The Charade of the Partisan J6 Committee Exposed

Association of Mature American Citizens 

"Former Trump White House aide, Peter Navarro, refused to take part in the charade, ignoring a subpoena from the committee on the grounds of executive privilege. For asserting this long-honored right in American politics, he was sent to prison."

On March 19, former Trump aide Peter Navarro was in rare form as he gave a fiery speech about Nancy Pelosi’s House Select Committee on the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol (the J6 Committee). Navarro boldly called out an “unprecedented assault on the constitutional separation of powers.” He gave hope, saying “I will gather strength from this: Donald John Trump is the nominee.” After concluding his powerful oration, Navarro stepped away from the microphone and surrendered himself to the federal Bureau of Prisons to serve his four-month sentence.

Navarro is the just one victim of the J6 Committee’s crusade to smear President Donald Trump headed by Nancy Pelosi and now-former Rep. Liz Cheney. He refused to take part in the charade, ignoring a subpoena from the committee on the grounds of executive privilege. For asserting this long-honored right in American politics, he was sent to prison.

From the moment that Nancy Pelosi first announced her plans to create a “9/11-type commission” to investigate the January 6 riot, many were skeptical of how such a commission would be handled. The Senate wisely voted down the proposal, forcing Pelosi to give up her dreams of a bicameral commission in favor of a House select committee.

Suspicions of the committee intensified when Democrats refused to seat the members selected by Republican House leadership, breaking away from tradition. As a result, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy refused to take part in the committee and instructed the rest of the Republican caucus to do the same. Only flagrantly anti-Trump Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger defied McCarthy and joined with Democrats. Kinzinger subsequently declined to seek reelection and Cheney was voted out in a landslide.

The violated protocols leading up to the formation of the J6 committee pale in comparison to the glaring partisanship displayed once the committee got underway. It was a made-for-television extravaganza produced in true Hollywood fashion, complete with surprise witnesses and plenty of over-the-top rhetoric.

Yet though these theatrics were performed in the hallowed halls of Congress, the proceedings had all the hallmarks of a Tiger King-style docu-drama. While making long overtures to democracy and uncovering the truth, the committee was actually plotting to suppress crucial evidence that undermined their narrative and cover their tracks to ensure that the American people never learned vital facts about what happened that day.

Yet, truths this big always have a way of coming to the surface in the end. Such is the case of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) which is systematically excavating everything that Nancy Pelosi tried so hard to bury.

As soon as Rep. Loudermilk began his task, he was immediately struck by the scope of the project. While an eighteen-month investigation like the J6 Committee usually results in data indexed in some type of digital catalogue, the information left behind by the Democrats was completely disorganized. Once Republicans started wading through the terabytes of data, it became clear that the Democrat committee had left them with a daunting roadblock.

When Democrats were on their way out the door following the 2022 midterm elections, they violated House rules by deleting and destroying important evidence and locking it behind passwords that have not been shared. They claimed to have handed over more than four terabytes of data to Republicans, but Loudermilk revealed that his committee had only received a little more than half that much. Much of the missing evidence may never be recovered, but Loudermilk suggested that among the missing data are reports on the investigation into the actual breach of the Capitol Building and videos of the depositions that were taken.

As Loudermilk’s excavation of the J6 Committee goes deeper, so too does the hole in which the J6 Committee finds itself.

As the J6 Committee would have it, President Trump intentionally riled up the crowd on January 6 and ordered them to breach the Capitol in an explicit effort to overturn the 2020 election. This narrative is not only plainly false, it also seems concocted specifically to mask other failures which occurred that day.

For instance, four whistleblowers from the D.C. National Guard publicly testified to Loudermilk’s panel that the delay in the deployment of guardsmen to the grounds of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was not a delay on President Trump’s part, but rather a delay on the part of the Army.

Col. Earl Matthews, Sgt. Maj. Michael Brooks, Cap. Timothy Nick, and Brigadier Gen. Aaron Dean gave their first-hand accounts of how Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy delayed by more than two long hours in giving the go-ahead for deployment of Commander William Walker’s National Guard forces, who were waiting for the official word in full tactical gear for hours on buses.

This was in spite of the fact that Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller gave advance approval of the deployment at the direction of President Trump. To this day, it is still unclear why the National Guard was held back, and if anyone at the Capitol was involved in this fateful decision.

