecutorial immunity from serious crimes.

Not that logic and reason count for much with this bunch, but, it certainly does put Biden and his handlers in a rather difficult logical conundrum.  As Victor Davis Hanson points out, how exactly does he argue against the report?  No, I'm not cognitively challenged and therefore should be indicted after my terms ends - or - He's right to not prosecute because I am in cognitive decline and therefore no longer qualify under the 25th amendment to be president. 2

In the final analysis, however, if we desire to protect our country from another four years of this tyrannical and lawless regime, if we wish to spare the country from increasing international embarrassment, disrespect, and scorn, and if we hope to save the United States from this mentally diminished, bumbling Mr. Magoo-like character in the oval office, we can't count on the news media, the 25th amendment, or the courts.  To do that, patriotic citizens like you and I will have to vote him out of office.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. When asked for his thoughts upon hearing that President Trump had kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, President Biden replied, "How that could possibly happen?  How could anyone be that irresponsible?" (60 Minutes interview, 09/18/2022)

2. U.S. Constitution.  Amendment 25. Section 4 - "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President..."

 

 

The Will Smith incident and what should we take away from it.

My only real interest in the comings and goings-on of Hollywood's culture of narcissim these days is in reacting against their most blatant attempts to spread their poisonous values on our culture.

Having seen that the real entertainment typically occurs at the Nancy Pelosi and Barnum Bailey Circus on the floor of the House of Representatives or at the Jen Psaki comedic disinformation revue over in the White House press room, everything else pales in comparison.  The prospect of a roomful of smug, self-important narcissists exchanging trophies and spewing anti-conservative insults, simply no longer intrigues those who work with their hands - or their brains.

Normally I wouldn't comment on a Hollywood awards show of which I (and almost everybody else) didn't watch.  But in the case of the 94th annual Academy Awards (the Oscars) and the ensuing brouhaha between Chris Rock and Will Smith, it's impossible to not give it some attention since it had become the media focus for two or three weeks in late March and early April.   

That in itself should give you pause to wonder about the whole thing.  Given that their ratings over the past decade have been sagging even faster than the preoperative jowls of an aging overweight actor and plunging farther than the neckline of an otherwise irrelevant Hollywood starlet whose career is in decline, the outside possibility still lurked in our minds that it was nothing more than a orchestrated publicity stunt designed to bolster their ever plummeting ratings.  But after testing the winds of public opinion with a wet finger in the air for almost two weeks, the Academy finally issued a punishment late last week. However reluctantly, Smith was banned for 10 years.

Yes, I know its old news now.  For several news cycles, there was a lot of sound and fury about the altercation between Smith and Rock, even knocking genocide in Ukraine out of top billing.  On the one hand, the Academy was coming under increasing pressure to act, but on the other, was bound by the narrow precepts of it's politically correct Hollywood ideals, that made it hesitant to appear critical of a racial minority.

Nonetheless, having said all that, a few words about the incident is probably warranted.

First, however, what of Chris Rock's character?  We are told that even before Smith issued a public apology, to his credit, Mr. Rock adamantly refused to press charges.  This is likely because he realized his complicity in the matter, in that his ribbing of Smith and his wife had intentionally or inadvertently crossed the line of poor taste.

And what of Smith's character?  A little more of a tricky question, since he clearly, publicly, and violently lost control of his temper.  To his credit, however, he apologized fairly quickly and then late last week, he resigned from the Academy of Motion Pictures.

In the light of all the controversy, conflicting stories, response and counter-responses to the incident, let's be very clear.  What Smith did to Chris Rock was wrong.  It was a clear case of criminal battery.

But that isn't the angle I am interested in, because it also serves as an example of our two-tiered justice system. 

To help put it into perspective, imagine if you will, the very different response if a disgruntled white man had charged the stage that night.  The same action would certainly viewed quite differently...    It's doubtful, he would have been granted the deference to do so.  It's not hard to imagine he would have been tackled before he made it halfway to the stage and roughly dragged off to the side and handcuffed.  Or, if he had made it up to the stage and able to punch the black MC, he likely woud have been confronted, marched out of the auditorium, and arrested - only to later be charged with a hate crime.   ...and become the favorite target of the race-baiting hacks at MSNBC for years to come.

