Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Politics

Even Democrats Oppose Protests at Homes of Supreme Court Justices

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 11, 2022:

The latest poll from the Trafalgar Group reveals that even Democrats think the protests at the residences of conservative Supreme Court justices go too far.

The polling company asked 1,083 citizens, who say they are likely to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, “Do you believe that publishing the home addresses of the five U.S. Supreme Court Justices and calling for protests at their private homes is an acceptable way to protest the High Court’s upcoming decision on Roe v. Wade?”

Three-quarters of them said “no,” with just barely 16 percent saying “yes.” But when sorted by party affiliation, a jaw-dropping 66 percent of Democrats said “no.”

When asked about Biden’s refusal to condemn the protests, a majority (52.3 percent) said that refusal only encourages them to become unlawful or violent. But among Democrats, more than a quarter agree (27.7 percent) that his refusal to condemn those protests only encourages them to become violent.

Such a refusal to condemn has also turned unaffiliated likely voters against the Democratic Party’s soft-headed response. Nearly 55 percent of them told Trafalgar that that refusal to condemn “encourage[s] protests to become unlawful or violent.”

The tin ear of the Democratic Party leadership was exposed by a recent CNN poll showing no political impact of the protests. Instead, as noted by The New American, hopes that such protests would “sway the Court back into the pro-Roe camp … ha[ve] backfired.… They have failed to achieve their hoped-for reaction of swaying both the justices and the public. Instead, it appears that … they have hurt their … cause.”

Undeterred by political reality, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) today is pressing forward for a vote to “codify” Roe v. Wade into federal law, even though he cannot muster the 60 votes needed for passage. In fact, as Guy Benson points out at Townhall, Schumer cannot even secure “the 50 votes needed for hypothetical post-cloture passage.”

The Democratic Party leadership, it seems, is determined to continue its policy of self-immolation despite the rapidly approaching midterm disaster waiting for them.

American voters have awakened to that effort of Democrats to install their radical agenda before the window closes in November. As Benson noted, Democrat protests are “an attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.” Benson added:

Today’s Democratic Party is profoundly out of step with the American people.… Their extreme position ignores modern science and public opinion….

 

Democrats’ extreme position is radical … and it is wildly unpopular with the American people … 97% of Washington Democrats support a position that only 19% of Americans want.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has confirmed Benson’s conclusion. In a memo to the America First Policy Institute, Rasmussen noted that “sixty-five percent [of Americans] think abortion laws should be established by voters or their elected representatives.” And 73 percent of them acknowledge that “there are two lives to consider” in abortion: “the woman’s and the unborn child.”

If the notion that Democrats are determined to install their agenda regardless of the political consequences in November is correct, voters and citizens should be prepared for additional attacks on the foundations of the Republic before November.

 

 

 

Second Petition to Recall LA’s Progressive DA Has More Than 400,000 Signatures

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, May 6, 2022:  

When the first effort to recall Soros-backed progressive Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón failed last summer, backers reorganized. The second effort needs to obtain 566,857 signatures by July 6 to put his future on the November ballot. As of May 1, the group has not only obtained more than 400,000 signatures, but it has also raised over $6 million in support as well.

Gascón’s 2020 campaign was well funded by the Left, including George Soros, who contributed $2.5 million, as well as Democrats Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, then-Senator Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors.

Almost immediately after taking office in December 2020, Gascón began to implement the same far-left liberal policies that got him in trouble as San Francisco’s DA: eliminating cash bail for certain offenses, not seeking the death penalty no matter how violent or outrageous the crime, reopening closed cases against LAPD officers, and “reevaluating” sentences for which the convict had already served time.

And the results were the same. In 2021, there were 52 percent more homicides and 59 percent more shootings than in 2019. LA has seen a 15-percent increase in violent crimes, while arrests decreased by more than 23 percent.

Within weeks of Gascón assuming office, rank-and-file LA prosecutors revolted and attempted to block their new boss in court. DAs elsewhere in California refused to share cases with him. As Association of Deputy District Attorneys Vice President Eric Siddall said, “You can’t just use the law to implement your personal worldview of what society should look like.” Siddall added,

The idea of one man coming in and saying, “You all are wrong, and this is what the law should be,” is … counter to what our entire American system of justice is all about. It’s the antithesis of the rule of law.

When Siddall’s group took a vote on whether to support the recall, 83 percent of them participated in the vote, with 98 percent of them supporting the recall effort.

In addition, the recall effort is supported by several other influential groups, including the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. In addition, more than 34 California cities, including San Gabriel, Santa Clarita, Beverly Hills, Pico Rivera, Whitter, La Mirada, and Covina have issued votes of no confidence in Gascón.

The Committee to Recall District Attorney George Gascón writes on its website:

As soon as he was sworn into office, District Attorney George Gascón began issuing directives to his prosecutors, instructing them to go soft on crime, coddle criminals, and trample upon the dignity and rights of crime victims.

 

To keep our communities safe, to mete out just punishment to those who break our laws, and to provide justice to crime victims throughout Los Angeles County, we must recall District Attorney George Gascón.

The petition spells out the grounds for the recall:

Since being elected, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has deserted crime victims and their families.

 

Gascón has disregarded the rule of law and weakened lawful sentencing requirements for the most violent criminals, including murderers, armed robbers, and rapists.

 

George Gascón’s new policies treat career and repeat violent offenders as if they had never committed a crime, ignoring public safety laws approved by the people.

 

Gascón has reduced sentences on crimes against children, and gun crimes.

 

On behalf of crime victims and their families and in the interest of public safety, this notice of intention to recall George Gascón as Los Angeles District Attorney is submitted.

Even in ultra-liberal Los Angeles County, voters are having serious second thoughts about the DA they elected in November 2020. The recall group is mounting a final push to obtain the remaining required signatures by July 6. Many are persuaded that if this second effort succeeds, voters will likely dump their far-left progressive district attorney into the dustbin of history.

Latest Polls Show Biden Failing on Economy, Inflation, Immigration, Crime

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, May 3, 2022:  

Recent polling provides not a single ray of light for Joe Biden or Democrats, despite efforts to show him strong in defending freedom in Ukraine. Eight hundred likely voters were quizzed by a poll conducted jointly by Susquehanna Polling & Research and The Federalist the last week of April and their responses revealed:

• 54 percent disapproved of the job Biden is doing as President while just 39 percent approved;

• On immigration, 52 percent disapproved of the job he is doing while just 34 percent approved;

• On how he is addressing high gas prices 56 percent disapproved while 38 percent disapproved;

• On how he is responding to inflation, 61 percent disapproved while 33 percent approved; and

• On how he is handling rising crime, 54 percent disapproved while 37 percent disapproved.

Biden’s continuing poor showing is affecting how those polled say they will vote in November, with 49 percent of them telling the pollsters they would vote Republican and just 39 percent voting Democrat.

The economy remains at or near the top of most voters’ concerns, according to the poll. When asked, “In comparison to six months ago, has the economy gotten better, gotten worse, or has it remained about the same?” two out of three (66 percent) said it has gotten worse while just 14 percent said things have gotten better. For the others, the economy remains about the same.

When it came to the Democrat/progressive agenda concerning transgender athletic competitions, 69 percent of those polled by Susquehanna responded that “it’s not fair to force female athletes to compete against male athletes.”

When quizzed about Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter, three out of five supported him, while 28 percent didn’t (and 12 percent simply weren’t sure).

When asked about Florida’s new Parental Rights in Education law that prohibits teachers from indoctrinating their students in grades K-3 about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” 70 percent supported it while fewer than one in four (23 percent) opposed it.

Finally, when asked about how well the news media is covering the news — “Do you trust the corporate news media to tell the truth when covering the news stories, or do they misrepresent the facts to push a political agenda?” — nearly three out of four indicated a lack of trust. They responded that the media “misrepresent the facts to push a political agenda.”

