Sunday, May 2, 2021

BIDEN VOTERS POSTING THEIR L’S ONLINE: America Voted for a Rest, Not a Revolution

 BIDEN VOTERS POSTING THEIR L’S ONLINE: America Voted for a Rest, Not a Revolution. Elected as Not Trump, Biden aspires to be the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Joe Biden aspires to be the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, so short of his showing up to work in a wheelchair and sucking on a cigarette holder, the first hundred days, which he marks this week, will serve as the most symbolic reminder of the president’s sense of historic purpose.

The ritual observation of the passage of FDR’s calendrical contrivance promises to be even more turgid than usual this year. President Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress, which he delivers on Wednesday, will come with special solemnity. We will be reminded that delivering the nation from the baleful legacy of a one-term Republican in the midst of a national crisis with an urgent flurry of executive and legislative initiatives is what Democrats do.

We can leave to future historians whether the creation of the White House Gender Policy Council will prove as consequential as that of the Tennessee Valley Authority. To be fair, different times pose different challenges. Eleanor at least would surely approve. Perhaps she’s having fireside chats with Dr. Jill the way she used to with Hillary Clinton.

FDR had a famously complaisant press covering him, but even he might have blanched at the deference shown by Mr. Biden’s media guardians. Newspapers did eventually rouse themselves to object that the 1937 effort to pack the Supreme Court might be constitutionally problematic. Today’s friendly stenographers don’t see the problem at all, and faithfully convey the White House line that the same idea is a much-needed “reform.”

To be fair, given the expected number of Obama era retreads in his cabinet, Biden voters were much more informed of what to expect from Joe Biden than FDR’s voters were in 1932:

It might sound odd coming from a libertarian, but I wish the Pelosi-Reid Democrats had more in common with Franklin Roosevelt. Not the Franklin Roosevelt who occupied the White House from 1933 to 1945, but the Franklin Roosevelt who aspired to the White House in the election of 1932. The Democratic platform of that year is a remarkable document, considering the way the party’s candidate went on to govern. It isn’t a libertarian manifesto—it endorses several subsidies and regulations—but it hardly embraces the enormous expansion in federal power that FDR would achieve. The very first plank calls for “an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government.” (It also asks “the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.”) Subsequent planks demand a balanced budget, a low tariff, the repeal of Prohibition, “a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards,” “no interference in the internal affairs of other nations,” and “the removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and natural resources in the common interest.” The document concludes with a quote from Andrew Jackson: “equal rights to all; special privilege to none.” It sounds more like Ron Paul than Pelosi.

—“The New Franklin Roosevelts: Don’t count on a candidate’s campaign stances to tell you how he’ll behave in office,” Jesse Walker, Reason.com, April 10, 2008.

But between the New Deal and the Moral Equivalent of War from which it sprang from (including all of the Wilson administration retreads in Roosevelt’s administration), voters know that every Democrat president sees himself as spearheading the next Roosevelt administration. At a minimum, their operatives with bylines sure do:

Saturday, May 1, 2021

The Feds’ Nonexistent Case Against Alleged Sicknick Assailants

The Feds’ Nonexistent Case Against Alleged Sicknick Assailants

The cause of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s untimely death on January 7 is finally settled, but the prosecution of his alleged attackers rages on.

After months of dishonest accounts about what happened to Sicknick—first that he was bludgeoned to death by “insurrectionists” with a fire extinguisher and then that he died of an allergic reaction to bear spray—the D.C. Medical Examiner’s office confirmed the 42-year-old died of a stroke; the chemical sprayed in his direction during the chaos outside the Capitol on January 6 did not contribute to his death.

In its haste to bolster the new narrative maintaining Sicknick was killed by rioters wielding bear spray—the acting attorney general was in on the lie from the start—the Justice Department charged two men with the chemical attack. George Tanios and Julian Khater were arrested March 14 and charged with several crimes including four counts related to possession and use of a “deadly or dangerous weapon” and for conspiring ahead of time to use the spray against police officers.

They’ve been behind bars ever since. Both were transported to the nation’s capital where they joined dozens of January 6 detainees held in solitary confinement in a D.C. jail.  A judge on Tuesday will consider motions filed by their attorneys to release both defendants as they await trial. (Tanios and Khater, friends since college, are being tried together. They deny all charges.)