It should also be pointed out that the four guardsmen whistleblowers weren’t just waiting for Loudermilk to come along before telling their story. In fact, their accounts were entirely ignored by Pelosi’s committee simply because it did not fit the anti-Trump narrative that the committee was so carefully building.

The American people can only wonder how deep the dishonesty and criminal conduct of Nancy Pelosi’s phony J6 Committee will go, but Rep. Loudermilk is determined to find out. His team is still hard at work trying to uncover the truth. For Peter Navarro who now sits in federal prison and for the American people who have so grossly been lied to, the time has come for true justice to be served.

Hillary Clinton Says Trump Will Kill His Opposition

Hillary Clinton: 'What Trump really wants' is to 'kill his opposition' | Fox News

Trump, Project 2025, the Supreme Court and the Election with Hillary Rodham Clinton

youtu.be

Hillary seen live on "Democracy Docket" podcast with host Marc Elias, a Democratic election lawyer who previously served as general counsel on her 2016 presidential campaign."Trump will Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive journalists and others into exile, rule without any check or balance,"

It is therefore reasonable to assume that Trump's first few days in office will be devoted to finding suitable mass grave sites in California where he can invite Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong-un to join with him in presiding over the burial of millions of Democrats.

This is not Fox news propaganda - be sure to watch the podcast video to see Hilary's lips move. Un freakin' believable.

Justice Will Prevail - It is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with a crime that carries a 20-year prison term

 Epoch Times April 16, 2024

The essence of the defense position in this case:

“Sarbanes-Oxley is a powerful tool against corporate corruption. That’s what ... it was meant to be for, and that’s what the plain language of the statute talks about. You can’t simply separate these two sections out—section one and section two of 1512(c)—and pretend they’re completely different things.”

The Supreme Court will strike down the use of a key federal law in the Biden administration’s ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants and in the process shut down the government’s case against hundreds of defendants, some legal experts have predicted.

If the top court finds that an Enron-era obstruction law—18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)—is being used improperly against the defendants, their charges are likely to be thrown out.

At issue is the evidence-tampering provision that appears in the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, which was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.

Former President Donald Trump was indicted under the same federal statute and also stands to benefit if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendant, sources told The Epoch Times.

Former police officer Joseph W. Fischer of Jonestown, Pennsylvania, is the main defendant in the case that revolves around protesting the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results at the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Fischer was indicted two months after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach for obstructing an official proceeding; civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2023, to hear Fischer v. United States, but oral arguments haven’t yet been scheduled.

Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6 were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding—the joint session of Congress that convened to count Electoral College votes and hear objections from lawmakers.

Several defendants have argued unsuccessfully at trial that they couldn’t have obstructed Congress because they weren’t present in the Capitol until after lawmakers left the complex.

Obstruction Charge

The problem with the obstruction charge, according to attorneys interviewed by The Epoch Times, is that the accounting reform law under which Mr. Fischer and others have been charged is being used by the Department of Justice to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation came about in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to conceal falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were on their way.

The bill was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002.

“No more easy money for corporate criminals, just hard time,” President Bush said when he signed the bill. “The era of low standards and false profits is over. No boardroom in America is above or beyond the law.”

The wording of 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c) is focused on documentation and ensuring it’s made available for official proceedings, lawyers say.

Section 1512(c) states: “Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

It is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with a crime that carries a 20-year prison term, according to Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). PLF is a national nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses.

Mr. Burling said the Justice Department is taking the section of the law that says “otherwise obstructs,” and “having it as a free-floating provision where anybody who otherwise obstructs any official proceeding or attempts to do so can be subject to 20 years.”

“I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to be very wary of this overcharging,” he said.

“Sarbanes-Oxley is a powerful tool against corporate corruption. That’s what ... it was meant to be for, and that’s what the plain language of the statute talks about. You can’t simply separate these two sections out—section one and section two of 1512(c)—and pretend they’re completely different things.”

“The idea that section one is untethered from section two is rather creative, and I don’t think it’s going to hold water,” Mr. Burling said.

“I just don’t think the Supreme Court is going to go along with that, just like they put a kibosh on the charging of the fisherman in the Yates case ... because he threw the allegedly undersized fish overboard.”