These results are reflected and confirmed by other polling organizations. Reuters, for instance, just reported that “Biden’s approval rating is near the lowest level of his presidency … [that it] has been below 50% since August and last month sunk to 40%, the lowest level of his 15-month-old presidency.”

Even left-leaning FiveThirtyEight has bad news for Biden. It reported today that 52.3 percent of those polled disapprove of his job performance, compared to 42 percent who approve. And when that group asked whom voters wanted in Congress if an election were held today, 45.2 percent said Republicans while 42.8 percent said Democrats.

There has scarcely been a ray of light for Biden or Democrats as they continue to inflict their anti-American progressive agenda onto an increasingly unhappy and disgruntled American citizenry.

As Public-school Enrollments Drop, So Do School Budgets

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, May 2, 2022:  

Public schools are opening across the country but, as The New American has reported, many students aren’t returning. And that, as the Associated Press noted, is causing many public schools major budgetary difficulties.

In Houston, for example, 11,000 students haven’t returned, forcing the district to cut $60 million from next year’s budget.

In Olathe, Kansas, 800 students haven’t returned, forcing the district to cut 140 jobs.

In Albuquerque, so many students are being homeschooled that the school district is facing a budget shortfall of $25 million. In Minneapolis, the school district has lost more than 4,000 students, resulting in a budget deficit of $27 million.

In Lawrence, Kansas, school officials are being forced to deal with a $7 million shortfall, while in Des Moines, 1,600 students haven’t returned, causing a $9 million deficit.

Strategies for dealing with these shortfalls range from laying off substitute teachers and aides, merging upper and lower age classes, cutting athletic and other budgets, closing schools altogether, and some districts are even selling school buildings to raise revenue to cover the deficits.

The one exception is Florida, where the influx of young families has offset the loss to homeschooling. As Jazz Shaw, writing for Hot Air, noted:

School enrollment is actually up in the Sunshine State and school revenue has increased with it.

 

Could that be because of the state’s policies requiring schools to involve parents in decisions affecting their children? Could it be the fact that so many people fleeing failing cities in blue states are heading for Florida? It’s probably a combination of both.

Although many districts are blaming Covid shutdowns, that is likely only a partial answer. Many public schools have turned from education centers to indoctrination centers, and parents were shocked to learn just what their students were being subjected to. As Keri Ingraham noted in the Washington Examiner:

[Homeschooling] parents were especially delighted to have their children escape the far-left political indoctrination that dominates today’s K-12 public education classrooms (the daily promotion of the LGBT agenda, critical race theory divisiveness, and woke academics).

 

Their children have been freed from the political agenda of teachers’ unions and school personnel using them as pawns in their power plays.

In addition, as public schools attempt to implement “equity,” they have cancelled TAG (talented and gifted) programs and honors classes.

Those being homeschooled often get better educations. As homeschooling parents have learned, their youngsters become motivated to learn more as their learning styles are recognized and teaching strategies are tailored to fit them.

Instead of sitting at a desk for six hours a day, homeschoolers enjoy field trips, socialization with other homeschoolers, and an agenda more in line with what their parents believe is the best for them. The recovery of family time is a bonus.

In just one year, the percentage of students being homeschooled across the country jumped from three percent to nearly 12 percent. And as that option becomes more widely recognized as viable and financially attractive, its growth is likely to continue apace.

Parents who have enrolled their youngsters in Freedom Project Academy, an online classical education program affiliated with The John Birch Society, have been delighted with the change:

This is our first year with FPA and we’re extremely happy. You have a wonderful program and my children are learning more than they ever have in a public school setting.

 

We can’t wait to register for next year!

And:

[Our son] is thrilled and oozing with confidence. As an FPA student, he has learned how to learn. He has been surrounded by teachers that care and willing to give him a second chance while expecting him to rise to the challenge.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

And:

This is our first year at FPA. We were a little anxious to move our kids to a private online school. As the school year started our anxiety was relieved quickly. FPA does an excellent job with the classroom environment.

As English King Henry VI said in the Shakespeare play Henry VI, “Ill blows the wind that profits nobody.”

Covid may have been a “ill wind” indeed, but it is resulting in the happy exit of millions of young students from public schools and into true learning experiences that can only bode well for the future.

Oklahoma to be the First State to Ban All Abortions After Heartbeat

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, April 29, 2022:  

The moment Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signs two bills into law — expected today — Oklahoma will be the first state effectively to ban all abortions in the state from the moment a heartbeat is detected onward to birth. Sooner State legislators aren’t waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, expected in June, to act.

The state’s Senate passed the “Oklahoma Heartbeat Act” — Senate Bill 1503 — on Thursday, which prohibits abortions any time after a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy.

The Senate also passed House Bill 4327 (after reconciliation) on Thursday, allowing private citizens to file civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone assisting an abortion. That includes not only the individual performing or attempting to perform an abortion, but also anyone who knowingly “aids and abets” an abortion. That would include anyone paying for the abortion, providing information leading to an abortion, or providing transportation to or from an abortion facility — in other words, anyone who assists in abortion in any way could be sued. If convicted, that individual would pay a fine of at least $10,000 plus other penalties and legal fees.

This mirrors the “Texas Heartbeat Act” — SB8 — that has effectively all but shut down abortions in the Lone Star State.

When combined with previous legislation that Governor Stitt has already signed making performing an abortion a felony (with a $100,000 fine and 10 years in jail), Oklahoma can now boast the most protection for the unborn of any state in the union.

While the previous bill that the governor signed making performing an abortion a felony won’t become effective until later this summer, the two bills on his desk become effective immediately upon signing.

This will effectively shut down the traffic abortion clinics have enjoyed from Texans fleeing that state in order to kill their unborn legally. Before the Texas ban, about 40 women from that state traveled to Oklahoma for abortions. That number jumped to over 240 in October — a 600-percent increase.

Once the bills are signed into law, those deciding to kill their unborn child will have to travel to states that still don’t consider abortion as murder, such as Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, and Arkansas.

Abortion providers are suing to prevent implementation of the Oklahoma felony law and are threatening to sue over the two bills sitting on Stitt’s desk once he signs them. They can see what’s coming, as Nancy Northrup, president for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, noted:

We are asking the state courts to uphold the State Constitution and apply Oklahoma precedent to block these insidious abortion bans before they take effect.

 

Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care. These bans would further decimate abortion access across the South.

Abortion facilities in Oklahoma are already refusing to schedule abortions for next week in anticipation of Stitt’s signing those two bills into law shortly. Tony Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life, said that “we are hopeful that [these bills] will save the lives of more unborn children here in Oklahoma.”

Through these bills, Oklahomans are declaring that the sanctity of life must be protected. In a world where there are clearly efforts to destroy the foundations of the culture, it’s comforting to know that states such as Oklahoma — along withTexas, Idaho, and others — are defending those foundations.

New York’s Highest Court Rejects Democrats’ Redistricting Gerrymander

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 28, 2022:  

The ruling on Wednesday by New York State’s highest court, its Court of Appeals, tossing the Democrats’ obvious and unconstitutional gerrymander of the state’s voting districts dashed the last chance Democrats had to overcome (or at least mitigate) the Republican Party’s momentum in the November elections. Democrats were counting on the blatant gerrymander of New York’s districts to offset Republican gains from redistricting in Republican states such as Kansas and Florida.

Democrats have a supermajority in both houses of the state’s legislature, and the Court of Appeals’ seven justices were all appointed by Democrats. What could go wrong?

New York has a tawdry history of political gerrymandering that is so offensive that the state’s constitution was amended in 2014 in an attempt to limit, if not eliminate, the ability to stack the deck in favor of the ruling party.