Or, what if it was one of 'the help', one of the many little people who serve in the background, the rich and pompous - perhaps a server, cook, or security guard?  Do you think one of those serving tables had rushed the stage and punched the host would have been allowed to remain unhindered, for the remainder of the show and party afterwards?

In either case, the reaction of the media mob and the response of the justice system would no doubt be quite different.  Needless to say, if it was you or I, we certainly would have been marched out in handcuffs and spent the night in jail, possibly held without bail awaiting a trial for assault and battery.

Then again, it probably makes no difference since LA county DA George Gascon doesn't prosecute criminals.

 

 

Supreme Vindication

The importance of the 2020 election cannot be understood apart from an understanding of the dueling visions for the role of the Supreme Court.  Visions that pit the preservation of our liberty against the erosion of freedom and an insidious and ever-growing tyranny.

In that context, it can hardly be overstated how huge the swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett last week was. Absolutely huge. Absolutely, incredibly huge.

Associate Justice Barrett was the third Supreme Court justice appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Republican Senate in the past four years. As part of an historic remaking of the Federal judiciary, the president has also appointed more than 200 Federal judges - most of whom are Constitutional originalists. As we have seen time and time again, there are never any guarantees about how a judge will rule once seated. Chief Justice Roberts is but the most recent and disappointing example of that. But if our justices don't at least begin from a place of deep respect for the text of the Constitution - and equally important - understand their own role in protecting it, our country's existence would be all but doomed.

 

And we were very close.

Back in 2016, many of us were unsure about exactly what kind of a president Donald Trump Jr. might be. Was he a man of his word - did he mean what he said about draining the swamp and building border walls and getting us out of endless middle eastern wars - or was he just another huckster politician? Could a braggadocios, pugnacious, and sometimes crude New Yorker be trusted to govern with what sounded a lot like mid-western values? Did he truly have a change of heart on the issue of abortion and would it affect his public policy? And above all, would he really keep his eyes on the prize by keeping his promise to appoint only Originalist, Textualist, Constitutionalist judges?

We all had to seriously ask ourselves one very fundamental question: Did the character flaws on public display and being widely and gleefully exaggerated in the predominant news media disqualify Donald Trump from receiving our support? And truly, both candidates were morally flawed. But conservatives and Evangelicals had been burned many times before when going to the dance with Republican candidates.

Many Evangelicals, Catholics, and other people of faith made the prayerful decision to take the chance, trust their gut, and go with the candidate who was right on the issues. Thankfully, many of us - whether joyfully or while holding our noses - cast our vote for Trump and trusted that God would ultimately use him to accomplish His purposes in the same way He has used and still uses flawed individuals today.

Many of us believed back in 2016 - and most still maintain - that the most important issue was Judicial appointments. (Imagine if Merrick Garland had been confirmed in the waning days of the Obama administration to replace Antonin Scalia. And then a President Hillary Clinton had appointed two radical justicial activists to the court.) While we know that court appointees sometimes stray from sound judicial philosophy and we will at times be disappointed in their rulings, still, President Trump's many originalist judicial appointments have gone a long ways toward the restoration of the Constitution as our guiding document, while largely vindicating the value voters' support for the President.

What was it about the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett - this mild-mannered, devout Christian and mother of 7 children, that scares the Democrat party?  Why does a soft-spoken and respectful legal genius, a careful law professor and jurist so rile Senate Democrats?  What is it about the confirmation vote on this thoughtful jurist who promised to faithfully interpret the Constitution sent Chuck Schumer into an apoplectic rage?

I can tell you that it is not because they think she isn't up to the task - she is smarter than any of them and twice as smart as some of them. It is not because she doesn't respect the Constitution - she knows it better and holds it in higher regard than they do or ever did. And it is definitely not that they are politically rudderless partisans - while they may be quintessential partisans, they are anything but directionless.

No, the problem truly isn't that they are without direction, instead it's that their direction is hard left. The Democrat political tantrum we've witnessed over the past four years has shown us how little the average citizen actually has in common with the political party of AOC, Sol Alinsky, Jim Crow, and Karl Marx. They have discovered, to their dismay, that their leftist agenda is too unacceptably radical for the American people and impossible to enact legislatively within the present rules.