Supreme Court Issues 9–0 Decision in Big Win for US Property Owners | Facts Matter

Time to Rethink Your Never Trumpism

Kurt Schlichter Town Hall

Okay, my Trump-shy friends, it’s time to put aside your fussy principles about how icky Donald Trump is. This is serious, and we need all hands on deck to throw Biden overboard before he gets a whole lot more Americans killed. I get that you don’t like Trump. Let’s agree that he’s icky for the purposes of this discussion. Let’s agree that his tweets are mean, that he’s not a conservative ideologue, that he says dumb things and gets into useless fights, and that he does many other unseemly and annoying things. Let’s agree that this is all true. Let’s concede that in normal times, one might want to forgo supporting a guy like that. But these aren’t normal times.

This is getting real. This is life and death. Not just for cops and soldiers, but maybe even for you and your family.

Now, this column isn’t directed towards the professional Never Trumper dorks, the treacherous weirdos who make a living off of going on MSNBC and selling out their former allies. This is for the Republicans who have thought about it and have a real problem with Donald Trump. I get it, even if I don’t agree. I would not particularly like voting for somebody who I don’t like. However, I like Donald Trump and will eagerly support him following his victory over my primary candidate, Ron DeSantis. But sometimes you need to do things you would rather not do. You have to let go of the anger. Even the governor got on board and endorsed the president once the primary results became clear. 

So, this is for you guys who are having difficulty making that leap and backing Trump 2.0. I’m assuming that you are susceptible to reason. Some of you might not be. Let’s face it: A little bit of ego is involved here. There’s a performative aspect to not backing Donald Trump. You dug in against him, and digging yourself out and publicly changing your mind is tough. I get it. But when facts change, choices need to change. And boy, have the facts changed.

Let’s look at where our country is right now. It’s in a hole, and our alleged president is still digging. We have a wide open border. Fentanyl is killing tens of thousands a year. Ten million illegal aliens have streamed across. We know many of them are criminals. They’re raping and murdering Americans right now. We can be relatively sure that a significant number of Chinese military infiltrators are among them. That will end badly unless we have a president who will do something about it, which Biden certainly never will. We can also surmise that a large number are active terrorists who, at some point, will launch a killing spree of the sort I wrote about in my new book, The Attack.

If Donald Trump is not elected president in November, this will continue for another four years. That is a lot of dead Americans. And you’ve got to ask yourself if protesting mean tweets worth those lives. Because that’s the choice you’re making. Even if you sit out the election, you’re effectively supporting Joe Biden by not actively supporting Donald Trump. Yes, I know you’re upset because there is a binary choice, and I know all the clichés about not wanting to choose the lesser of two evils but guess what? You’re faced with the choice between the lesser of two evils. That’s just the choice that exists. It might not be fair. You might not like it, but that’s what it is. And you’ve got to choose. Not choosing is choosing. Not choosing is choosing Joe Biden. And if you choose Joe Biden, you’re choosing a lot of deaths just because of his border betrayal.

What else are you choosing? Well, you’re choosing to abandon Israel to Hamas. That’s what Joe Biden is doing. You’re choosing to throw the Jewish state to the mercy of those psychopaths. And you’re doing it because you don’t like Donald Trump. Come on.

I’m not asking you to like Trump. I’m asking you to actively support him. Not to reward him. Not to high-five him. I’m asking you to actively support him for the sake of your country and your people. There are a lot of American soldiers out there in the line of fire who shouldn’t be but are because Joe Biden put a big target on their backs with his weakness, incompetence, and appeasement. He’s going to get even more of our troops killed. You can say what you want about Donald Trump, and you do, but he took care of our soldiers. He didn’t get them into useless fights. When he had to fight, he won – ask ISIS in Iraq. Joe Biden, on the other hand, invites attacks on our troops and refuses to retaliate when they happen properly. You have seen the pictures of those three dead soldiers that he recently killed in Jordan. You have seen photos of the 13 troops he got killed in Kabul and the Afghanistan retreat. You’ll see more if you choose to support Joe Biden by choosing not to support Donald Trump.

If Donald Trump is not elected president in November, this will continue for another four years. That is a lot of dead Americans. And you’ve got to ask yourself if protesting mean tweets worth those lives. Because that’s the choice you’re making. Even if you sit out the election, you’re effectively supporting Joe Biden by not actively supporting Donald Trump. Yes, I know you’re upset because there is a binary choice, and I know all the clichés about not wanting to choose the lesser of two evils but guess what? You’re faced with the choice between the lesser of two evils. That’s just the choice that exists. It might not be fair. You might not like it, but that’s what it is. And you’ve got to choose. Not choosing is choosing. Not choosing is choosing Joe Biden. And if you choose Joe Biden, you’re choosing a lot of deaths just because of his border betrayal.

