It would be one thing if there was "overwhelming support" for a Jan 6th commisssion

Poll: Americans split on Jan. 6 commission - 52-48

Voters are split on whether Congress should launch its own investigation into the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.

The current divide among voters over whether a congressional investigation is needed to get to the bottom of the attack largely falls along party lines. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say they support such a commission compared with 38 percent of Republicans.

Conversely, 62 percent of Republicans believe that the FBI and Justice Department investigations are sufficient, a view shared by only 31 percent of Democrats. Independent voters, meanwhile, were split 50-50 on the matter.

"The commission is simply seen as a partisan political football as the country is simply split on partisan lines in their view of the commission," said Mark Penn, director of the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.

The reality is that this separate political commission to politically investigate and politically draw conclusions so that a political report can be written for political reasons is only supported by people of one political affiliation.

Of course the political people supporting this political investigation are not interested in the answers that they have been given in the criminal complaints. The professional investigators are actually tied to the law and can provide legal answers.  The political people supporting this political investigation want answers that satisfy them politically. 

Democrats and liberals want to demand that the 400 or so people out of 30,000 at the rally were a violent threat to the sanctity of our democracy and they want to demand without any evidence what-so-ever that this was some sort of coup. The problem is that the charges against the bulk of these 400 people are akin to misdemeanor trespassing charges and under normal legal circumstances the majority of these might not even stick. 

A real investigation by the FBI and others within law enforcement has already disproven much of the rhetoric.

• A cop was not murdered
• This was not an armed attack on the capital (only three gun charges were filed. None of them were in the building)
• There was no coordinated conspiracy to be found

The reality is that this was a rally that was 98.6% peaceful (as in 98.6% of those at the Trump rally were not involved trespassing in the Capital building or charged with any crimes).  It's not a "mostly peaceful" situation where the claim is made because some people where "mostly peaceful" but then were violent for a short period of time. This was a situation where 98.6% of those in attendance did nothing violent, and the 1.4% who were less than peaceful were largely only trespassing. 

The problem is that any actual real investigation (like the one that the FBI is engaged in) has no choice but to reach these conclusions. Try as they may to charge people with multiple misdemeanors and even charging them with picketing on Federal grounds (as if that is the crime we need prosecuted), they can still only charge the people they can charge and only charge them for what they did which was mostly walk into the Capital building (in many cases being let in by Capital police) and then walking back out when told to. 

The politically motivated "commission" that the political people want is something with the preconceived and predetermined belief that this was a violent coup somehow directed and incited by Donald Trump. Of course, if there was evidence of Donald Trump directing or inciting the violence, then the FBI would have already arrested him. 

But a politically motivated "commission" would not be bound by the law, facts, rights of the accused or anything else. They would be free to come to the foregone conclusions that the politically partisan people are convinced need to be expressed in some sort of "official capacity". Because as time moves on, they are losing the argument about how Jan 6th was the second coming of Sept 11th. 

 

Democrats in Texas throw temper tantrum and walk out of session

Governor Abbot responds by order a special session!

Democrats have officially thrown a hissy fit in response to Texas’ prospective election security law. They stormed off the Texas House floor, denying a vote on the measure last night. The move also ends the current legislative session.

Of course, if you were to ask your average Democrat what is so objectionable about the law, they’d have no answer because it’s not objectionable. Its main factors include things like standardizing mail-in and drive-through voting procedures that were adopted during the pandemic. Democrats oppose doing that because they apparently believe living in a perpetual state of emergency when it comes to voting measures benefits them electorally.

Fortunately, Gov. Greg Abbott was ready to deliver the proper response to this attempt at obstruction. He’s going to be calling a special session soon which can not be ended simply because the minority party walks out.

I wonder out loud how many liberals support this move? Obviously Democrats are a large minority in Texas and have no other move to stop legislation than to literally storm out of session so that there is not a quorum to take the vote. It will not ultimately work, as the bill will reach the Governor's desk, it will be signed into law, and it will survive the obligatory court challenges.

Do rank and file liberals oppose voting laws so venomously that they feel that this sort of minority (not just in the legislation, but in the state) should be able to prevent a popular bill from getting a vote cause of a tantrum?

Just curious...  

Memorial day

or as our Vice President would call it - a long weekend

The fact that this is even a headline in the twenty first century is amazing

Court rules against using race, sex to allocate federal COVID aid

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of a conservative legal group that sought to stop President Joe Biden’s administration from giving priority status for COVID-19 relief to restaurants and bars owned by women and certain minorities. 