But the high court surprised and disappointed those counting on the gerrymander to give the Democratic Party at least a fighting chance to ward off the coming Republican tsunami in November. From the majority opinion:

During the first redistricting cycle to follow adoption of the 2014 amendments, the IRC [Independent Redistricting Commission] and the legislature failed to follow the procedure commanded by the State Constitution.

 

A stalemate within the IRC resulted in a breakdown in the mandatory process for submission of electoral maps to the legislature.

 

The legislature responded by creating and enacting maps in a nontransparent manner controlled exclusively by the dominant political party — doing exactly what they would have done had the 2014 constitutional reforms never been passed.

 

On these appeals, the primary questions before us are whether this failure to follow the prescribed constitutional procedure warrants invalidation of the legislature’s congressional and state senate maps and whether there is record support for the determination of both courts below that the district lines for congressional races were drawn with an unconstitutional partisan intent.

 

We answer both questions in the affirmative and therefore declare the congressional and senate maps void.

The left-leaning FiveThirtyEight political analysis website said the ruling “just cost Democrats their big redistricting advantage,” adding:

The decision was a huge blow to Democrats, who until recently looked like they had gained enough seats nationally in redistricting to almost eliminate the Republican bias in the House of Representatives….

 

That’s because much of Democrats’ national redistricting advantage rested on their gerrymander in New York.

Under the map created by the Democrat supermajorities and signed into law by New York’s Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul, Democrats were expected to win 22 of New York’s 26 House seats. It didn’t matter that this is way out of proportion with how New York State voters vote. It was designed to give Democrats three more seats in the House and cost the Republicans four seats – a swing of seven. Since the Democrat margin in the House is just five seats, Democrats were looking to New York’s gerrymander to keep the House under Democrat control.

In his revised analysis, Nathanial Rakich, writing for FiveThirtyEight, said:

Now, however, Republicans clearly have the advantage.… I estimate that redistricting currently positions Republicans for a net gain of around four or five House seats and Democrats for a net loss of about four.

Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has concluded that it’s all over for the Democrats in November:

The overturned New York Congressional map was widely viewed as an aggressive Democratic gerrymander that likely would cost Republicans 4 seats.

 

At the very least, a marginally fair map would likely return [the House] at least to GOP control. In the current political environment, a partisanly neutral map could give Republicans as many as ten of The Empire State’s 26 seats.

Dave Wasserman, who is affiliated with The Cook Political Report, thinks the ruling will have catastrophic consequences for Democrats in November. On Wednesday he Tweeted:

In a 4-3 ruling, NY’s top court has turned Dems’ 2022 House outlook from terrible to potentially horrific. A court-appointed special master will draw a remedial map, perhaps costing Dems three NY seats they otherwise would have gained & making R[epublican]s clear redistricting winners.

And all because, in New York State, there are Democrat judges who followed the Constitution. As New York Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis said:

Today, New York State’s highest court confirmed the decision by two lower courts and the opinion of editorial boards, good government groups, academics, and voters across the state.

 

I am heartened to see that the judicial system worked and that the will of the people is being preserved.

Musk’s Plans for Twitter: Cut Board Salaries, Make Algorithm Open-source

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, April 26, 2022:  

In his announcement on Twitter that he was taking the company private, Elon Musk revealed his plans:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

 

I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans.

 

Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.

The first thing Musk will do, once the transaction has been completed, is to cut the board members’ salaries to zero. He warned them in this Tweet just days earlier:

Board salary will be $0 if my bid succeeds, so that’s $3M/year saved right there.

The transaction will take months to close, thanks for the need to gain approval from regulatory agencies and the shareholders.

But not from the board. After reflecting on Musk’s original offer, and the legal consequences if it moved ahead with its “poison pill” strategy, it folded like a Hohner accordion. The board was suddenly unanimous in approving Musk’s original offer. Wrote board chairman Bret Tayler:

The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon’s proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing.

 

The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter’s stockholders.

Musk had boxed them in, using his own Twitter account to accomplish his purpose. On April 14, he reminded them of their fiduciary responsibilities:

If the current Twitter board takes actions contrary to shareholder interests, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty.

 

The liability they would thereby assume would be titanic in scale….

 

Taking Twitter private at $54.20 [per share] should be up to the shareholders, not the board.

Those shareholders have seen their Twitter stock holdings drop from $80 per share in February 2021 to just over $30 a share a year later. The $54 bid will likely persuade the vast majority of them to agree to Musk’s buyout offer.

Regulatory approval will take longer, but the purchase is scheduled to close before the end of the year.

That will allow disaffected Twitter employees to find other work. They would chafe under Musk’s new open-algorithm policy where users can see exactly where they stand.

Musk is likely to uncover secrets being hidden successfully from shareholders, regulators, and the public until now. A techie named Sundance, writing at The Last Refuge, speculated as to what one of those secrets might be:

I share this perspective having spent thousands of hours in the past several years deep in the weeds of tech operating systems, communication platforms, and the issue of simultaneous users. What Twitter represents, and what Musk is attempting, is not what most would think.

 

In the big picture of tech platforms, Twitter, as an operating model, is a massive high-user commenting system.

 

Twitter is not a platform built around a website; Twitter is a platform for comments and discussion that operates in the sphere of social media. As a consequence, the technology and data processing required to operate the platform does not have an economy of scale.

 

There is no business model where Twitter is financially viable to operate…. UNLESS the tech architecture under the platform was subsidized.

 

In my opinion, there is only one technological system and entity that could possibly underwrite the cost of Twitter to operate. That entity is the United States Government.

If Sundance is correct, then Musk may uncover the greatest secret of all: The U.S. government has infiltrated Twitter, and used it to punish a sitting president of the United States by permanently removing him from the platform.

Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton agrees that Musk is likely to uncover many such secrets: “Twitter has been lying to shareholders, regulators, and Congress, about its censorship abuses. [It’s no wonder] the [board had] a keen interest in keeping Elon Musk from further exposing this fraud.”

So does Matt Vespa. Writing for Townhall, Vespa noted:

[Musk] did a flank march and outmaneuvered the Left who for years enjoyed censoring and banning conservatives with impunity. We all knew these Silicon Valley types were left-wing and biased. It entered a new and disturbing phase during the 2016 and 2020 elections.

 

Twitter literally censored The New York Post from reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop. They intervened to help Joe Biden win the election.

Hopefully Musk means what he says about the importance of free speech and that, once in control, he’ll fumigate Twitter and turn it into a legitimate public forum where free speech is enjoyed and encouraged on issues of the day.

Trump’s Media Platform “Truth Social” Moves to Rumble

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, April 25, 2022:  

The online video-hosting platform Rumble, currently enjoying 44 million visitors every month, is about to get much, much larger. On Friday, the company announced that

Truth Social, the social media platform created by the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), has successfully migrated … to Rumble’s cloud infrastructure. This migration will enable the Truth Social platform to scale significantly on a new and cancel-culture-free cloud platform.

“Scale significantly” is the operative phrase. Prior to being unceremoniously booted from Twitter following the faux Capitol “insurrection” in January 2021, Donald Trump had nearly 90 million followers.

In October Trump formally announced the creation of TMTG, named former California Congressman Devin Nunes to head it up, and initially launched in February using hosting service Mastodon.

So many of Trump’s followers stampeded onto the platform that more than a million were wait-listed while the system underwent its beta testing.

Naturally, the anti-Trump media chortled about the “failure” of Trump’s launch. Chris Cillizza of CNN predicted that it was doomed to fail. Noah Berlatsky of The Independent said that if it were successful Trump’s new platform would be a potential “threat to democracy.” The Forward expressed concerns that antisemitism would pervade the platform, while The New York Times expressed “skepticism” about whether Trump’s platform would be able to compete with other rival social media services like Gettr, Parler, and Gab.