“An Assault on Our Nation’s Home”

As I’ve reported for the past few months, federal courts, at the direction of Joe Biden’s Justice Department, are denying bond to nonviolent protesters as their cases continue a slow slog through an intentionally overloaded D.C. judicial system. The presumption of innocence has been suspended for Trump supporters involved in the January 6 protest largely based on a supposed “thoughtcrime” of doubting the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Before announcing his ruling, a federal magistrate berated Tanios from the bench. “Everyone in our country knows what happened on January 6,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Aloi lectured during a March 22 detention hearing. “We also generally know . . . that they were supporting the president who would not accept that he was defeated in an election. And so we have created this culture, radicalized by hate, and just refusal to really accept the result of a democratic process.”

Aloi also suggested the bear spray killed Brian Sicknick—it was “surreal,” the judge said, to see a video of the “officer who no longer is with us”—and described what happened on January 6 “an assault on our nation’s home.”

He preached on: “I don’t think I have ever seen anything play out in a way that was more dangerous to our community.” Even though the judge admitted Tanios did not spray the chemical, Aloi nonetheless ordered Tanios, a business owner with no criminal record, to remain in jail indefinitely.

But the government’s case against Khater and Tanios is weak if entirely nonexistent. The flimsy evidence in the Tanios-Khater prosecution, as in most of these cases, relies almost solely on various sources of video taken on January 6—and the Justice Department is seeking protective orders to keep the full body of video evidence concealed from defense attorneys.

Dangerous Evidence?

Law enforcement officials have argued in court pleadings that defendants shouldn’t have “unfettered access” to tens of thousands of hours of video evidence because they might pass along the information to those who “wish to attack the Capitol again.”

Instead, according to a recent Politico article, prosecutors are “working to build an archive of video that would permit defendants to peruse relevant clips but sharply restrict their access and permit prosecutors a chance to object if they feel such footage could be misused or present a risk.”

This appears to be the situation for Tanios and Khater. An attorney for Tanios accused the government of presenting only “tiny limited seconds of evidence” and refusing to allow the defense team an opportunity to see the rest. “We see their limited interpretation of videos, and their view of those videos because they are tiny little pieces of them, handpicked by the government to show to the Court.”

The sketchy photographic evidence against Tanios and Khater included in charging documents isn’t the government’s only problem. Law enforcement doesn’t know for certain if they used the spray at all. Under questioning by Tanios’ lawyer last month, FBI Special Agent Riley Palmertree could not confirm that either man pulled the trigger on the bear spray can:

Attorney: Did Khater use the bear spray that day?

Agent: Not that I know of, but that’s for further investigation—the investigation is still going on regarding the bear sprays.

Attorney: OK. So it’s your understanding that Khater used the smaller canister of OC spray with the black handle that was sort of like on a keychain or could be a keychain? 

Agent: That’s according to my investigation, which is still going on.

Attorney: You don’t have any reason to believe that the bear spray was deployed that day at all, do you?

Agent: I have the bear spray cans myself and I haven’t submitted them for analysis, so that’s what I would need to do. That’s a very serious thing that I have to be sure on in a scientific way the best I can.

In a separate filing, Julian Khater’s lawyers argued their client and Tanios were sprayed by others in the crowd, perhaps police officers, and never used the bear spray. The government even admitted in its affidavit that Khater at one point yelled out, “they just sprayed me.” Therefore, it’s a strong possibility the officers, including Sicknick who reportedly told family members he was hit by pepper spray during the protest, were sprayed by something other than the bear repellent.

Abusive Prosecutorial Overreach

Khater’s family is asking the court to release him on a $15 million bond guaranteed by 16 family members. (As one journalist noted, that amount is three times higher than Harvey Weinstein’s bail.) Judge Thomas Hogan will hear the case on Tuesday and then decide whether to keep Khater and Tanios behind bars until their next court date or confine the pair to home detention.

There is no reason to keep these men in jail, let alone in solitary confinement in a D.C. prison. Cherry-picked video evidence does not support the weapon charges against them; the chief investigator confessed no evidence exists to prove the can of spray ever was used or that Khater sprayed it at anyone including police officers. The Justice Department’s refusal to allow access to video evidence raises plenty of red flags.

Neither man has a criminal record. George Tanios and Julian Khater pose no threat to society. Their only crime, as is the case with hundreds of nonviolent Capitol protesters, was supporting Donald Trump and daring to question the validity of the 2020 presidential election—a doubt shared by tens of millions of Americans.

Judge Hogan this week has the chance to do the right thing and send a message to the government that this abusive prosecutorial overreach won’t stand. Let’s hope he does.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/26/the-feds-nonexistent-case-against-alleged-sicknick-assailants/

Jen Psaki Makes a Stunning Admission About Biden's 'Unity' Pledge

Jen Psaki Makes a Stunning Admission About Biden's 'Unity' Pledge

Amr Alfiky/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Joe Biden talked a lot about unity during the 2020 campaign. Many independents and anti-Trump Republicans even voted for him because they were under the impression that Biden would take his years of experience in the U.S. Senate and use that to bring Democrats and Republicans together to compromise on the big issues and get the business of the American people done.