The U.S. 6th Circuit Appeals Court issued a 2-1 opinion Thursday that said the government cannot allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on race and sex. It issued an order for the government to stop using the criteria when processing an application from Antonio Vitolo, an East Tennessee restaurant owner.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Bernice Bouie Donald said she found that the Restaurant Revitalization Fund was a “carefully targeted measure necessitated by an unparalleled pandemic” that would not have caused the plaintiffs irreparable harm.

So does the dissenting opinion include how the "carefully targeted measure" that just happens to include aid for every business owner "except" White males does not harm White males? Did the Biden Administration order provide evidence that businesses owned by White males were not harmed as much by Covid as businesses held by others? 

This is another classic example of the Biden Administration being committed to keeping race and race baiting front and center. It's also likely part of the reason why people are getting fed up with the race baiting.

As reality sets in!

Poll: More Americans now say violent crime is a 'very big problem' than say the same about COVID-19

So the two issues that appeared to vault Biden to the Presidency (Covid and Race) are dropping in terms of what people see as important problems. Now it is possible that some will argue that somehow Biden himself has managed to solve the Covid and the race problems in his four months in office, but something more logical says that is not the case. 

Covid was always a limited event and there was always going to be time where people would feel we were on the right track. While just as many people are dying today as were dying back in July of 2020 (when the first poll was taken) the fact that a vaccine is available and that the country has mostly reopened is why people are bullish on the issue. The bigger issue here is that neither Republicans or Democrats really want Covid to be an issue. Now that Trump is no longer around to "blame" for the virus, the media seems less interested in how many cases and deaths are counted daily. 

On the flip side there are still many on the left who are loath to let go of Covid and the restrictions in place. There are still liberals out there who "love" the concept of mask wearing and "love" the concept of following the rules set forth by the mighty gods of government. The ability for them to "look down" on people for not following the mandates and restrictions will be sorely missed. 

Race relations is a funny one. Nothing much has changed (other than the Chauvin verdict). Race is still in the forefront of the news. Democrats are pushing hard for Critical Race Theory to become somehow codified into legal existence. Democrats in many areas are still pushing police reform, if not police defunding. Democrats are pushing laws that tie aid and assistances to minorities and pretty much everyone not a white male. Democrats still need race to be a big issue in order to push their agenda and probably to win election. They talk about it everyday with increased vigor. 

But yet, the issue has started to fade. It's probably a little bit higher (in terms of visibility) than it was prior to the George Floyd fiasco, but it's not where it has been and it will probably not see that sort of concern again. In fact, I might expect that it will continue to fade as the public's viewpoint for CRT and other race motivated government imposed concepts start to meet up with resistance. 

In many ways, the increase in people worried about "violent crime" is a reverse correlation to the number of people who view race relations as a problem. When race relations was the big thing, it seemed Americans were willing to accept a little bit of violent crime as a justified reaction to the horrors of being part of the 40% in this country who are not white. Now that the feelings about race are no longer as strong, the idea of "violent crime" is no longer palatable. 

Meanwhile as violent crime surges in minority communities and non-white invoked interracial attacks keep piling up, people become concerned by the crime for the crime's sake. When they no longer see it as a temporary situation induced by short term events, it just becomes crime. 

And let's be honest here. When the Biden Administration all the up to the Attorney General tell us that the worst crime we have to fear right now is from "White supremacy" - how can we possibly believe that our Administration is taking the real crime seriously. There is only so much you can hide and obscure from the public eye. 

Either way, if the 2022 elections are about crime and the economy rather than Covid and race, then the Democrats will certainly be playing defense. With a fairly tough map to navigate (especially in the House) it's going to be extremely difficult for Democrats to hold on to both chambers. 

Sunday Funnies

Signs!

Sign, sign

Everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that
Can't you read the sign?

Now, hey you, mister, can't you read?
You got to have a mask or two to get a seat
You can't even watch, no, you can't eat
You ain't supposed to be here

The sign said, "You've got to have a vaccine passport to get inside"

Uh

Sign, sign
Everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that
Can't you read the sign?

The facts are starting to change regarding Covid-19

Our media suppressed the truth and pushed propaganda

So it now appears all but certain that Covid-19 was not a natural cross-species virus, but rather a man-made virus that escaped from a lab in Wuhan. The cross-species explanation was never a very good one and had little evidence to support it. At the same time, the more plausible theory of a lab leak was denied and even banished. 

Meanwhile, we have seen another half dozen studies released over the past couple of months showing both empirical and statistical evidence that mask wearing did very little (if anything) to stop the spread of the Covid-19 virus. For every study showing an actual relation between mask wearing and a drop in cases, there were three or four showing no correlation. 