And Wikipedia reported that “some commentators pointed out the similarity with the name of the newspaper Pravda (‘Truth’ in English), a notorious propaganda outlet in the Soviet Union.”

On the other hand, Rumble’s founder and CEO Chris Pavlovski was happy to welcome his newest and largest customer:

We are excited to partner with one of the fastest-growing social media companies on the internet. Providing top-notch cloud infrastructure is essential, and Truth Social users will start to see the fruits of our labors immediately.

More than a million of those wait-listed until the end of the testing period have already been added to the new platform, according to Nunes, who added:

[On Thursday], Truth Social and Rumble took a major stride toward rescuing the internet from the grip of the Big Tech tyrants. Our teams have worked tirelessly to realize this great endeavor.

 

Rumble’s cloud infrastructure is second to none and will be the backbone for the restoration of free speech online for ages to come.

Rumble, founded by Pavlovski in 2013, has enjoyed enormous success on its own. It currently hosts Alex Jones of InfoWars, Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Reuters.

Trump’s TMTG has a massive $1.25 billion to ensure the new platform’s success. And, according to Nunes, “engagement” on the new platform is already ramping up:

We have opened the new Rumble cloud. Yesterday … early in the morning … it went off flawlessly….

 

You’ve got half of America [who] should be concerned about being canceled by those crazy woke companies.

With Elon Musk’s pending takeover of Twitter, one of those “woke” companies, it is not clear just how many of Trump’s former followers will migrate over to Rumble. Musk has promised to turn Twitter into a “free speech” subscription platform in order to eliminate corporate influence over its platform’s conversations.

As House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene — who had her personal Twitter account permanently suspended last month — said after setting up her account on Truth Social: “Options are always good for consumers.”

And likely to be good for Donald Trump, as well, as he continues to tantalize his followers with increasing intimations about running for a second term in 2024.

In Blatant Political Move, Biden Administration Demotes Temporary Head of ATF

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 21, 2022:  

With Joe Biden’s poll numbers dropping out of sight and the obliteration of his first nominee to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), progressives were screaming for something good to happen.

The New York Times responded, sounding the death knell for the agency’s present temporary head of the agency, Marvin Richardson, back in January, and on Wednesday the White House confirmed his demotion from temporary director to deputy director.

The timing has everything to do with the November elections. Richardson, a 30-year veteran of the ATF, is due to retire next year. His relationship with the gun industry was professional and cordial. But in today’s toxic political environment, even being black couldn’t save Richardson.

From the Times:

In late January, Marvin G. Richardson, the acting director of the [ATF], told a gathering of weapons manufacturers that the rule banning online sales of [ghost gun parts] would not be completed until June….

 

This infuriated some Biden allies….

 

Progressives see Mr. Richardson’s low-key leadership … as part of the problem.

Richardson was just doing his job. The “ghost gun” initiative has generated the largest-ever response to any ATF anti-gun move: More than 250,000 comments were received in opposition to it during the “public comment” period required before the initiative could become active. Richardson was forced to dedicate 30 ATF employees to go through the comments before he could make the rule permanent.

Biden’s first nominee, David Chipman, went down in flames thanks to his odious anti-gun position. Biden’s second, Steve Dettelbach, is cut from the same cloth, and his Senate confirmation is increasingly unlikely.

So, in a signal to progressives, Biden and his handlers decided Richardson was expendable. In an exclusive, Stephen Gutowski, writing for the pro-Second Amendment blog The Reload, detailed what he learned from his contacts inside the agency:

The reshuffling was announced by Richardson on a conference call on Monday, which left many ATF officials surprised and dismayed….

 

“The news that he was being replaced came as a shock to most of us within the agency,” one ATF official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Reload.

Richardson was too friendly with the firearms industry, according to the Times. He had worked hard to maintain cordial relations with the industry for a very good reason: Many good tips on potential violators came from gun dealers. Said one of Gutowski’s sources:

A lot of the tips that we would get on illegal firearms activity from straw purchasers to traffickers came from dealers.

 

The reality is just a very, very small percentage of gun dealers are bad. So, those partnerships are important, and Marvin really did a good job at nurturing those relationships….

 

The fact that he has those relationships may not have sat well with the current administration. And I’m sure that that might’ve helped them push him out.

Indeed, the Biden administration is intending to weaponize the ATF against those very gun dealers, hoping to put many of them out of business for even the most minor infractions of the agency’s rules.

As far back as October 2020, Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the firearms trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), saw what was coming in the event Biden somehow won the White House:

The Biden-Harris ticket will weaponize the ATF against retailers to close them down for even minor errors in inspections….

 

Kamala Harris … has vowed to turn the ATF from an agency which assists family-owned retail businesses to stay within the overwhelming labyrinth of federal and state laws and regulations to one that carries a heavy hammer and will shutter federally licensed retailers for minor administrative errors.

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced that the U.S. attorney for the district of Arizona, Gary Restaino, will take Richardson’s place until such time as a permanent director is confirmed.

The move could be costly politically. As Ed Morrissey noted in Hot Air:

Put the optics of demoting one of the few black agency heads there are in the Biden administration, and it’s a recipe for embarrassment and chaos, if not disaster.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto of Pro-life Bill

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, April 18, 2022:  

Five days after Kentucky’s Democrat Governor Andy Beshear vetoed the most protective pro-life bill in the country, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature overturned it. The state’s house voted 76-21 on Wednesday and the state’s senate followed later the same day, voting 31-6, to quash his veto.

The override allowed the law to become effective immediately, with Reuters declaring that it “makes Kentucky the first U.S. state without legal abortion access since the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established [a mother’s] right to end a pregnancy.”

The law models the Mississippi abortion law that is pending before the Supreme Court — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The high court will rule on “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional” with its decision due in June.

Many are expecting the high court to restrict the right to abortion, and a number of states, including Kentucky, are enacting laws to reflect the high court’s anticipated ruling. Dobbs is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision and allow the states to make their own decisions, as the Constitution allows (see the Ninth and 10th Amendments).

Kentucky’s law is unique, however, in that it demands accountability among abortion providers in the state that simply cannot be met, and so, for all intents and purposes, abortion is dead in Kentucky.

In his veto message, Kentucky Governor Beshear complained that the bill contains no exceptions or exclusions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest and that it makes certain demands of the state to implement, among other things, an electronic database for all abortions, but without providing the funding for it. He also expressed his opinion that “House Bill 3 is likely unconstitutional.”

Both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have filed suits against the law. ACLU Communications Director Samuel Crankshaw said the law “inserts politics into medicine, aggressively sidelines science in healthcare, and threatens the wellbeing of Kentuckians.” He didn’t mention the death sentences being rendered on the unborn by mothers with “unwanted pregnancies” and the abortion providers assisting them.

The new law requires that a pregnant woman must be examined in person by a doctor before being given abortion pills (it is estimated that half of all abortions in Kentucky are caused by those “kill pills”). It also requires physicians performing abortions to maintain hospital admitting privileges close to where the abortion is to be performed.

Without funding, the bill’s requirement that the state’s Board of Pharmacy certify providers writing prescriptions for those pills can’t be implemented. Furthermore, the law requires the state’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services to create three new full-time positions (along with the new database), and establish public reporting requirements. But there’s no funding in the law for these either.

Kentucky is the latest state to enact pro-life bills in anticipation of a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. The Texas “heartbeat” law was followed by similar bans in Mississippi, Arizona, South Dakota, Idaho, Florida, and Oklahoma.

The veto power granted in the states’ constitutions, as part of the “separation of powers” doctrine unique to the American Republic, has just operated to save the lives of unborn babies in Kentucky. May other legislatures facing governors who are attempting to thwart the will of the people through the veto power have similar success.