For them the court has become far more than just the third of three coequal branches of government - it has become the last chance to enact their unpopular platform. They want to place judicial activists on the court in an attempt to turn it into an unaccountable, un-elected, uber-legislature. Justices such as Barrett, who respect the text of the Constitution, who honor the original intent, and who believe it means what it says are a threat to their radical agenda. That is why Chuck Schumer said of the confirmation of Justice Barrett: 

"It will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate." (1)

It also explains why he didn't bother, in his mad quest for power, to veil his threats about breaking or changing all the rules the next time he gets control of the Senate.  They threatened to abolish the filibuster, add D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union to inflate their numbers in the Senate, and promised a Supreme Court packing power grab.  Adding insult to injury, they want to disenfranchise the entire midsouth, midwest, and most of the western states by eliminating the Electoral College.  Essentially, there is no rule they will not break, lie they will not tell, or depth to which they will not sink to keep from losing their grip on power.

They would have us, as someone wise has said, abandon the Constitution that has served us so well for over two centuries, and enter into, what Constitutional scholar Mark Levin calls a tyrannical "Post-Constitutional America."

Of course, in their wisdom, the founders provided a Constitutional remedy to their concerns.  Simply enact laws which pass Constitutional muster - or - cultivate the necessary support to amend the Constitution.  Of course those things are hard to do, especially when your platform is neither popular nor tenable.

There is another remedy - a much easier one - and one much preferred for those of us who cherish our liberty and freedom, who value the maintenance of our God-given rights, who want to continue to live in a country ruled by laws and not by men, and who want to continue to live in a Republic not subject to the tyranny of the majority.  That twofold remedy is simple:  It involves NOT rewarding the party that gave us a four year political temper tantrum while at the same time voting for President Donald Trump.

 

Return the Trump-Pence ticket to the White House for 4 more years and keep America great.

 

-- footnotes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - Axios - Monday, October 26, 2020 - Dualing views:  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday "will go down as one of the darkest days" in Senate history, moments before the chamber voted 52-48 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

 

"...the next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority. You may win this vote, but in the process, you will speed the precipitous decline of faith in our institution, our politics, the Senate and the Supreme Court."

"My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think. Here at this late hour, at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people," Schumer said. 

"It will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats oppose the nomination because "they don't like the outcome."

"What this administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States," McConnell said.

"Elections come and go. Political power is never permanent, but the consequences could be cataclysmic if our colleagues across the aisle let partisan passions boil over and scorch the ground rules of our government." 

Credible or Incredible

The Standard | Standard

So now we have it.  DNC Deputy chair and Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison has two 'believable' accusations (to borrow a term from the Kavanaugh hearings) of violent abuse from former girlfriends.  In addition, Cory Booker has been 'believably' accused of sexually attacking a man in a restroom.  Booker's 'serious' (to borrow another term from the Democratic handbook) charges are doubly investigation-worthy - at least by the new Democratic standards - because they are both anonymous and uncorroborated. [1]

With the incessant chant that 'all claims must be taken seriously' still ringing in their ears, the Democrats are tenaciously following the same standards they deployed against Brett Kavanaugh. Armed with their newly developed Judiciary Committee hearing standards, these Dems are unanimously clamoring that all three 'survivors are to be believed' and insisting that the denials of the accused only lend credibility to their accusers.  Thus, they are noisily demanding that both men must cease their campaigns and/or step down from their current elected positions to allow the FBI and undetermined and unlimited time to conduct at least 6 or 7 investigations - as well as insisting that both men must decisively disprove each and every allegation leveled against them - sometime after the elections are over.

Okay, well actually - they are predictably not doing any of those things.  Those are the standards they insist on for Republicans. They do not apply them to themselves.  Accusations against their own are still largely to be ignored.

The beauty of being a Democrat in 2018 is that you no longer have to be tethered to standards of consistency or even fairness.  Nor is this post-modern, Alinskyite, Democrat party any longer bound by outdated standards of logic or objectivity.  Having thrown aside, for political advantage, any semblance of fealty to the presumption of innocence and due process, the lunatic left has replaced them with judicial concepts dated from the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.  They now march out before the nearest camera, like modern-day Robespierres, accusing and denouncing their political adversaries in the most hyperbolic language, demanding their exile, and sentencing them to political execution.