It hasn’t happened yet, and Biden, rather than seeking the middle ground, has instead opted to pursue a radical left-wing agenda and has endorsed blatant Democrat power grabs such as D.C. statehood, H.R. 1, ending the filibuster, and leaving the door open to packing the Supreme Court. Jen Psaki was asked about Biden’s pledge for unity on Monday and basically admitted that Biden’s unity pledge was bogus.

A reporter pointed out that Biden hasn’t met with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and asked what that says about “unity,” especially in the context of Biden’s support for H.R. 1, court-packing, and other items on the Democrats’ agenda that conflict with unity.

“There’s a lot of folks—you talk about tens of millions of people—they’re concerned that this doesn’t seem like unity at all,” the reporter said.

“Do you think tens of millions of people are concerned about him not meeting with Kevin McCarthy?” Psaki asked, being deliberately obtuse.

“No, I think tens of millions of people are concerned about H.R. 1, and budget reconciliation, and [eliminating the filibuster]—”

“I’m not sure that polling bears that out,” Psaki claimed. “But I will say that the president’s view is that bringing the country together is bringing the American people together. So, when I say he’s, uhh, focused on bringing people together, bringing Democrats and Republicans together, he’s not talking about solving bipartisanship in this zip code.”

So, what exactly is Psaki saying? She’s saying that Biden wasn’t talking about getting Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work together and compromise in the name of unity. Nope. Based on Psaki’s explanation, unity is imposing a radical left-wing agenda, and pretending that this is what the American people want and that by imposing this agenda, Americans—Republican and Democrat—will unify around that agenda.

Yeah, that’s not how unity works. It’s also a pretty bad lie on Psaki’s part.

Biden often talked about unity and cooperation during the campaign, and even afterward, and it’s quite clear he wasn’t just talking about the American people

“I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but unify, who doesn’t see red states and blue states, only sees the United States,” Biden said after the election.

“The refusal of Democrats and Republicans to cooperate with one another is not due to some mysterious force beyond our control,” Biden added. “It’s a decision. It’s a choice we make. And if we can decide not to cooperate, then we can decide to cooperate. And I believe that this is part of the mandate from the American people. They want us to cooperate.”

“That’s the choice I’ll make,” Biden continued. “And I call on the Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — to make that choice with me.”

In December, Biden appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, during which he said, “I think the nation—and I don’t think I’m kidding myself, I got criticized from the beginning for saying this—I think the nation’s looking for us to be united, much more united. But look, I think I can work with Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. I think we can get things done.”

Biden repeatedly spoke of unity during his inaugural address. He said that overcoming the various challenges facing America “requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: Unity.”

Biden was clearly talking about unity in our government.

So, when Psaki says that Biden wasn’t talking about unity in Washington, D.C., she was lying.

Seventy-five million Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The White House can’t simply claim that when Biden talked about unity that he meant that the county would come together without any effort on the part of our leaders to compromise. Seventy-five million Americans aren’t going to fall in line and “unify” with Democrats as they try to federalize elections, make D.C. a state, end the filibuster, and pack the Supreme Court.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/26/jen-psaki-makes-a-stunning-admission-about-bidens-unity-pledge-n1442862

Politico: Don't look now, but this progressive demand is DOA among Senate Dems

Politico: Don't look now, but this progressive demand is DOA among Senate Dems

(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

For now, anyway. Politico reports that court-packing has achieved mostly-dead status not just among Senate Republicans but among Senate Democrats. Even ahead of a presidential commission on reforming the Supreme Court, it has become clear that the idea is toxic in the approach to the midterms:

Supreme Court expansion was one of the left’s most galvanizing ideas during the 2020 Democratic primary. But the idea is going nowhere with sitting Democratic senators. …

But as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) formally pushes for high court expansion, resurfacing the popular progressive cause in response to the GOP’s relentless drive to fill court seats during the Trump years, it’s clear that few of Markey’s colleagues agree with him.

While liberal measures on election reform, police bias and congressional ethics remain relatively popular with the 50-member Senate majority, expanding the Supreme Court is close to dead among the chamber’s Democrats.

“This is in the category of things that couldn’t muster 50 votes and probably couldn’t muster 40 votes,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “We have a historic opportunity to make change here and we should focus on those issues where we can get a majority.”