Yet, our media demanded that the Wuhan lab leak was some sort of disinformation and our social media giants banned any mention or discussion of this. Our media and pretty much every aspect of our American culture embraced an almost cult-like mask wearing agenda, while treating dissent as if it came from toothless uneducated hillbillies who hated science. 

The question isn't whether or not these false assumptions were justified or not justified, the question is when did our country become a country where the truth can actually be systematically suppressed and anyone even suggesting the truth would be banished and punished. Obviously there can be no suggestion by anyone at this point that the tramping down on dissent was about following any real "science".  There was also science and scientists who differed from the mainstream propaganda. They were just silenced. Apparently silenced for being correct.

But maybe the bigger question is why? 

Why was the very legitimate concept that Covid-19 was a possible lab-experiment gone wrong being attacked so harshly, mainly from the same people who have pushed false narratives such as the Trump Russia collusion or that January 6th was worse than September 11th?  Why did the political class work so hard to crush any dissent on mask wearing, in spite of limited evidence that it was working? 

But mainly, why was there a "need" to demand that all opinions be in lock-step with conventional wisdom. This is not only illogical and impractical, but it goes against the very fabric of what our country has stood for since it's inception. Sadly, that fabric is in tatters and being replaced with the fabric of crushing dissent and canceling anyone who disagrees with what has been decreed by the rich and powerful to be the truth.

Unfortunately I doubt very seriously that our new generation of Americans will be able to learn anything from this. The new liberalism (and I cringe to even say this) is about following the crowd and blindly listening to the propaganda of their political heroes and media lackeys. The only authority apparently worth questioning today is our first responders and law enforcement who are putting their lives on the line. That is only because their political and social leaders are telling them to do so. Sheep in lockstep. 

This attitude is the very thing that the hippy generation and every other generation of liberalism fought against. It most certainly would have been the liberals of any other generation who would have been the ones taking the stand against Government mandates and "signs" everywhere telling them what to do. Interestingly it probably would have been the conservatives from any other generation who would have followed the orders. 

 

How will redistricting affect the 2022 race?

Obviously were are early into things - but this is telling

The University of Virginia Center of Politics released a report earlier this month showing that incumbent Democrats will already face an uphill battle in 2022 because of redistricting. According to the report, only two Republicans face toss-up races.

“What stands out here is the tiny number of Republicans in the Toss-up column, just two, versus the large number of Democrats there (19),” the report reads. “Overall, these ratings show 211 districts at least leaning to the Republicans, 203 at least leaning to the Democrats, and 21 Toss-ups (19 held by Democrats, two held by Republicans). Splitting the Toss-ups roughly down the middle – let’s say 11-10 Republican – would result in a 222-213 Republican majority, good for a nine-seat Republican net gain and a narrow majority the same size as the one Democrats elected in November.”

You can open up an interesting associated survey with this link. It looks at ten battleground districts and takes a look at what is and isn't popular. For instance, Joe Biden seems to be personally pretty popular. But his plans to increase taxes, add to the deficit, or pass a large stimulus are pretty unpopular.

For instance, in these swing districts the range was between 18% and 29% in terms of those who support a tax rate increase. Close to half in most of these districts would like to see taxes lowered. The rest would like them to remain the same. Large majorities suggest that a targeted plan to raise the taxes on just the rich will end up impacting more than just the rich. Somewhere between 58% and 68% say that raising taxes will negatively impact the economy.

Meanwhile there is overwhelming disapproval regarding the idea of spending 4 trillion dollars on infrastructure and a majority of voters in every district are non-supportive of any spending bill larger than 1 trillion. In fact only somewhere between 9% and13% supported anything over 2 trillion when asked to provide a range that they were comfortable with.

Meanwhile, a majority want any infrastructure bill to pass with bi-partisan support and a majority of people in these districts blame "both" sides for a lack of bi-partisanship. This does not suggest that the 2022 swing districts are going to be on board with the Democratic plans to bust up the filibuster so they can start passing bills 50-50 with a tie-breaker. 

It's early in the cycle folks and redistricting will shake things up. But at this point, it looks like Democrats would have to see things change in their favor over the next year or so to see this swing back to their side. 

Will this just become the non-stop story?

Manchin says he's not willing to abolish filibuster over Jan. 6 commission

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday he is not willing to abolish the legislative filibuster if Republicans block the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which they are set to do within hours.