Yeah, I know that’s pretty harsh, growing down the dead troops card. But dead troops is the hand we’ve been dealt. You’re an adult. You’ve got to make a choice. No choice is choosing Biden. Understand what choosing not to support Trump means. It means dead Americans.

Now, one of the criticisms of this practical and utilitarian approach to politics – that is, treated reality is real –  is that the Republican Party will never learn its lesson about nominating guys like Donald Trump unless Donald Trump loses. Well, maybe you’re some special genius who has discovered a way to lose your way to victory, but the traditional way to win is by winning. You’re not teaching the Republicans a lesson by rejecting Donald Trump. The base’s embrace of Donald Trump should be a lesson to the establishment, which created Donald Trump by its refusal to address the problems that mattered to actual voters as opposed to the problems that mattered to actual politicians. If you think you will somehow convince people to go back to the Romney era, that will not happen. Maybe Donald Trump Trump’s not your conservative, but he’s the kind of conservative who isn’t Joe Biden, and dammit, that should be enough.

It’s time to get serious and abandon the posturing. You need to support Donald Trump actively and enthusiastically. A lot is riding on it, and your pride is the least important thing riding on it. 

Advertisement

The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich

 

In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from 33.2% in 2001.

President Biden is proposing a bevy of tax increases, and his State of the Union address included the familiar call for the wealthy to pay their “fair share.” He should examine the Internal Revenue Service data. Recently released figures for 2021 show that the top 1% of Americans reported 26.3% of the country’s adjusted gross income, while paying 45.8% of total income taxes.

Is this not a “fair share” to Mr. Biden? Then what would be? Democrats always deploy the language of fairness without defining it or answering those questions. The truth is that the income tax is already steeply progressive. The top 10% of earners in 2021 provided 75.8% of the revenue. (See the nearby bar chart.)

These figures are from a Tax Foundation analysis of the IRS data. They include temporary Covid relief, which skews the results even more progressively. They don’t include the payroll tax, which covers lower-income workers, but Mr. Biden is making his “fair share” point about income taxes.

Start with the bottom half of earners, the 76.8 million returns that reported adjusted gross income up to about $46,500. In tax year 2021, they earned 10.4% of the country’s total income, while paying 2.3% of all income taxes. Their average tax rate was 3.4%.

The next group is between the bottom half and the top 25%, a total of 38.4 million returns that showed earnings from about $46,500 to $94,500. They reported 17.5% of income, while paying 8.4% of income taxes. Their average tax rate was 7.2%.

Move up to the cohort between the top 25% and 10%, or 23 million returns with earnings from about $94,500 to $170,000. They reported 19.5% of income, paid 13.4% of taxes, and had an average tax rate of 10.3%.

Between the top 10% and 5% were 7.7 million returns with earnings from about $170,000 to $253,000. They reported 10.6% of income, paid 10.2% of income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 14.3%.

Between the top 5% and 1% were 6.1 million returns with earnings from about $253,000 to $682,500. They reported 15.7% of income, paid 19.9% of all income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 18.9%.

Finally, we come to the top 1%, another 1.5 million returns with earnings in excess of about $682,500. Their share of income taxes paid was 45.8%, not quite double their share of income. Their average tax rate was 25.9%. Among the tippy-top 0.1%, or 154,000 returns with earnings above about $3,775,500 a year, the average tax rate was similar, 25.7%.

The burden of income taxes, in other words, falls almost entirely on the top half of earners and disproportionately on the top 1%. Notice that tax rates rise steadily with income, a basic feature of a progressive code. The average income tax take is 10% or less for the middle class, which jumps to more than 25% for the highest earners.

The overall tax burden looks somewhat less progressive if you include the payroll tax, such as the one for Social Security that caps out in 2024 at $168,600 in wage income. But the IRS’s income-tax data also leave out “refundable” portions of tax credits, which are treated as outlays and go to lower earners.

Erica York, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, points to broader tax distribution data for 2020 from the Congressional Budget Office. That year, the CBO says, the bottom 60% of taxpayers had an average income-tax rate that was effectively negative. The lowest quintile paid minus 27.6%. For the middle quintile it was minus 2.4%.