Awwww. And we were so much looking forward to creating an American House of Lords! In twenty years, the court would consist of a roster similar to that of an average NFL team.

In truth, it didn’t take a bunch of polling for Senate Democrats to figure this out, but they got enough nonetheless. The proposal to add seats to the court doesn’t even get support from a majority of Democrat voters, and is opposed overall by almost 2:1 among those who have any opinion at all on it. If this is among “the left’s most galvanizing ideas,” that only proves how far out of touch the Left is to the electorate as a whole. Pushing this idea in advance of a midterm where they expect to lose seats in the House is insane, even if they’re inclined toward sympathy for the idea.

Still, don’t mistake “mostly dead” for the “go through its pockets and look for loose change” status either. The decision today by the Supreme Court to grant cert in the New York concealed-carry challenge will no doubt fire up progressives all over again to pursue court-packing. Progressives can count heads just as well as conservatives, and they know why the court is taking their first #2A case in over a decade — because Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the court strikes down the New York law, progressives will scream anew that the Republicans stole the court and that the only justice will be giving Joe Biden four more slots to fill on the top court.

If Democrats manage to ever get larger majorities in Congress, we’ll find out just how dead this truly is.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/04/26/politico-dont-look-now-but-this-progressive-demand-is-doa-among-senate-dems-n385858

OUR GARBAGE MEDIA AT WORK

OUR GARBAGE MEDIA AT WORK

BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN MEDIA

The Washington Free Beacon has compiled a supercuts video displaying the judgments of prominent media gasbags on the speeches of President Joe Biden and Senator Tim Scott this past Wednesday evening. The Free Beacon provides this brief introduction:

The media’s adulation of President Biden was in full display after his first joint address to Congress Wednesday night. MSNBC’s Brian Williams drew attention multiple times to the president’s “extraordinary use of voice modulation.” CNN’s David Axelrod equated the speech to President Roosevelt’s fireside chats.

In a sharp pivot from the reviews of Biden’s speech, the response to Republican senator Tim Scott’s (S.C.) rebuttal was less than glowing. MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace said it was a “speech delivered from a planet where facts don’t matter,” and Joy Reid called it “disappointing” and said she was “shocked and a bit embarrassed” for Scott.

The video only runs a little over a minute. If you are familiar with the speeches and can view the video with detachment, you may find it funny.

Black Cop: Lies About ‘Institutional Racism’ Are Making America More Violent

 Black Cop: Lies About ‘Institutional Racism’ Are Making America More Violent

Anti-police rage is also endangering Americans: ‘A lot of officers are leaving. We don’t have anybody applying to be officers here, so we are lowering standards to get numbers up.’
Katy Faust

By 

Katy Faust interviewed an African-American police officer about the recent murder conviction of former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd. The officer asked to go unnamed in this article to avoid retaliation for his views. The Federalist obtained documentation of his employment as a police officer.

Did you watch the Derek Chauvin trial coverage? 

Not really, just bits and pieces. I already had a pretty clear idea of what took place. And much of the new coverage was biased—they were just showing the parts that pushed a narrative. The news elevated my stress level and with all that’s already going on, I don’t need that.

Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial?

No.

Why wasn’t it fair?

It seemed everybody made up their mind about his guilt before the trial. In addition, the jury wasn’t sequestered and so they saw the biased coverage and were likely influenced by that coverage or seeing riots and threats of riots around the country. That’s going to put a lot of pressure on the jury to come to a certain decision.

A jury is supposed to make its determination based on the subject matter and expert witnesses, not go home and watch the news and form their opinions that way. So no, it wasn’t fair.

How would you characterize public opinion towards police today?

I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I’m middle of the road—not an old timer, but not brand new. But even in 15 years, things have changed. There is a general narrative that demonizes law enforcement.

In my opinion, the anti-cop narrative began with the Obama administration. He made negative law enforcement comments, and in controversial cases would show up to the deceased’s funerals (which were later justified as lawful shootings). The Dallas five were killed under Obama and he didn’t show any respect toward them.

Trevor Noah recently said of Derek Chauvin, “We’re not dealing with bad apples, we’re dealing with a rotten tree.” What do you say to that?

It’s funny when the media wants to talk about a rotten tree. The irony there is amazing. Big media talking about a tree being corrupt? Give me a break.

Do you think that policing in America is systemically racist?

Ha. Absolutely not. No.

In your experience has policing become more difficult since George Floyd’s death?

Yes, but we’ve been on this slippery slope since the start of the BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement. That’s where things really started to take a serious turn. We were already nose diving, and Floyd’s death is just more fuel to the fire.