Why it matters: Manchin — a crucial moderate swing vote — has blasted GOP leadership over the Jan. 6 commission and said "there is no excuse for any Republican to vote against" the bill. But his view has still not changed on eliminating or altering the filibuster, even if it prevents his party from passing key legislation.

What they're saying: "I'm not willing to destroy our government, no," Manchin said when asked if he would vote to end the filibuster if Republicans blocked the commission.

This appears to be an ongoing situation where every time there is legislation that does not have the support of 60 Senators, that "this" will be the time that Joe Manchin will vote to eliminate the filibuster. It's almost as if these stories are written by people who actually do not understand how the filibuster works or the point of it in the first place. The entire "point" of the filibuster is the belief that at least one of our two chambers provides enough minority support for a bill for it to become law. It's the very nature of preventing a 50%+1 vote to rule everything. 

Meanwhile, these same pundits seem to forget that there are other Democratic Senators who have been outspoken against abolishing the filibuster and there are said to be many more who do not favor it (but don't believe it is advantageous at this point to make the argument out loud). Joe Manchin is not the only Democrat that would need to be convinced of this and the entire world does not rest upon his shoulders. 

With 2022 looming it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats do not appear confident that they will hold or expand their majorities and are likely thinking this is there last best chance to really radically alter things.  It seems like yesterday that Barack Obama was swept into office with a huge House majority and 60 seats in the Senate. What they did with that 60 seat majority was pass Obamacare and little else. 

The ludicrous nature of Biden's 6 trillion dollar budget proposal

Let's start with the projections that will we probably see around 3.5 trillion in revenues

So here we are. Coming back out of Covid and supposedly watching the economy roar back as it should after a year or more of depressed spending. There should be no real need to inject more money into an economy that has this much built up demand for... well, pretty much everything.

Given we already have passed around 4 trillion in new Covid spending already, much of which has been or will be spent in 2021. Given that that one time infusion gave us a one year deficit of over three trillion dollars, there is little "Covid related" reasoning to be either looking for another two trillion in stimulus, much less an actual budget that is approximately a third higher than the 2019 pre-Covid budget (4.4 trillion). 

The truth of the matter is that Democrats are struggling right now to come up with a cohesive political strategy now that Trump the boogieman is gone. Short of keeping the Capital riot or New York investigations of Trump in the news for the 18 months or so, Democrats will need "something" to talk about in 2022. At this point the only thing they are doing is complaining about the few things in the country that they are unable to control.  Complain, bitch, and moan... not exactly the best election strategy if you want "my" humble opinion.

So apparently providing giant amounts of deficit spending, spurring inflation, and and making the debt unrealistically huge will be their new calling card. I wonder out loud how that will all play out once everything is said and done. Funny thing is that the pre-Covid economy was one of the best economies of our lifetime. We did it with limited increases in our yearly spending and mostly with fiscal policy that was not about new spending. So it shouldn't take 2-3 more trillion in deficit spending over the next years or so to get us back to where we were. That is the lazy man approach to economic stimulus, just as "throwing money" at any problem is the lazy man approach. 

Senator Scott embarrasses woke Bankers who lapped up the rhetoric about Georgia voting law

Woke capitalism': Tim Scott presses big bank CEOs over Georgia voting law

Scott then pivoted back to the main thrust of his question, which wasn’t about the decision to sign the letter but rather what was the specific aspect of the Georgia voting law that the bankers might have found discriminatory. The senator pointed out that the GOP-backed legislation actually increased the number of early voting days and codified the use of ballot drop boxes.

“If you are actually making it easier to vote but harder to cheat, what part of that law was discriminatory or restricted access? I’ve been studying the law. … From my perspective, and frankly from the words on the paper … it did not prevent anyone voting, and frankly, it made it easier to vote earlier,” he said

The senator said he finds it “disheartening” as a former member of some of the institutions and as an account holder and member of others “that you all have taken such a strong clear position but can’t or won’t articulate the reason for that position.”

Scott then paused for about 15 seconds, staring straight into the camera and waiting for one of the executives to respond to his remarks — not one of the bankers did.

This is simple boys and girls. There really isn't any good explanation. As Senator Scott states, if you study the law and read the "words on the paper" the law is actually making it easier to vote. We are now at the point where the main mouthpiece for this (Stacey Abrams)  is literally admitting that the law actually doesn't discriminate or make it harder to vote (as it is written). She apparently just believes that somehow the law as "written" will somehow be "implemented" in other ways. How anyone actually accomplishes any of that new law bait and switch is not explained. In fact, as pointed out recently, she just shrugs off the idea that the law would be followed as if the very concept of a state following their own election laws is absurd.