Yet, they are completely oblivious to - or deliberately ignoring - their double standard.  For them, it's still "justice for me, but not for thee."   If you doubt that, or if you think I am just a Republican partisan, listen to the conclusion from the Minnesota Democrat (DFL) Party's investigation/probe of their candidate for Attorney General and Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison. According to the report prepared by Susan Ellensted, the Democratic lawyer hired by the MN DFL party to investigate the claims against Ellison, "an allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred. [2]

This is the the reasonable standard Democrats use for their own, however, when Republicans (or Republican nominees such as Justice Kavanaugh) are accused, reasonableness ends and the hysterics begin.  No matter how unlikely the accusation, how incredible the claims, despite a complete lack of any evidence or corroboration - all semblance of reasonableness is tossed aside so the opposition can be destroyed.



The Standard for Credibility
Having abandoned the traditional judicial standards of the rule of law, due process, and presumption of innocence, this new and radicalized Democrat party has little left to cling to except hyperbole, hysterics, and mob rule to try to destroy a Supreme Court candidate (or any other political opponent) with impeccable credentials and character.  In their quest for power, they are seemingly quite happy to take a chapter from the Salem Witch trials:  there is no tactic too low, nothing too desperate, and nothing to lose.

What is really sad about it is that they don't care... not about truth, our form of government, the Constitution, or women.  All those became but casualties of battle in their lust for control.

So for what its worth, I did not find Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony the least bit credible. Notwithstanding the timing of her disclosure or the circumstances by which her handlers attempted to manipulate the confirmation process, her testimony was neither believable nor compelling - and came nowhere near legal standards.  Emotional - yes.  Sincere - perhaps.  But that is not the same as credibility.

Unfortunately for the post-modern Democrats still trying to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election, credibility requires more than wild accusations. We dare not confuse energy, empathy, sincerity with credibility.  As the Hoover Institution's Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, "Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony." [3]

Neither her nor her handlers produced a shred of evidence.  Her testimony withered under cross-examination.  She could garner not a single person to collaborate her story. [4]

Don't be deceived - the 3-ring circus and sideshows that Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer and the Senate Democrats orchestrated for the Judiciary Committee was never about justice.  It was never at getting to the truth.  It was never about respecting women.

Rather, it was a desperate - and Constitutionally reckless - attempt to seize power and exact revenge. It was a 'two-fer' for the Dems - it gave them the opportunity to destroy a political enemy's credibility while bolstering their chits with their radical feminist and leftist-fringe demographics.

They used the issue of sexual harassment and abuse as a simple means to an end - a wicked end - to overturn the results of the 2016 election.  In this quest for power, minorities and women are actually just pawns to be manipulated in a cynical game... for if such hysterical hyperbole and fantastic claims which stretch all credibility are to be given serious consideration, as they insist, then the truly credible claims will most certainly be diminished.

In going down this road, they not only poison the political atmosphere, but delegitimize every credible claim.  All legitimate claims of women who have truly been mistreated and abused are subsequently undermined.  Make no mistake, our system of justice has been diminished as a result.



[1] https://citizentruth.org/gay-man-accuses-sen-cory-booker-of-sexual-assault-in-restroom/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eee4aFavPGM3KVk5Wi9qQzveyeF8Yre6/view

[2] http://www.startribune.com/dfl-will-refer-ellison-allegation-to-law-enforcement-after-internal-investigation-can-t-substantiate/494828181/ 

[3] "Dr. Ford was sincere and empathetic.  But that did not translate into being credible.  Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony..." (Victor David Hanson as a guest on Tucker Carlson Live on 10/02/2018)

[4] The 414 page post-hearing Judiciary Committee report on the Kavanaugh allegations, released on November 2, 2018, stated that they could find "No witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to suport any of the allegations." (Fox News)

For those who have intentionally tried to put this embarrassing episode of our nation's history behind them, I remind you of the following... her story was:

• vague - by her own admission, she couldn't say when or where the alleged event occurred
• inconsistent - her descriptions of the event was continually evolving
• uncorroborated - none of the witnesses she named, including her 'life-long friend' confirmed her story.  One even denied knowing Kavanaugh
• contradictory - she somehow feared flying to D.C, but not to exotic vacation destinations

For analysis of the Rachel Mitchel memo -  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-mitchell-expertly-eviscerates-the-case-against-kavanaugh/2018/10/02/ec1ff7c4-c66d-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf35f23efaf8



UPDATE:  On November 6, 2018, Keith Ellison defeated Doug Wardlow 49% to 45%. ( https://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/AttorneyGeneral/115?id=st&officeInElectionId=17118 )