This isn’t the story Democrats tell. “No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, or a nurse,” Mr. Biden recently said, while pitching a new wealth tax on assets disguised as “a minimum tax for billionaires of 25%.” In a given year, specific ultrawealthy people might pay little or no income taxes, and setting up a foundation is a major loophole. Yet the numbers clearly show in 2021 that on average the top 0.1% of earners forked over to the IRS more than a quarter of their reported incomes.

The truth is that the wealthy are shouldering a huge and rising share of the income-tax burden. (See the nearby line chart.) In 2001 the top 1% paid only 33.2% of the total tab. As that figure has risen, the share paid by most of the rest of us has correspondingly fallen. The bottom 90% of taxpayers in 2001 provided 36.3% of the cash. Twenty years later, that had dropped to 24.2%.Taxing the rich is popular these days, in part because Republicans are now playing the same tax redistribution game as Democrats. The problem in Washington isn’t that the rich refuse to pay their “fair share,” whatever that means. The trouble is that with the notable exception for national defense, Mr. Biden’s progressive spending ambitions are limitless. Washington could confiscate the income of every billionaire in the country and still not finance what Democrats want to spend.

Thank God For Thomas Payne

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Payne_(soldier)

The Senseless, Costly-to-Shareholders Promotion of EVs by Misguided CEO's - Let Free Market Demand Decide the Future of EVs

 Hertz doubled down on EVs in the months after CEO Scherr took over, placing big orders with Polestar, the electric-car maker owned by China’s Geely and Sweden’s Volvo Car, and GM. The company ended up buying a small number of cars from the two companies, a spokesperson said.

Those bets went awry last year, when Tesla slashed prices across its lineup to keep growing vehicle sales. This hammered the resale value of used Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers just after Hertz had added tens of thousands of those vehicles to its fleet.

By December, Hertz started selling off 20,000 electric vehicles, or about a third of its EV fleet. Germany’s Sixt SE — a leading car-renter in Europe — is taking even more drastic measures, phasing Teslas out of its fleet entirely.

https://fortune.com/2024/03/15/ceo-steps-down-prices-following-purchase-teslas/

Why Leftism Fails: A Historical Study, Part One

"As we look back in history, we find incontrovertible evidence that success is at the end of a long, hard road called industry, frugality, self-discipline, sacrifice, virtue.  And failure comes to those who get lazy, covetous, licentious, and wasteful.  It happens almost without exception.  And if we want the United States to continue to succeed—or to “re-succeed”—we must go back and once again study history, apply those qualities that lead to triumph, and shun those traits that produce disaster.

Leftism fails on this very point.  There is nothing sacred to the Left.  Everything is to be challenged, and everything that does not meet the test of Leftist “reason” or “logic” must be rejected.  No tradition, no virtue, no quality is above suspicion; it is to be accepted or denied wholly or in part as Leftists’ personal judgment dictates.  “Progress” is his watchword, but that too often means digression from that which has proven to be enduring, good, and successful."

Town Hall  - Mark Lewis

Leftism fails for a lot of reasons and I can’t go into all of them without writing an encyclopedia.  But I can establish the most important.  I would like to begin this series by sharing with you a passage from historian Will Durant in his book Our Oriental Heritage, regarding the fall of the Persian empire in the 4th century B.C.:

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty.  Nor is it natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals, and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond.  In its two hundred years of empire Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state.”

Success does not happen by accident.   There are reasons why people succeed— collectively and individually.  The principles are the same.  Those nations, and individuals, who possess certain qualities and characteristics will, nearly always, be rewarded positively for their efforts; those who lack those qualities will almost surely fail.  History teaches this repeatedly and it is no surprise to wise, knowledgeable historians when a nation, or an individual, rises, and then collapses.  They will have walked time-proven paths.  Let’s examine Durant’s historical analysis.  