Now it would be one thing if Georgia holds their next election and they actually do not follow the law as written and somehow actually figure out manners in which to discriminate outside of the law. Then Abrams and the rest of the conspiracy theorist could make an actual claim. But at this point, the concept is basically that they don't like the new law largely because it is creating oversight to the actual "counting of votes" - which makes them want to bang their collective heads against the wall in an absolute tirade of anger and frustration. But rather than admit this is about oversight and making sure that vote counting is timely and transparent, they claim what they always claim when they are losing an argument....

Racism.

Tucker, The Five, Hannity, back on top as they should be!

CNN's viewership skids so low it's embarrassing

as per the latest Nielsen ratings, CNN has continued to hemorrhage viewers with primetime and entire day total viewership down over 70 percent since January.

Nielsen Media Research has the breakdown and it’s not pretty, no matter how the Zucker Borg would spin it. Since a January high of roughly 798,000 primetime viewers and 530,000 total day viewers in the 25-54 demographic, CNN has fallen off a cliff and into the pit of misery with the network fetching only 229,000 in primetime and 152,000 in total day over the past month.

So why are the liberals desperately trying to keep Trump in the news? Because apparently nobody is interested in watching the CNN personnel fellate the President and other Democrats. What is funny is if you look further down the list (I only included the top 30),  you actually see CNN programs being beaten by Newsmax programs. How embarrassing. 

I am a low key patient man... but...

More mask fights breaking out on planes

In a typical year prior to the pandemic, the FAA reports that they generally received between 100 and 150 “passenger misconduct” incident reports. In the first four months of 2021, they have received 2,500, with more than 1,900 being specific to the mask mandate. That’s not an “uptick.” That’s an increase of more than 1,000%.

I’m not in any way endorsing violence against flight attendants as a solution to a passenger’s issues. The people who do this need to be held accountable. Those flight crews didn’t make those rules, but are simply the unfortunate souls who were put in charge of enforcing them on the front lines.

There comes a time when these airlines sort of have to look in the mirror and wonder if some of this has something to do with themselves? We are not hearing massive issues with mask fights in restaurants, or mask fights in Targets, or Starbucks, or most any other place where masks are mandated. But we do hear about them on planes... all the time.

Now I have twice traveled on a plane since Covid. That was four separate plane trips. On every one of those plane trips I had to endure what wasn't just a mask mandate, but the constant hypervigilance of the flight attendants spending 90% of their times hassling people about their masks. 

"Sir, can you make sure your mask is higher up on your face." 

"Ma'am, can you make sure you put your mask back on in between your bites of your sandwich."

"Sir, Ma'am, Sir, Ma'am, Sir, Ma'am... 

Bu about the third or fourth time a different attendant told me my mask needed to higher up on my face (it was clearly covering my nose and mouth) I was getting pretty close to being one of those people who goes off. On the flight where I brought my son, both my son, myself, and several around us were told multiple times that we were not wearing our masks "properly" even as this is exactly the way I have worn a mask everywhere else, even to medical appointments. If it is good enough for a doctor or dentist, then it is good enough for a plane.

So it's not that the planes have a mask mandate. It's specifically the attitudes of the flight attendants. Not sure if there is some sort of special school of condescendence they are forced to attend or if they are just naturally that way, but these were not happy friendly people that flight attendants usually appear to be.  If they are just "following the rules" of flight travel, then those rules need a serious adjustment. 

More to the point, I don't generally fly coach. So when you hassle people who pay good money to upgrade their flight experience, you are likely hassling and being condescending to people who are largely successful and largely competent people, who are not going to react well to a flight attendant constantly telling them that their mask is too low or that they cannot eat or drink without putting their mask on and off and on and off. 

Perhaps that was part of the problem in all of this. Flight attendants suddenly felt like they had this new found power to hassle and otherwise appear condescending to those who may have looked down on or were condescending to them, previously? I don't know. I generally get along well with flight attendants and generally even end up in conversations with them. But not on these past couple of trips. 

 

Democrats from Schiff to Booker raising money for New Mexico Democrat running for congressional seat

Democrats nervous and GOP hopeful that New Mexico election is 2022 bellwether

Big-name Democrats such as Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent messages about Stansbury to their lists, helping her bring in $1.3 million in contributions to nearly $400,000 for Moores as of May 12.

“I think they're scared,” Moores said. The New Mexico Democratic Party central committee, which selected Stansbury as the nominee for the special election by a slim margin, ”is so progressive, so radical, that they picked someone who was just completely radical to run who doesn't meet the history or the values of this district,” he said.