Obstacles Mounting Against Musk’s Takeover Bid for Twitter

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, April 15, 2022:  

In covering Musk’s bid to take Twitter private, The New American suggested he might run into trouble. In the last 24 hours, trouble exceeding expectations has arrived.

First, the board spent all day Thursday considering Musk’s bid to take the company private, with Musk offering to buy existing shares at $54 a share. At the time, shares were selling at about $45. But rumors surfaced following the meeting that the board isn’t happy, calling it a “hostile takeover,” and considering putting in place a “shareholder rights plan,” aka a “poison pill.”

A poison pill is a strategy that makes it more difficult, and more expensive, for Musk to complete the acquisition.

Second, although Musk is the world’s richest man, most of his wealth is in shares of Tesla, and much of that he is already using as collateral for loans to fund other ventures, such as SpaceX. That raises the question of how he would find the $40+ billion he would need to buy Twitter.

Third, some of the company’s largest shareholders aren’t likely to go along with Musk’s bid. Saudi Arabian Prince Al Waleed bin Tatal Al Saud bought five percent of Twitter back in 2015 and tweeted:

I don’t believe that the proposed offer by Elon Musk ($54.20) comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter given its growth prospects. Being one of the largest and long-term shareholders of Twitter … I reject this offer.

Mutual fund company Vanguard Group just announced that it recently increased its holdings of Twitter and they now own more than Musk, at more than 10 percent of the company. Vanguard has a history of siding with management when it is threatened with a hostile or adverse takeover attempt.ncern:

Twitter, like other social media platforms, suspends accounts for violating content standards, including on violence, hate speech, or harmful information. Its suspension of Donald Trump angered the former president’s followers….

 

By saying [that] Twitter is not living up to its potential to be a “platform for free speech,” [Musk] seems to be saying he would scale back content moderation.

“Content moderation” is code for censorship.

Twitter employees aren’t happy either, with some Tweeting their unhappiness that a “transphobe” could buy their company.

Wall Street isn’t bullish either. Initially Twitter stock rose on Thursday morning, only to fall back to below its opening price at the close.

And Musk himself expressed some doubts that the deal would go through. Speaking at a TED conference later on Thursday, Musk demurred: “I am not sure that I will actually be able to acquire [Twitter].”

This is not to say that the deal is stillborn. As Adam Candeub, a law professor at Michigan State University, told The Epoch Times:

Twitter is owned by its shareholders, and the directors have to act in a way that’s in their best interests, not in the way that allows them to keep control of the corporation.

 

If they turn down a very favorable price, there will be dereliction of their legal duty, and there could be lots of legal consequences.

Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter for $41 Billion and Take It Private

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 14, 2022:  

Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX and the richest man in the world, filed his intent to purchase Twitter with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Wednesday and take it private.

In his filing he included the text message he sent to Twitter board chairman Bret Taylor a day earlier, informing him of his intent to formally offer to buy the company:

As I indicated this weekend, I believe that the company should be private to go through the changes that need to be made.

 

After the past several days of thinking this over, I have decided I want to acquire the company and take it private.

 

I am going to send you an offer letter tonight; it will be public in the morning.

 

Are you available to chat?

Musk included part of that “chat” in the filing:

Best and Final:

 

a.      I am not playing the back-and-forth game.

 

b.      I have moved straight to the end.

 

c.      It’s a high price and your shareholders will love it.

 

d.      If the deal doesn’t work, given that I don’t have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

 

i.       This is not a threat, it’s simply not a good investment without the changes that need to be made.

 

ii.      And those changes won’t happen without taking the company private.

In the letter that followed, Musk reiterated his position that the only way Twitter could “thrive” in the future would be to take it private and let him run it:

To Bret Taylor, chairman of the Board:

 

I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.

 

However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form.

 

Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.

 

As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced.

 

My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

 

Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.

Musk has more than 80 million followers on Twitter and started buying chunks of its stock in January. He considered his options, asking his followers what he should do. A primary question he asked was, “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy, what should be done?”

He conducted a poll of his followers: “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” He got two million responses, and 70 percent of them said “no.”

Initially, the president of Twitter, learning that Musk had purchased nearly 10 percent of his company’s outstanding shares, offered him a seat on the board. But Musk turned it down after learning that, as a board member, he couldn’t purchase more than 15 percent of the company, and would have only marginal influence on the direction of the company.

After visiting with the president of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, Musk knew what he had to do. If the board approves, Musk will invest an estimated 15 percent of his approximately $265 billion net worth in his new venture.

He has plans. He will turn Twitter into a subscriber-based platform and away from currently being dependent upon corporate advertising (and corporate influence) to pay the bills. Wrote Musk: “Everyone who signs up for Twitter Blue ($3 a month) should get an authentication checkmark. And no ads. The power of corporations to dictate policy [to Twitter] is greatly enhanced if Twitter depends on advertising money to survive.”

He would likely change the operational structure of the company, including selling its headquarters in San Francisco, “since,” as he Tweeted, “no one shows up there anyway.”

Conservatives were delighted with the news. Firebrand Republican Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado tweeted last week: “Now that Elon Musk is Twitter’s largest shareholder, it’s time to lift the political censorship. Oh … and BRING BACK TRUMP!”

They are likely to be disappointed to learn that the former president has no plans to rejoin Twitter even if he were invited back. He told American Media on Wednesday, “I probably wouldn’t have any interest [in returning to Twitter if Musk bought the company]. Twitter’s become very boring. They’ve gotten rid of a lot of good [conservative] voices.”

Besides, Trump has invested heavily in his own social-media platform, Truth Social.

It’s premature to speculate on what impact Musk might have on the “public square” conversation if he does buy the company. There could be resistance from the Biden administration, with lawsuits complaining about his move to purchase the company. The board could turn down his offer. There could be counter offers from media giants to quash Musk’s move.

Under current management, Twitter wouldn’t invite Trump back. A Twitter spokesman said, “We have no plans to reverse any policy decisions.” Ned Segal, Twitter’s present chief financial officer, told CNBC: “When you’re removed from the platform, you’re removed from the platform, whether you are a commentator, a CFO, or you are a former public official.”

Bidenflation? No! Putinflation? No! Fedinflation? Yes!

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, April 12, 2022:  

Anticipating the worst inflation numbers in four decades, White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki tried not only to get ahead of it but to deflect from its root cause. On Monday, the day before the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that, year-over-year, inflation rose by 8.5 percent, she stated:

Because of the actions [that] were taken to address the “Putin Price Hike,” we are in a better place than we were last month, but we expect March … CPI headline inflation to be extraordinarily elevated due to “Putin’s Price Hike.”

In March she said there was a “consensus” among economists that the coming report “was caused by the building of Putin’s troops at Ukraine’s border.”

On the other hand, Spencer Brown, writing for Townhall, called the surge “Bidenflation,” indicating that policies enacted during the present administration’s first term were largely, if not totally, responsible.

However, Inflation predates both Psaki and Brown by decades. Wrote Milton Friedman in 1992 in Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”

Friedman explained:

Inflation is always and everywhere, a monetary phenomenon. It’s always and everywhere, a result of too much money, of a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.

 

Moreover, in the modern era, the important next step is to recognize that today, governments control the quantity of money. So that as a result, inflation in the United States is made in Washington and nowhere else.

Friedman puts the blame where it belongs:

If you listen to people in Washington and talk, they will tell you that inflation is produced by greedy businessmen or it’s produced by grasping unions or it’s produced by spendthrift consumers, or maybe, it’s those terrible Arab Sheikhs who are producing it.

 

Now, of course, businessmen are greedy. Who of us isn’t? Trade unions are grasping. Who of us isn’t? And there’s no doubt that the consumer is a spendthrift. At least every man knows that about his wife.