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty.” Empires, nations—and individuals—“rise” because of a strength of character and determination that is lacking in other peoples.  As we study the past, we can see that people who are industrious, frugal, self-disciplined, sacrificial, and virtuous will nearly always succeed; people who are lazy, shiftless, self-absorbed, pleasure-loving, and wasteful will (eventually) fail.  What happened in Persia has happened often in history—a strong people, determined, disciplined, and industrious, built a great empire.  They weren’t perfect, far from it; no people are.  They committed gross crimes and abuses, but still, they never would have gotten where they did if they hadn’t had some decisive attributes that drove them above and beyond their peers.  You’ve heard of the Persians; you probably haven’t heard of the Girgashites.  Why did Persia prosper and grow mighty while the Girgashites were consigned to the garbage bin of tribal anonymity?  Persia had something that the Girgashites lacked.  And while resources help, there have been a lot of peoples who were blessed with excessively wealthy geography but failed miserably to do anything with it (e.g., American Indians).  Greatness lies in character, not in dirt.  This is almost axiomatic. 

 And yet, Persia collapsed.  Why?  “The energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it.”  In the beginning, the individual—or a nation—works hard.  In a nation, a collective mentality, a “zeitgeist,” is created, and that is crucial.  Success is simpler to illustrate in an individual.  A man sacrifices, he builds, he sweats, he saves, he practices those virtues that produce a successful business.  And succeed he does.  He becomes prosperous, having been rewarded for his efforts.  But unless he continues practicing the same attributes that led him to glory, he will soon see his glory crumble.  Too often, an individual—and a nation—becomes rich from the hard labor of those who have gone before.  But, when a nation produces abundance, it wants to enjoy it.  So, what happens?  The people get lazy, indulgent, careless, selfish, and then begin to make excuses for their failures, always blaming others.  Finally, somebody with a hungrier mouth, usually, but not always, barbarians, arrive and conquer (or destroys) what was built.  How many once-successful businesses have folded because those who inherited them did not continue to execute with the same diligence their forerunners had?  The fat, lazy, undisciplined, and pleasure-oriented will always be defeated by those who are leaner, hungrier, and who want it more.  Individually and nationally.

America grew strong because her people were strong.  We became the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth because our forefathers worked hard, were frugal, strong, industrious, virtuous people who sacrificed so that they and their families might prosper.  Yes, they made mistakes, of course, and they didn’t always practice perfect Judeo-Christian morality; not in the least.  But they weren’t lazy and shiftless, either.  If they had been, the United States would be a third-rate banana republic right now—in other words, the kind of nation Joe Biden and the Democrats are working overtime to create. 

So let me reiterate.  As we look back in history, we find incontrovertible evidence that success is at the end of a long, hard road called industry, frugality, self-discipline, sacrifice, virtue.  And failure comes to those who get lazy, covetous, licentious, and wasteful.  It happens almost without exception.  And if we want the United States to continue to succeed—or to “re-succeed”—we must go back and once again study history, apply those qualities that lead to triumph, and shun those traits that produce disaster.

Leftism fails on this very point.  There is nothing sacred to the Left.  Everything is to be challenged, and everything that does not meet the test of Leftist “reason” or “logic” must be rejected.  No tradition, no virtue, no quality is above suspicion; it is to be accepted or denied wholly or in part as Leftists’ personal judgment dictates.  “Progress” is his watchword, but that too often means digression from that which has proven to be enduring, good, and successful.

It happened to Persia, among others.  The wise recognize it is happening today in America.  Ultimate degeneration—and for the exact same reasons.

Biden May Have had a dose of Adderall Before His Speech

 A psychiatrist told the Washington Times that he believes Biden may have been medicated for his address, citing speculation that the president usually exhibits signs of dementia due to his regular episodes of aggression toward reporters and inability to remember critical things. 

Dr. Carol Lieberman, a forensic psychiatrist based in Beverly Hills, California, told the outlet that Biden may have been given a stimulant to keep him alert and focused. Throughout his address, the president often shouted words and moved his hands at a more rapid rate than he normally does. 

“If you look at how Joe Biden usually is — slow and stumbling — compared to how he was during the State of the Union — fiery and angry — these are signs that are typical for someone taking Adderall or any amphetamine,” she said.

Per the Washington Times, Biden showed signs that his “unusually energetic performance” was not of his nature. 

“Dr. Lieberman, who has not personally examined the president, said the signs of potential pharmaceutical use go beyond how Mr. Biden spoke during the nearly 90-minute speech, but also in his mannerisms.

For example, Mr. Biden typically rests his hands on the podium while delivering a speech from the teleprompter. During the State of the Union, he frequently gestured and moved with his hands at a rapid rate, she said.

Mr. Biden, 81, often raced through his remarks with the speed of an auctioneer, loudly shouting his words despite having a microphone in front of him.