All that being said, there seems to be very little chance for Moore to even make this a close contest, much less win. Biden won this district by 23 points, Democrats have a 47-28 registration advantage, and the only poll I have seen has Stansbury up by 16 points. But the reasoning I suppose is whether or not Stansbury can live up to expectations and history in this race. 

With four candidates (including a libertarian) on the ballot, the question appears to be whether or not Standsbury can come close to matching the 58% that former incumbent Rep Haaland got just a few months ago. If this turns into a real contest in this Albuquerque district (the closest thing to an urban big city district that New Mexico has) that could be a sign of a very tough 2022 for Democrats.  

The left continues to demand investigations of Trump....

To avert attention from what a bungled mess Biden is making of things and the legal issues he really should be facing...

At the very least the nearly three year obsession with the 2016 election was about Trump, who was in office. As dumb, pointless, and repetitive as it was to hold five different investigations into the election alone at least it was relevant to those who were running the country. Moreover the offshoot investigations into campaign fraud and other things were similarly pointless, but again at least they were about the man running the country. 

However, when there was an attempt to investigate Hunter Biden, these same investigation happy people demanded that such a thing would be political. Not explaining the difference as to why it would be political to investigate the son of a potential Democratic candidate, but how it was not political to hold about two dozen different investigations into Trump himself, who btw still walks around unindicted for anything related to any of it. 

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Now, as we have continued to uncover more evidence that Hunter Biden sold political influence and that his father was involved, we are hearing "crickets" from the investigation happy media. Instead they focus their attention on New York prosecutors going after Rudy Giuliani with the hopes of getting to Trump or more specifically the Trump organization. 

Apparently after years of both the Trump Organization and Trump himself being audited by the IRS and the IRS not finding any crimes to speak of, the NY prosecutors must believe that they are some sort of Enron. As it is, there really isn't a manner to simply charge Donald Trump with Trump Organization crimes without also charging the accountants and executives responsible for whatever fraud or tax crimes they believe were committed. 

To date, the only rumors we have heard is that the NY prosecutors would like to suggest that property values are either under  or overinflated based on need. Considering every appraisal is in a range and two different appraisals from two different appraisers on the same property can come back  with different values,  proving fraud is hard to do. It would have to start (obviously) with the people doing the appraising (not the President of the company).  The prosecutors would have to literally charge everyone from the appraiser, to accountants, to the executives and everyone in between before you can get to Trump himself (who you would have to prove was aware of both the activity and that it was illegal). 

Seems like a lot of people would have to get hurt to get to Trump. Then again, we could ask all of the people like George Papadopoulos and General Flynn about how the authorities are willing to throw people under the bus in hopes a bagging the big one. Hurting people for sake of being involved with Donald Trump doesn't seem to make any of these crazies break a sweat. 

Meanwhile, Hunter and Joe move along in their daily lives knowing that smoking gun email evidence suggesting that Hunter illegally sold his daddy's influence to foreign entities will never become a full fledged investigation as long as they run the Justice Department and as long as the media is more interested in distracting their followers with news about the former President.

What are they afraid of - part XCVIII

There are three points that are obvious to me when it comes to 2020 election audits.

1. That they should have been done immediately following the election without having to go through weeks or months of court battles
2. That the sort of audits being conducted are unlikely to find the sort of fraud or tampering that these counties have been accused of
3. That it is well past time to move on from 2020 and focus on creating new laws that completely overhaul the methods that we use to count and report on the elections

The fact that audits were fought at all gives the appearance of guilt. Arguing that audits have been done is fairly dishonest. Election results have certain checks and balances (audits as it were) already in place. But these are cursory checks and really designed to weed out possible mistakes, not possible malfeasance. Even your basic hand recount is simply rooting out mistakes, not identifying fraud. 

But even a more drawn out audit is unlikely to find smoking gun evidence of malfeasance. 

I have never been one to believe that ballot box machines were switching votes or some of the more outlandish theories that have been provided. It's possible that ballots could have been double counted, but there has been months since the election and there has been plenty of time to have covered those tracks. Keep in mind that one of the more serious allegations from the Maricopa audit has been that they have been finding ballot boxes that had the seal broken. That in and of itself has no real good explanation, but it would be nearly impossible to prove anything above and beyond the fact that they were tampered with. 

Not a single person on the left will allow for the least bit of outrage for a tampered ballot box. 

If there was fraud or tampering at the county levels, then it happened within the first few hours or few days of the election. It would have been done in a manner that would not leave a trail to follow. There are likely 101 different ways to cheat if one was so inclined. At least 99 of them would leave no trail. Why used a method that does? Only the daft and arrogant would do so.