 

But none of them produce inflation for the very simple reason that neither the businessman, nor the trade union, nor the housewife has a printing press in their basement on which they can turn out those green pieces of paper we call money.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the unvarnished truth about inflation and its consequences in his article “Gold and Economic Freedom,” published in 1967:

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold….

 

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

 

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.

 

Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

Inflation is part of the attack on the foundations of the American Republic. Wrote Robert Welch in his monumental presentation that later became The Blue Book of the John Birch Society in 1958:

Here are the Communists’ aims for the United States:

 

(1) Greatly expanded government spending, for missiles, for so-called defense generally, for foreign aid, for every conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of American money – as wastefully as possible.

 

(2) Higher and then much higher taxes.

 

(3) An increasingly unbalanced budget, despite the higher taxes….

 

(4) Wild inflation of our currency, leading rapidly towards its ultimate repudiation.

 

(5) Government controls of prices, wages, and materials, supposedly to combat inflation.

 

(6) Greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity of our daily lives.

 

This is to be accompanied, naturally and automatically, by a correspondingly huge increase in the size of our bureaucracy, and in both the cost and reach of our domestic government.

 

(7) Far more centralization of power in Washington, and the practical elimination of our state lines….

 

(8) The steady advance of Federal aid to and control over our educational system, leading to complete federalization of our public education.

 

(9) A constant hammering into the American consciousness of the horror of “modern warfare, ” the beauties and the absolute necessity of “peace” — peace always on Communist terms, of course.

 

And (10) the consequent willingness of the American people to allow the steps of appeasement by our government which amount to a piecemeal surrender of the rest of the free world and of the United States itself to the [communist] tyranny.

As Representative Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) expressed it, “Inflation is taxation.” But it is much more than that. It is a tool used to impoverish the middle class, reducing its ability to resist the onslaught of tyranny.

And it all starts with the Fed.

As Gas Prices Fall, Dems Accuse Big Oil Execs of Gouging

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, April 8, 2022:  

“We are here,” said New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone as the inquisition, conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee against Big Oil, began on Tuesday “to get answers from big oil companies on why they are ripping off the American people. At a time of record profits, Big Oil is refusing to increase production.”

Chevron CEO Michael Wirth shot back: “We do not control the market price of crude oil or natural gas, nor of refined products like gasoline or diesel fuel.… We have no tolerance for price gouging.”

Nor could he or Chevron even if they wanted to: Crude oil is a global commodity, and as large as Big Oil is, it has little influence on the price of that commodity. And gas prices are largely set by gasoline stations themselves, in response to local competition.

Shell USA president Gretchen Watkins explained to Pallone and the other Democrats decrying high oil and gas prices and blaming them on Big Oil: “Because oil is a global commodity, Shell does not set or control the price of crude oil.” Indeed, Shell doesn’t own a single one of the more than 13,000 Shell stations serving consumers in America. “Each,” said Watkins, “of these independent businesses is responsible for setting the local price for gasoline.”

The solution to high prices is, as it always is, high prices. That is, by allowing the free market to set prices, consumers will adjust their behaviors accordingly. They will, in effect, “ration” themselves by purchasing less, reducing demand pressures. At the same time, high prices will stimulate more production, which will bring prices down.

It’s already happening. In December, oil producers began reopening wells in the Permian Basin located in west Texas and New Mexico, boosting (according to Reuters) production by nearly a million barrels a day by the end of the year. NexTier Oilfield Solutions, the country’s third-largest fracker, told investors in January that demand was already pushing its utilization rates above 90 percent. Those rates fell as Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline project and paused the issuance of oil leases on federal lands. Covid restrictions also played a part in the reduction of production.

Oil analysts at Bank of America are forecasting a rise in global investment in drilling and completion of 22 percent this year, the strongest year-over-year gain since 2006.

Prices of WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude oil topped $116 a barrel in late February. As this is being written, WTI has dropped to less than $97 a barrel. Nationally, gas prices peaked on March 17 at $4.33 a gallon, but now average nationally just over $4.13 a gallon.

Ranking Republican committee member Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington called out efforts by Democrats to blame the high prices on the oil company executives or Russian President Vladimir Putin: “This is not the Putin price hike. This is the Biden price hike. It’s been on a steady climb since he took office.”

Democrats such as Maria Cantwell of Washington aren’t buying the free-market argument and are calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Big Oil for price gouging and manipulation. Unfortunately for Cantwell, the last time the FTC investigated Big Oil, it found nothing. In its letter to then-Representative Brian Higgins dated May 13, 2009, the FTC declared:

After careful and extensive investigation, FTC staff did not find any evidence of illegal activity in gasoline markets.… To the contrary, staff found evidence suggesting that it is unlikely that illegal conduct caused these price [rises].

The best thing the committee in charge of this inquisition could do would be to urge Congress to issue more federal permits to allow additional oil leases by the oil industry. That would have a much more permanent and favorable impact on the long-term price of oil and gas than would the silly, temporary release of critical oil reserves which only serves the political purpose of improving Biden’s falling approval numbers.

Instead, in this crazy upside-down world where truth is the first victim of politics, Joe Biden will soon discover the advantage of claiming that falling gas and oil prices are now the result of his policies.

Biden to Take Another Shot at Nominating an Anti-gunner to ATF

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 7, 2022:  

The last time Joe Biden nominated a left-wing anti-gun ideologue to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the nominee’s virulent anti-gun position sank his nomination into oblivion.

According to Politico’s inside sources, Biden’s going to try again: same ideology, different name. Politico said that, according to “multiple people” inside the White House, including “one official within the Senate Democratic Caucus,” Biden will officially nominate Steve Dettelbach. He served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2016.

Dettelbach has the right (i.e., left) credentials: Graduating from Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School, he was nominated by then-President Obama in 2009 to his U.S. attorney position. This no doubt was a payoff for his work in Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, for which he provided legal assistance and advice. Following Obama’s election, Dettelbach served as a legal advisor to his transition team.

He was a candidate for the office of Ohio’s attorney general in 2018 and lost, but in the process revealed where he stands on issues relating to private gun ownership: No one should own an “assault-style” rifle, and everyone buying a firearm anywhere from anybody at any time needs to undergo a background check first. That background check would then be added to the recently revealed secret registry that the ATF has been keeping, now totaling nearly one billion records.

If confirmed, Dettelbach would go along with the Biden administration’s stated determination to weaponize the ATF against private gun owners and dealers, especially gun dealers.

Given the labyrinthine minefield of current regulations under which gun dealers operate, there would be no forgiveness even for minor errors, mistakes, or infractions. Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the firearms trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), warned in October 2020:

The Biden-Harris ticket will weaponize the ATF against retailers to close them down for even minor clerical errors in inspections.

 

This is a promise Senator Kamala Harris made from the campaign stage.

 

She has vowed to turn the ATF from an agency which assists family-owned firearm retail businesses to stay within the overwhelming labyrinth of federal and state laws and regulations to one that carries a heavy hammer and will shutter federally licensed retailers for minor administrative errors.

When Biden’s first nominee to head the ATF, David Chipman, went down to defeat, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted: “His defeat is a win for the Constitution — and a crushing flow for Joe Biden.”

Dudley Brown, founder and president of the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR), was pleased to learn that the White House had dropped Chipman down its memory hole:

Chipman … could not garner enough support in the U.S. Senate to make it through the confirmation process.

 

David Chipman’s nomination to lead the ATF was a slap in the face to gun owners across the country. Now, thanks to pro-gun grassroots, we’ve put Chipman back where he belongs: at home.

But, warned Brown:

We know … Biden will prop up another anti-gun pawn in the near future.… We [must] stand ready to oppose their unconstitutional actions.