Speed and volume of speech can be a sign of using Adderall or another amphetamine.

Trump's Response to Biden's State of the Democrat's 2024 Campaign Speech

Editor's note: A positive, straightforward message to all Americans aimed at ending America's cultural and political divide.  

#1 We will rebuild the greatest economy in American history.

#2 We will ensure fair trade for the American worker.

#3 We will unleash America to achieve energy dominance.

#4 We will close the border, build the wall and restore American sovereignty.

#5 We will launch the war on drug cartels and stop crime in America.

#6 We will embrace patriotism and reject globalism.

#7 We will care for veterans and protect parents' rights.

#8 We will end censorship, reclaim free speech, and defend the First Amendment.

#9 We will restore free, honest and fair elections and stop election interference.

Screamin' Joe - Divider in Chief a.k.a. Old Yeller - His State of the Democrat 2024 Election Campaign speech.

 Editor's note: Granted that the biased media/talking heads view Biden's speech quite differently depending on their political affiliation, but no one disputes the fact that this was not a State of the Union speech. It was a vitriolic, hateful, doom and gloom, loud rant focused on creating further division in an already divided country. All Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, should be concerned that we have a President, incapable and unwilling of acting as a unifying leader of all law-abiding citizens, one who calls out millions of citizens who disagree with his policies as a 'domestic threat to our Democracy'.  While there is merit to the view that Trump is also divisive, he is not our Nation's Commander in Chief. 

Town Hall Matt Vespa

Was this the State of the Union or the Democratic National Convention? President Joe Biden’s speech was marinated in division, rancor, and guff. He picked fights with congressional Republicans who mostly sat idle as this dementia-ridden head of state rattled off a vision of America that doesn’t exist. The address started with a January 6 lecture, where everyone knew this would devolve into an hour of insanity.

Some noted that the address would be grounded in telling Americans they were idiots—we were right. Biden embodied a ‘we know best’ attitude, telling struggling Americans whose wallets get torched when they pay the electric bill or go to the grocery store that their eyes are deceiving them. Joe wants to declare war on gun owners, touted Obamacare, which wasn’t his accomplishment, and outright lied about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare—the AARP has pro-Trump ads on this, Joe. They’ve been running since 2016. 

On border security, the president remains blind that his reversal of critical Trump executive orders is what caused us to lose operational control. Biden called the stalled border security package conservative because it provided more funds for judges and agents—all of which would have helped ferry people in instead of keeping people out and deporting them, which needs to happen. It also contained a pathway to citizenship for unvetted Afghan refugees and provided legal status to the children on H-1B visas, who lose their deportation protections around age 21. It was also a Ukraine bill, Joe. Of the $117 billion, only around $20 billion was for border security. 

Biden did have a lofty goal for prescription drugs and taking on the pharmaceutical companies, including capping drug prices. There was a lengthy government spending list, but Biden repeated the lie that no one making under $400,000 would see their taxes go up. As Katie will cover in the morning, Biden, like Obama, took a swipe at the Supreme Court over abortion, which occupied a healthy portion of his address. Biden knows he can’t lose single, college-educated, and chardonnay-guzzling suburbanite women. 

On foreign policy, The president even had the gall to say that the world is safer than it was four years ago, placing a lot of blame on Donald Trump, though he didn’t mention him by name. It was an angry, partisan speech that some observers hit two birds with one stone. It was meant to dissuade any intraparty coup toward possibly replacing Biden at the convention later this year. And it served red meat to the far left faction, which has been drifting away from Biden. 

Suppose it sounded like a speech to the Democratic Party base. In that case, that’s because it was—these people see the polling: Biden is struggling with blacks, Hispanics, young voters, Muslim Americans, and labor unions. The labor union brass might like Biden, but the rank-and-file are decidedly unenthused. 

The president still stumbled, slurred his words, and got lost at multiple points, but I’ll say this: if whatever cocktail his doctors injected into him to keep him half-awake is tweaked, Biden could maybe hold his own with Trump. Remember, all Joe must do is not short-circuit a la Mitch McConnell on live television. 

Abortion, destroying the rich, open borders, grabbing guns, and everything terrible is all Trump’s fault—that’s the Cliff Notes version of Biden’s address. 

It was part revving up the liberal base, but also soaked in indignation toward those who Biden feels should be giving him more credit for his failure of a presidency. Eighty-six percent think he’s too old, while 61 percent of Americans think he doesn’t deserve a second term. 