This is why I have said over and over and over that we should be looking "forward" and producing new laws and procedures to make our elections more secure and to finally address the issues with the post election counting. I would rather see no additional audits of the 2020 elections and instead have the GOP lawmakers put their energy into securing more laws like the one coming out of Georgia. 

Even if one could provide absolute evidence that the explanation for these statistically improbable results was malfeasance, it wouldn't change the election results.  The whole audit thing seems to be both a political play and an exercise in futility. They will score points with certain groups by performing them. They will make Democratic counties look guilty when they oppose them, then they will turn around and be dissatisfied with the results and demand more.

This is exactly the same playbook that was used to undermine the 2016 election of Donald Trump. When the first congressional investigation fails to come back with evidence of collusion. They do another. When the FBI does not come back with evidence of collusion, they order a Special Counsel. Every time they came back empty. Every time they demanded more investigations. Even when the final report was brought back in May of 2019 (imagine us still investigating 2020 in 2023) there were those still unsatisfied. 

But just as there are those who reject the notion that over two years of investigations coming up empty proved there was no collusion, there are going to be those who will reject the notion that more audits coming back without a smoking gun proves there was no fraud. Not sure what point there is to demand anything differently. 

Murderapolis Minnesota - one year anniversary of the George Floyd fiasco

A Year After George Floyd’s Murder, It’s ‘Open Season’ in Minneapolis

Al Sharpton and civil-rights attorney Benjamin Crump led a march in downtown Minneapolis Sunday in advance of the first anniversary of George Floyd’s death on May 25. Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of Floyd’s murder last month.

Messrs. Sharpton and Crump didn’t visit North Memorial Health Hospital, where two recent victims of a yearlong explosion of violence in Minneapolis are on life support. On April 30 Ladavionne Garrett Jr., 10, was riding in a car with his parents when a gunman opened fire. A bullet pierced Ladavionne’s head; doctors put him in a medically induced coma and removed part of his skull to relieve swelling on the brain. On May 15, 9-year-old Trinity Ottoson-Smith was jumping on a trampoline at a friend’s house when bullets fired from a passing car struck her in the head. She is also in critical condition at North Memorial, in the room next to Ladavionne’s.

Nineteen children in Minneapolis have been shot this year, an increase of 171% over the same period in 2020. Their relatives wonder where the protesters are. “Why ain’t nobody mad about a 10-year-old, my grandson, fighting for his life?” asked Sharrie Jennings, Ladavionne’s grandmother, at a May 17 mayoral event. “Because a cop didn’t shoot him, is that why?” Ms. Jennings warned of “a deadly summer” for kids if the mayor and police chief don’t “step up.” Later that day, Aniya Allen, 6, was caught in a shootout between rival gangs while in her mother’s car. Aniya died on May 19.

Minneapolis homicides between Jan. 1 and last week were up 108% compared with the same period in 2020; shootings were up 153%, and carjackings 222%. The crime increase began after Floyd’s death and has never let up. Nor has the assault on law enforcement that began with the arson destruction of the Third Precinct building on May 28, 2020. Officers are routinely punched, kicked and hit with projectiles.

Here in the Twin Cities we are actually witnessing real violence, real attacks on law enforcement, and real actions of open hostility towards authority. Little children are being shot and killed and what are the social justice warrior up in arms over? Not the deaths of young children, or even the deaths of inner-city black children. Nope, they are still up in arms over some white people who trespassed at the Capital and "disrupted" our Congress.

Boy oh boy, we all need to feel sympathy for Nancy Pelosi because someone sat in her chair, or possibly Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who was in a nearby building and clamed she feared for her life from these errant unarmed trespassers that never got within 500 yards of her. We need to worry about the personal psyche of all of those liberals who are traumatized by the idea that people still question the Joe Biden win. Can't you just see them being forced to take medication and a nap from all the stress and energy of clutching those pearls. 

Rather than do anything about the crime in Minneapolis and other cities across America, our law enforcement breaks down the doors of people who's only crime was being at a peaceful rally and no where's near the trespassers who wandered through the Capital building. We let kid-shooters go free without charges, while holding people charged with misdemeanors in jail without bail. We demand that we "defund the police" in Minneapolis while they won't even release the identity of the Capital police officer who gunned down and murdered an unarmed Army vet in cold blood. 

Happy anniversary, everyone. 

This is both sad and funny...

"What they (Republican Georgia Legislatures) will say in response is that it doesn't say that in the law."