Brown and his nearly five million members, along with Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and other Second Amendment supporters, will once again need to push back against Biden’s second effort to weaponize the ATF with another anti-gun radical.

Biden is expected to make the official announcement during National Police Week, May 11-17.

Cook Political Report: No “Red Tsunami,” Just a Strong Red Wave Coming in November

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, April 5, 2022:  

Predictions, forecasts, and guesses about the November midterms speak of a “red tsunami.” Amy Walter, editor of the highly regarded Cook Political Report, dampened some of that enthusiasm with her carefully reasoned article: Republicans are likely to flip between 15 and 25 seats in the House in November. Depending on who actually takes the oath of office in January 2023, at least the new Congress will have the ability to stop the madness.

On the surface, it looks as if the November elections are the Republicans’ to lose: The National Republican Congressional Commission (NRCC) just expanded its list of “vulnerable,” winnable districts from 72 to 82. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House after the 1994 “red tsunami” flipped 54 seats, recently predicted:

I believe an immediate, consistent, and effective Republican application of the lessons of 2021 could lead to a 40- to 70-seat gain in the House; at least a four-seat gain in the Senate; and gains in governorships, state legislatures, and local offices including school boards next year.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, after reviewing a poll he conducted for NBC, concluded that the Democrats are “headed for a catastrophic election [in November].”

Walter’s reasoning:

In 2010, Republicans won the House vote by almost seven points, a 17-point improvement from their 2008 showing. They ended up winning a whopping 64 seats that year.

If that seven-point shift holds up, then it follows that, wrote Walter, “At a very crude level, we could say that it would shift the 2020 vote margin in every CD (congressional district by) about 7 points more Republican.”

There are 435 congressional districts. How many are in play? “Any district that Biden carried by less than 7 points would be in danger of flipping to the GOP.” That number, according to Walter, is just 21 congressional districts.

The good news is that Republicans already hold eight of those 21 districts. So, the contest will be decided in just 13 districts.

As Walter noted:

Every metric we use to analyze the political environment — the president’s approval rating, the mood of the electorate, the enthusiasm gap — all point to huge gains for the GOP this fall.

 

But those metrics are bumping up against an increasingly “sorted” House with few marginal seats and few incumbents sitting in the “wrong district.”

 

As such, the more likely scenario for this fall is a GOP gain in the 15-25 seat range.

Opinion pollster FiveThirtyEight agrees with Walter. In its own analysis, just 33 out of 435 House seats fall into its “highly competitive” category.

The first state primaries are 40 days away; the November midterm election is six months away. As former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said, “A week is a long time in politics.”

That means that there’s still plenty of time for Republicans to blow an historic opportunity. And it’s also more than enough time for Biden and company to chip away at its dwindling Democrat base with its dangerous and treasonous buffoonery to make the Republican victory in the November elections even more historic than Gingrich or McInturff are predicting.

Biden’s FACT SHEET on Energy Missing Many Facts

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, April 1, 2022:  

The White House’s “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” released on Monday, is so filled with misstatements and half truths that one scarcely knows where to begin.

There is little, if any, truth to Biden’s claim that gas prices are hitting all-time highs because of Russian President Vladimir Putin. First, gas prices had been steadily rising long before Biden announced he was shutting down imports of Russian oil and gas in response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Second, according to CNN Business, “very little of that Russian supply goes to the United States — just 90,000 barrels of crude per day in December.” The U.S. consumes nearly 20 million barrels of oil every day, so the move by Biden to end Russian imports is little more than a rounding error in the global energy equation.

Biden’s move to release a million barrels of oil every day from the nation’s strategic oil reserves is clearly pandering and political cover for his administration’s policies that are primarily responsible for the spike in oil and gas prices. And it’s a short-term fix anyway. When the temporary release ends in 180 days, the “energy equation” — the United States is using more energy than it is being allowed to produce — will force gas and oil prices to rise spectacularly once again.

The White House’s FACT SHEET declares that the Biden administration is “doing everything we can to encourage domestic production now … as a bridge to greater supply in the months ahead.” It then declared that the real cause of the spike in oil and gas prices is the country’s oil and gas industry: “The fact is that there is nothing standing in the way of domestic oil production.”

Nothing, that is, except increased regulations and the dampening of investor enthusiasm for fossil energy projects thanks to the negative pressure of “ESG” — environmental, social, and governance — in the financial world, which views investing in fossil-fuel companies as somehow socially irresponsible because of the canard that fossil-fuel emissions “exacerbate climate change.”

The FACT SHEET attacks the oil and gas industry of gouging and hoarding: “Too many companies aren’t doing their part and are choosing to make extraordinary profits … without making additional investment to help with supply.”

It rolls out another half-truth: “Right now, the oil and gas industry is sitting on more than 12 million acres of non-producing Federal land, with 9,000 unused but already approved permits for production.” To “fix” that “problem,” the FACT SHEET declares that the administration will tack on a fee for any of those permits that aren’t being used.

First, oil and natural-gas production from existing wells operating on federal land only provides a small portion of the total being produced. Second, many of those leases don’t have enough proven reserves to justify the enormous expense of exploiting them. Finally, there are, in most cases, clauses already in those leases that cause the lease to expire worthless at the end of 10 years if they haven’t been exploited.

All those new fees would do, in other words, is increase the costs borne by the very companies the White House says it wants to encourage.

It’s clear what the White House’s agenda is: raise the cost of oil and gas to such a level that it forces Americans to “go green,” primarily by buying electric vehicles and installing heat pumps and solar panels. From the FACT SHEET:

The President will call on Congress to pass his plan to speed the transition to clean energy that is made in America.

 

His plan will help ensure that America creates millions of good-paying union jobs in clean, cutting-edge industries for generations to come.

 

And it will save American families in the immediate future — including more than $950 a year in gas savings from taking advantage of electric vehicles, and an additional $500 a year from using clean electricity like solar and heat pumps to power their homes.

There is nothing “clean” about “clean” energy. Those batteries require key minerals and precious metals that need to be mined using fossil fuels: metals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese. And those batteries, at present, have a limited life span, raising the next question: where to discard them, and at what environmental cost?

And those “electric vehicles” about which the FACT SHEET rhapsodizes so eloquently? According to Kelly Blue Book, the average price of a new electric vehicle in February was $64,685 — more than twice the average price of a new compact car or new compact SUV. With the average American living paycheck-to-paycheck, who among them will spring for a new EV?

As the old saw goes, “Politicians are elected to office to solve problems caused by politicians.” As American Exploration and Petroleum Council (AXPC) CEO Anne Bradbury put it:

The administration is claiming they are responding to “Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” but their planned solution is to target American energy producers with new taxes and fees, while our industry continues to face increased hurdles and regulatory red tape the Biden Administration itself has put in place to restrict domestic production.

 

A punitive fee on federal lands will not incentivize or expedite development.

 

Pulling crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will not lower prices in the long term and may even do more harm than good.

 

And targeting American energy workers with false narratives about pricing does not change the law of supply and demand.

Latest Polls Show Biden Increasingly Underwater

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 28, 2022:  

The results of two establishment polls released last week continue to confirm Americans’ increasing disapproval of Joe Biden. Even among Democrats, the polls reflect increasing disenchantment with their president.

The NBC News poll, taken between March 18 and March 22, reported that Biden’s approval rate has cratered to just 40 percent, the lowest of his time in office, and the lowest pollsters have recorded since 2014. Those polled indicated that they want Republicans to take control of Congress in the midterms by 46 percent to 44 percent. The last time that happened, in 2014, Republicans gained 13 seats in the House and flipped nine seats in the Senate.

Biden’s disapproval rating is now at 55 percent, close to one out of every six Americans.