Will this address have legs? Probably not, and all it takes for all this supposed goodwill to evaporate is for Biden to have another senior moment, where everyone is reminded that he can’t and hasn’t been able to do the job. Biden has been on vacation for 40 percent of his presidency.

Blue Laws For Red Citizens - Five Court Cases - Unapologetically Left Wing or Associated With Liberaal Causes

Victor Davis Hanson

One state prosecutor and one civilian plaintiff have already won huge fines and damages from former President Donald Trump that may, with legal costs, exceed $500 million.

Trump awaits further civil and criminal liability in three other federal, state, and local indictments.

There are eerie commonalities in all these five court cases involving plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, federal special counsel Jack Smith, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

One, they are either unapologetically left-wing or associated with liberal causes. They filed their legal writs in big-city, left-wing America -- Atlanta, New York, Washington -- where liberal judges and jury pools predominate in a manner not characteristic of the country at large.

Two, they are overtly political. Bragg, James, and Willis have either campaigned for office or raised campaign funds by promising to get or even destroy Trump.

Left-wing billionaire Reid Hoffman funded Carroll's suit.

Smith sued to rush his court schedule in hopes of putting Trump on trial before the November election.

Three, there would not be any of these cases had Trump not run for the presidency or not been a conservative.

Carroll's suit bypassed statute of limitation restrictions by prompting the intervention of a left-wing New York legislator. He passed a special bill, allowing a one-year window to waive the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims from decades past.

Until Trump, no New York prosecutor like James had ever filed a civil suit against a business for allegedly overvaluing real estate assets to obtain loans that bank auditors approved and were paid back in full, on time, and with sizable interest profits to the lending institutions.

Bragg bootstrapped a Trump private non-disclosure agreement into a federal campaign violation in a desperate effort to find something on Trump.

Smith is also charging Trump with insurrectionary activity. But Trump had never been so charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.

Willis strained to find a way to criminalize Trump's complaints about his loss of Georgia in the 2020 national election. She finally came up with a racketeering charge, usually more applicable to mafiosi and drug cartels.

Fourth, in all these cases, the charges could have been equally applicable to fellow left-wing public figures and officials.

President Joe Biden, like Trump, was accused of sexual assault decades earlier by former staffer Tara Reade. Yet Reade was torn apart by the media and the left for inconsistencies in her memory. By contrast, the wildly inconsistent and amnesiac Carroll won $83 million from Trump.

Smith created the precedent of charging Trump for unlawfully removing classified files to his private residence.

ut the government simultaneously did not charge Biden for similar offenses. Yet Biden had removed files not for two years but for more than 30. He stored them not in one location but several.

His rickety garage was a mess, not a secure family compound like Trump's estate. Moreover, Biden did so while a senator and vice president, without any presidential authority to declassify almost any presidential document he wished.

Biden never came forward to report the crime for over 30 years -- until Trump was charged. Indeed, he was caught on tape six years ago, admitting to his ghostwriter that he possessed classified files but never reported it.

Bragg might have noticed that both Hillary Clinton (fined $113,000) and Barack Obama (fined $350,000) broke campaign financing laws. Neither was subject to federal criminal charges by local prosecutors.

An array of left-wing celebrities, politicians, 2004 House Members, former Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams have all recently challenged elections. They sought either to delay or redo ballot counting or, on the federal level, to sidetrack electors to ignore popular votes in their respective states.

These lawfare cases are part of other efforts that were highly partisan and without merit. Recall the Trump "Russian collusion" hoax and the "Russian disinformation" laptop farce.

In another first, some blue states are suing to take Trump's name off the ballot for "insurrection," a crime for which he has never been charged.

Total up the deaths, damage, and length of the summer 2020 Antifa/BLM riots. Then, compare the tally to the one-day January 6 riot.

The former proved far more lethal, long-lasting, and destructive. Yet very few of the 14,000 arrested rioters in 2020 were ever prosecuted, much less convicted.

By contrast, the Biden administration sought to jail hundreds for crimes allegedly committed on January 6, such as "illegal parading."

We are entering a dangerous era in America.

Ideology and party affiliations increasingly determine guilt and punishment. Opponents are first targeted, and then laws are twisted and redefined to convict them.

The left is waging law fare with the implicit message to political opponents: either keep quiet or suffer the consequences.