 

  "what's on the paper is just the precursor to what happens in reality"

So to be clear here, Stacy Abrams is decrying a law, admittedly not for what it actually states, but is decrying a law based on what she apparently believes that it might mean. Make no mistake, nothing she actually suggests here (or what Lawrence O'Donnell suggests) in the four minute video is actually part of the law. They are quite literally coming up with their own horror story about a law completely different from the one passed in Georgia. 

People will not be waiting in line for seven hours without water. There is nothing in the law that allows the legislatures to "change" the results of the counts. There is nothing within the law that prevents election lawsuits. This is all nonsense, and it is now what has been determined to be journalism in 2021. You quite literally interview someone, let them make shit up about a law, while downplaying the obvious disclaimer that the shit they are making up is not in the law. Complete with a chuckle, suggesting that the fact it is not in the law is obviously irrelevant to the argument (when of course it's the only relative issue at hand). 

Moreover, where on earth did these people get the impression that somehow the legislature is overstepping boundaries or otherwise is meddling. The constitution provides 100% control over elections to the legislature. The power to decide how people vote, how those votes are counted, and pretty much everything about elections are 100% within the hands of the legislature. There is zero constitutional argument that unelected local election workers get to decide ANYTHING. They are there to follow the law. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be the most dedicated hard working people in the world, but they still don't get to do anything other than what the law tells them to do. 

But this is what it has openly come to here folks. Abrams and others do not like the Georgia election law so they quite literally attack it with open falsehoods. She literally tells you that what she is saying isn't actually factual. She literally openly admits that all of her criticism  regarding the law are of things that are not literally in the law. But apparently she believes by hiding this truth in plain sight, that she can get away with it. Obviously this sort of fantasy has a place at MSNBC! 

One of the greatest sports feats in history!

Phil Mickelson wins Major at age 50! 

Oh and nice to see a couple of fans there!

New poll!

We all know Roger stated that Critical Race Theory was radical and crazy and that it was not part of the Democratic Party ideals.

 

How long till Roger embraces Critical Race Theory

One day

One week

Already has

 

But how long will it take for the Sheeple Roger to follow his marching orders and start to embrace the concept that everything in this country is based on White Supremacy and that all disparities between people are due to racism?

Obsessed liberals with Trump Derangement Syndrome

Demand that we need another Russian Collusion style commission to keep the Capital Riot in the public forefront, in order to keep Trump hate relevant. Demanding that we need to continue to investigate and investigate and investigate Trump and his supporters over the "big lie". 

But they completely blow a gasket and go into a massive fit of rage if anyone actually wants to audit the election? Which of course is the pretense of investigating the affects of the "big lie". They continue to demand that there was absolutely no election fraud and suggesting so is part of the "big lie". 

But don't you have to first prove something is a lie before you can call it such? Doesn't the concept of preventing the very audits that would (by their theory) prove exactly that fly in the face of their reasoning? Shouldn't we actually investigate whether or not the "big lie" is a lie before investigating how the "big lie" might have affected things?  

Ironically... they cannot seem to fathom why the narrative falls so short and why conservatives, most moderates, and pretty much all non-never-Trump republicans reject it out of hand?

CNN fires Santorum for true comment while Cuomo is excused for advising his brother on the best way to handle sexual harassment allegations?

Santorum fired for saying that Native Americans have not contributed much to American culture 

So where to begin? First and foremost, what Rick Santorum said was blatantly obvious. The sun rises in the east, death and taxes, and our American culture has almost nothing to do with Native American Indian. Now whether we believe that this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. It is obviously true. To be fired for making a factual statement, because that particular fact upsets certain people is why our society is crippling itself with "wokeness". There used to be a fairly significant ideal that the truth was the great equalizer. You couldn't sue someone for defamation unless what they stated was blatantly untrue. In 2021 we "cancel" people for making true factual statements that certain people simply do not like.

Secondly, how is it that making a factual statement about our history is a firing offense, but standing up for someone accused of sexual harassments is fine and dandy. This is not just a double standard, but the clear difference is that Santorum was no longer needed at CNN, while Cuomo is a liberal standard on the show, and therefor more necessary moving forward.

To be honest, Santorum was never anything more than a never-Trumper conservative whose purpose was not to argue conservative positions, but to pile on the attacks on the President. Now that President Trump is no longer President Trump, what purpose did Santorum play at CNN? Other than being a never-Trumper Santorum is a fairly conservative religious guy. There is literally no reason why CNN needed any of that or that the dwindling viewership of CNN was interested in what he had to say.

This was an excuse, more than anything else, to rid themselves of a voice that they no longer wanted to hear.

 

Sunday Funnies