All these cases involve a false narrative of police racism, from Trayvon Martin to Rayshard Brooks to George Floyd, causing tension and a divide between law-enforcement and the community. People want us to solve their problems, but they don’t want us to defend ourselves or the community while doing it.

They want us to be able to talk it out with everybody, but the reality is we can’t always do that. If people shoot us, we’re going to shoot back. That’s what happened with the Breonna Taylor case. Somehow people are upset about that.

And facts don’t matter. Even though the false Michael Brown “hands up don’t shoot” narrative was proven false, I still can’t drive around the city without someone eyeballing me and putting their hands up and saying “don’t shoot” while I drive past.

How has this false narrative about police changed your job? Do your fellow officers worry that as a result they wouldn’t get a fair trial if they’re in a situation that escalates?

Some things have not changed. People have never wanted to be arrested. They didn’t before and they don’t now. So that’s no different.

But what used to concern us was bringing in the suspect safely and prioritizing how we’re going to defend ourselves if need be, and get home to our family. But now it’s, “I don’t wanna go to jail. And if this dude has an underlying medical condition I don’t know about and he decides to fight or he is on drugs or he strokes out on me, a jury might send me to jail for this.” It changes the kinds of calls we respond to.

So we are now at a point where we have to focus only on responding to emergencies. Because most of the things people call us for are not emergencies, they are inconveniences. We used to be more than happy to respond, but the problem is a lot of times, it’s criminals who are causing the inconvenience.

So if, for example, we get a complaint about people speeding down someone’s street, we used to gladly go. But when we do a traffic stop, we don’t know who we are pulling over; they might have a warrant, they might have committed a crime, they might not have a license, it could be a DUI. Now if he decides to escalate because he doesn’t want to go to jail, our badge could be on the line just for a speeding call.

Or we get calls from businesses where a guy has been passed out in their bathroom for three hours after shooting heroin. It’s bad for business so they call us and say, “Hey, we don’t want to confront this guy, can you come do it for us?”

We used to gladly take those calls, but often the addict has warrants and they don’t want to go to jail. If it escalates, sometimes the business turns around and backstabs us. So now we respond if your safety is in question but otherwise, unfortunately, we can’t risk our lives or our careers or jail time over someone’s inconvenience.

How’s morale? 

Each agency has its own subculture, but this region’s morale is generally crappy. A lot of officers are leaving. We don’t have anybody, anybody applying to be officers here, so we are lowering standards to get numbers up.

The academy has lowered their physical fitness standards and we have dropped ours completely. Now if you’ve got a pulse and some experience? We will take you. Because that’s how bad we are hurting for bodies. Of course, the lowering of standards does not increase the odds that things are going to be done right. So it will perpetuate the problems.

But even before we had to lower standards, we were still struggling. The public thinks that we are ninjas, that we are all MMA fighters. For a while that belief was helpful because it instilled a bit of healthy fear, of not wanting to mess with us.

But the reality is that most police officers have a YMCA degree (not to knock on the YMCA) but it’s like they went to one little seminar on self-defense and that’s kind of it. The level of training we get is so subpar compared to the demands.

Not only that, but there are important and serious limitations on our interactions with suspects. As an officer, I have a responsibility, we as a police force have a responsibility, to limit the amount of force to get someone into custody. But if they are overcoming my efforts, I can escalate my use of force, within reason, to effectuate that arrest.

The Chauvin case is, in my opinion, simply that: a typical officer struggling to control a large, uncooperative human. His death sucks, it sucks. I wish we were better trained. I wish Chauvin was better trained. Could his death have been avoided? Yeah, I think so.

In our precinct, we pitch and brainstorm ways that we can get better training. Unfortunately, “defund the police” is a movement, so our funding has already been slashed. There’s no money for classes or overtime for us to go.

So they’re basically saying, “We wish you guys were ninjas,” and we’re saying “OK, send us to ninja school.” And they’re like, “No we’re not going to pay for that. We’re just gonna put you in jail when you don’t meet our expectations even though we won’t give you the training you need.”

What would you tell America about this moment in time and your job?

I think that it’s important for people to know that we still have a heart to have people’s backs. There isn’t a cop I know who isn’t willing to lay their life on their line for someone else in a life-or-death situation. But what we’re not willing to do is put ourselves or our careers or our families on the line for people’s inconveniences.

I’m happy to do that as a luxury as long as we have community support. But if we don’t have your support, and you call us about your neighbor’s loud music? No. Go talk to the neighbor yourself. Or buy some ear plugs.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/26/black-cop-lies-about-institutional-racism-are-making-america-more-violent/