On nearly every issue, Biden and company are underwater. More than seven out of 10 of those polled have “very little” or “just some” confidence in his ability to handle the Russian attack on Ukraine. That includes 43 percent of Democrats.

Among Biden’s strongest constituencies, his support has faded the most: Among women his support has cratered from 51 percent in January to 44 percent now. Among Hispanic voters, his support has dropped from 48 percent to 39 percent, and among independents, his support has all but disappeared, to 32 percent.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinions Strategy conducted the survey for NBC along with Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates. Upon reviewing the findings, McInturff concluded, “What this poll says is that Biden and [the] Democrats are headed for a catastrophic election [in November].”

The poll conducted for the Associated Press (AP) by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research focused more on how Americans are viewing Biden’s handling, or mishandling, of the crisis in Europe. According to Hannah Fingerhut, writing for the AP, “Only about a quarter are very confident that [Biden] has the ability to handle a crisis, promote U.S. standing in the world, or effectively manage the U.S. military.”

In addition, those polled are increasingly nervous about direct American involvement in that crisis, with nearly half either “extremely” or “very” concerned about America being drawn into a war with Russia. And an increasing number are concerned that nuclear weapons will be used in such a war.

Drilling down into the survey: Just 25 percent of those polled think Biden can “effectively manage the military,” just 32 percent think that he “incorporates the advice of his advisors and experts in his decisions,” only 28 percent think that his decisions and actions “promote the U.S. standing in the world,” and scarcely 26 percent think he can “effectively handle a crisis.”

According to RealClear Politics, there has been little “bounce” for Biden as he has ramped up his war rhetoric. His approval rating briefly touched 45 percent earlier this month, but now rests about where it was before: at 41.1 percent approving and 53.2 disapproving — a negative spread of 12.1 points.

RCP also reports that barely a quarter of Americans think the country is “headed in the right direction,” while two out of three think the nation is on the “wrong track” under Biden.

These two polls were commissioned by the mainstream media, who have slavishly supported Biden from the beginning. The fact that the results cut across that support lends even more credibility to the proposition — and outlook — that the Democrats are, in the words of Republican pollster McInturff, “headed for a catastrophic election [in November].”

Trump-appointed Judge Pushes Back Against Biden’s Immigration Policy

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 24, 2022:  

A Trump-appointed federal judge on Tuesday tossed part of the Biden administration’s immigration agenda as spelled out by his DHS (Department of Homeland Security) secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. District Judge Michael Newman ruled that the Biden administration exceeded Congress’ explicit instructions and instead replaced them with “discretionary” authority as to whom the DHS and its enforcement arm, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), would target for deportation.

In touting his new policy, Mayorkas told CBS News: “For the first time ever, our policy explicitly states that a non-citizen’s unlawful presence in the United States will not, by itself, be a basis for the initiation of an enforcement action.”

Mayorkas was referring to the “guidance for the apprehension and removal of noncitizens” that his department issued last September:

The federal government officials have broad discretion to decide who should be subject to arrest, detainers, removal proceedings, and the execution of removal orders … therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement action….

 

The fact [that] an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way.

In other words, they’re here illegally, but that isn’t sufficient cause to deport them. The DHS/ICE must answer the question “whether the noncitizen poses a current threat to public safety.” A simple conviction for committing a crime isn’t enough to send them home, said Mayorkas in his September 30, 2021, memorandum:

Our personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction [of a crime] … alone. Rather, our personnel should, to the fullest extent possible … review the entire criminal … record to learn the totality of the facts and circumstances of [the conviction] ….

There could be mitigating and extenuating facts and circumstances that militate in favor of declining enforcement action [against such “removable noncitizens”].

Judge Newman didn’t buy that. In the lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of the states of Arizona, Montana, and Ohio, they contended that Mayorkas and his department “skirted Congress’s immigration enforcement mandates … [declaring instead] that seemingly mandatory statutes must be read flexibly to permit efficient law enforcement.”

Wrote Newman:

At bottom, that is what this dispute is about: can the Executive displace clear congressional command in the name of resource allocation and enforcement goals?

 

Here, the answer is no.

To buttress his case, Newman quoted a small portion of a landmark Supreme Court case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.

Accordingly, Newman enjoined enforcement of the offending portions of Mayorkas’ guidance.

The rest of the quote from Youngstown is helpful in more fully understanding the vital connection between the separation of powers and individual freedom:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.

 

The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.

 

And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute….

 

The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.…

 

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law-making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.

The Founders did this for two reasons: they knew the true dark nature of man, and they knew that the only way for individual citizens to enjoy freedom was to limit severely the powers of government run by sinful and power-hungry men.

The present ruling may not be enough to keep Biden and his DHS secretary from finding other ways to exceed congressional authority, but it does light the way to understanding what is, as Newman wrote, “at bottom” in the fight for liberty: the limitation of government through the separation of powers.

Liz Cheney Repeats Claim That Trump “Provoked January 6 Attack,” Must Suffer “Enhanced Criminal Penalties”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 21, 2022:  

Liz Cheney, co-chair of the infamous January 6 investigative committee, tried to breathe life into the dormant and essentially invisible effort to turn the event into a political tool Democrats can use in November. After months of investigation by the Democrat-controlled committee (also including two rabid Republican anti-Trumpers, Cheney and Adam Schiff), she breathlessly told Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday:

We’re looking at things like: do we need additional enhanced criminal penalties for the kind of supreme dereliction of duty that you saw with [President Donald] Trump when he refused to tell the mob to go home after he had provoked that attack on the Capitol?

After issuing 90 subpoenas and hearing testimony from almost 700 witnesses, this is all she could come up with: “There will be legislative recommendations, and there certainly will be new information.”

But she is sure that former President Trump is guilty of something:

I have not learned a single thing since I have been on this committee that has made me less concerned or less worried about the gravity of the situation and the actions that President Trump took and also refused to take while the attack was underway.

The Washington Post has exposed the sham and the fraud: The committee is nothing more than a political weapon to be used against Trump and his supporters in an attempt to influence the midterm elections in November. Wrote the Post: “They’ll attempt to do so this spring through public hearings, along with a potential interim report and a final report that will be published ahead of the November midterms — with the findings likely [to be] a key part of the Democrats’ midterm strategy.”

Daniel Oliver, chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute (ERI), writing in Human Events, agrees:

The Pelosi committee is just a tool: a tool with which the Democrats are attempting to discredit Republicans of all stripes and to win the 2022 election … and perhaps also cover up Pelosi’s own rejection of National Guard assistance on January 6….

 

The goal of her committee members is not to discover the truth; they don’t care about the truth any more than they cared about the truth of the now wholly debunked Trump-Russia collusion story, which we now know (we always surmised it) was a Hillary Clinton campaign dirty trick.

 

The immediate goal of the Pelosi cabal is just another dirty trick … poison the 2022 elections.

The only problem with that strategy is that the American people don’t care. They do care about high and increasing gas and grocery prices.  They do care about the increase in violent crime, they do care about the Russian attacks on Ukraine, they do care about the immigration flood overwhelming the nation’s southern border. What don’t they care about? The Cheney/Pelosi farce that is the only tool Democrats think they might have to avoid a cataclysmic, historic bashing in November.

The Cheney/Pelosi cabal will enlist the help of the compliant media. As The Washington Post explained:

[The January committee is] seeking to compile dramatic videos, texts and emails in a digital format that is easy to understand — and easy to share on social media.

 

And they want to put together blockbuster hearings that the public actually tunes into.

But even if they build it, people won’t come. They’ll be much more focused on the failures of the Biden administration and his Democratic enablers in the House and the Senate. And polls show that they’re prepared to do something historic come November: possibly so weaken the Democratic Party with such devastating losses that it will, for a time at least, cease to function as a credible political party.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann